A market map can be built on exactly the right data and still die in the meeting. The client nods through forty rows, says "this is great, leave it with us", and nothing happens. The research was sound, but the deliverable failed it.
The difference is rarely the data and almost always the packaging: what you chose to include, what you led with, and how it was presented in the room. This guide covers all three, section by section. It is about the output; for the method that produces the underlying data in the first place, see how to do talent mapping.
What is a market map report?
A market map report is the client-facing deliverable of a mapping exercise: a structured document showing the companies, people, pay and dynamics of a defined external market, with the agency's read on what it means.
That last clause is what distinguishes a report from research. The rows are evidence. The product is the judgement sitting on top of them, organised so a client can make a decision. If the terminology around mapping is blurry, talent map versus market map versus pipeline, the distinctions are unpacked in talent mapping vs market mapping; in practice the deliverable for either looks like what follows.
The anatomy of a client-ready market map
Seven sections, in this order. Not every brief needs all seven at full depth, but a client-ready map should account for each one, even if only to say it was out of scope.
- 01Executive summaryRead firstOne page, written last, read first: depth, the surprises, the pay picture, your recommendation.
- 02Market overviewThe shape of the landscape, including what the client didn't think to ask.
- 03The company universeEvery company in scope, and the rule that put it there.
- 04The peopleBuilt in TalentMapsThe core asset: everyone in scope, one consistent row each.
- 05Compensation & availabilityPay in bands, plus the soft signals on who could actually move.
- 06The diversity viewA truthful baseline of the available market against the client's goals.
- 07Recommended next stepsWho to approach first, where the brief should flex. Often the next brief.
- Executive summary. One page, written last, read first. The headline on market depth, the two or three findings that surprised you, the pay picture in a sentence, and your recommendation. Most senior readers will form their view of the whole engagement here.
- Market overview. The shape of the landscape: how many companies, how the talent clusters geographically, which firms are growing or shedding, and any structural shifts worth naming. This is where the client learns things they did not ask for, which is what makes the map feel bigger than the brief.
- The company universe. Every company in scope and the rule that put it there, with the adjacent pools flagged as such. Showing the inclusion rule does quiet work: it tells the client the map is defensible rather than assembled from memory.
- The people. The core asset: everyone in scope, one consistent row each, grouped so the market is legible, by company, seniority or readiness. Consistency is what makes this section feel like data rather than notes. The talent mapping tracker template is a ready-made working file for exactly these rows.
- Compensation and availability. Pay in bands, with the source stated and estimates labelled as estimates. Availability only where a conversation has established it; otherwise say plainly that it has not been assessed. Movement between firms is a market pattern worth describing, but it is not evidence that a named person wants to move. Clients fund maps to answer "what would this cost and who could we actually get", so this section often carries the meeting.
- The diversity view. What the available market looks like against the client's representation goals, using a method agreed with the client in advance. Report it in aggregate, and never infer protected characteristics of named individuals from photos or names. A truthful baseline saves a search from being briefed against a fiction.
- Recommended next steps. What you would do with this map: who to approach first, where the brief should flex, what a search would look like. One page. This section is also, not incidentally, where the next piece of work comes from.
A completed example: weak and strong versions of each section
The same section can be filled in a way that informs a decision, or in a way that only fills space. Here is one fictional brief worked both ways. A UK food manufacturer with three northern sites wants to know whether it can hire a Head of Supply Chain Planning without relocating someone from the south. The manufacturer, employers and figures are invented for illustration.
| Section | Weak version | Completed version (illustrative) |
|---|---|---|
| Executive summary | "The market is competitive and candidates are in demand." | "We checked 38 employers within 90 minutes of the client's main site and found 41 planning leaders in scope. Fourteen run multi-site planning at comparable volume. Relocation is not required. None have been contacted." |
| Market overview | A paragraph on the food sector's general outlook | "Planning leadership concentrates in chilled and ambient manufacturers and two grocery logistics operators. Three employers merged planning teams in the past year, reducing the number of senior roles." |
| Company universe | An unexplained list of employer logos | "38 employers: 24 included, 8 borderline (logistics operators, where planning is network rather than production), 6 excluded (below the agreed site-count floor). Each has a written reason." |
| The people | Forty-one profiles pasted in different formats | "One row per person: title, employer, evidenced remit, source and checked date, uncertainty, research priority and contact status. Remit is unconfirmed for seven people." |
| Compensation and availability | "Salaries are around £80k–£120k" with no source; "several look open to a move" | "Base bands from the agency's placements in comparable roles in the past 18 months, labelled as estimates. Availability not assessed; no approaches made." |
| Diversity view | Gender estimated from names and photos | "Aggregate view from employers' published workforce reports where available, with the method agreed in the brief. Not inferred for individuals." |
| Recommended next steps | "Let us know how you would like to proceed." | "Calibrate five contrasting profiles with the operations director next week, decide on the logistics-operator segment, then approach the confirmed priority group." |
Each strong version does three things the weak one does not: it states coverage, it separates evidence from inference, and it ends in a decision. The market map report template shows another brief completed section by section, with the client decision each part supports. For the research behind a map like this, from the employer matrix to the summary, see market mapping in recruitment.
Raw data vs intelligence: what actually earns the fee
Every section above can be filled two ways: with collected facts, or with what the facts mean. A client can buy collected facts from a database. They can only buy meaning from someone who knows the market.
The difference shows up sentence by sentence:
| Raw data says | Intelligence says |
|---|---|
| "184 people match the scope." | "The pool looks deep at 184, but only around 30 sit at true VP scale, so the senior end is tight." |
| "Remit is unconfirmed for 22 people." | "A fifth of the field needs a conversation before it can be ranked, so plan a week of calls before anyone is presented as a shortlist." |
| "Salaries range from £90k to £180k." | "Pay splits into two tiers, and the client's budget sits at the top of the lower one. They can hire well, but not from the firms they named." |
| "Twelve people joined competitor X." | "Competitor X is hiring this profile faster than anyone; whatever they are paying has reset the market." |
Writing the right-hand column takes nerve, because interpretation can be wrong in a way a list cannot. Commit anyway, and label your confidence honestly. A hedge-everything map reads as data entry, and data entry has a data-entry price. What interpretation must not do is turn a company event, such as a restructure or a funding round, into a claim about what a named person wants. That is a question for a conversation.
How to present a market map to a client
The meeting is part of the deliverable, and it deserves the same structure as the document.
Lead with the headline, not the methodology. Open on the executive summary: the depth, the surprise, the recommendation. The temptation is to walk through how the map was built first, to justify the fee before showing the result. Resist it. The result justifies the fee; the methodology is for the questions afterwards.
Structure it as findings, not pages. "Three things to show you" beats a page turn. Walk each finding from headline to evidence, dipping into the rows only to prove a point. Reading rows aloud is how a strong map loses the room.
Anticipate the three questions that always come. Who are the best five people here? Could we actually get them? What does this mean for what we pay? Have crisp answers staged, because they are the bridge from this map to the next assignment.
Leave silence after the recommendation. You have just shown a client their market with the lights on. Let them tell you what they want to do about it, because the answer is usually the brief for the next piece of work.
A market-map meeting is different from a shortlist meeting. Here the client is deciding on scope and approach; later, once candidates have been contacted and assessed, they decide whom to interview. That second meeting is covered in how to present shortlisted candidates, and the candidate shortlist presentation template gives it a ready-made structure.
Formats: PDF, deck or live
The format question is really a question about how the map will travel after the meeting.
A branded PDF is the default for a reason: it reads as a finished product, prints cleanly, and holds its formatting wherever it is forwarded. A deck earns its place when the map will be presented, by you or by your client to their board, since slides force the findings-first structure anyway. A live document or portal suits ongoing engagements where the map refreshes, though it trades the sense of a finished deliverable for currency.
Many agencies ship two formats from the same data: the deck for the meeting, the PDF as the record.
TalentMaps produces the candidate-report part of this deliverable. From LinkedIn URLs you add, it builds a branded PDF or PowerPoint with a cover, a brief page, candidate profiles grouped by the tiers you assign and a closing page, and it can share the same report as a client review link that collects feedback. The brief text, fit notes and tiers are yours. The market overview, company universe, compensation, diversity view and recommendations are researcher-authored sections; the market map report template gives you slides for them. Keep that distinction clear with the client, because the judgement is the part they are paying for.
Why presentation justifies the price
It is tempting to treat everything in this guide as garnish on the real work of research. The market disagrees.
Two agencies can hold identical data. One sends a spreadsheet attachment; the other walks the client through a branded report that opens with what the data means. The second agency charges multiples of the first, and the client is right to pay it, because what is being bought is a decision made confidently, not rows. Presentation is not vanity; it is the difference between research the client files and intelligence the client acts on.
It is also what makes mapping sellable as a product at all. A deliverable that looks and reads like something worth paying for is the precondition for charging for it, and the commercial playbook built on that fact is in how to sell talent mapping as a service.
The pre-flight checklist
Before a map leaves the building, check it against the anatomy:
- Executive summary states depth, surprises, pay and a recommendation in one page
- Market overview says something the client did not ask for
- Company universe shows its inclusion rule
- People section: consistent rows, grouped legibly, no orphan gaps
- Compensation banded, sourced and labelled honestly; availability stated only where contact has established it
- Diversity baseline in aggregate, by an agreed method
- Coverage and research gaps stated, so the map cannot be mistaken for a shortlist
- Next steps written as actions, not options
- Branded, in the format the meeting needs, and forwardable without you
To see the research behind these sections worked end to end, read market mapping in recruitment. For where the deliverable sits in the wider agency picture, the pitch, the search and the service, see the complete guide to talent mapping for recruitment agencies.
And when the research is done and the packaging is the last thing between you and the meeting, build the map in TalentMaps and export the deliverable in the format the room needs.
Frequently asked questions
- What should a talent map include?
- Seven sections cover a client-ready map: an executive summary with the headline read and recommendation, a market overview, the company universe, the people in consistent structured rows, compensation and availability, a diversity view of the available market, and recommended next steps. The summary and the recommendation matter most; the rows are evidence, not the product. State what was covered and what remains uncertain, so the client can tell research coverage from assessed candidates.
- Should a talent map be a PDF or a PowerPoint?
- Match the format to how it will be used. A PDF reads well as a standalone document the client studies and files; a deck works when the map will be presented in a meeting and forwarded internally afterwards. Many agencies deliver both from the same data. Either way it should carry the agency's branding, because the deliverable is part of what was paid for.
- How long should a market map report be?
- As long as the evidence requires and shorter than you think. A focused single-function map usually reads as one summary page, a handful of pages of market and company analysis, then the structured people data. If the front section runs past ten pages the insight is being diluted; depth belongs in the rows and appendices, not the narrative.