DDocket
Talk to us

The origination glossary

Market map

A structured view of a defined market's participants, relationships, capabilities, and research coverage.

Last reviewed · report an error

Definition

A market map organises the businesses and relationships within a stated market boundary. It can show capabilities, ownership, geographic coverage, customer types, and the sources used to identify participants. Unlike a target list, which selects candidates, a map attempts to explain the universe from which candidates are chosen and the limits of that understanding.

The boundary matters as much as the names. Define the service test, geography, ownership unit, and date before claiming coverage. Establishments, brands, operating companies, and parent groups are different counting units. Public statistics and registries can inform the wider universe, but their definitions may not match the mandate. The gap between those definitions should remain visible rather than disappear behind a single authoritative-looking total.

In origination work

Combine candidate discovery with identity resolution and dated ownership research. Track separately which businesses have been identified and which have been researched to the required standard. A detailed profile of every discovered company does not prove that discovery covered the market. Keep unclassified participants and uncertain relationships visible, and refresh the map when acquisitions or service changes occur. Use the map to choose research questions and identify gaps, rather than treating visual completeness as evidence of actual completeness.

Anatomy of a useful market map

A market map shows the companies in a defined segment, grouped by how they relate: who competes with whom, who owns whom, who serves which geography or customer type, and who has already been acquired. In acquisition research the most valuable map is not a logo diagram but a table whose rows are legal entities and whose columns are verified attributes. A drawing can be generated from the table; the reverse is not possible.

The map begins with a definition of the segment, ideally expressed in industry classification codes plus words, because codes alone are broad and words alone are ambiguous. Government classification guidance explains that an establishment is assigned a code by its principal activity, so a business with several activities appears in only one code. The map should say how multi-activity businesses were handled.

Common failure modes

The first is counting names in place of entities. A directory scrape returns brands, branches and affiliates, and a map that treats each as a separate business overstates fragmentation. The second is sampling bias: sources that favour online presence omit older, offline businesses, which are often those with retiring owners. The third is staleness: a map is a photograph, and ownership changes after the date it was taken.

A fourth failure is false precision. Government statistics for an industry in an area give counts by size class, which allow you to estimate how many businesses should appear on the map; where the number found is far lower, coverage is thin, and where it is far higher, duplicates probably remain. Treating the official count as a benchmark, not as a target, helps calibrate confidence.

Maintaining and using the map

Date every row and store the evidence. Record ownership as of a date, with its source, so that a change can be seen later. Track which companies the team has contacted and the result, in a field separate from the research attributes, because a map that mixes contact status with business facts becomes hard to audit.

Use the map to ask questions, not just to list targets. Which sub-segments have the most independent firms? Where are acquired brands clustered? Which local markets look concentrated already? These questions turn a list into an analysis, and they connect to the concentration measures that competition authorities use when assessing combinations.

Related terms

  • Target list — A defined collection of candidate businesses to research or approach against a stated acquisition mandate.
  • Total addressable market (TAM) — The theoretical demand opportunity within an explicitly defined market, distinct from the number of acquirable businesses.
  • Entity resolution — Determining whether records describe the same real entity or different entities with a relationship between them.

Further reading

Sources and further reading

To apply these distinctions to your own acquisition criteria, discuss your research brief or inspect the demo platform.

Send us ten targets. We research them for free.

A target list and your acquisition criteria are enough. You get back company records with scores, the evidence behind every field, and the questions the public record could not answer.

Start an enquiry →Open the platform