Talent intelligence in the United States

Talent intelligence in the US is primary research into American labor markets analyzed into evidence for a specific decision: how deep a qualified population is in a given metro, which employers hold it, what total compensation costs once equity and employer burden are counted, which locations trade supply against cost best, and how a named competitor’s function is structured.

It is commissioned research with a named analyst behind it, delivered as a written analysis plus the underlying dataset. It is not a software subscription and it is not a candidate shortlist.

Because a national average is an average of populations that do not compete with each other. Pay for the same title can differ by more than fifty per cent between the Bay Area and the Midwest, and supply depth differs even more sharply in specialist functions. A plan built on a national median will be wrong in every individual market it touches.

We size and cost every population at metropolitan statistical area level, using Census and BLS definitions so the boundaries are reproducible and auditable.

Yes, and separating it out is the point. At senior technology and biotech levels, equity is frequently a larger component than base salary. We reconstruct total compensation — base, target bonus, equity grant value at a stated valuation assumption, vesting schedule and refresh pattern — and we publish the assumption rather than burying it in a single headline number.

We also model employer burden: FICA, unemployment insurance, workers’ compensation and the employer share of health premium, which vary by state and are routinely omitted from location business cases.

In two ways. They restrict what you may ask — several states and cities prohibit salary-history questions — and they increase what the market publishes, because posted ranges become a verifiable data source.

We scope research to the rules of each jurisdiction in play, use posted ranges as primary evidence, and flag where a client’s standard process would breach a local rule. The detail is set out state by state on our pay transparency guide.

Yes, and it is one of the three most common US briefs. We size the qualified population in each candidate metro, measure competitor saturation, model fully-loaded cost including state-level burden, assess attrition and wage inflation pressure, test the university and in-migration pipeline, and report the risks in each option.

Because we are paid a fixed research fee rather than a placement fee or a site-selection incentive, we have no financial interest in which location wins the analysis.

A US talent map identifies and profiles the individuals who could do a defined role. Talent intelligence informs the decision above it: whether to open the role, where to base the team, what to pay, and whether to build or buy the capability.

In practice most US engagements use both layers, with the map supplying the named population and the intelligence layer interpreting what it means.

A single-decision brief covering one metro typically costs $6,000 to $15,000. A function-wide or multi-metro study typically costs $18,000 to $45,000. A retained program with quarterly refreshes typically runs $60,000 to $120,000 a year.

The fee is fixed in writing before work begins and is driven by scope rather than by the salary of any role. For comparison, a single retained US executive search at 30 to 33 per cent of first-year total compensation on a $300,000 role exceeds $90,000 and produces one hire and no retained asset.

Per seat, usually yes, and platforms are genuinely good at breadth, trend lines and a first pass at market size. What they cannot do is verify that a named competitor’s Seattle platform organization has four layers rather than six, or establish what three specific employers actually paid to close a staff-level hire last quarter.

Platform data is modeled from profiles and postings and inherits whatever is stale or self-reported in them. Most of our US clients run both. We compare the two models honestly on our platforms compared page.

By scoping to the jurisdictions actually in play. There is no single federal statute, but California’s CCPA as amended by the CPRA covers employee and applicant data and a growing number of states have comprehensive laws of their own.

We limit collection to professional information relevant to the agreed scope, record the source of every field, transfer deliverables securely and provide the methodology in writing where your counsel wants to review it before work begins.

Yes. We reconstruct the function layer by layer: approximate headcount, reporting structure, metro distribution, which capabilities sit in-house versus outsourced or offshored, tenure and attrition patterns, where leavers go and where recent hires came from.

Everything is built from lawful sources and primary research into publicly observable professional information. We do not approach a competitor’s staff under a pretext.

Yes, and we size them separately because they are different markets. A remote-posted role draws from a national pool at a national price; a hybrid role in a named metro draws from a commute at a local price. We model both and show the trade-off, because in most location cases the difference between those two assumptions is the entire business case.

Scoping normally takes a 30-minute call and a written scope document within two working days. Fieldwork starts as soon as the scope is signed. For urgent decisions we can run a compressed brief in two weeks, with the trade-off in depth stated up front rather than discovered later.

You do, permanently. Every dataset, profile record and written analysis is handed over and is yours to keep, re-use, load into your own systems and refresh with anyone you choose. We do not resell client research and we do not retain it as part of a product.

Yes. Every service is priced as a fixed project fee or an agreed day rate. There is no commission, no percentage of salary and no placement fee on any of it.