> ## Documentation Index
> Fetch the complete documentation index at: https://support.metaview.ai/llms.txt
> Use this file to discover all available pages before exploring further.

# Market Mapping

> Guide to advanced best practices using Sourcing.

Build an executive-ready picture of a talent market before spending a day sourcing: how large the pool is, where the talent sits, who you are competing with, and what the market pays.

## When to use it

Use Market Mapping before active sourcing to align with the hiring manager on what the market actually looks like.

It is especially useful when:

* opening a new or unfamiliar role;
* testing whether the hiring brief is realistic;
* deciding which requirements should be mandatory;
* comparing possible locations or talent pools;
* preparing for a sourcing kickoff or calibration meeting;
* explaining why a search may require broader titles, sectors, compensation, or geography.

## What you get

The prompt produces a polished, text-first report containing:

* core, adjacent, and realistic addressable pool sizes;
* tenure and career-movement patterns;
* top feeder companies;
* growing competitors for talent;
* candidate clusters;
* localized compensation ranges;
* education and credential patterns;
* a prioritized sourcing plan.

The report is intended to support market calibration and sourcing strategy. It should be treated as a directional view of the market, not a definitive census of every eligible candidate.

## How it works

Start by replacing:

**Job Description or Link**

with either:

* the full job description;
* a link to the job posting; or
* a detailed role brief.

You can also replace:

**Additional Context**

with any information that should influence the analysis, such as:

* target office location or acceptable commute area;
* remote or hybrid expectations;
* company stage or industry preferences;
* genuinely mandatory skills or experience;
* target or excluded companies;
* compensation expectations;
* whether adjacent backgrounds are acceptable;
* known hiring challenges.

The prompt infers the role, geography, seniority, and must-have requirements from the information provided.

It then researches the exact title family and at least one broader adjacent talent pool, samples profiles to identify patterns, examines where relevant talent is concentrated, validates current competitive pressure, and triangulates compensation using geography-relevant public sources.

When something in the brief is ambiguous, the report states its assumption rather than stopping to ask a follow-up question. This makes it useful for exploratory research, although better input will generally produce a more precise report.

## Understanding the three talent pools

The report separates the market into three related but non-additive groups.

**Core current title-family pool**<br />Professionals currently working in the closest matching title or function family within the target geography.

**Broader adjacent reservoir**<br />Professionals in related roles who could realistically feed the hiring pool. This may include alternative titles, overlapping functions, feeder roles, or candidates with transferable experience.

**Realistic addressable pool**<br />The estimated subset of the core pool that also matches the most important constraints, such as seniority, sector, company stage, technical requirements, location, or commute fit.

The addressable pool is a narrowed subset of the core pool. It should not be added to it.

The adjacent reservoir is a separate sourcing direction. It shows where the search could expand if the exact-match market is too small or competitive.

## Understanding the evidence labels

The report distinguishes between three evidence types.

**Observed** means the information was found directly in indexed profiles or a named public source.

Examples include:

* the number of profiles returned by a search;
* titles found in an indexed-profile sample;
* observed profile hits associated with a company;
* a published compensation range.

**Estimated** means a figure was calculated from a sample, benchmark, or narrowing assumption.

Examples include:

* the proportion of the core pool likely to meet a particular requirement;
* average tenure calculated from sampled profiles;
* an addressable-pool range derived from the observed pool.

**Inferred** means the conclusion is based on multiple signals rather than a directly reported number.

Examples include:

* a company appearing to create significant competitive pressure;
* a title being treated as an adjacent feeder role;
* a company having strong talent-brand pull.

These distinctions are particularly important for pool sizes, company counts, career movement, and compensation. Directional ranges are usually more credible than highly precise estimates.

## How to improve the input

The most effective additional context changes who should be included in the market.

For example:

> Focus on candidates within a practical commute of the New York office. The role is hybrid three days per week. Prior B2B SaaS experience is preferred, but strong consumer subscription experience is acceptable. Series B–D companies are the primary target. Exclude current employees of Acme and ExampleCo.

This is more useful than an instruction such as “make the report more detailed.” The prompt already defines the expected depth and structure.

Advanced users should focus additional context on the following areas.

**Geography**<br />Specify the office location, commute expectations, remote eligibility, relocation support, or relevant regional boundaries.

**Strictness**<br />Separate genuine must-haves from preferences. Requirements labeled as mandatory will significantly narrow the addressable-pool estimate.

**Adjacency**<br />State which alternative titles, sectors, or backgrounds should be treated as plausible.

**Company profile**<br />Describe preferred industries, company stages, business models, customer types, or organizational scale.

**Exclusions**<br />Identify companies, sectors, titles, or candidate profiles that should not be included.

**Commercial context**<br />Include compensation limits, employer-brand strengths, known conversion challenges, or reasons candidates may find the opportunity attractive.

## Useful ways to adapt the prompt

### Narrow the market definition

Add explicit must-have criteria:

> Treat experience selling enterprise cybersecurity products as mandatory. Do not include general B2B SaaS account executives in the addressable-pool estimate unless they have direct security-sector experience.

Use this when the hiring team has confirmed that adjacent candidates are unlikely to qualify.

### Explore a wider market

Explain which requirements may be relaxed:

> Analyze both exact-match candidates and adjacent candidates from developer-tools, cloud-infrastructure, and data-platform companies. Treat direct observability experience as preferred rather than mandatory.

Use this when the obvious exact-match market appears too small or competitive.

### Focus on a practical commute area

Specify the office location and expected attendance:

> Assume candidates must commute to the San Francisco office three days per week. Use a practical commute shed rather than the entire Bay Area.

This avoids overstating the reachable pool by treating everyone in a broad region as equally viable.

### Compare multiple geographies

Run a separate report for each geography rather than combining several locations in one analysis.

For example:

* London;
* Dublin;
* Berlin.

Using the same role definition and must-have requirements across each report makes the differences in market size, compensation, and competitive pressure easier to compare.

### Test different hiring strategies

Run several versions while changing one material assumption at a time.

For example:

1. Exact sector experience required.
2. Sector experience preferred.
3. Adjacent sectors accepted.
4. Fully remote hiring permitted.

The change in the addressable pool helps show which constraint is having the greatest effect on the search.

## How to interpret the report

The report is most useful for directional decisions and alignment.

A small core pool does not necessarily mean the search is impossible. It may suggest that the team should:

* consider adjacent titles;
* expand the geography;
* relax a sector requirement;
* increase compensation;
* target candidates at a slightly different seniority;
* prioritize a small number of high-density feeder companies.

A large core pool also does not guarantee an easy search. The realistic addressable pool may still be limited after applying seniority, location, sector, must-have, and compensation constraints.

Pay particular attention to:

* the difference between the core and addressable pools;
* which requirements cause the greatest narrowing;
* whether a profile query reached a result cap;
* how many profiles were sampled;
* which titles were included or excluded;
* whether company counts represent observed indexed-profile hits;
* whether compensation sources are current and specific to the role and geography;
* which conclusions are observed, estimated, or inferred.

## Common pitfalls

**Treating profile counts as a census**<br />Indexed-profile databases may be incomplete and can contain stale, duplicated, or inconsistently titled profiles.

**Adding the three pool sizes together**<br />The core pool, adjacent reservoir, and addressable pool are different views of the market. They are not additive.

**Reading feeder-company counts as employer headcount**<br />These figures represent observed indexed-profile hits within the relevant pool, not the total number of suitable employees at each company.

**Allowing every job-description requirement to narrow the pool**<br />Job descriptions often mix essential requirements with preferences. Tell the prompt which criteria should genuinely determine whether someone belongs in the addressable pool.

**Over-trusting compensation precision**<br />Compensation data may be generic, self-reported, or based on a different level of seniority. Broad ranges supported by several sources are generally more useful than a precise but fragile median.

**Treating the report as the final sourcing plan**<br />The report establishes an initial market hypothesis. Actual profile review, outreach results, candidate feedback, and hiring-manager calibration should be used to refine it.

## Recommended workflow

1. Add the job description and the clearest known hiring constraints.
2. Generate the initial market map before beginning substantial sourcing.
3. Review the inferred role, geography, seniority, and must-have requirements.
4. Confirm that the core and adjacent pool definitions match the hiring team’s expectations.
5. Identify which constraints are creating the largest reduction in the addressable pool.
6. Discuss the findings with the hiring manager and agree where the brief can flex.
7. Update the additional context and rerun the report where necessary.
8. Use the prioritized Sourcing Strategy section to build the first searches and target-company lists.
9. Refine the market map as profile reviews and candidate responses provide new evidence.

The strongest market maps are iterative. Use the first report to expose assumptions, align the hiring team, and decide where to focus before investing significant time in active sourcing.