2025 was a year where the insights industry kept accelerating. We saw more digital. More automation. And more pressure on turnaround times. At the same time, the spotlight got even brighter on data quality, participant trust, and robust delivery.
At BEAM, we felt that tension in the best possible way. Clients wanted speed. But they rewarded partners who could protect quality without compromise.
Here’s our 2025 run-down, using the numbers that best reflect what we delivered and how we delivered it.
Qual-led delivery
In 2025, 87% of our projects were qualitative, with 13% quantitative, which is the exact same split as 2024.
2024: 13% quant vs 87% qual
From an internal BEAM perspective, that consistency is not accidental. It reflects where clients repeatedly ask us to perform at our best: high-touch recruitment, careful scheduling, tight quota control, and strong participant management. Qualitative work is only as good as the people in the room (or on the call) and the experience we create for them.
ESOMAR commentary has long shown that quant methods still dominate overall global research revenue. In other words, BEAM’s project mix is more qual-led than the market’s spend profile suggests, and we see that as a strength. When insight teams need to de-risk decisions, explore motivations, pressure-test innovation, or navigate sensitive topics, qualitative research is often where the highest value sits. It is also where delivery expectations are highest.
Why is this positive for BEAM clients? It means our operating model is built for depth, with recruitment rigour, participant care, and detail-orientated execution every day.
Sources: ESOMAR/Research World discussion of evolving method mixes and quant/qual shares.
Right method, right moment
Our methodology split moved slightly further online in 2025:
2024: 62% online vs 38% in-person
This broadly tracks open industry trends. Online remains dominant, and digital qualitative in particular continues to grow, supported by better platforms, better tooling, and improved participant accessibility. At the same time, the fact that more than a third of our work remains in-person is deliberate.
In the BEAM delivery view, in-person is not “old-school”. It is the approach you use when it is the best way to answer the question, whether that is behaviours in context, sensory and product experiences, high-stakes categories, or moments where observation matters as much as what people say.
Delivery at scale
2025 was also a clear story of volume and operational stamina:
From a BEAM internal standpoint, these numbers reflect three different types of delivery muscle.
Product testing demands precision: recruitment fit, briefing, logistics, compliance, and follow-through. Intercepts require pace, resilience, and consistent interviewer standards across large sample sizes. And 486 days of quant interviewing represents sustained resourcing and project management discipline across a full calendar year.
Why does this matter for our clients? Scale only helps if standards stay consistent. Our 2025 delivery is proof that we can operate at pace across multiple modes while still protecting quality and participant experience.
Multi-markets made manageable
In 2025, 86% of our projects were UK-based, while 14% were global.
Internally, we think about global work as “multi-market made manageable”: consistent standards, careful partner management where needed, and tight control of recruitment quality. This matters even more now because open industry reporting has made one thing clear—data quality is top of mind when choosing research partners, and concerns have been increasing year on year.
Why is this positive for BEAM and our clients? Global reach is valuable, but global consistency is the differentiator. Our approach is designed to help clients compare markets with confidence, not just collect data across borders.
UK delivery, region by region
Within UK-only projects, our delivery spanned the whole nation:
From our perspective, regional coverage isn’t just a map—it’s a quality input.
The UK is not one uniform consumer experience, and many categories (utilities, education, transport, retail, culture) shift meaningfully by location. Strong regional delivery helps clients avoid “London-only” bias while still moving quickly where fieldwork is densest.
More consumer, sharper B2B
Our audience mix shifted further toward consumer work:
2024: 85% consumer projects vs 15% B2B projects
We see this as a direct reflection of client priorities in 2025: brand performance, innovation pipelines, customer experience, pricing pressure, and household budgeting realities kept consumer understanding front and centre.
At the same time, the B2B work we did deliver matters because B2B recruitment is often where verification and authenticity standards must be at their highest. In a market increasingly concerned about fraud and low-quality respondents, doing B2B properly is not a volume game—it’s a rigour game.
Attendance performance
Across all UK and global quant and qual projects, BEAM delivered an 88% fulfilment rate.
77% total recruitment fulfilled by Give Opinions (BEAM consumer-facing participant panel).
In practical terms, fulfilment protects everything clients care about: timelines, budgets, quota structure, and ultimately the validity of the learning. In the broader industry, qualitative show rates are often discussed with around 80% as a common baseline and around 90% as a strong outcome. That is why an 88% fulfilment rate across a mixed portfolio is an operational result we are proud of.
Why this is a BEAM strength: It reflects the “unseen” work that keeps research moving, including screening quality, confirmation discipline, participant communications, and contingency planning.
Themes that shaped our 2025
Our projects clustered into four major themes, with clear patterns in what clients most needed:
The mix of research themes is a strong signal of relevance: it combines high-frequency commercial decision-making with sectors where safeguarding, sensitivity, and inclusivity must be built into recruitment and fieldwork from the start.
It also aligns with a broader industry correction we’ve seen in the last 18–24 months: a shift from “fastest possible” toward trusted quality, especially as AI accelerates workflows and simultaneously raises new questions about authenticity and verification.
Recruiting beyond the mainstream
Across specialist and niche recruitment themes, BEAM delivered:
These are the audiences where recruitment quality is most visible, and most consequential.
Under-18s and vulnerable participants require safeguarding-led processes and a clear ethical framework. Experts and HNWIs require robust verification and careful management. Influencers require authenticity checks and clear expectations.
We’re proud of these numbers not only for their scale, but for what they represent operationally: specialist screening, careful handling, and participant-first practice in areas where the margin for error is small.
Better experiences for better data
Finally, a number that sits underneath every other statistic: our participants rated us 4.8 out of 5 stars for their research participation experience.
In a climate where the industry is openly concerned about data quality, disengagement, and respondent fatigue, participant experience is not “nice to have” – it’s a data-quality control. When people feel respected, informed, and valued, they’re more likely to show up, engage properly, and contribute thoughtfully.
We aim to reinforce transparency and fairness in participant treatment and the incentives paid in thanks. We see these principles as essential to building long-term trust and sustainable recruitment.
Want to know more?
If you’re curious about how we bring resourceful recruitment to life, check out our 2026 Playbook ‘Attract & Engage the Right People’, dedicated entirely to the art (and craft) of great recruitment – created to support anyone striving to deliver better insights through better people.
