For the past ten years, I’ve worked across three very different corners of the market intelligence world. I spent nearly eight years at G2, helping build out its taxonomy and defining hundreds of categories. I then spent three years at IDC, researching and advising federal, state, and local governments. And as of July, I’ve joined Marketplace.city to lead product efforts focused on delivering accurate, actionable data to government technology buyers.
Nothing has ever been transparent about market intelligence and procurement. Industry analysts and consultants know a lot, but they don’t know you and your needs. Review sites and market intelligence platforms have endless user-generated data and excellent marketing opportunities, but they still rely on vendors for revenue. For example, two buyers evaluating the same solution may receive completely different pricing structures, procurement pathways, or narratives about performance - with no easy way to compare underlying facts.
This era marked the first time buyers had broad, public access to user perspectives at scale, which is an important evolution in how technology markets formed.
G2 has more unrefined market data than almost anyone: thousands of software categories, millions of user reviews, and years of feedback from vendors and buyers. When it started, it filled an important gap. I was part of the team responsible for building that structure, defining categories, creating inclusion criteria, and ensuring each market was clearly represented.
Buyers finally had a place to read real-world experiences and compare products side by side. For new or growing vendors, it provides a way to gain visibility and credibility in crowded markets. But while the review model made data accessible, it was still anecdotal and reliant on vendor-driven revenues. It reflected perception, not performance.
While review platforms offer extensive product coverage and sentiment insights, their business model centers on monetizing buyer data, not enabling procurement. They rarely support structured buyer-vendor engagement or provide realistic quotes, leaving a major gap between user experience and real-world purchasing. Without real pricing, performance, and compliance metrics readily available, agencies risk inefficient sourcing, skewed assessments, and misinformed selection that impact citizens, services and budgets.
My time at IDC showed me a very different side of market research. Analyst firms are full of smart people with deep technical expertise and decades of experience. They can provide an extremely valuable perspective on where markets are headed and what challenges organizations are facing.
But those institutions lack the diversity of sources or volume of data generated by platforms like G2. Coverage is often limited to topics analysts choose to prioritize and to vendors who actively engage with the firm, which can inadvertently make reports feel selective, even though analyst research is not pay-to-play. The research itself isn’t always transparent either. Much of it is locked behind paywalls, and the data used to produce research is rarely shared in full or adequately explained. For government leaders trying to evaluate technology investments, that can create barriers rather than value.
Still, working directly with public-sector leaders firsthand taught me more about what actually matters to them in terms of technology buying decisions . In addition to budgets, interoperability, and measurable outcomes, leaders want to build excitement around innovation and what’s possible. Those conversations made it clear how difficult it can be for governments to get objective information about technology solutions and turn their creative ideas into transformative solutions and services.
Governments need both kinds of insight: the anecdotal experience of users and the measurable performance data that shows what works. But most of that information is scattered across public documents, contract databases, and procurement portals that don’t connect to one another.
Even when governments publish contracts or RFPs, the information isn’t structured in a way that can be analyzed or compared easily. As a result, decision-makers end up relying on vendor marketing materials, third-party reports instead of verified data, or one consultant’s opinion.
For public agencies making complex, high-cost technology purchases, that’s a serious problem. They need to know not just who offers a product, but how a solution has generated value or enabled new services in other public sector organizations. They need real pricing numbers, not estimates or marketing ranges, but verifiable figures based on actual transactions. Governments want peer input, demonstrated success, and alignment with their mission and industry standards.
This shift is finally possible because governments are publishing more procurement data than ever, and modern tools can structure that information in ways that were impossible even a few years ago.
Here's where Marketplace.city comes in. Our goal is to close the gap between perception and performance by connecting real procurement data to market intelligence.
We analyze publicly available information—contracts, RFPs, case studies, and pricing—to give governments a clear view of their options before a project even begins. That includes:
Clearbox Source is a data-driven market research engine that helps governments spend less time sifting through vendors and more time making confident purchasing decisions. As we collect and analyze hundreds of thousands of public sector procurement documents, we’re building a living, transparent record of government technology decisions, built from the ground up with input from cities themselves. And for cities and states that want an end-to-end, data-driven purchase, Clearbox Procure guides stakeholders through a managed sourcing process to ensure the right vendor match. Together, they bridge the gap between discovery and procurement, enabling both market visibility and structured vendor engagement.
Marketplace.City’s platform doesn’t rely on vendor marketing or anecdotal reviews. It connects the dots between what governments buy, what they pay, and what outcomes those purchases deliver.
Across every role I’ve had, one truth has stayed constant: market intelligence has historically favored vendors. Review platforms rely on vendor participation to sustain themselves. Analyst firms depend on vendor engagement and sponsorship. And governments, the buyers who need reliable data the most and often have the least money to spend collecting it, are often left behind.
That’s why a more transparent model matters. Governments shouldn’t have to choose between vendor marketing and inaccessible, expensive research; they need data they can actually use in their sourcing and procurement process. They should be able to see what solutions cost, how they performed, and which agencies have already paved the way.
That’s why grounding decisions in transparent, verifiable data isn’t just helpful, it’s essential for responsible governance. Governments can’t afford the trial-and-error approach common in the private sector. When governments make the wrong decision, services can be disrupted and communities can be impacted. That makes it even more critical for agencies to make informed, defensible choices and deliver real value to their constituents.