Source-First Intelligence is not a separate discipline alongside competitive intelligence, market intelligence or OSINT. It is a decision made inside those disciplines: it answers the question of where the information comes from with a list of specific senders and what they publish themselves.
The literature leaves that question surprisingly open. Standard definitions of competitive intelligence say a great deal about what happens to information: it is collected, analysed, disseminated and used to support decisions. Where it comes from is usually described only as “the environment”. The Source-First approach belongs in that gap. It does not replace any established term. It makes one line in each of them more precise.
This page sorts out six terms that tend to get mixed up in conversations about market and competitor monitoring, and puts them side by side in a table. The underlying argument is set out in the Source-First Manifesto.
Competitive intelligence: a process that leaves the origin open
Competitive intelligence (CI) is the process of collecting information about competitors and the competitive environment, analysing it and making it usable for decisions. There is no single accepted definition. In 2013, Rene Pellissier and Tshilidzi Nenzhelele analysed 50 definitions from the literature for the South African Journal of Information Management, starting from the observation that there are many definitions of CI “but no universally accepted one” (Pellissier and Nenzhelele 2013 (opens in a new tab)).
The count is revealing. 38 of the 50 definitions describe CI as a process, and 35 say the information is collected from the external or competitive environment. Only eight mention ethics, and five mention legal compliance. From this comparison the authors propose their own definition: CI is a process that produces actionable intelligence by planning, ethically and legally collecting, processing and analysing information “from and about the internal and external or competitive environment” (ibid. (opens in a new tab)).
The word “from” is there, but it stays vague. The origin is an environment, not a sender. The definitions the study quotes in full speak of information “about” competitors, customers or the environment, of information “from” the environment, or say nothing about origin at all. Only one of them narrows down the sources, and it does so by type: Blenkhorn and Fleisher (2005) refer to “publicly available, non-proprietary information sources” (quoted in Pellissier and Nenzhelele 2013 (opens in a new tab)). None of these definitions says whose publications are meant.
More recent wording follows the same pattern. Writing in the Journal of Intelligence Studies in Business, Andrejs Cekuls describes CI as the systematic collection, analysis and dissemination of information “about a business, its external environment, and the overall business context” (Cekuls 2025 (opens in a new tab)).
Market intelligence: a term without fixed borders
Market intelligence is often understood as the wider sibling of competitive intelligence: the same process, applied to the whole market (customers, demand, regulation, technology) rather than to competitors alone. That is how this site uses the term, as a working definition.
The field does not agree on the boundary. In 2020, SCIP, the professional association for competitive intelligence, wrote on its website that there are “numerous definitions for strategic, market & competitive intelligence” and “a great deal of misunderstanding, especially about the scope and ethical nature of competitive intelligence” (SCIP, archived 2020 (opens in a new tab)). The same page promoted yet another umbrella term, “Growth Intelligence”. The Journal of Intelligence Studies in Business lists competitive intelligence, business intelligence and market intelligence as separate subject areas (JISIB, Focus and Scope (opens in a new tab)).
Other uses pull in different directions. The German association Deutsches Competitive Intelligence Forum (dcif) describes itself as a platform for “Market und Competitive Intelligence (CI/MI)” and treats the two as one field (dcif, in German (opens in a new tab)). The Gabler Wirtschaftslexikon, Germany’s standard business dictionary, has no entry for market intelligence but defines “Marketing Intelligence” as a form of business intelligence: IT-supported analysis of customer data, such as data on internet users or loyalty card holders, in order to improve how customers are addressed (Gabler, Marketing Intelligence, in German (opens in a new tab)). So “market intelligence” can mean a broad view of the market, a field merged with CI, or something close to customer analytics. Anyone using the term should say which. For the Source-First approach the ambiguity changes little. However widely the term is drawn, the source question inside it is just as open as it is in CI.
OSINT: publicly available, not open-source software
OSINT stands for open source intelligence: insight drawn from publicly available information. The “open source” has nothing to do with open-source software. The definitions quoted here come from government bodies. A 2006 finding of the US Congress describes OSINT as intelligence “produced from publicly available information” and “collected, exploited, and disseminated in a timely manner to an appropriate audience for the purpose of addressing a specific intelligence requirement” (Pub. L. 109–163, § 931 (opens in a new tab)). The US intelligence community’s OSINT strategy for 2024 to 2026 widens this to intelligence “derived exclusively from publicly or commercially available information” (ODNI 2024, archived copy (opens in a new tab)). Germany’s domestic intelligence agency, the BfV, spells out that OSINT includes targeted research into publicly accessible information “about a person or an object” (BfV, OSINT glossary, in German (opens in a new tab)).
These definitions are about how accessible the information is, not about who produced it. A press release, a company registry entry, a forum post and a newspaper article are all equally public. In that sense Source-First Intelligence is a subset of OSINT for business: it relies only on what has been published openly, but narrows it further to named senders and their own channels.
Germany’s foreign intelligence service, the BND, writes on its OSINT page (in German) that for the BND it is not only the information itself but often also its originator that is decisive (BND, OSINT (opens in a new tab)). That is a statement about how the BND works, not evidence for the Source-First approach. It does show that the question of who said something plays a role of its own even among professionals who work with open information every day.
Market research: asking people, under its own code
Market research sits close to market intelligence, but it works differently. The official definition from the ICC/Esomar International Code, as ESOMAR presents it, describes research as “the systematic gathering and interpretation of information about individuals and organisations”, using the statistical and analytical methods of the applied social, behavioural and data sciences (ESOMAR, Data, Research and Insights Explained (opens in a new tab)). The same page puts it more plainly: market research “is about listening and understanding people’s views”.
Market research gathers information about people and organisations, and it is bound by its own rules. The ICC/Esomar Code, first set up in 1977 and revised in 2025 for its fifth edition, names as the first of its five core principles “All research must be legal, honest, transparent and truthful” (ICC 2025 (opens in a new tab)).
The difference from Source-First is basic. Market research asks people what they think or need. Source-First reads what market participants choose to say in public. The two complement each other, and neither replaces the other.
Media monitoring: what others report about a company
Media monitoring tracks coverage of a company or topic in print, broadcast and online media. The Gabler Wirtschaftslexikon files the analysis of such coverage under evaluating public relations work, from sorting clippings by type of mention and medium to a periodic press review (Gabler, Public Relations, in German (opens in a new tab)). The measurement association AMEC offers a distinction in its glossary that helps here. “Earned media” is “third-party media coverage secured through a relationship or news worthy event”. “Owned media” are “media channels that are owned by or in the control of an organisation or a brand”, typically “websites, company blogs, newsletters and brand accounts in social media” (AMEC, Glossary (opens in a new tab)).
With that distinction, the difference fits in one sentence. Media monitoring mainly measures earned media about your own organisation. Source-First Intelligence reads the owned media of other market participants. Why keyword alerts and mention tracking are the wrong tools for that job is explained on Sources vs. keywords.
The comparison at a glance
The table is based on the definitions linked above. The column “Typical question” is the author’s own reading, not a statement made by the sources.
| Approach | Purpose | Subject | Typical question | Where information comes from | Output |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Competitive intelligence | support decisions, gain competitive advantage | competitors and the competitive environment | What is competitor X planning? | internal and external environment; type and sender usually not specified | actionable intelligence for decision-makers |
| Market intelligence | defined inconsistently; usually decisions about the market as a whole | the whole market, or customer data, depending on the definition | Where is the market heading? | depends on the definition; for Gabler’s “Marketing Intelligence”, internal customer data | market picture or customer analysis |
| OSINT | meet a specific intelligence requirement | anything, including people and objects | What can open information tell us about question Y? | anything publicly (or commercially) available | intelligence for an audience |
| Market research | generate insight, support decisions | individuals and organisations | What do customers think and need? | information gathered systematically about people and organisations | insights |
| Media monitoring | evaluate public relations work | coverage of a company or topic | How often, and how, are we covered? | print, broadcast and online media (earned media) | clippings, press reviews, coverage analysis |
| Source-First Intelligence | a decision about sources within CI and MI | what named market participants publish themselves | What is actor X saying on its own channels? | primary sources: the owned media of named senders | signals that feed into CI and MI |
The last row is set apart on purpose. Source-First Intelligence is not a sixth approach on equal footing with the other five. It is an answer you write into the “Where information comes from” column of competitive or market intelligence.
Where Source-First fits: information from someone, not about them
This leads to the main argument of this page. The CI literature has not forgotten the source question. It has answered it at the level of the environment: internal or external, public or proprietary. In practice that is not enough. A team monitoring competitors has to decide every morning what to read, and “the external environment” is not a reading list.
Source-First Intelligence answers the same question one level down. It fixes whose publications you follow: particular competitors, customers, trade associations, thought leaders. You then read their content on their own channels: the press release, the newsletter, the LinkedIn post by the competitor’s CEO. These are primary sources in the literal sense, the sender’s own publication rather than a report about it.
Many CI definitions speak of information “about” competitors. Source-First shifts the focus to information “from” competitors. The difference has practical consequences. A report about a competitor has passed through a third party’s selection. What the competitor writes itself is unfiltered, though not neutral: it says what it wants to say. For analysis that is useful in its own right, because positioning, tone and emphasis are signals too.
Suppose a maker of industrial sensors wants to know whether a competitor is moving into maintenance contracts. Media monitoring returns articles that mention the competitor. Market research could ask customers whether they expect such an offer. The Source-First approach reads what the competitor itself publishes on the subject: job ads on its careers page, posts by its head of sales on LinkedIn, the topics of its latest newsletter. All three routes are legitimate. Only the third asks the sender directly. How to build such a source list is covered in Source-First in practice, and concrete situations are collected in the cases.
When another approach is the better tool
Source-First Intelligence answers a particular question, not every question. There are good reasons to work differently.
If you want to know how your own brand is perceived, you need media monitoring or social listening. What matters there is precisely what third parties say, and a competitor’s own channels will not help. If you want to know what customers need and would pay for, you need market research. No company publishes that answer on its website.
The breadth of OSINT has its place too. If your question is open, for example which vendors exist at all in a new market, you do not yet know the senders. You have to search broadly before you can fix a source list. That is also the strongest objection to Source-First: a source list contains only the sources you already know. The objection is fair. The answer is a source list that you review and extend regularly, which does not require going back to keywords as the main tool. Broad searching then serves to find new senders, not to do the ongoing monitoring.
Boundaries: public, lawful, with a known sender
Source-First Intelligence works only with content that market participants have made public themselves. That separates it clearly from covert information gathering, and also from parts of OSINT practice that are aimed at individuals, such as the research “about a person” named in the BfV definition. Researching private individuals is outside the scope of this approach. Sources in this sense are companies, organisations and individuals acting in a public role.
The codes of the neighbouring disciplines set the same floor. SCIP’s Code of Ethics asks practitioners to comply with all applicable laws and to disclose their identity and organisation before any interview (SCIP Code of Ethics (opens in a new tab)). The ICC/Esomar Code’s first principle, quoted above, requires research to be legal, honest, transparent and truthful.
Publicly available does not mean free to use in any way. The EU’s General Data Protection Regulation explicitly anticipates that personal data may come “from publicly accessible sources” and attaches information duties to that case as well (GDPR, Article 14(2)(f) (opens in a new tab)). Anyone who systematically stores and analyses posts by individuals should have the legal position checked for their own case. This overview is not legal advice.
References
- Pellissier, Rene; Nenzhelele, Tshilidzi E.: Towards a universal definition of competitive intelligence. South African Journal of Information Management 15(2), 15 October 2013. DOI 10.4102/sajim.v15i2.559. https://sajim.co.za/index.php/sajim/article/view/559/667 (opens in a new tab) (accessed 23 September 2026)
- Cekuls, Andrejs: The Evolution of Competitive Intelligence in a Complex Business Environment. Editorial note, Journal of Intelligence Studies in Business 14(2), published 28 April 2025. https://journal.lu.lv/JISIB/article/view/2546 (opens in a new tab) (accessed 23 September 2026)
- SCIP: Competitive & Market Intelligence Topic Hub. Archived copy of 13 July 2020 of the former website scip.org; the current website scip.world no longer carries this page. https://web.archive.org/web/20200713021011/https://www.scip.org/page/CI-MI-Basics-Topic-Hub (opens in a new tab) (accessed 23 September 2026)
- Journal of Intelligence Studies in Business: About the Journal, Focus and Scope. Undated. https://journal.lu.lv/JISIB/about (opens in a new tab) (accessed 23 September 2026)
- Deutsches Competitive Intelligence Forum (dcif): Über uns (in German). Undated. https://www.dcif.net/about-us/ (opens in a new tab) (accessed 23 September 2026)
- Lies, Jan: Marketing Intelligence. Gabler Wirtschaftslexikon (in German), revision of 15 February 2018. https://wirtschaftslexikon.gabler.de/definition/marketing-intelligence-54238/version-277288 (opens in a new tab) (accessed 23 September 2026)
- Pub. L. 109–163, div. A, title IX, § 931 (6 January 2006), Department of Defense Strategy for Open-source Intelligence, set out as a note under 50 U.S.C. § 403–5, U.S. Code, 2011 edition. https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/USCODE-2011-title50/html/USCODE-2011-title50-chap15-subchapI-sec403-5.htm (opens in a new tab) (accessed 23 September 2026)
- Office of the Director of National Intelligence: The IC OSINT Strategy 2024–2026, p. 1. 2024. Archived copy of 25 July 2026. https://web.archive.org/web/20260725041647/https://www.dni.gov/files/ODNI/documents/IC_OSINT_Strategy.pdf (opens in a new tab) (accessed 23 September 2026)
- Bundesamt für Verfassungsschutz: Glossary, OSINT (in German). Undated. https://www.verfassungsschutz.de/SharedDocs/glossareintraege/DE/O/osint.html (opens in a new tab) (accessed 23 September 2026)
- Bundesnachrichtendienst: OSINT (Open Source Intelligence), in German. Undated. https://www.bnd.bund.de/SharedDocs/Textbausteine/DE/InteraktiveAusstellung/Obergeschoss/Obergeschoss3.html (opens in a new tab) (accessed 23 September 2026)
- ESOMAR Professional Standards: Data, Research and Insights Explained. Undated. https://standards.esomar.org/resources/data-research-and-insights-explained (opens in a new tab) (accessed 23 September 2026)
- International Chamber of Commerce: ICC/Esomar International Code on Market, Opinion and Social Research and Data Analytics. 29 September 2025. https://iccwbo.org/news-publications/business-solutions/iccesomar-international-code-market-opinion-social-research-data-analytics/ (opens in a new tab) (accessed 23 September 2026)
- Reisewitz, Perry: Public Relations (PR). Gabler Wirtschaftslexikon (in German), revision of 16 February 2018. https://wirtschaftslexikon.gabler.de/definition/public-relations-pr-44206/version-267522 (opens in a new tab) (accessed 23 September 2026)
- AMEC, International Association for the Measurement and Evaluation of Communication: Glossary, Plain Speaking. 24 September 2019. https://amecorg.com/glossary/ (opens in a new tab) (accessed 23 September 2026)
- SCIP (Strategic Consortium of Intelligence Professionals): Ethics & Integrity, SCIP Code of Ethics. https://scip.world/ethics (opens in a new tab) (accessed 23 September 2026)
- Regulation (EU) 2016/679 (General Data Protection Regulation), consolidated text, Article 14. EUR-Lex. https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/HTML/?uri=CELEX:02016R0679-20160504 (opens in a new tab) (accessed 23 September 2026)