Why market leaders should still share their data

The companies at the top of a market often assume an industry data programme has little left to teach them. Leeson Brook, Managing Director of STIHL Australia and New Zealand, argues the opposite. Industry data is the most robust view available in a category without retail scan data; it justifies itself at board level, anchors long-range forecasts and fair sales targets, and the biggest participants gain as much as anyone. The cost of staying out is a view that ends at your own walls.

It would be easy for a market leader in a category to assume it has nothing to learn from industry data. Leeson Brook takes the opposite view. Leeson is Managing Director of STIHL Australia and New Zealand, part of a 100-year-old, family-owned maker of outdoor power equipment and a long-standing leader in its category. He runs a business that splits evenly between professional users who make a living from the tools and homeowners. His argument is simple: even when you are one of the biggest, sharing your data and getting the rest of the market to do the same makes you better. It is a clear-eyed take on the value of industry market share data.

The board case for industry data: dollars in, better quality out

Leeson finds the spending decision an easy one to defend, precisely because of the kind of market he operates in.

"We operate in a market which is not data-rich. We don't have sophisticated retail scan data like fast-moving consumer goods," he says. "So industry data is critically important. It's worth every cent we invest in it, as well as the time. It's a very black and white answer to the board: dollars in is better quality out. We can't operate as a business without it."

He is candid that no single data set is perfect - and that this is the reason to use several. "We know it's not perfect, but it's the best and most robust we can find. I try to get as many data sources as I can to triangulate our view, because nothing's perfect, but if you have enough robust, independent sources you can find the patterns." For his team that means combining their own wholesale figures, the industry market share programme and import data to triangulate their read of the market.

For Leeson, the reason to contribute is bigger than any single report. It is the health of the whole market.

"The benefit of industry data is that the collective gets better. Competition, in my view, is a wonderful thing, because a rising tide lifts all boats," he says. "We're a market leader, but we'd be so siloed if we didn't have a broader understanding of market trends. It might be an adjacent category we don't play in that's growing or declining, and that has implications for our business."

Shared data, he argues, simply creates a more even playing field. "If you can see what's happening more broadly, you can see trends, and then you can choose to innovate and capitalise on them - or not. But it's your choice." That framing - better-informed manufacturers serving customers better - is exactly why these programmes tend to sharpen competition rather than blunt it.

The collusion question, answered plainly

Many manufacturers, especially those with risk-averse overseas head offices, worry that sharing any data edges towards collusion. Leeson draws the line cleanly.

"The definition of collusion is very black and white. I will not talk to my direct competitors and share insights directly, and I will not enter into pricing discussions based on what I see in market data. That is black and white - thou shalt never do those things," he says. "But outside of that, if it's independent and there is no contact, [participating in a governed data-sharing project is] absolutely a good thing, and you are miles away from any definition of collusion."

He sees little risk in a transparent, independently run market database. "In there is everything you could find if you went and did it yourself in the market. If I choose to have conversations with competitors, then I'm in the danger zone. But if you stay well away from those areas, you'll be fine." It is a useful, grounded reading of the governance that keeps competitive data sharing safe.

Reporting to the parent: forecasts you are held to

As the head of a subsidiary reporting to an overseas parent, Leeson uses market data to do two jobs at once - prove the local strategy is working, and shape what the factory builds next.

"My boss sits overseas, but I've also got a local governance board, so two bosses, so to speak. I'm measured on profit and loss, on dealer engagement, on staff engagement - and on market share. Market share reporting is critical for me to demonstrate that we're growing faster than our competitors and that the strategy is working."

The data also manages the brutal arithmetic of long lead times. "We're three to four months away, best case, from getting stock if we put a number in now - 60 days on the water, 30 days in production, and the raw materials are further upstream again. So we use a lot of historical data to see the patterns, trends and seasonality and get our forecast accuracy as sharp as we can. That reduces the working capital we tie up in stock and means we're not exposed if demand moves."

That forecast is not a guess he files and forgets. "We provide an 18 to 24-month rolling forecast and I'm held accountable to it. If I say I'll need so many of these in 24 months, that's largely what goes into the production pipeline." Local market evidence even shapes the research pipeline five or more years out, helping decide where the next products should be aimed. This is market data doing the upstream work of production planning and forecasting.

Market share is not just a board metric for Leeson. It runs all the way down to the sales team.

"The sales team are accountable to grow market share, not just sales. We set market share targets for each team by region," he says. "You might be growing 10%, but if the market's growing 15%, that's not a good result. And if you're flat while the market goes backwards 5%, that's actually a really good result. We use market share to understand the relativity of performance."

It turns a vague sense of "are we doing well?" into a fair, external yardstick.

The closer: even the biggest should contribute

Leeson finished the conversation with a message he wanted to put on the record - aimed squarely at the other large players in any industry.

"For a lot of big businesses with more market share, the natural bias is, well, I don't need a report, what am I going to learn? My advice is the opposite. Absolutely share your data and get the industry to lean in and do the same. Try to remove that arrogant mindset of, I'm the biggest, I don't need to. Even if you are one of the biggest, like we are, I still get a lot of value from it."

The cost of staying out, he says, is quiet but real. "You don't get to see anything outside your insular bubble. The market will move around you. When you contribute, you get to see what's happening in little pockets of the market that are lead indicators of what's coming. You might not think much of it at the time, but if you go looking, you'll see them build into something else - and that helps you stay ahead, move faster and make better decisions."

Key takeaways

In markets without rich retail data, an industry programme is the most robust data set available - the board case is dollars in, better quality out.
No single data source is perfect; triangulating wholesale figures, market share reporting and import data is how the patterns emerge.
Sharing lifts the whole market: broader trend visibility, a more even playing field and better-informed decisions for participants - the leader included.
The collusion line is behavioural and bright: no direct competitor contact, no pricing discussions. Independent, governed sharing sits well clear of it.
Market share evidence proves local strategy to an overseas parent and anchors the rolling forecasts a subsidiary is held accountable to.
Measuring sales teams on market share, not just sales growth, shows how performance sits relative to the market.

Frequently asked questions

How do you justify the cost of industry data to a board?

In a market without sophisticated retail scan data, an industry programme is the best and most robust data set a business can access, so the membership cost and the reporting time buy decision quality that is hard to get any other way. Leeson Brook's formulation to his own board is blunt: dollars in is better quality out.

The definition of collusion is narrow and behavioural: talking directly to competitors, sharing insights with them or entering pricing discussions. An independently run programme, where the reporting comes from a neutral platform rather than from contact between competitors, is - in Leeson Brook's words - miles away from that definition. The governance around the programme is what creates that separation.

What does a market leader gain from contributing its data?

Visibility beyond its own walls. Without a programme, even the biggest participant sees little outside its insular bubble; contributing encourages the rest of the market to lean in too, surfacing adjacent category trends and the small pockets of movement that act as lead indicators of what is coming.

It provides the evidence that local strategy is working - growth relative to competitors, not just growth - against the metrics local leadership is measured on. It also anchors the 18 to 24-month rolling forecasts the subsidiary is held accountable to, and it feeds local market evidence into product development decisions five or more years out.

The takeaway

The most striking part of Leeson's case is who is making it. This is not a smaller participant hoping to catch up to the leaders. It is a leader saying that the view from the top is still incomplete without the rest of the market in the room.

PowerStats exists to make that easy and safe: a neutral, independently run programme where participants - the largest included - contribute their data and get back a clearer, fairer picture of the market than any of them could build alone. See the market beyond your own numbers - talk to PowerStats about joining or starting an industry data sharing programme.