Have you ever clicked on a headline that promised “100+ Mind-Blowing [TOPIC] Stats for [CURRENT YEAR]” or “50 Mind-Bending [TOPIC] Stats Every Marketer Must Know in [CURRENT YEAR]” only to find data that’s years old? What a letdown.
I spent countless hours sifting through old numbers for a recent blog post. The experience was discouraging. I stopped counting how many lists contained information that was – in some cases – 10 years old. But the authors repackaged the data as if it were fresh and slapped clickbait-y headlines on their lists.
Old stats are unreliable and can lead to bad decisions. B2B marketers need accurate numbers to create quality content, support ideas and stay relevant. But the bigger issue is trust. If you share content that relies on stale research, your audience may doubt your credibility and look elsewhere for reliable information. Using recent, accurate research shows you’re informed and trustworthy.
In this post, I’ll reveal my process for tracking down fresh research and offer a few pointers to help you avoid so-called “current” data that’s useless.
My quest for not-so-stale stats
I wanted new stats about search engine optimization (SEO) for B2B marketers. Regardless of the topic I’m exploring, I always look for the most up-to-date research. Anything older than a year or two is too outdated to be useful, especially in a fast-changing field like SEO. Search engines update often, and what worked last year might not work now.
First, I tried Google searches with queries such as “SEO optimization for B2B marketers and 2025 stats” and “Optimizing content for B2B marketers and 2025 research.” The results were mostly garbage. Among Google’s suggestions:
- Research that had nothing to do with B2B marketing
- Mega lists from biased or unreliable sources
- ‘Mind-Blowing’ lists that were ancient but presented as fresh
- Relevant stats that didn’t cite dates or original sources
Next, I omitted B2B marketers from my search. I thought going broad might help. Unfortunately, I got the same crappy lists and research. Time to change tactics.
AI made the research faster – but not better
My experience with generative artificial intelligence (AI) tools is hit-and-miss. They can save time and effort, but it largely depends on the tasks and the capabilities of individual tools. For example, when I’m doing research, I find that Gemini provides more context than ChatGPT. While I appreciate the extra background, Gemini tends to go crazy with bullet points. It annoys me, but other users may not care. Consequently, I put ChatGPT to the test first.
ChatGPT results
In my initial prompt, I asked for similar SEO stats as I did with Google, but specified that I wanted data from objective, independent sources. I also named organizations that I didn’t want the tool to cite. Unfortunately, it listed unreliable and biased sources. I figured the only way to avoid those was to be precise.
I wrote: “Find me statistics on this topic from sources like Gartner, Deloitte, McKinsey or Forrester.”
While ChatGPT provided two suggestions from McKinsey and two from Forrester, all four were off topic. I tried different prompts with reminders of my topic, but got similar crappy results. In other cases, the tool linked to web pages that supposedly included the research I wanted. However, when I looked at them, the stats were missing. Another dead end!
Thinking I’d outsmart ChatGPT, I added this prompt: “Link to the specific pages the stats appear on.”
It provided two links to 2024 (yeah!!) research, but they were biased sources.
Thus, I gave up and switched to Gemini.
Gemini results
Using Gemini gave me hope. It was a totally different experience than ChatGPT. The tool said the data I wanted was “tricky” to find and provided suggestions for similar research:
“I can offer some angles and potential search terms to help you find relevant data, and some related concepts with supporting data.”
Gemini gave me three related concepts and suggested how to use broader stats to support my points with specific examples. Furthermore, the tool offered potential sources for these concepts. While it didn’t provide links, at least I had other paths to try.
However, the sources weren’t the best. Either they weren’t up to my journalistic standards or I couldn’t find the research on their sites. As a result, I resorted to Google searches again. I entered the exact source names that Gemini gave me and the stats I needed. I thought that would get me to the right places, but it was a bust.
Ever the optimist, I entered this prompt:
“I need current, objective, independent statistics …”
Gemini responded, “You’re right to seek strong, independent evidence. It’s important to move beyond general statements and rely on data.”
OK, Captain Obvious!
I added, “Give me actual links to the specific sources and pages where I can find the stats.”
Gemini wrote, “You’re right, providing links is crucial for verifying the information. Here are specific links to sources … focusing on independent and authoritative sources.”
But the links didn’t go to the specific research or pages. It gave me general websites. At least the tool provided suggested search terms.
These were dead ends, too. It was clear I could spend days on general Google searches and gen AI prompts without getting anywhere. Finally, I decided to rely on my journalistic roots.
Good research starts with the right sources
As a former daily newspaper editor and reporter, I relied on vetted and trusted publications and online resources for research. It got me much farther than today’s Google searches or gen AI prompts. While the topics I cover today are much different than those of my newspaper career, the nature of my research is similar.
Therefore, I made a list of every credible and reliable industry source I could think of for relevant SEO stats, including:
- Backlinko
- HubSpot (less likely, but worth trying)
- Search Engine Journal
- Search Engine Land
- Semrush
- Smart Insights
- Statista
Next, I went to Google and entered each source, “2025” and the type of stats I wanted. It worked pretty well. Sometimes, I had to dig a little further or revert to “2024.” Overall, it took significantly less time and effort than my previous attempts.
You can try a similar approach for your industry by compiling a list of trusted sources and using specific search terms to narrow results. Adding the current year to your queries will help you find the most recent data. With a little upfront effort, you’ll save time and improve the accuracy of your research.
Original research sets you apart
The best way to stand out is by using data no one else has. Original research gives your content a competitive edge and builds credibility.
Original research refers to data, insights or findings your brand gains through surveys, interviews or other means. Unlike third-party statistics, original research provides firsthand information. When you produce your own data, you control its accuracy and relevance. While it takes more effort than using third-party sources, the insights you gain can make your brand a thought leader and a trusted source of information.
Moreover, original research:
Boosts engagement. Fresh insights grab your audience’s attention, extending your brand’s reach on social media and in industry publications. This can lead to likes, shares and comments, expanding your content’s visibility and sparking meaningful conversations with your audience.
Earns backlinks and improves SEO. Other organizations are more likely to link to your content if it includes unique, original data versus third-party research. Backlinks tell search engines your content is valuable. They can improve your website’s rankings in search results, increasing the chances that prospective customers will find you.
- Propels innovation. Original research can uncover trends, challenges and opportunities. These insights can help you develop new solutions that resonate with your audience, driving sales and loyalty.
If you can’t conduct your own research, you can interview industry leaders or internal subject experts to gain fresh perspectives and analyses for your content.
Stronger research, better content
Outdated stats don’t just waste your time – they lead to poor-quality content. In turn, that drives your audience away. To build trust in your brand and connect with prospective customers, fresh, accurate research is a must. Whether you’re exploring industry sources or conducting original research, accuracy will set your content apart.
