TL;DR: Expert networks recycle the same professionals across competing clients while charging custom research prices. You're paying $1,200 per call for access your competitors already bought, then spending another $2,000 in analyst time to clean up the work. The real cost per useful insight hits $2,500-3,500 once you account for the 40% failure rate and compliance risk you carry alone.

Core Problem:

• 20-30% of "custom" expert matches appear across multiple networks on the same project

• Professional experts have formed LLCs and take multiple calls per week on identical topics

• Networks profit from call volume, not accuracy, creating structural misalignment

• The $2.1 billion industry grew by adding more middlemen, not more experts

• Your competitors called the same person last week through a different network

What Expert Networks Don't Tell You

I learned this from the buyside at Goldman Sachs and Citadel. Your competitors are calling the same experts you are. Often within the same week. Sometimes through different networks, sometimes through the same one with a slightly different project title.

The database isn't fresh. The firms profiting from this arrangement have zero incentive to tell you.

How Expert Recycling Works

I know this because experts tell me directly. One senior operator told us he routinely does several calls on the same company and topic in the same week. Multiple pods at the same fund. Their direct competitors. A mix of big networks and aggregators.

The briefs are nearly identical. The titles get tweaked. The same conversation gets sold again and again at full custom match pricing. Woozle speaks to experts at scale. This pattern shows up constantly. The experts themselves complain about it.

Traditional expert networks are structurally designed to recycle the same small pool of good talkers across clients and competitors. That's the fastest way to hit volume targets and protect 50-70% margins. Networks optimize for call volume, not unique insight. You're paying custom prices for commodity access.

Bottom line: The model profits from throughput. Fresh insight would require fresh work on every project.

The Overlap Problem: Why You're Buying the Same Access Twice

Research shows there's typically a 20-30% overlap of the same experts appearing at multiple expert networks on any given project. When you engage four expert networks, you receive approximately 60 suggested experts. After removing duplicates, only about 45 are truly unique.

The reason is simple. Expert networks recruit from the same limited pool of visible professionals. The most relevant experts keep getting recycled across platforms because they're easier to find and more willing to take calls. The networks all use LinkedIn. They all see the same people.

You're paying for custom recruiting and getting the same names your competitors already called last week. The marginal value of adding a second or third network drops fast. Your costs compound linearly.

What this means: Multi-network strategies don't multiply coverage. They multiply overlap at full price.

Why Networks Still Use Stale Databases

Many clients still rely on one or two legacy expert networks using outdated databases. Traditional expert networks built internal databases by manually searching for experts to add, then recycling those same profiles across multiple client requests.

While the industry has shifted toward custom recruiting for each project using LinkedIn, many networks still fall back on their databases. You're often speaking with generic industry experts rather than professionals with fresh, specific knowledge of the exact question you're researching.

The database model made sense when LinkedIn didn't exist. Now it's a way to avoid doing real work on each project. Networks choose speed over accuracy because their economics reward completed calls, not correct answers.

The trade-off: Fresh recruiting costs more and takes longer. Database recycling protects margin.

The Rise of Professional Experts

Expert networks now pay experts as much as $1,500 per hour or per call, with minimum payments regardless of call duration or client satisfaction. This has created an influx of professional experts who have formed LLCs to funnel their expert network earnings. Some LLC names sound similar enough to actual companies in the industry to mislead about the expert's true job function and level of firsthand knowledge.

Many of these are not experts with their feet on the ground witnessing events firsthand. They're professors, retired professionals, or consultants who advise in an industry. They help with general understanding. They lack the current, operational insights you need for precise conviction.

The networks don't care because these people are easy to book and sound credible on a 60-minute call. Your analyst wastes an hour. The network still gets paid $1,200. The incentive is to fill the calendar, not move conviction.

The pattern: High expert pay attracts volume talkers, not better insight. Your cost goes up while quality drifts sideways.

Why Recruiter Incentives Break Quality Control

Expert network staff hired to recruit experts face a challenging job. They're often new to the securities industry and lack the knowledge to understand a potential expert's actual expertise.

Many recruiters simply forward client questions directly to prospective experts and accept the experts' self-reported representations that they have the requisite expertise. No cross-checking education, employment, or current position against publicly available information. When compared against LinkedIn profiles, self-reported information from expert network profiles is often very different.

This breakdown in quality control is driven by recruiter incentive structures focused on speed and volume, not accuracy. The network makes money when the call happens. Not when the call is useful. That misalignment shows up in your 40% miss rate on calls.

The structural problem: Junior recruiters with no industry depth are paid to book calls fast. You inherit the quality risk.

How Market Proliferation Degraded Standards

The expert network industry exploded from 38 providers in 2009 to over 110 active networks today. Nearly triple the population before insider trading scandals.

This proliferation was driven by low barriers to entry. In principle, anyone with a LinkedIn license and willingness to reach out to people could run an expert network. This growth raised concerns about compliance standards suffering. Many new entrants lack the infrastructure to properly vet experts or prevent material non-public information violations.

More networks doesn't mean more experts. More middlemen fighting over the same pool.

The math: 3x more networks competing for the same expert pool means higher recycling rates, not better coverage.

A $2.1 Billion Industry Built on Volume, Not Value

The expert network sector reached approximately $2.1 billion in annual revenue in 2022, growing over 20% in 2021. Yet clients consistently complain about quality of experts, workflow hassle, and opaque pricing.

For the first time, expert networks broke into the top-20 highest-paid research providers. GLG at number eight. Third Bridge at number 14. The growth was driven primarily by long-only asset managers adopting expert networks, not hedge funds changing behavior. More clients entering a broken system.

The industry is growing because the model scales, not because performance improved. Revenue growth reflects client adoption, not satisfaction. The model monetizes access efficiently while quality complaints persist.

The takeaway: Scale and revenue don't correlate with client outcomes when incentives optimize for volume.

The True Cost of Expert Recycling

The recycling economy creates three hidden taxes on your research budget.

First, you're paying research prices for commodity access. When your competitors called the same expert last week, you're not getting an edge. You're getting table stakes at $1,200 per call.

Second, you're wasting analyst time on logistics and cleanup. Vetting recycled experts, scheduling, sitting through off-target calls, and writing up notes burns 4-5 hours per call. At $100-200 per hour fully loaded, that's $2,000-4,000 in internal cost before you factor in the 40% miss rate.

Third, you're carrying compliance risk the network doesn't share. You're on the call. You're responsible for what gets said. The network already got paid.

When you add it up, the real cost per useful insight approaches $2,500-3,500 once you factor in analyst time and the failure rate. You're not buying research. You're subsidizing a middleman's margin while doing the work yourself.

The economics: Sticker price of $1,200 per call hides the true all-in cost once you load analyst time and risk exposure.

What Finished Intelligence Looks Like

The recycling economy persists because most investors don't see a credible alternative. The alternative is straightforward. Stop paying for access and start buying finished intelligence.

Fresh experts recruited specifically for your question, not pulled from a shared database. Structured interviews designed around your decision, not generic conversation. Verified outputs that survive IC scrutiny, not raw transcripts you still have to interpret.

The economics work when you remove the middleman and own the full chain from brief to finished intelligence. You eliminate the 50-70% margin extraction, the 40% miss rate, and the analyst time sink. What's left is research that moves conviction at half the true cost.

Frequently Asked Questions

How do I know if my expert network is recycling experts?

Ask your experts directly how many calls they've done on the same topic in the past month. Compare expert lists across multiple networks on the same project. Check if proposed experts have LLCs or consulting firms that suggest professional expert status rather than operational roles.

What is the typical overlap rate when using multiple expert networks?

Research shows 20-30% overlap of the same experts appearing across multiple networks on any given project. When you engage four networks and receive 60 suggested experts, only about 45 are truly unique after removing duplicates.

Why do expert networks use outdated databases instead of fresh recruiting?

Database recycling is faster and cheaper than custom recruiting for each project. Networks profit from completed calls, not accuracy, so the incentive is to book calls quickly using existing contacts rather than invest time in fresh, correctly profiled experts.

What are professional experts and why are they a problem?

Professional experts are individuals who have formed LLCs and take multiple expert network calls per week as a revenue stream. They're often professors, retired professionals, or consultants who lack current operational insight. They help with general understanding but lack the fresh, specific knowledge needed for precise conviction on trades or deals.

How do recruiter incentives affect expert quality?

Network recruiters are typically new to the securities industry and paid to book calls quickly, not verify expertise. Many forward client questions to prospective experts and accept self-reported credentials without cross-checking against LinkedIn or public records. This creates a 40% miss rate on call quality.

What is the true all-in cost of an expert network call?

The sticker price is typically $1,200 per call. Add 4-5 hours of analyst time for vetting, scheduling, interviewing, and note-taking at $100-200 per hour fully loaded ($2,000-4,000). Factor in the 40% miss rate and compliance risk. The real cost per useful insight approaches $2,500-3,500.

Why did the expert network industry grow if quality complaints persist?

Growth was driven by long-only asset managers adopting expert networks, not by performance improvement. The model scales efficiently because it monetizes access and call volume. Revenue growth reflects client adoption, not client satisfaction.

What should I look for in a primary research provider?

Look for providers who sell finished intelligence, not access. Fresh experts recruited for your specific question. Structured interviews designed around your decision. Verified outputs ready for IC scrutiny. Performance-based pricing where the provider only profits when you get useful answers.

Key Takeaways

• Expert networks recycle the same professionals across competing clients while charging custom research prices, with 20-30% overlap typical across multiple networks on the same project.

• The true cost per useful insight approaches $2,500-3,500 once you factor in the $1,200 call fee, 4-5 hours of analyst time, 40% miss rate, and compliance risk you carry alone.

• Network incentives optimize for call volume, not accuracy, because they profit when calls happen regardless of usefulness.

• Professional experts have formed LLCs and take multiple calls per week on identical topics, providing general understanding but lacking current operational insight.

• The industry grew from 38 to 110+ networks between 2009 and today, adding middlemen without adding experts and driving higher recycling rates.

• Finished intelligence from fresh, correctly profiled experts costs less than the middleman model once you account for analyst time saved and higher hit rates.

Does your current research provider profit when you get a useful answer, or when you book another call?