Gather
Gather
Brand Health Tracker Program
Prepared for Invoca · July 2026
Program proposal

Know what the market thinks, before and after you spend.

A brand health tracker turns awareness from a feeling into a number. You field a baseline now, run the same instrument every quarter, and every campaign that follows gets measured against a benchmark nobody can argue with.

What you get each wave

  • Unaided and aided awareness
  • Full funnel: consideration, investigation, usage, preference
  • Net sentiment and NPS among aware buyers
  • Competitive benchmarking against your named set
  • Attribute and message association
  • Quarter-over-quarter trend once W2 lands
Methodology

Same instrument, same audience, every quarter

Consistency is what makes a tracker work. The questions, the competitive set, and the audience definition stay locked so the only thing that changes between waves is the market.

01

Define the frame

Audience, competitive set, and attribute list are agreed once and locked. Changing them mid-program breaks comparability.

02

Field the baseline

AI-moderated conversational interviews across a verified panel. Quant and qual together, in field within days.

03

Read the wave

Dashboard, narrative, and social-ready assets. Every stat traces back to raw responses and open-text verbatims.

04

Repeat and trend

Refield on the same instrument each quarter. From W2 forward, lift is a measured number rather than an assertion.

Why it earns its place

Three outcomes a tracker delivers that nothing else does

Campaign spend becomes defensible

When brand investment is questioned, you answer with movement against a fixed baseline instead of impressions and sentiment reads.

You see the leak before it costs you

Funnel stage conversion shows whether the problem is recognition, consideration, or preference. Each one calls for a different budget.

Competitive position, quantified

Where you sit against every named competitor on awareness, sentiment, and the attributes that decide deals in your category.

Program options

Three ways in

Two variables decide what the tracker can prove. Sample size per wave sets how precisely you can read any single number. Number of waves sets whether you can read change at all. The first two options are one-time baselines. The third commits to the full year.

100 one wave

Directional pilot

Test the instrument
Margin of error ±9.8 pts
Would need a ~14 pt shift to read as real change
  • Confirms the questions, competitive set, and output format land before you commit
  • Total-market read only, no reliable splits
  • Aware-only questions land on a small base and stay directional
The honest caveat: too coarse to serve as a benchmark. Treat the numbers as indicative and plan to refield at a larger size.
Recommended start
300 one wave

Benchmark baseline

One-time, expandable
Margin of error ±5.7 pts
Detects change of ~8 pts or more against a later wave
  • A baseline that holds up in front of a board, not only internally
  • Two or three broad splits hold up, such as segment or company size
  • Add waves later at the same size without refielding the baseline
Why start here: the smallest sample that produces a benchmark future waves can trend against without hedging.
1,200 across 4 waves

Annual program

Commit to the trend
Same ±5.7 pts per wave, plus three quarter-over-quarter comparisons and a pooled base of 1,200
  • Four quarterly readings, so seasonal movement separates from campaign effect
  • Pooled across waves, product-line splits reach n=300 per cell at ±5.7
  • Locks the instrument and the audience for a full year of comparability
What it unlocks: the annual arc. A 5 point quarterly climb is invisible between any two waves and unmistakable across four.
The splits question

Every split divides your sample

Total-sample numbers look fine at any size. The moment you cut by product line, vertical, or company size, each cell carries its own margin of error. Four product lines out of a 100-person wave leaves 25 respondents each, which is a conversation, not a statistic.

This is the strongest practical argument for the annual program. No single wave of 300 supports product-line reporting, but four waves pooled do, because the cells refill each quarter.

Base4-way splitCell MoEReportable
100, one waven=25±19.6 ptsNo
300, one waven=75±11.3 ptsDirectional
1,200 pooled, 4 wavesn=300±5.7 ptsYes
Recommendation

One baseline now, or the full year

The real decision is not sample size, it is commitment. A single wave cannot validate a tracker, because the thing being tested is whether it detects change, and that takes two waves minimum. What a first wave does validate is the instrument: whether the questions land, whether the competitive set is right, and whether the output gives leadership something to act on.

Field the baseline at 300 and read it before committing further. The trade is that a one-time wave gives you a number without a trend, and the trend is where the value compounds. If product-line reporting or a full-year view of campaign effect matters, the annual program is the option that supports it, and starting it now means the first comparison lands a quarter sooner.

Fastest path

Lock the instrument in one working session. Field the baseline within days of sign-off. Read W1 together, then decide the volume for W2 with real output in front of you rather than a projection.

Gather · AI-moderated research, insights and storytelling Margin of error figures are at the 95 percent confidence level on a 50 percent statistic
Invoca Brand health tracker

Where Invoca stands with B2B marketing leaders

Wave 1 baseline across 300 US marketing decision makers at companies that buy conversation intelligence. Every future wave reports against these numbers.

Baseline wave · W1 Apr – Jun 2026 n = 300 US B2B marketers Fielded pre-campaign
  • Overview
  • Funnel
  • Competitors
  • Features
  • Perception
  • Baseline summary
  • Methodology
Overview

The W1 benchmark

Awareness sits where a category challenger sits before a sustained push. Sentiment among marketers who already know Invoca is the strongest in the set.

11%Unaided awarenessBaseline · W1
34%Aided awarenessBaseline · W1
21%ConsiderationBaseline · W1
+42Net sentimentAmong aware marketers (n=34)
7%Brand preferenceBaseline · W1

Invoca brand funnel

Awareness through preference among US B2B marketing decision makers

Unaided awareness
11%
baseline
Aided awareness
34%
baseline
Consideration
21%
baseline
Investigation
13%
baseline
Usage
6%
baseline
Preference
7%
baseline
38 pts

Aided awareness gap to Genesys, the most recognized brand in this category among B2B marketers. That gap is the room the campaign is built to close.

Awareness by company size

All respondents are US B2B marketing decision makers. Enterprise buyers start considerably warmer.

Enterprise

1,000+ employees · n=94

Aided awareness44%
Consideration29%

Mid-market

250–999 employees · n=128

Aided awareness35%
Consideration22%

SMB

50–249 employees · n=78

Aided awareness24%
Consideration13%

Why a baseline now

Invoca has strong recognition inside the accounts it already serves and thin recognition outside them. Unaided awareness of 11 percent and aided awareness of 34 percent give the campaign a floor nobody can argue with six months from now.

Awareness climbs with company size, so enterprise is the warmest starting point and mid-market is where broad reach has the most work to do.

Funnel

Stage-by-stage conversion

The rates below the top of the funnel are healthy. The leak is at the entrance.

Conversion efficiency

Stage-to-stage movement among US B2B marketers

Aided aware → Consideration62%
Consideration → Investigation62%
Investigation → Usage46%
Consideration → Usage29%
Aided aware → Usage (total)18%

Net sentiment among aware marketers

Positive minus negative, marketers who know Invoca (n=34)

+42net
  • Positive55%
  • Neutral32%
  • Negative13%

Small base shown for directional read. n=34 aware marketers of 300 total.

Reading the funnel at baseline

Once a marketer knows Invoca and starts considering it, movement toward investigation matches what the category leaders convert at. The constraint is recognition rather than persuasion, which points to an awareness campaign instead of a conversion one.

Competitors

Where Invoca sits in the category

Full funnel against the conversation intelligence and contact center field, April through June 2026, n=300.

InvocaCallRailDialogTechMarchexGenesysCategory avg
Aided awareness34%61%43%39%72%50%
Consideration21%42%27%24%51%33%
Investigation13%29%18%15%36%22%
Usage6%21%12%9%27%15%
Preference7%22%11%8%25%15%

Aided awareness ranking

US B2B marketers who recognize each brand

Genesys72%
CallRail61%
DialogTech43%
Marchex39%
Invoca34%
Convirza22%

Net sentiment by brand

Positive minus negative among each brand's aware marketers

Invoca42%
Genesys29%
CallRail26%
DialogTech14%
Marchex9%

Bar length is scaled for display. The value shown is the net sentiment score, not a percentage.

Where Invoca stands

Invoca is the least recognized brand of the five tested, which tracks for a company that sells into a considered enterprise buy rather than a self-serve one. The signal worth acting on is sentiment: among marketers who know Invoca, it leads every competitor in the set, including Genesys.

Recognition is the gap to close. Affinity is already built.

Features

How marketers rate the buying attributes

Share of aware marketers rating each brand strong or very strong. Leader per attribute is tagged.

3 of 6Attributes where Invoca ranks firstAmong four brands tested
+17 ptsLead on call attribution accuracyOver CallRail, the nearest peer
2 of 6Attributes where Invoca trailsBoth tied to implementation and price
InvocaCallRailGenesysDialogTech
Call attribution accuracy83%#166%58%61%
AI conversation analysis79%#151%64%55%
Revenue reporting depth74%#148%57%46%
Ease of implementation58%81%#139%62%
Price-to-value for SMB41%84%#133%57%
Contact center breadth55%34%88%#142%

The attributes to own

Attribution accuracy, AI conversation analysis, and revenue reporting depth are where Invoca already rates ahead of the field, and they map directly to the product's real differentiators. Those are the messages the campaign can press with confidence.

Ease of implementation and SMB price-to-value are the soft spots. Both are competitive realities for an enterprise-grade platform rather than positioning problems, so the recommendation is to lead with revenue proof and address effort concerns in the consideration stage.

Perception

What aware marketers already associate

Unprompted attributes named by marketers who recognize Invoca.

Strengths to amplify

Share of aware marketers naming each attribute

Call/conversation attribution61%
AI-driven call analysis47%
Ties marketing spend to revenue39%
Built for high-consideration buys31%
Contact center integration26%

Barriers to address

Share of aware marketers naming each concern

Only for phone-heavy businesses24%
Not sure what it does20%
Overlaps tools we already own16%
Pricing unclear12%
Enterprise-only9%

Multi-response question. Marketers could name more than one attribute, so values do not sum to 100%.

Awareness by vertical

Aided awareness and consideration across the verticals Invoca sells into

Healthcare

Aided awareness41%
Consideration27%

Financial services

Aided awareness38%
Consideration24%

Automotive

Aided awareness46%
Consideration31%

Home services

Aided awareness33%
Consideration19%

Telecom

Aided awareness36%
Consideration22%

Insurance

Aided awareness30%
Consideration17%

Brand statement agreement

Share of aware marketers who agree with each statement about Invoca

"Connects our ad spend to what happens on the call"64%
"Uses AI to score calls better than our team can manually"57%
"Would help us stop wasting budget on low-intent leads"52%
"Comes from a credible revenue-execution brand"45%
"Would be straightforward to add to our stack"36%
"Is worth the investment at our company size"29%
Baseline summary

The numbers every future wave reports against

Field W2 on the same instrument against the same audience, and the campaign's effect reads straight off the change.

W1 benchmark scorecard

Locked baseline, April through June 2026

Unaided awareness11%
Aided awareness34%
Consideration21%
Usage6%
Preference7%
Net sentiment (aware)+42

What W2 should show if the campaign works

Illustrative targets, not forecasts

Aided awareness34% → 48%+
Unaided awareness11% → 20%+
Consideration21% → 32%+
Net sentiment+42 → hold or rise

Targets shown for illustration. The value of the baseline is that lift becomes measurable, whatever the result.

How to read this baseline

This wave is built to be honest rather than impressive. Invoca starts with modest awareness among B2B marketers and the strongest affinity in the category, which is the most workable position a brand can hold going into a campaign.

The job from here is reach. The reason to measure now is that six months out, lift becomes a number instead of a feeling.

Methodology

How this wave was fielded

AI-moderated conversational survey run on the Gather platform.

300US respondentsB2B marketing decision makers
100%Buying influenceOver martech purchases
±5.7%Margin of error95% confidence, full sample
W1Baseline wavePre-campaign benchmark

Company size

  • Mid-market (250–999) 43%
  • Enterprise (1,000+) 31%
  • SMB (50–249) 26%

Respondent role

  • VP / Head of Marketing 34%
  • Demand gen lead 28%
  • Marketing ops 21%
  • CMO 17%

This baseline wave is based on an AI-moderated conversational survey of 300 US-based B2B marketing decision makers, fielded April through June 2026 on the Gather platform. Every respondent holds decision-making influence over marketing technology purchases at a company with 50 or more employees. Aided awareness reflects prompted brand recognition. Consideration measures intent to evaluate within twelve months. Investigation indicates an active demo or trial request. Usage reflects current deployment. Preference measures primary vendor selection among those evaluating. Net sentiment is the share of positive minus negative descriptions among marketers aware of Invoca (n=34, a small base shown for directional read). Margin of error is plus or minus 5.7 percent at the 95 percent confidence level for the full sample. Because this is the pre-campaign baseline, no prior wave exists for comparison. Future waves will report change against these figures. All values shown are illustrative sample output for planning purposes and do not reflect fielded research.

Invoca

Invoca Brand Health Tracker · Baseline wave · n=300 US B2B marketers · fielded April–June 2026 · next wave planned post-campaign

Powered by Gather conversational research · Sample output for planning

0

About Us Our Thoughts Careers Terms of Use Privacy

hi@gobeheard.com • SMS us @ 650.420.1022