The list that looked right and wasn't
Most B2B prospect lists are built on filters: industry, company size, location, contact details. Julius Lynch, who runs Patterson Global, a B2B research and qualified research pilot service, says that is where the trouble starts.
He described one test in which 16 companies initially looked worth investigating. Once he checked them properly against the qualification criteria, none made the final cut.
I ran one test where 16 companies initially looked worth investigating, but once I checked them properly against the qualification criteria, none made the final cut.
— Julius Lynch, Patterson Global
That result is not unusual in his experience. Matching the right industry, company size, or location does not automatically make a company a good prospect. For an IT support brief, for example, he would also want to understand whether the company already has a provider, what it handles internally, and whether there is a credible reason to need outside support.
His preference is to reject a company early rather than include it just to make the list longer.
The gap between finding and qualifying
Lynch argues that the standard advice on building a B2B prospect list tends to stop at the easy part.
The biggest thing for me is the gap between finding a company and actually qualifying one.
— Julius Lynch, Patterson Global
Building a list from industry, size, location, and contact details is relatively easy. The harder part is being able to explain why each company deserves someone's sales time. For Lynch, that means answering several questions per account: why it is worth pursuing, what evidence supports that, who the relevant person is, what might make it a poor fit, and what is still unknown.
His own testing pushed him toward smaller, more focused shortlists.
I'd rather have five companies with a genuine reason behind each one than fifty names that happen to match a filter.
— Julius Lynch, Patterson Global
That is a direct challenge to the volume-first approach that still dominates much of B2B lead generation. A shorter list with documented reasoning is easier for a sales team to act on and easier to defend when results are reviewed.
What people decide too quickly
When qualifying a list for a new market or a distributor, Lynch sees a recurring pattern: conclusions arrive before the evidence does.
I think people can decide too quickly that a market has demand, a distributor is suitable or a company has buying intent before the evidence really supports it.
— Julius Lynch, Patterson Global
A distributor being in the right country and selling the right type of product is only the starting point. He would also look at who they already serve, their territory, competing product lines, and whether they actually seem capable and interested in taking on another product.
The same caution applies to buying intent signals such as expansion or hiring. They can give a reason to look closer, but they do not prove somebody is ready to buy.
The same goes for things like expansion or hiring. They can give you a reason to look closer, but they don't prove somebody is ready to buy.
— Julius Lynch, Patterson Global
A decision, not a data dump
Lynch's approach ends with a clear output rather than a longer spreadsheet.
For me, the research should finish with a clear decision: pursue, hold or reject, with enough evidence to explain why.
— Julius Lynch, Patterson Global
For teams building prospect lists, the practical takeaways are straightforward. Treat filters as a starting point, not a qualification. Document the reason each company is on the list. Name what is still unknown. And be willing to cut accounts that cannot survive scrutiny, even if that leaves a much shorter list than expected.
Patterson Global was included in Peekwire's roundup of B2B research and qualification services alongside MarketLauncher and Islah Web Service.