Cybersecurity marketing often begins with the scale and urgency of the threat.
That is understandable. The risks are serious, attacks are evolving and senior leaders are under pressure to protect increasingly complicated environments.
But most cybersecurity buyers already know this.
The more difficult question is why one vendor’s answer is more relevant, credible or practical than another’s.
A funded market can still be a selective market
Alvarez & Marsal’s 2025 Cybersecurity Market Study, based on more than 360 technology and security leaders, found that 99% of respondents were increasing or maintaining cloud security budgets. At the same time, 57% expected to consolidate security vendors over the following two years.
That combination matters. Buyers may still be investing, but they are becoming more selective about where the money goes.
The same research found that integration and reliability were important barriers to greater use of AI in cybersecurity. Buyers were interested in targeted applications such as fraud detection, real-time threat detection and network security, rather than AI functionality for its own sake.
For vendors, adding more urgency to the message may therefore be less valuable than providing clearer evidence of fit.
Buyers need to see how the product works in their world
Strong cybersecurity content should help a buyer answer practical questions:
- How will this work with the technology we already have?
- Which risks or operational problems will it address first?
- What will implementation require from our team?
- How will we measure whether it is working?
- Where are the product’s limits or dependencies?
- What evidence is available from organisations like ours?
These questions rarely have one universal answer. A mid-market organisation with a small security team will evaluate complexity differently from a global bank. A cloud-native software company may have very different identity and integration requirements from a manufacturer running operational technology.
This is why broad personas such as “the CISO” have limited value. Real buying decisions are shaped by sector, infrastructure, regulation, organisational maturity and the influence of several internal stakeholders.
Research can reveal the real purchase criteria
Cybersecurity market research can identify which problems buyers are prioritising, how they define value and which claims they find credible.
Quantitative surveys can establish the scale of a trend or compare priorities across segments. In-depth interviews can explain why buyers behave in a particular way. Message testing can show whether a proposition is clear and distinctive before a campaign goes live.
Research can also reveal uncomfortable findings. A feature the vendor sees as central may be largely irrelevant to the customer. A supposedly unique claim may sound identical to every competitor. A message intended to create urgency may instead create scepticism.
These are useful discoveries when they happen early.
Evidence should shape the content
Once purchase criteria are understood, marketing can become more specific.
A report might benchmark how organisations are approaching a new threat. A case study can demonstrate implementation in a recognisable environment. An article can address one of the barriers discovered in customer interviews. Sales material can use the language buyers themselves use to describe the problem.
The result is content that supports a decision rather than merely attracting attention.
Cybersecurity buyers are surrounded by claims. Vendors that understand the buyer’s real environment, acknowledge trade-offs and provide relevant evidence will be in a stronger position to earn trust.
The market does not need another warning that cyber risk is increasing. It needs clearer proof of what to do about it.
To uncover what cybersecurity buyers genuinely value, question or struggle to differentiate, contact Callum Budd at callum@mra-research.co.uk.
