Choosing between London, Leeds and Edinburgh with evidence rather than instinct.
A UK financial services firm needed to place a 120-person risk and compliance function. Talent intelligence compared three cities on population depth, competition, cost and four-year hiring capacity.
Sector: Financial services. Market: London vs Leeds vs Edinburgh. Services used: Talent intelligence, Salary benchmarking.
A UK financial services firm needed to place a 120-person risk and compliance function. Talent intelligence compared three cities on population depth, competition, cost and four-year hiring capacity.
The situation
A UK financial services business had approved a 120-person risk and compliance build over four years and needed to decide where to put it. The internal debate had settled into two camps arguing from property cost and personal preference. Nobody had established whether any of the three candidate cities could actually supply 120 people over four years.
What we did
We scoped it as a location intelligence brief across London, Leeds and Edinburgh. For each city we counted the qualified population by sub-function and seniority, identified and counted the competing employers, benchmarked total reward against named comparators with London weighting isolated, and modelled replenishment — how quickly each market refreshes through graduate intake, qualification pipelines and inward movement.
What the research found
Four findings that changed the decision.
Population depth was not the differentiator people expected
All three cities held enough people to start. Only two held enough to sustain hiring at the planned rate for four consecutive years without materially depleting the accessible pool.
Competition intensity mattered more than population size
One city had a smaller population but far fewer competing employers, which produced a better realistic yield than the raw count suggested.
The cost differential was smaller than assumed, and uneven
At junior and mid levels the regional discount was substantial. At senior specialist level, where the population was scarce nationally, it had compressed to a narrow margin — which mattered because the plan was senior-weighted.
Replenishment was the deciding variable
Two cities had strong local qualification pipelines feeding the function. The third depended heavily on inward movement, which made a four-year plan considerably more fragile.
The outcome
The recommendation named one city and set out the conditions under which it would fail — specifically, the seniority mix above which the local market would not sustain the hiring rate. The board approved the location with a revised phasing that front-loaded junior and mid-level hiring and sourced the most senior roles nationally. The underlying dataset was retained by the client and re-examined at the end of year one against actual hiring performance.
The point of it
A location decision made on property cost and average salary answers a different question from the one being asked. The real question is whether the market can sustain the plan, and that requires a count of competitors and a model of replenishment, not just a count of people.
A note on confidentiality. Clients are never named without written consent, and we do not publish project values, candidate records or commercially sensitive figures. These accounts describe real engagement patterns with identifying detail removed. Where a specific number is not stated here, it is not a number we have published — please do not infer one.
How this engagement was structured
The commercial and methodological shape of the project, for readers assessing whether a similar approach would suit their own situation.
| Service | Talent intelligence |
|---|---|
| Scope | Comparative analysis of candidate UK locations for a new function, covering available population, cost and competitive intensity in each. |
| Commercial model | Fixed project fee in pounds, agreed against a written scope before work began. No commission and no percentage of salary. |
| Data ownership | Every record produced transferred to the client permanently at the close of the project. |
| Lawful basis | Legitimate interest under UK GDPR and the Data Protection Act 2018, documented for the project with an agreed retention period. |
Method
What we actually did
The decisions that determined whether this project produced something usable.
Like-for-like location comparison
Each candidate location researched to the same standard and the same definition, so the comparison was genuinely like for like rather than an assembly of differently-sourced figures.
Population sized before it was priced
Availability established first. Pricing a location before knowing whether the people are there produces a confident answer to the wrong question.
Competing employers named
For each location, the organisations already recruiting the same profile were identified, which is what turns a cost comparison into a competitive one.
Reward reported by region with London isolated
So the differential between locations was explicit rather than buried inside a national average.
What this engagement demonstrates
Location decisions made on property cost and headline salary alone routinely pick the wrong site. The binding variable is usually the size of the competing employer set, not the rent.
A note on how we present client work
Client identities and commercially sensitive details are withheld unless we hold explicit written permission to name them. Where figures are quoted they come from the engagement itself. Where an example is constructed to illustrate a method rather than describe a specific client, we label it as illustrative rather than presenting it as a case study. We would rather publish a less impressive page than an unverifiable one.
Questions we are asked about this work
Can we speak to a reference client?
In many cases yes, subject to the client’s agreement. Some engagements are confidential and will stay that way — which is itself a reasonable indication of how we would treat yours.
Would this approach work for our situation?
That is exactly what a scoping call establishes. Thirty minutes is usually enough to tell you whether the method transfers to your market and what the right scope and fee would be — including telling you if it does not transfer.
How much would a comparable project cost?
It is quoted as a fixed fee against a written scope, driven by market breadth, seniority and the depth of validation required. Because scope drives the fee, a meaningful figure needs a short conversation about what you actually need.
Recognise the problem?
Most of these engagements began with a client describing a symptom. Thirty minutes on a call is usually enough to work out what is actually causing it.