Measuring the growth of offshored web services in 2009 presents a familiar challenge for anyone who has worked with economic classifications. ISIC 6201, covering computer programming activities, is both a window and a wall—it opens up a dataset of remarkable breadth but throws up barriers when it comes to specificity. In the late 2000s, the global trend of outsourcing and offshoring web hosting, development, and support gained momentum, especially in regions positioned as service exporters. Untangling this trend from raw registration data requires a structured, almost forensic approach.
The starting point is to assemble the universe of firms registered under ISIC 6201 for the year in question. Depending on the jurisdiction, this may involve national company registries, trade association records, or tax authority data. In some countries, the process is as simple as running a query online; in others, it might involve formal requests and waiting periods. The resulting list, though, is nearly always broader than anticipated. A single code encompasses freelance developers, boutique web design firms, enterprise software contractors, and multi-national business process outsourcing providers.
To narrow the focus to web hosting and development, keyword filtering is a necessary, if blunt, tool. Scraping business names and descriptions for terms like “web hosting,” “website development,” “cloud services,” “e-commerce,” and “internet solutions” will reduce noise, but not eliminate it. Many companies use broad or even aspirational language. Some describe themselves as “digital agencies” or “IT solutions providers,” covering a gamut of activities. Others don’t mention the web at all, despite doing most of their work in that space.
Sometimes, especially for large datasets, text-mining software and natural language processing can make the work more manageable. Algorithms can cluster firms by similarity or flag new patterns—though a degree of human review is almost always needed. The nuances in local language, slang, and context frustrate even the best automated systems. Experience has shown that a quick manual sample, taken early, helps identify systematic errors before the methodology is finalized.
With the relevant firms identified, the next question is scale: how much of their business is exported or offshored, and who are the customers? B2B and B2C activities look similar from a distance but diverge significantly when examined closely. A web development firm serving small businesses in the same city presents very different economic implications from a firm exporting hosting solutions to clients on the other side of the world.
Tracking these differences in revenue streams can be tricky. Some firms, particularly those operating at scale, file financial statements that segment revenue by customer type. Publicly listed companies and subsidiaries of multinational corporations are often required to disclose such breakdowns. For smaller firms, however, direct evidence is rare. In these cases, secondary indicators become useful. The presence of overseas branches, multilingual support teams, international payment facilities, or cross-border marketing campaigns can hint at a B2B export focus.
Another approach is to examine customer portfolios. Many companies publish case studies, testimonials, or client lists. These artifacts, though anecdotal, can help determine the balance between B2B and B2C revenue. For firms with an online presence, reviewing service offerings and pricing models is also instructive. B2B providers often focus on custom solutions, integration services, or ongoing maintenance contracts, while B2C operations gravitate toward pre-packaged hosting plans, domain registration, or template-based site builders.
At the aggregate level, industry surveys and association reports can supplement hard data. Even if response rates are low, surveys can reveal the proportion of firms reporting overseas clients or business customers. This kind of qualitative data helps calibrate assumptions made during the classification process.
Some methodological caution is necessary. Offshoring can be a moving target, especially as firms evolve and reposition themselves. A company registered as a local developer in 2009 may have shifted toward offshore B2B work just a year or two later, or vice versa. Registration data alone won’t capture such changes, and retrospective analysis depends heavily on archival web snapshots, media coverage, or business filings from subsequent years.
Documentation throughout the process becomes crucial. Keeping a log of all steps—how firms were filtered, which keywords were used, what secondary sources were consulted—serves as a record for both transparency and reproducibility. The inevitable ambiguities and gray areas deserve as much attention as the clear cases. Sometimes the shape of an industry is clearest at its blurry edges, where definitions are stretched by practice.
ISIC 6201, when paired with careful screening and layered data, yields more than just a raw count of firms. It exposes the geography and complexity of web services as they spread across borders, reflecting not only shifts in technology but in the economic relationships that tie regions together. Some answers are left open, and in many ways, that is simply the nature of tracing emerging sectors through imperfect records.