Wednesday, 8 February 2006

More reactions to the Information Week Credibility of Analysts article

Interesting take on InformationWeek's Credibility of analysts really bland article from Mike Rothman on his pseudo-blog (he does not allow comments):

  • Educated end users need to know the context of a report (is it sponsored or not?) and treat the information accordingly.
  • Having an analyst participate in vendor web casts, etc. is doing a service to the user community. Any analyst says a vendor's stuff is great on a own web cast is an idiot.
  • There was no substantiation of the "small vendors only get covered if they are clients" claim.
IW had a great opportunity to educate their readers on how and when analysts can add value. Instead, they focused on old rumors and innuendo of bias. IW, if you are going to go on a witch hunt, you better find some witches. They are out there, and exposing clear instances of bias would have been interesting. They should have used the space to show clear examples of bias. That would have been interesting.

Duncan also commented on the same subject: ANALYST EQUITY: Research suggests Karma beats conspiracy:
  • In outline form, Aberdeen's story is the same as in every Greek tragedy: pride; error; downfall; insight. Balancing between users and vendors is a difficult and dangerous job: few succeed for obvious reasons. As the Italians say, "He who serves two masters must lie to one of them."
  • So we think that InformationWeek is right to point out the tensions; and we think that most analyst firms that try to serve both buyers and sellers do so at their peril. However, we also think that buyers and vendors both wise up to that reality quickly.

1 comment:

Jon Collins said...

Just a small comment on credibility - I think it boils down to, what if the company or individual analyst is wrong in their perspective? I might think hosted applications are the best invention since sliced toast, and a colleague might think exactly the opposite. Clearly if it were all about opinion and influence, it would be in the interest of traditional apps vendors to shmooze my colleague, and for hosted app vendors to schmooze me. That's why we need a couple of additional factors - context and justification, in everything an analyst does. In this example, hosted apps will be suited to some customers, and not to others. Rather than making broadbrush statements about (say) CRM, any analyst worth his/her salt should be able to articulate why certain products and services are suited to which needs. I don't know the state of play on the Gartner Magic Quadrants methodology debate, but this applies to the credibility of MQs as well.