Borg imposes 30mn briefing limit

So it looks like the Borg is about to limit briefings duration: Gartner limits vendor briefings to 30 minutes.

Vinnie, Dean and Jon have good comments on this, the two sides of the argument are:

Many vendors impose a death-by-powerpoint sentence to analysts with 3 hours and 54 charts briefing. This is BAD practice (see links below). A half an hour session should thus force vendors go straight to the point an be more productive.

Analyst briefings should be interactive ; 1800 seconds does not allow much of a two-way conversation.

ARmadgeddon is against unnecessary analyst cruelty and agrees that vendors could do a better job at scoping briefings to better address analysts needs. However, 30 mn is too short to allow for an interactive conversation. The fact that this new rule comes from the Borg is not a surprise as Gartner analysts tend to be more quiet and provide significantly less feedback than independent analysts during non-paid briefings. As a side note, arranging briefings through vendor relations takes Analyst Relations Managers anywhere from 1 hour to 2 days...

POJ's wrote a nice take on this on GartnerWatch: You have the right to...
His point that Gartner analysts would struggle to explain anything in less than 40 mn is spot on.


More from ARmadgeddon on analyst briefings:

AR 101: Jon Collins on briefing analysts

[Monkchips:] No Time Wasters Please: On briefing industry analysts

Redmonk: how to brief analysts

Will the Borg be dis-intermediated?

Interesting and thought provoking post by former analyst Dana Gardner on why blogs and the information abundance is a threat to Gartner:

Self-IT analysis is the wave of the future (Dana Gardner, ZDNet.com)

His analysis is quite similar to Jame's (read this).

There's of course the reverse argument: too much information kills information, there's a role for someone to package it for users and make money in the process (read this post on Vinnie's blog).

We however remain sceptical about Gartner's consulting business (would be nice to hear from the chaps at Accenture, Deloitte, Cap, PWC, IBM, E&Y if they ever lost a deal to Gartner?)

The Governor, ancient Iraq and Gartner

Like a modern David, James has decided to take on the Borg Goliath:

• James Governor's MonkChips: Why Open Source Analysis Will Grow: Learning from The Sumerians

In this post (and before), he argues the cuneiform writing is on the wall for Gartner Borg:

• Why would vendors continue to pay a ransom to a gatekeeper to enterprise purchasing?
• They're under pressure to disclose their "methodologies" and clients
• He quotes Jonathan Schwartz, COO (SUNW), as not being happy with Gartner (IT)
  

His predication is that open source research will form a new ecosystem and make Gartner obsolete, just like an old mainframe. Vinnie says it's like Gulliver and the Lilliputs.

Joe has already posted an analysis on Gartner Watch:

• (From: Monkchips) Gartner is like a mainframe in 1979. Ripe for deconstruction.

ARmadgeddon's take: commoditisation of research is an inescapable trend and presents a serious threat to traditional content-based IT Analyst Research firms such as Gartner. However, open source research faces challenges before it can be seen as a credible alternative:

• Reputation/credibility lies with individual analysts or firms (and not with the "ecosystem")
  **An AR professional emailed us that the main issue with "one-man-boutiques" for them was the lack of branding/the confusion in the marketplace.
  
• The output of independent analysts varies considerably as it is not like a single source code (although the emergence of aggregators such as IT-Analysis.com is a major step forward). **As Richard Stiennon puts it in the comments, "open source research would imply a wikipedia like collaboration on market research, [...] the results however would be FREE to use by anyone." (see comments for more)**
  
• Consulting to users remains the exception for independent analysts and it is not proven can the open source model can be financially viable for them. **Vendors value this user insight more than everything else, this is however currently the priviledge of Gartner, Forrester, Ovum, etc....**

**27/2 edits**

Odd bods

Who are the oddest analysts around?

Cast your vote there:
James Governor's MonkChips: Who is the most off the wall industry analyst in the business?

Vinnie on the Gartner Offshore Application Services Magic Quadrant

Interesting take from Vinnie on this Borg Manic Quadrant:
deal architect : Gartner MQ on Offshore Application Services

Is there an afterlife for analysts?

Duncan asked yesterday Why vendors hire analysts.

The underlying question lies around analysts career development.

You see, analysts do have somewhat atypical jobs -which may explain why they are often peculiar themselves. They come from various backgrounds, either from IT departments, IT vendors (most frequent case) and less frequently from resellers or other channel partners, often ticking well over 15 years of experience.
Their analyst job is often fascinating, both intellectually and for they have a privileged industry vantage point -sitting between so many constituencies (vendors, users, channel, etc...)

So it's not a surprise if analysts tend to stick around and progress naturally within research firms, however even in Gartner there can be only so many VP's... Creating their own consultancy can then appear as an attractive option. Duncan describes these market dynamics here: From the 'water cycle' to the 'analyst cycle'.

Another option is to move into AR. As James and Duncan point out, running AR for an IT vendor is sometimes a rather brutal landing. We also had some comments from analysts on being dealt with by ex-analysts (this may cause some clash of egos), on the other hand ex-analysts are well positionned to sell the value of AR to the business. Another option can be to work for or create an AR consultancy (KGC, LighthouseAR are run by former analysts) -but it's quite a niche market...

Frost demands cash for press release

In ARmadgeddon: AR 101: Analysts and press quotes
we explained that analysts don't charge for quotes. However, itis worth adding a postscript: one reader has pointed out that there's one case where vendors do pay for a press release. This is what she writes:

"I just wanted make a comment say that you have to be either green or naive to take this idea of paying for quotes seriously, or even think if could happen here in the States but not in Europe. However, a comment about Frost is on the money: they told us that we had won an award, so we said 'great'. They replied, if you want to tell people who have won, then you need to pay us for the package -- which included a trophy, a photo opp and a press release. We said, no keep the trophy: we'll just spread the news about the award ourselves. They told us that they would only anounce the award if we paid for it."

We'd love to hear about other experiences like this.

IDC misses forecast by 1900%

Interesting read on IDC un-prediction in today's El Reg:

Le Misancalculation: A one act Itanium tragedy by IDC (The Register 17/02/06)

Extracts:
"As the artist's rendering points out, IDC does not have a sparkling track record where Itanium sales prediction are concerned. In fact, its 2004 prediction was 1,900 per cent above the actual sales mark. Some analyst firms can survive on results like that, and some can't."
"IDC never explores these issues. Instead, it relies on flaky data and embarrassing conclusions to create a study that could outdo its 2004 effort - a feat we thought impossible."

WOW, this seems to be a hard one to get away from...

AR 101 series: Analysts and press quotes

David published Tuesday this most post after Tom Foremski of SiliconValleyWatcher wrote that vendors pay analysts for quotes:

• Analyst Insight: Do analysts charge for press release quotes?

Quotes for hire, interesting concept...

We obviously agree with David that this would be utterly un-ethical, but it's important to put the record straight:

We've never, ever, heard of anyone asking taking payment for quotes. We are very keen to hear if Tom can substantiate his allegations. We bet he can't and thus should retract.

PS (20/02/06): David in fact confused quotes and awards, which Frost & Sullivan charges for. Still not really ethical but not the same as charging for quotes.

This brings us to the subject of this AR 101: how can you leverage analysts in the media?

Analysts are, often rightly, viewed as thought leaders. Reporters value their insight, they are an invaluable ally to quickly nail down the issues around a topic and provide quotable material -all under tight deadlines. Journalists don't have the depth and experience of analysts, so a little help is welcome (an AR manager was heard saying recently that he believed the average VNU reporter age to be under 25...). So it's not a surprise that trade press often features analyst quotes.It's a good deal for analysts, they get exposure and it feeds their demanding ego. Some firms reward analysts for speaking to journalists, META was an example. This can lead to quote-happy analysts, some IDC analysts are particularly prolific as they produce so many cuts of the same data that every vendor can be a leader somewhere (read Give 'em all something - we need to sell reprints). Of course, too much goodness eventually hurts the analyst credibility...

So, how can AR managers leverage analysts to help their employer's profile in the media?

The most frequent tactics are:

• To include analysts quotes in press releases. This is subject to approval, Gartner and IDC have formal processes ; Gartner and AMR only allow quotes from published material (but not FirstTakes or Symposium presentations).


• To include analysts contact details in the press package sent to journalists, possibly with quotes.

PS (20/02/06): we received comments from AR managers and analysts saying those practices were highly ineffective -some journalists tend to deliberately ignore proposed quotes and go for "really independent" quotes. In other terms "shoveling quotes down a journo's throat will backfire and damage both vendor and analyst reputations." We would be interested in your comments on this...

Some additional tips:

• Depending on the relationship the AR manager has with them, independent analysts will often be quite willing to provide quotes and be contacted by reporters.


• It goes without saying that good AR managers will make sure that the analyst is briefed before reporters get the press release and that they have a (positive) opinion on the subject and contribute to the debate.


• Good AR managers will also ensure that they use analysts that are consistent between what they tell reporters and what they publish.


• Finally, some analysts are better at this game than others. A pedantic analyst speaking in 80 words sentences may not provide good quotable material to journalist and may even be mis-interpreted.

Other post in the AR 101 series:

• AR 101 series: Analyst vs. press (Analyst Insight)


• AR 101 series: the research process

Ovum to IPO, Forrester loses sales VP

Dave reports here that Ovum is about to float:
Analyst Insight: Ovum announces float

This was in the air for a long time but it's official now. We heard they stopped recruiting analysts/expanding because of this upcoming float, which is somewhat strange.
Anyway, the Ovumites are about to make some paper money as they all will get some shares -which is probably good as Ovum as a reputation for not paying them very well....

The other news today is that Forrester is loosing Tim Royston-Webb, its EMEA Sales VP (ex. Giga before), to Datamonitor. Both have a reputation of being pretty harmless at selling to vendors (check C'mon guys, sell to us!), so we think this change of ship is going to make no difference whatsoever.

The press release can be found in Tekrati:
Datamonitor Appoints Tim Royston-Webb as Managing Director, Technology Global

C'mon guys, can't you write-up a little the stories instead of just reprinting what you've read elsewhere?

KCG oppose, and offer, share of voice analysis

Our friends at KCG have us modestly confused. An article in their newsletter is titled Under the Influence: Five Reasons to Worry About "Share of Voice" Metrics.

Stephen explains that "we see most of our '“competition'” nowadays coming from PR firms. In attempting to transpose their typical volumetric 'Share of Voice'” measurement systems from the media business to the analyst influence business they regularly do our function a grave disservice."

In essence, he feels the key weaknesses of the share of voice approach are:

1. It is mistaken to measure share of voice inside firms; instead, track your top ten analysts.
2. They mistakenly measure the media: instead search research, which is essential.
3. Searching in the same way will produce different results at different firms; each firm needs to be searched differently to produce results that are consistent.
4. Searching on company name doesn't work; use key words.
5. Share of voice analysis does not only analyze quotes.

The criticism seems over-blown, because KCG actually sells share of voice analysis itself, what it calls 'Coverage Metrics', and so do most of its competitor PR agencies and the AR consultancies. These studies also measure volume, even if they eliminate the media and most analysts from consideration. The fact that KCG itself supplies share of voice studies is not the only clue that those metrics can be useful.

1. Sometimes it is appropriate to target firms and not only the key analysts. Much of the research about our firm is co-authored by a team of analysts. Following only one would be mistaken. It als would not fit the global spread of our business. We've learnt that analysts at the same firm but in other countries do not display the same preferences, and we need to get a top-level picture of the whole coverage by each firm, not just one who knows us best and is normally the most favorable. Even KCG stresses that its metrics "Measure coverage by target firm or target analyst list."
   
2. To not track analysts in the media would be mad. Analysts have a huge impact on the media and their influence is reflected differently in the media from in their research. To ignore the media is lazy and woud get us killed internally. When PR and sales come back with negative media clippings, how can we say they should not be tracked?
3. Searching is not that hard. I can recommend cut and paste: when I have the search right at a firm, I paste the search term into the back of the Excel sheet that our intern uses when she does the searches. It's very easy to be consistent if you think about it.
4. Searching on company name can work if you and your key competitors are in the same industries. Yes, if you're in many businesses you need one or more key words to reduce the number of results. But that's not hard. Use the cut and paste tip I mentioned above.
5. Quotes and share of voice are different things, but doesn't mean that only one of them can be useful. If my company is mentioned more in analyst research, or by analysts in the media, that's normally a better thing than being mentioned otherwise. Of course, it's also important to track quotes (although that means looking at the media, and breaking one of the KCG's commandments) but we do that by hand in a separate analysis.

In short, share of voice metrics are very useful and, honestly, if they were not then KCG and its competitors would not sell them. I am sure that KCG has a point that some PR agencies get it wrong at times: but if KCG is telling its clients to not track the media, then they will also be getting it wrong in the eyes of some clients, whose customers follow the media.

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.

The Credibility Of Analysts [InformationWeek "blog"]

Larry Greenemeier from InformationWeek is running an interesting poll on the Credibility Of Analysts.

He plans to publish the results on the 6th of February.

Although is blog is not a real blog, it raises interesting issues, like why does the Borg not put products they place in its Gartner Magic Quadrant to the test.

Selected quotes:

"an analyst industry that's tapped into an almost desperate need that businesses have to stay on top of emerging technology and a community of IT vendors even more desperate to make the sale"

"IT vendors and their customers both became beholden to the big analyst firms"

"The reluctance that vendors and end users have in publicly questioning analyst firms tells us all we need to know about the clout that these firms have"

Making it up While Drinking

Amidst rumours of a Bloor sell-out by the Justin gang, the analyst cycle is in full motion in the UK, with independent analysts talking of getting together –some have obviously read this post talking about a federation against the Borg.
This industry warming up, evaporation and condensation into new firm seems to be at Quocirca’s expense –who are actively recruiting new analysts to make up for the departure of Dale Vile and Jon Collins.

This brings us to today’s news: the same Jon is joining MWD, MWD (formed by the two ex-Ovum Neils –Ward-Dutton and Macehiter) is partnering with Freeform Dynamics (itself founded by the two Viles –Dale and Helen) and Influencer50 (an agency trying to help vendors influencing the influencers –a conflict of interest here?).
If you thought this was complicated, James announced here that he’ll be partnering with the two Viles… Menage a trois or swingers club?

ARmadgeddon’s analysis: the re-combination of free-spinning stratospheric analysts creates a confusing picture but when the dust settles it will precipitate into an articulated and complementary competitor for Gartner (IT) as the established competitors choose to remain in their cosy niche -IDC, Forrester (FORR), prepare for IPO -Ovum, or stay confined to their region –Experton (.5 probability).