Comments now fixed

The comments are now fixed -Blogger seemed to have played with the template.

Enjoy!

Beware of Forrester's advice for AR professionals

We've always been somewhat puzzled by Forrester's AR role service, aimed advising AR professionals on, well how to influence work with analysts. Even though conflicts of interests can be managed (after all, it's something analyst firms have long practiced) we still wonder if the advice given by an analyst firm isn't going to be biaised?

We don't know how many enquiries they're taking but they certainly have published more in this domain than on other key topics (hardware or EMEA local research comes to mind for instance). Some of it is OK, other bits could easily feature in an AR for dummies guide but we thought it all fell in the "mostly harmless" category.... until we came across this piece:
AR Should Use The Main Web Site To Convey Information To Analysts by Maribel D. Lopez, Merv Adrian - Forrester Research

In a nutshell, Forrester found out that 60% analysts don't use AR portals. Rather than suggesting to fix'em (there are only very few vendors that actually have a real portal), they suggest to stick everything in the public domain. Dom suggested Forrester to follow their own advice and de-password their own site. (note: Forrester is the only firm that leverages the web 2.0 community aspects and allows comments on the research within their web site).

Ahem... not sure removing analysts the advantage of having priviledged information will be popular with them? Anyhow, this is not where the issue lies. There are very few vendors who actually have a portal, with password sign-on, personalised, updated and relevant content. It usually rather is another repository for press releases and out-of-date material.

When properly maintained, AR Portals can be a very efficient manner to communicate to a wide audience without informing your competitors of upcoming NDA briefings. If the information is relevant, it can also help the analyst to quickly find past briefings material and disseminate large files without cluttering their inbox.
Forrester found it that 30% of analysts do use AR portals. Rather than seeing an half empty glass here, we think it can reduce the inbound traffic and increases the AR team's productivity. Forrester does not see this potential though...

There's another bit of ill informed advice: Forrester advises AR professionals to "add keywords that your competitors would use, such as their branded terms". Mmmm, not sure how to get this one past Legal?

Other interesting fact: they surveyed other analysts than Forrester -they quote Middlewarespectra, Alternative Technologies, Illuminata, Frost & Sulliva).... We'd love to see Forrester trying to survey Gartner :-)

ARmadgeddon's take: for most vendors, the briefing requests and queries from analysts exceed the AR teams bandwidth. Of course, in person briefings is what analysts prefer, no need for a survey there. The only trouble is that you can't please everyone. Some prioritise according to Tiers (see passionate disscussions here , there and there), others use more one-to-many tactics such as mixing analysts together in AR Summits or with press or with financial analysts. Proceed with caution with those are those latter two are known drawbacks and risks:

• reduced interactions quality
  
• difficulty to respond to analysts need for detailed information
• IT analysts ranting in front of press or financial analysts may result in negative coverage/advice as they not necessarily have the technical depth to appreciate the argument

The use of 1:many communication vehicules such as Summits, AR Portals, flashes and newsletters, if resourced adequately, is an effective manner to increase the productivity of AR teams and analysts satisfaction.

Hopkins: Gartner will continue to dictate terms to Gartner

This extract from a recent article by Bill Hopkins is a powerful summary of the way most AR professionals are feeling about Gartner's attempts to sell 'over the heads' of AR professionals, and to drive up pricing without corresponding increases in value. It deserves a wider audience -- and a response from Gartner.

==============================

Gartner has a number of potential customers at any technology products or services vendor
and, with a few exceptions, we think they have done a good job of building products that
will appeal to these different roles. Besides a specific product aimed towards Analyst
Relations professionals, there are products for product management/marketing,
market/competitive intelligence, a consumption based model for professional services and
even vendor sales people. From a breadth perspective, this is good and represents the
major roles we see in the tech vendor community today.
The problem with this is that the way most vendors buy analyst firm services, everybody but
AR are users, AR are both users and buyers. Like it or not, right now most of the economic
power for buying analyst products and services lies with AR, not in these other groups. It is
fine to build products for them, but you have to understand what your clients want to buy
and how they want to buy it.

Understand what your clients want to buy

Gartner claims to have done extensive product testing and research within their vendor
client base. It appears as if this is true when it comes to the more market research oriented
functions (Gartner for Product Management/Marketing, Gartner for CI/MI, Gartner for
Professional Services and Gartner for Sales.
From what we can tell (and despite some communication from Gartner to the contrary)
there appears to have been little or no research done with AR professionals as to what they
want to buy. We have talked to our vendor AR clients and friends, large and small, from
across all the major industries that Gartner covers and can find no one that was consulted
on what they wanted to buy. Whether this happened through ignorance, omission or
arrogance, it still has the same effect - alienation of the buyer - the Vendor AR professional.
Gartner needs to stop avoiding the fact that vendor AR staff is paid specifically to try and
get you to say good (or at least not-bad) things about them. Period. That is their primary
job. From a product perspective, they don't necessarily want to buy more research from
you, they don't usually want to buy more advice about how to do their jobs and they don't
want to buy days and days of your analysts' time (not unless doing so adds value to their
efforts to get your analysts to understand them better).
What they want to buy are things that help them achieve their goals - identifying the right
analysts to talk to, spending time with those analysts, engaging them to help in their
marketing efforts (reprints, speaking engagements, Webinars, etc.) and some kind of
feedback mechanism to help them understand what the analysts are thinking and saying
about them.

Understand how your clients buy things

It seems to us that in the genesis of these new products Gartner is trying to get closer to -
and build products for - the other functions in a vendor organization (Product
Marketing/Management, Sales, CI, etc.) but would like to minimize the role and power of AR
in the buying of these products and go directly to each role. We see this as natural and
eventually it may become the way vendors buy things from Gartner. However, we think that
this is too much, too soon. Right now, we estimate that as many as 70% of all vendors
centralize analyst purchasing through AR. Trying to marginalize the role that AR has in
managing and optimizing the value that a vendor gets from their relationships with analysts,
let alone the research buying process, is futile and can permanently damage these
relationships. Maybe someday things will change, but not anytime soon.
Gartner needs to treat their vendor AR clients as allies, not enemies. If they want to sell
stuff costing hundreds of thousands of dollars to the rest of the organization they must
respect the wishes of the AR group too. Not only can they not dictate business terms to
them in the contracting process, they cannot dictate engagement terms to them in the
engagement process. To me, this sounds like a simple economic argument. Until Gartner
learns to engage AR in selling to the rest of the organization, they won't realize anywhere
near the potential for success from these new products in the marketplace
Because of their influence over technology buyers, technology vendors treat the
relationships that they have with analysts as carefully managed corporate assets. This
extends to not just how they engage, but to how they buy as well. For most vendors this
has meant giving the responsibility for managing this asset, in its totality and regardless of
which department or role is actually using it, to the AR Group. Gartner must understand that
if a vendor AR person tells them they need to go through them, then they must respect their
wishes and figure out how to do so. A huge majority of vendor clients are going to centralize
their buying through AR and will get ANGRY AND ACT NEGATIVELY when anybody tries to go
around or over them.

Communicate effectively about these new products internally and externally

Here is where things get a little rough. In our opinion, this is the single biggest issue facing
Gartner, and their new products. We hear it time and again. New products are launched,
new policies put in place and the sales reps or analysts have never heard of them, don't
understand the policies around them or choose not to follow them. Back in the day, when
there were not really any vendor products to worry about, this was comical and maybe even
ironic. Today, when Gartner is asking you for hundreds of thousands of dollars in
incremental spend on new products it is downright dangerous.
This is particularly the case with Gartner's vendor sales force. For years we have seen them
use a variety of tactics to instill fear in the vendor client base. It doesn't take a sales rep or
manager very long to figure out that there is a great deal of fear that they can wield in the
buying process. Not just fear of the analysts saying something bad about them, but an even
deeper fear that somehow, if they don't buy enough stuff, or play the game the way their
rep wants them to, they'll be cut off from access to the analysts. I saw it 12 years ago when
I was an analyst and we still see it now. We believe that for Gartner's vendor products to
ultimately be successful, this has to stop. They need to start selling on value, not fear.
Gartner's sales reps need to understand their products, the value propositions and policies
that go with them and the options that the vendors have in buying them. Then they need to
develop consistency in what they are telling the vendor community… No more telling AR
people that they MUST buy Gartner for AR product. No more inventing derivative products
and policies on the fly. No more telling their clients what they are going to buy and how
much they are going to pay for them, no more refusing to replace sales reps at the
CUSTOMER'S request and no more telling vendors they can't buy just what they bought last
year. With some restrictions, they can.
Though this is the biggest issue, it is also the one I am least optimistic about seeing being
fixed. This one is different. It is inculcated in the company culture and is not likely to be
fixed very easily. For over 25 years, Gartner has honed a corporate sales culture (and to be
honest, an analysts culture too) that directly or indirectly endorses an anti-vendor bias.
I do believe these problems can be fixed, but in order to fix this problem, Gartner
management must be prepared to make some serious adjustments to the what and how of
the vendor sales process. If they don't they run the risk of launching a whole new business
line that fails to reach its potential due to an inability or lack of desire to fix problems that
should have been addressed years ago.

The Bottom Line

Our guidance is to be cautious when considering Gartner's new offerings. They are complex,
Gartner's sales and marketing organization isn't doing a good job of explaining them and for
most vendors they are incrementally very expensive. We are seeing good progress in the
conception and bundling of the GBL roles offerings and there is value in these new products,
but there are still nagging issues with execution. Make sure that there is a very clearly
demonstrated value proposition, which furthers your reaching your AR goals, before you
buy. Also, it goes without saying, don't ever buy half-baked or incomplete products. Wait
until such a time that Gartner can articulate exactly what they do, show them to you,
explain how they work, demonstrate real business value, and offer you references. Then is
the time to buy.
In the end, remember that most all of the basic products (with the exception of library
seats) still exist and you can still buy them a-la-carte (at least for now). Sometimes, buying
just a simple core research seat, with inquiry, is just what you need to do your job.
For the time being, we also recommend (and have always recommended) to our vendor
clients that AR be involved in all research purchases and that AR remains the single point of
entry into the organization for analyst firm sales reps. However, this cuts both ways. If you
want to be involved in this process, take the time to learn what these new products do and
how they might bring value to your organization. Don't ever tie the act of helping a Gartner
rep. sell in to your organization to getting favorable coverage or changing an analyst's
position (which HAS happened). Not only is this dumb and usually backfires, it ruins it for
everybody else.
Finally, and most importantly, we recommend that all of our vendor clients let Gartner know
just exactly what they think of their new products, policies, etc. This is especially important
when you are being told one thing by the product side and another thing by sales. Without a
strong, united, universal feedback mechanism from vendors, especially AR professionals, it
is our belief that Gartner will continue to dictate the terms.

Which blog do you read?

In their quest to help AR Professionals in their role, Forrester recently launched an ambitious primary research project to understand better our community. So their clients got an email asking what they read at large (excluding obvious choices such as OK!, Radio Times, Maxim, etc...)

On the blog page they had...

The following is a list of blogs that may be of interest to someone in your professional role. Please indicate if you have visited this blog, if you visit it often or, if you're not familiar with it.

• Analyst Insight by David Rossiter (UK)
• Analyst Equity by Duncan Chapple (UK)
• ARcade by Hill & Knowlton (US)
• AR Insider newsletter by Knowledge Capital Group (US)
• ARmadgeddon (US)
• Outsell Now (US)
• Tekrati.com The Industry Analyst Reporter (and companion blog) (US)
• Delusions of Adequacy by John Simonds (US)
• Infuse by Duncan Brown (UK)
• Other (Please specify)

It seems like we ought to drop the S and Zee'ify some words from now!

Sorry Catherine and Jonny, you'll make it next next time -maybe?

A night with Efrem will cost you an arm and a leg

If Barbara French ever needs a new job, I would be first in line to recommend her as a book reviewer. With a biting wit she has launched into Efram Mallach's new book.

Barbara's chief concern has nothing to do with the content - she has his last book and doesn't doubt that this version will be even better than the original. Her problem, and mine as well, has to do with the price tag.

What price are you prepared to pay for a good bit of insight?

I've got a few McKinzie books ($20) and a few AR books ($15) on my desk. Good value I thought. But what incredible stretch of logic made Efrem's publishers think that $500 showed value for money.

$500.

Unless this book comes with its own diamond I am at a loss to figure out how it can be worth so much money.

Barbara though does bring some keen insight and has mooted a few reasons why it has been priced like this:

First, the $500 list price is a typo that has been promulgated across the online bookseller sites. Lighthouse AR should sue the Internet and refund any easy marks who actually paid $500 for this book.

Second, the $500 price includes a teleconference or other interactive learning experience with Dr. Mallach. Lighthouse AR should clone Dr. Mallach or at least outsource to a really good impersonator.

Third, the $500 price includes a private sunset cruise around the Boston Harbor with Efrem and a couple of the Celtics. The Summer League games are over, so this is a pleasant possibility. Lighthouse AR should not try to rock the boat.

Thanks Barbara - your blog was a great read.

Now if only I can save $500, maybe I will buy the book - or there again perhaps I will put the money to a summer holiday. What do you think is a better use of money?

Who's sloppy? AR or analysts?

Having saddled his warhorse and belted on his sharpest words, James went on to replying to our post on whether AR managers should fill in briefing forms. Incidentally, he dropped hints on what information analysts expect from a briefing in his reply:

• Researching Is Their Job, Not Yours: On Analyst Relations [Monkchips]

Thanks for the reminder James, it's always useful.

It is indeed the AR professional's role to make sure the content is tailored to analyst needs and to help shaping it. Some, typically those working for smaller ones, put the content together and brief the analysts themselves. Those employed by larger corporations often don't have the time to do this or cover too many product lines / business areas to do this. In any cases a good briefing is tailored to the analyst's research agenda.

We can't agree more with James that this should result in a two way street. As a side note, it tends to be more to the credit of independent / boutique analysts such as Redmonk, MWD, Freeform and others to always bring great insight into the conversations.

On the other side, what we can't stand is sloppy analysts who don't even bother checking our corporate websites and send you long and redundant questionnaires to fill in. To those, we'll re-iterate that AR Managers are not your personal secretary. Nor do we expect to do the work and still have to buy the end product! Admittedly they're not real analysts, rather market research companies and we're sure that Redmonk would never do this! Dom and Duncan's abounded in the same direction -read their comments on the original post from David. Names? Frost & Sullivan, ARC, PAC, Butler... Any other nominations for the briefing questionnaires hall of shame?

The final word must go to Ian Skerrett for his comment on James' post. The idea of an email address for briefing requests is so 1990's though. What Redmonk should consider is a briefing requests blog :-)

The big fish that ate the fish that ate the fish that...

Not bad for a Friday: according to Reuters, Informa succeeded in taking control of the Datamonibores (themselves having recently acquired Ovum and a little less recently Butler):

Informa wins control of Datamonitor [Yahoo! Finance]

There's been quite a few conversations in the AR world:

• Informa buys Datamonitor (and Ovum, Butler) [Technobabble 2.0], check the comments of a Datamonibore and Duncan about Datamonitor being valued higher than Forresterzzzzz
• Thoughts on Informa and Datamonitor [Analyst Insight]: again, great comments about the value of combining marketing and events with IT analysis (we like when David puts his thinking hat on :-)

Jonny summarised everything here:

• Analysis - Informa buys Datamonitor

Other relevant posts for the sake of completeness:

• Will Informa compete with Gartner, or IDC? [ARmadgeddon]
• Informa Group to acquire Datamonitor plc [Tekrati]
• Informa to buy Datamonitor [ARcade]
• Informa purchase values Datamonitor as worth more than Forrester [Analyst equity]
• Bigger is not always better [Positioning power]
• Informa + Datamonitor [Freeform comment]

Check also this old post on Aberdeen, there would be a lot to be said on the similarities:

• Aberdeen is finally recategorised [ARmadgeddon]

Should AR managers fill in briefing forms?

David rants about analysts sending long briefing requests forms here:

• There's something annoying about analyst firms that... [Analyst Insight]

Those requests fall in two categories:

1. Some firms like the Borg ask you to do their admin and fill in a form. AR managers need to push back on the principle they're not Gartner's secretaries. Also, the whole Gartner briefing process is painful enough already...

2. Other firms submit a questionaire as a first pass at information gathering. Butler sends so up to 30 pages, Datamonitor, Frost & Sullivan, ARC also do it. AR Managers should push them back to their corporation's web site and let the analyst do their homework. After all, researching is their job, not yours.

Captors and hostages?

There's a great discussion here about whether ARmadgeddon is pro-Gartner. Which is quite surprising given some of our comments on the Gene's strategy to deliberately extract more money from IT vendors for less value (read this or that). For instance, we specifically warned vendors and AR mangers against some potential perverse aspects of the role-based research which seeems to us just a repackaging.

However, it is nevertheless true than most AR managers put Borg analysts in their Tier I list -sometimes more because of their appartenance to the Firm than their true value. Tier II and III analysts (and bloggers) such as Vinnie or James argue that they deliver more value and should receive their fair share of attention.

Should research be priced according to freshness?

Anyone having wandered in a supermarket will have noticed a suspect crowd frantically scarmonging for a bargain in their "almost passed the sell by date" corner.

This allows supermarkets to clear out inventory before it starts smelling really bad.

The value of research also diminishes with its freshness, so why not price it the same way?

Gartner seem to already function this way:

Old and irrelevant predictions cost $95,
http://www.gartner.com/DisplayDocument?ref=g_search&id=300882
http://www.gartner.com/DisplayDocument?ref=g_search&id=299534

New and irrelevant ones are priced $195.
http://www.gartner.com/DisplayDocument?ref=g_search&id=500929

Hype is dearer though, at $495!
http://www.gartner.com/DisplayDocument?id=496001

The telco Egghead is on the line for you

Ovum just promoted ex. IDC, Yankee (and Logica) Chris Lews to head up their Telco team:
Ovum appoints Chris Lewis as SVP of Telecoms Research

ARmadgeddon's take: as the telco market has returned to a healthy growth, this looks like a sign of renewed focus for Ovum on this market, after the RHK acquisition two years ago. It remain to be seen however how this will play in the Datamonibores galaxy.

Spam - Eggheads for sale

It's not every day one receives funny spam messages... Not sure whether this is a coded message announcing a mass exodus for the Ovumites?

----- Forwarded Message ----
From: "vanessem11@peoplepc.com" <vanessem11@peoplepc.com>
Sent: Wednesday, June 27, 2007 3:53:33 AM
Subject: want to sell my ovums


i am either trying to sell or donate my ovum to my mother who needs them or needs the money for the process.. if you could help me please let me know... if not sorry for this message..


Vanessa

AR 101 Series: It pays to play with PR

Sally in Getting Ink (via ARcade) reminds AR pros that we can help our PR colleagues by providing them with analyst names to educate those journos: Things you might like to know (3).

How does it work in practice then?

1. Crawl before you walk
Firstly, this assumes that you have done your homework and know what research area your analysts cover. More importantly, you should know what they have published and have a good idea of what their opinion is on your company and the topic. AR should always be one step ahead of PR and some key analysts should be pre-briefed under NDA.

2. Which analyst?
Ideally a mix of Tier 1's and independent analysts should be pre-briefed. Tier 1's because they advise customers and therefore should a aware of your company's roadmap and strategy. Selected independent analysts should be briefed before, because they are an excellent sounding board and a great manner to get your spokesperson perfectly rehearsed before she/he talks to the Borg. Plus, independent analysts crave for air time and will make themselves available for journos more so than a Tier 1 about to catch a flight to Frankfurt, Boston or San Francisco.
Make sure you don't use always the same ones and that the analysts you put forwards are credible (i.e. they must have some knowledge and opinions, so that rules our Frost & Sullivan, Datamonitor, some IDC folks, etc...)

3. Which deliverables?
There are a few ways to help your PR colleague, depending on your bandwidth (of if you fancy him/her). All should be free (except villains), some require permission.

• Provide names of analysts willing to comment. Easy but make sure you call the analyst and that he/she is available for comments.
• Provide a quote for the press pack. Brief the analyst and ask for a quote by email (best to avoid mis-representation). Doctoring the quote is a no-no but you did not even think about doing this.
• Provide a quote into the press release. This requires authorisation: figure out what the analyst FIRM position is, ask for the quote, submit the release with the quote for approval (IDC, Gartner, AMR, Forrester have a formal process, it's also good practice with the others). Make sure you run the release with legal (your PR colleagues should take care of this). For IDC, you need to work out which market number will support your claim and quote the source. In the footnotes, direct the journos to the analyst firm's press office.

4. Create the news

You can also commission a survey or a report to a firm and create a complete press release around it. This requires months, not days, but can generate significant coverage. Make sure you know who's paying upfront...

4. Beware

Don't be eaten alive by the PR vampires: they have a tendency to suck your time and make you work in reactive mode only.

Related posts:

• Is PR a dwarf planet?
• Pay to play, the PR way
• Selling the value of AR
• Note to PR agencies: stop spamming analysts! (and just everyone else)
• AR 101: Analysts and press quotes
• Frost demands cash for press release
• Talking heads
• Gartner's Copyright and Quote Policy: it's just stupid
• AR 101 series: Analyst vs. press (Analyst Insight)

What's that over the hill, is it a blogger?

Hardly a surprise but Jonny has it official now: Redmonk are kings of the analyst bloggers.

The larger firms are quite low down the list, with the Borg coming at the 41st place but Jupiter and Forrester are quite well represented. It looks like the blogs are the de facto platform for open source research. Is it the birth of a new kind of influence?

Why doesn't everyone do open source?

Jonny is wondering why not all firms are switching an open source model:
In praise of open source analysis [Technobabble]

The answer is simple: it takes more time to make money (check this IDC report). Which is an issue if you have to bear costs associated with producing the research -like interviewing customers or channel partners, paying spreasheet jockeys junior analysts, not to forget a decent (or indecent for some Borg Prima Donnas), etc...
Open source on the other hand is both sustainable and convenient if you're an independent analyst doing business mostly with IT vendors: Redmonk, MWD, FreeformDynamics and others seem to be doing well after all...

See our comments on Jonny's post.

AR Classics: Priming the Analysts With Targeted Messages

This article by Bill Hopkins appeared in the Software Marketing Journal in 1998, just after he had joined KCG from Smart Technologies, a developer of Web-based applications. Before Smart, Hopkins launched and served as research director for the Gartner Group's marketing knowledge and technology service.

In you walk, a software vendor with a hot new product, four days into a two-week, five-city product launch press and analyst tour. In your battered Targus bag resides the collateral you have sweated over for the last six months, with the new company mantra, ink still drying, plastered across the front. You have a color notebook with The Demo carefully loaded and primed. Despite the fact that you have the hopes, dreams, and aspirations of an entire company on your shoulders, you are relaxed and confident. This presentation will be a breeze because you know it will strike a chord with the analyst you
are meeting, and more likely than not, that person will be receptive to your new product.
Magic? Not really; it's just a matter of doing your homework.

Using analyst input on product development and launches is one of the most powerful
tools marketers have at their disposal. Business software is unique in the high-tech
marketplace in the number, power, and influence of industry analysts. They know the
market at large and what the competition is doing. They set the direction of the existing
market and mandate the creation of new ones. And, because potential customers and the
press look to analysts for validation of new products, analysts can make or break a
launch.

The hard part is figuring out how to build a relationship with them. Most analyst firms
exist to inform potential purchasers of technology about its strengths and weaknesses, not
to help vendors with their marketing efforts. Even if a nonclient vendor can get in the
door, the analyst has no obligation to provide information or answer a single question.
Still, by approaching the right analysts in the right manner, with proper positioning and
meticulous preparation, marketers can get the input they need to ensure a well-received
product launch.

Finding a Sympathetic Ear
The first step is targeting the analysts that are most likely to be interested in your new
company or offering. The larger the analyst firm, the more likely it will have multiple
analysts covering the same broad markets. In particular, integrated or cross-functional
products are far more likely to span across multiple analysts, and in some cases, multiple
services, than those that fit neatly in a particular niche. Most enterprise applications, by
definition, have their own processes, structure, and rules that are unlikely to align with
most analyst firms' product categories. To find the right analyst or firm, focus on whether
their research and presentations are relevant to your message and positioning and, at least
for starters, go after the ones that will take less evangelizing and education to support
what you're doing. And if your company isn't new, find out which analysts have covered
it in the past and what they've had to say.

In most cases, the time to start this process is before or during the product development
stage. While many software companies wait until launch time or just before, it's
impossible to build a successful product without knowing what constitutes success for
that product category. Most analysts have published their criteria for a successful product
in the market areas they cover. If they have not, ask them; they will usually be forthright
in giving their assessment of what constitutes a winning product. Some product managers
use analysts as almost an extension of their staff, involving them from day one on
virtually all aspects of their product's development.

While many marketers position their products as new or part of a new category, use
caution in taking this approach. Unless you have truly happened upon a miracle, the new
product or category is probably a niche, offshoot, or branch of an existing one. Make sure
that the initial contacts and briefings position the product or category by highlighting
where it is similar and complementary to ones that already exist. Better yet, couch the
new ideas or products within the context of the analysts' current research. Analysts can
help build critical mass for a new category, not only by adopting it as their own, but by
allowing it to exist within the framework of a market they have already defined. A new
category is successful only when the rest of the marketplace--including analysts, the
press, competitors, partners, and user organizations--has adopted it.

Develop a value proposition that is tailored to each analyst you plan to see. Despite the
time and resources it involves, it's perfectly conceivable to have a separate and distinct
value proposition and presentation that fits the issues of every analyst you have targeted.
The worst thing a marketer can do is deliver the exact same presentation to each analyst.
The chances of coming up with a "least common denominator" story that will make sense
to each analyst are practically zero.

The Pitch
Determining how much time and effort to expend on getting analyst feedback before the
launch depends on how unique the product is and whether it satisfies a new target market.
If it is a completely new product or in a new category, analyst input should be a top
priority.

If the launch is for an upgrade or version release, such feedback is somewhat less
important. Any analyst presentations should focus on the additions and changes that are
truly newsworthy and not just enhancements for current users, unless the modifications
address an issue that the analyst community considers a huge problem and wants to see
fixed. If the release doesn't contain such significant modifications, it may be best to
instead dedicate resources to educating the installed base at launch time.

That said, don't wait until the launch to conduct analyst briefings. One or two months
prior to launch is time to revisit the analysts who were involved in the development
process. First, this is an opportunity to present the fruits of the company's labor and gain
valuable insights on how well its marketing is working. Most analysts will be more than
happy to give constructive criticism not only of the product, but also of the marketer's
presentation and delivery. Second, if you have an established relationship with an analyst,
or if he or she has covered you in the past, the analyst may actually feel blindsided if not
given a prelaunch preview.

The prelaunch presentation should be as short and succinct as possible. The best ones
contain fewer than 10 slides and very little hype. Don't spend more than two minutes or
two slides of a presentation on the marketplace. Even if you think your market is new or
you are defining it, resist the urge to make it the focus of your presentation. Most analysts
probably know the particulars better than you do.

Orient the presentation toward clearly stating the business case for the product first, then
explaining the technology that makes it possible. Stick with a brief overview of the
company that includes size; number of employees by function; and financial stats such as
revenue, profits, and future plans. Follow with an explanation of the value proposition
and provide a brief product and architecture overview. Wrap it up with compelling case
studies and always include beta customer references.

The goal is to engage the analysts and entice them to ask questions about the company
and product. Be aware that vendors are seldom allowed to get past the third or fourth
page of their presentations before an analyst has them off on a tangent. Don't stray too
far. Most analysts will respect marketers who politely answer their divergent questions
and then hurry back to the main point. And don't blatantly disagree without conceding
their point first. A simple "That's true, but..." works far better than "No, that's not the
way we see it."

Going Public
At the time of the launch, when most vendors conduct the traditional briefing tour, be
sure to include all of the analysts involved in the prelaunch phase as well as any others
that cover the product area. Now is the perfect time to invite analysts you've worked with
to include other analysts from their firm that they think may be interested. For a general
briefing, the more analysts present, the better.

Unlike the prelaunch presentation, general briefings should be standardized and fixed. In
this phase of the launch, consistency is paramount: each analyst being briefed should be
getting the same message. Always include as many stories as possible from customers
and beta users. Most analysts will question the validity of a product launch if the vendor
doesn't or can't talk about somebody who is actually using the product.

Be prepared to give a short, concise demonstration that highlights and showcases new
features and competitive advantages of the product with a compelling business metaphor.

But do not bring it out of the bag unless invited. Most analysts--and members of the
press, for that matter--really have no interest in seeing a product demo, especially if the
vendor has done a good job outlining why their clients or readers would care about it.

Follow-up is probably the most overlooked part of the briefing process. Most marketers
get too busy in the months following a launch to check whether the message stuck. But
after spending countless hours and thousands of dollars in preparing analysts and the
press for a launch--anywhere from $10,000 for a very small one to $100,000 for a
category launch--it makes sense to follow up on a regular basis. Postlaunch contact
provides an opportunity to reinforce main points, present additional success stories and
case studies, and share the results of the launch, quantitatively if possible. A successful
follow-up program should ideally lead right into the next product cycle. Always
remember, what you are sustaining is a long-term relationship, not just a product
launch.

Sidebar: Paying the Piper: Why, When, and Which Firm to Retain

Sooner or later, the question arises. Should we retain one or more of the analyst firms,
and if so, which one? Vendors come up with all kinds of reasons to become or not
become a customer of one of the analyst firms. Most of their fears boil down to one
simple misconception: "If I don't become a customer, there is no chance they will write
about us."

Plenty of vendors who do not purchase subscriptions get more than adequate coverage
by the analysts. Conversely, purchasing a subscription is no guarantee of exposure.
Becoming a customer opens up more opportunity to engage the analyst and gain
exposure, but I have personally felt the sting of spending $20,000 to retain one of these
firms and then sitting by for the entire year, waiting for the research to flow.

The top tier of analyst firms-- AMR, Forrester Research, the Gartner Group, and the
Meta Group--generally write about topics based on inquiry volume on the subject,
market importance, exposure to the topic, and gut feel. Note that with the exception of
inquiry volume, these criteria are qualitative, not quantitative.

A subscription to one of the top-tier analyst firms has two practical benefits. The first is
timely, regular, and accurate research on the market and competitors. The second is the
license to engage analysts in two-way communication. Not only do they have to listen to
what clients have to say, but clients have the contractual right to ask them questions as
well. The number and scope of the questions is usually regulated by contract, but almost
all have some form of inquiry built in. For nonclient vendors, analysts are only obligated
to sit and listen--provided that those vendors pass their tests for topic relevance. Analysts
are under no obligation to pass along information or spend much time answering
questions.

When choosing a firm to work with, remember that though their influence may arguably
be similar, their methodologies and modus operandi vary greatly. When initiating full
coverage of a new vendor, the Gartner Group, for example, will typically produce two
notes of two pages each. The first is a company note detailing the overall organization;
business model; sales, service and support capabilities; and prognosis on future growth,
strengths, and weaknesses. The second is a product note that outlines the physical
makeup of the product, its architecture and how it works, strengths and weaknesses, and
recommendations about what types of organizations (if any) should consider purchasing
it.

Other firms such as Forrester or Meta usually speak about specific organizations within
the context of a broader market piece or "technology watch." Depending on the nature of
your product and what you are trying to accomplish, one method may be more in line
with your goals than another.

The bottom line on retaining an analyst firm: Retain it for its research, for establishing a
dialogue, and for ensuring a more successful product launch by having better intelligence
on the market and competitors--not because you think it will influence their mentioning
or writing about your company or products.

Sampling issues

When peddling their wares to analysts, vendors are often opposed an apparently unbeatable argument: the number of inquiries from users. We have seen Borg analysts using it in different ways, one being the small number of customer calls equates a slow of market acceptance.

There is apparently no come back -it's the A-bomb: Gartner is right because it has insight from its end-user client base.

However, this is somewhat simplistic and AR professionals should challenge analysts to explore the following avenues:

• Customers can be calling for a number of reasons but more often than not when they have an issue. No problems, no calls. This means RAS analysts don't tend to hear from satisfied customers and may thus develop a tendency to paint a picture darker than reality.
• The issues customers are calling about may be different than the analyst's assumptions, for instance they may be confused rather than not buying at all.
• Finally Gartner's users customer base may be very different from a given vendor -they are less represented in SME's and Southern Europe for instance.

The Borg recedes in Oz and turns into high-tech sausage factory

Duncan indicates here that Gartner is shutting down its consulting division in Asia Pacific.

This is after all little surprise, given the lack of focus (and understanding) shown by the Borg has shown for consulting (see links below). Consulting is lower margins and less repeatable than RAS (Research and Advisory Services) which can be produced once and sold many times. However, consulting was the fastest growing P&L item at META Group... Gartner's recent strategy is all about milking customers by increasing repeat business (hence the focus on customer satisfaction to drive up renewals) and creating "silo products" to sell the same research to users having different roles within a same corporate client. Call that milking or turning analysts into sausage factory workers.

What is odd is this quote found in one of the articles linked by good old Dunc:
"A Gartner Australia spokesperson said the closure of the consulting division was based on the company's lack of resources in a market littered by hundreds of competitors, including; Accenture, and IBM Global Services." (from Axe falls on Gartner's consulting division, Computerworld)

It is curious indeed to see what business they think they are in.


Links:

• Sweepstake opens: when will Gartner Consulting go?
• Gartner rediscovers price benchmarking
• Does size implies relevance?
• Gartner ≠ Consulting ?
• Gartner as a consulting business?
• Revealed: why Gartner took over META!!!

Will Informa compete with Gartner, or IDC?

The AR grapevine is red hot today. As ARcade explains in this post, Informa has bought Datamonitor for $1 billion. Dominic says the new firm will be larger than Forrester, but smaller than Gartner and IDC.

If, like me, you're not familiar with Informa, that's probably because its an English firm that's big in telecoms and media. It seems to be a research and events business with little - if any - advisory, consulting and community services. It's like the IDC business model, but on Yankee Group's beat.

Giving the timing of the deal, most of the comment on the purchase has been made in the UK, by technobabble, Analyst Equity and the Financial Times.

We're getting a lot of email in from readers to give us their take -- please join the crowd and tell us what you think. At first glance, it's not clear to our readers that the deal is mainly, or even partly, driven by the need to challenge Gartner. Datamonitor and Informa are both broader than technology, and Informa will mainly be interested in ways it can get some quick wins by extending into non-tech market segments.

Brought together, the tech and telecoms businesses now inside the Informa group look more like a competitor to IDC than to any other firm.

Let us know what you think. As always, email comments will be kept confidential.

Tony Friscia moves into analyst relations?

Jigsaw, the online business directory, now lists AMR Research founder Tony Friscia as working at Knowledge Capital Group.

He's busy. Yesterday Tony was elected onto the override study committee for the Brookline school system, which educates his girls. We think he could so the same job for KCG, but would he be comfortable west of the Hudson?