The analyst influence matrix?

There is a pretty good summing up of the ‘rebels versus dinosaurs’ debate over on ARmadgeddon here. As part of this, the point was made that AR people should maybe think about the influence of analyst firms in specific markets or domains, and prioritise the way they focus their efforts based on this matched against business priorities, rather than on the basis of more broad brush tiering.

What this boils down to is more of a matrix view of the world when classifying analysts, though it wasn’t exactly described in that way. Anyway, it got me thinking about what such a matrix might look like.

I have in my mind a table with columns across the top representing the relevant audiences you are trying to reach (e.g. based on markets, territories, constituencies, technology domains, etc), then a series of rows that could be labelled something like:

1. Direct sales influence
2. Sell side community influence
3. Buy side community influence
4. Internal community influence
5. Media influence

Category 1 represents the players that directly impact the sales cycle (based in the traditional view of influence). These guys deliver consulting and/or material that help people choose between vendors or solutions in the lead up to an investment decision. This area is well understood so I won’t dwell on it.

Categories 2 and 3 are the guys that influence the shaping of thoughts and the nature of the ‘buzz’ within various communities. Get enough of these saying that something is a good idea, and you drive the market forward in that direction – particularly important, for example, if meeting the sales number is based on getting an emerging idea or concept accepted by a particular community. Also important for managing sentiment and perception within a community (the ‘buzz’ factor) – get enough saying your company (or client) is trailing and you undermine sales; get them talking you up and you end up on more long lists and the sales cycle becomes easier because minds have been set in your favour.

The difference between 2 and 3 is that the first influences the channel, partners, competitors, etc, and the second influences buying communities – CIOs, Architects, Developers, Banks, Telcos – however you want to define it (this is where defining the columns in a way that is relevant to your business comes in).

Category 4 is one that I have heard discussed subjectively through feedback such as “We like putting analysts from this firm in front of our execs because they are not afraid to tell us what they think, and what they think is often challenging, stimulating and helpful”. Put simply, the analysts within this category are the ones that you brief as much because you know their feedback will help to shape what you do as anything else.

The last category is self-explanatory.

How you implement the matrix is a level of detail that depends on what you are doing. You could complete one for each firm, giving them a ranking in each cell on the grid to understand where and how they matter to you. You could alternatively list the ones that are key within each cell to provide an overview for targeting and prioritisation of who you brief on what or attempt to build long term relationships with.

Anyway, I am sure I have missed something obvious, so perhaps one of the AR professionals out there could develop it further – unless you have one you prepared earlier :-)