Back in 2000/2001, I was heading a team of highly experienced consultants at Nortel Networks that was put together to assist cellular operators in the development of their plans and activities in the brave new world of mobile data services. The interesting thing about this team is that it was deliberately devoid of telco industry specialists. My own background was in business software, having previously worked at firms like SAP, JD Edwards, Oracle and Sybase. The guys working with me ranged from an ex-Sony product manager, with years of experience bringing top titles to market in the electronic games space, to a consumer marketing specialist that had lived and breathed disciplines such as lifestyle based segmentation and aspirational messaging in the drinks and other industries. We also had human factors people in the mix to take care of situational analysis (e.g. based on the ‘day in the life’ approach) and usability.
The reason for assembling such a mixed bag of people was because the telcos we were working with were massively encumbered with their traditional view of the world, and needed help to appreciate that the changes taking place in the broader context meant success in the future was dependent on developing a new perspective, rather than maintaining or even extending the old one.
So what do I mean by this?
Well if you look at the traditional telco industry, the network operators had been used to being the all-powerful head of their supply chains, and even had power over a lot of the demand chain too (e.g. resellers of minutes in the high street). Basically, they called the shots in their world, and it could be argued for good reason – they were expected to deliver dial-tone with a 5 nines level of reliability so understandably wanted to control everything that was required to do that. It is also understandable that with this kind of culture and perspective, the aforementioned cellular operators tried to apply the same thinking and approach when they moved into mobile data services, viewing media companies and ISV’s, for example, as simply another form of supplier to control in the same way they were used to.
What our little team at Nortel was trying to do was get them to think less in terms of supply chains and adopt more of an ecosystem perspective. This was on the basis that the walls between their hitherto discrete telephony pond and the sea of activity in the media and applications sectors were disintegrating, and there were both bigger fish out there who weren’t going to fall in line, and smaller more nimble creatures that would sneak in and steal their lunch before they even noticed their existence.
Of course all this is very obvious today and operators like Vodafone, Orange, T-Mobile, etc have now largely understood the imperative to take an ecosystem view of the world, but it has taken at least 5 years for this mindset transformation to take place, and many in the sector still struggle with it.
So what has all this got to do with analyst relations?
The challenge in the analyst relations community at the moment is that at aggregate level, at least, it is encumbered by a perspective and accompanying mindset that has its roots in history, just like the mobile operators of 5 years ago. Of course the specifics are different, but the general problem is the same. There was previously a discrete pond in which the analyst fish were swimming, with clear boundaries that everyone understood – and if you wanted advice and guidance on IT procurements, you would pay a visit to that pond. Now, however, the boundaries around the analyst pond are being compromised and the broader sea of influence is washing in. As a result of this, the notion that big analyst firms will continue to control the decisions that are made by the IT buying community is even sillier than it has ever been. Electronic media in all its forms, and let’s not forget traditional printed media too, are all part of the mix, and the decoupling of sources from delivery mechanisms, with analysts propagating opinions through the media, via communities of interest, and so on, is undermining those neat little taxonomies that AR professionals have historically gravitated towards to understand how they should be focusing their efforts.
If Freeform Dynamics is publishing research through Computing or The Register, for example, is it more appropriate to compare the influence of Freeform Dynamics with that of Gartner, or compare Gartner with the influence of analyst content delivered via Computing or The Register? I am making no claims here as a lot depends on who the influencee is and where they are in the buying cycle, just trying to point out that you need an ecosystem view of the world to make sense of this, as you cannot compare apples with apples any longer.
With an ecosystem view of the world, you also have to consider relationships within the influencing community itself. Let me take a simple example to illustrate this. If you are major SAP user and you are looking to make an investment that has a touch point with your core business systems, you are very likely to ask SAP’s opinion before making a decision. Now I happen to know that Redmonk has been doing quite a bit of consulting and ecosystem support work with SAP recently, and from direct conversations with people at SAP myself, I know that Redmonk has a lot of influence with that vendor. It is inconceivable that such influence is not going to bleed over into the way SAP interacts with and advises its customers.
There are lots of other examples of the ecosystem at work – e.g. analyst firms such as Freeform, MWD, Quocirca, and so on that work with the press and are routinely helping journalists shape their thoughts. Another example is our own Jon Collins, who is delivering educational presentations and facilitating workshops with the IBM architect community one week, and the Microsoft equivalent the next. And, of course, analysts are constantly moving and interacting within the IT supplier community itself – vendors, resellers, integrators, service providers and the like – and it is naïve to think that conversations taking place within this context do not influence who invites who into their deal when there is a big IT sales opportunity being worked in the field.
My bottom line on this is that there is more to analyst influence than directly sold advice, consulting and research subscriptions. I am not disputing the value or, indeed, necessity of such things, but I am challenging whether this should be the focal point for discussion and assessment of influence as it is only part of the equation. So while I applaud efforts such as the ARmadgeddon piece to unravel what’s going on in the space, the opening paragraph focusing on history and traditional business models underlines the all too common point of reference for many AR professionals.
I’ll get onto the specific question I was asked by ARmadgeddon to address on open source and sponsored research in a future post, but that is just a detail in the broader context I have been discussing here. Meanwhile, while I never thought I would ever be pointing to the telco sector for lessons on how to do stuff, I do think the change to an ecosystem perspective that telcos are going through is similar to the mindset change that needs to take place in the AR community. The transformation has started, and there are some great forward thinking beginning to emerge in AR circles, but there is still a long way to go.
8 comments:
Great analogy Dale and it's great to read your reaction.
We also do BELIEVE in ecosystems and in conversations but most AR managers struggles with JUSTIFYING spending time with analysts that do not directly influence decisions.
The other thing AR professionals face is that the boundary between "bloglysts" and new media is like shifting sands. This is not helped by some bloglysts providing opinion without analysts, facts without context and pieces without vendor-review and quoting individual spokesperson. This equates to removing traditional safety nets.
If and when to the above AR/PR turf wars come into the equation, you'll start to understand the dilemna faced by AR.
Thanks for the comment ARonaut - I understand the AR/PR turf wars - it is always a challenge when the lines blur between domains, no matter which part of the industry you are in.
Interesting to see the criteria/safety net factors you highlight in relation to ‘proper’ analysts. Do you think everyone that carries the label ‘analyst’ conforms? It has been an interesting experience for us bringing David Tebbutt into the Freeform fold as someone who you would previously have fitted into your ‘bloglyst’ category. The level of research and due diligence he performs before writing anything is way more than many (perhaps most) analysts I have worked with in the past.
I have always been of the view that the label ‘analyst’ carries with it both privilege and responsibility - yet it is regrettably quite common for some analysts to position unsubstantiated opinion as fact when writing or providing commentary to the media. I will be discussing the pros and cons of different research methodologies in a later post, but the one thing for certain is that relying on a handful of conversations with vendors and non-representative users that you happen to bump into at events and seminars is definitely not enough to make statements on the state of the market as a whole, yet it doesn’t stop people. This is arguably the area of greatest vulnerability when it comes to the credibility of smaller analyst firms, as standards vary so much, which makes it difficult to know what you can rely on.
Personally, I would take the view of a well informed investigative journalist over a partially informed analyst regurgitating stuff from vendor briefings any day. Journalists like Cath Everett, Ashley Vance, Martin Veitch, and so on, can run rings around most industry analysts in terms of market knowledge and objectivity – it is certainly always a peer to peer conversation for me whenever I talk with these guys.
The whole influencer arena is obviously very complex and dynamic, but I look forward to more interactions with the ARmadgeddon team as the debates continue.
I think there is also a "granularity" issue that's missed. Gartner, as a whole, is clearly very visible but, for example, if as a vendor you're seeking to influence the open source developer community is Gartner (or Forrester, IDC ...) going to be your first point of call: or James, Cote and Steven at Redmonk? Similarly, do we at MWD compete with Gartner for influence around IT-business alignment or a small subset of Gartner analysts which span the traditional analyst stovepipes.
The "influencer granularity" challenge faced by traditional perspectives on AR seems to me to have strong parallels with the challenges faced by PR. In the "good old days" influence could be associated with publications. With the advent of blogs (and let's not go down the irrelevant rat hole of bloggers versus journalists) those audiences are now being influenced from different channels. If you have a new gadget to promote I am guessing that Engadget is likely to be top of your list of "publications" to talk to.
Of course the boundaries are fluid. Its the nature of business today.
"opinion without analysts" - you mean opinion without analysis?
"pieces without vendor review" - if part of your definition of objective and independent is offering vendor review then yes, Houston, we have a problem.
"quoting individual spokesperson" - if the spokesperson is a sufficiently heavy hitter its surely valid to cite them. Makes the analysis more real. In your view was the recent Forrester Interview with Charles Phillips somehow less relevant than a "Forrester Interprets Oracle's M&A strategy".
James, Thanks for correcting the typo, yes, I meant "opinion without analysis".
On citing spokesperson -although not a general rule, it's usually used to grab headlines rather than providing analysis. Lines are blurring here, you're right.
Finally, on vendor FACTUAL review -most AR professionals think it's a base rule.
Re spokespeople, there are two kinds, and it is important to distinguish between them.
Firstly there are the ones that are willing to have a two way conversation and speak openly, objectively in a well informed manner about the broader industry as well as what their company is trying to do within it. These are the ones that we like to cultivate relationships with and that many of us think are worthwhile quoting, as they contribute positively to moving ideas and debates forward. Indeed, I personally think it is out of order to take ideas from these smart people then peddle them in the market and the media without attribution – though some analyst do.
We then have the ‘mouth pieces’ or ‘script readers’. Spokespeople of this type are often a necessary evil for analysts in that we have to listen to what they have to say if they are the only source put forward, but with a limited dialogue, it is not always possible qualify or verify the substance and thinking behind the message. The message itself is typically calculated to achieve a result and, dare I say, manipulate opinion, and any good analyst will see through this and therefore be reluctant to quote directly. Great for generating press headlines, perhaps, but not for imparting genuine insight and understanding.
So, I think James and ARonaut are both right – it is just that James invests time cultivating relationships with the first type of spokesperson, and ARonaut is quite rightly questioning how appropriate it is to quote the second without corroborating intelligence and insight.
Sadly, we still get too many mouth pieces and script readers put in front of us, so I’ll take the opportunity here to send a general message to the AR community to focus on dialogue and relationships. The spin-off, of course, is that with a proper dialogue, the spokesperson is much more likely to gain insights from the analyst in a briefing scenario or exchanges via social media vehicles such as blogs.
When I started working in analyst relations, I was taught over and over again that there was one primary reason for talking to analysts. They influence sales.
The secondary reason to talk to analysts was because they provided useful feedback during briefings.
Both are still great reasons but long ago I decided that you need to take a broader view to fully realise all the benefits an analyst has to offer.
You talk to analysts because they shape thinking - be it of the technology buyer, the journalist, the person doing the briefing, other industry players.
Smart vendors (and agencies) get this.
Companies that just care about getting 'ink on paper' (a phrase used by my AR mentor) are missing out on so many of the benefits that the analysts can bring.
So are those that only care about those analysts that have direct commercial impact.
As AR professionals, it's our job to explain the value of the analysts and help our employers and clients understand all the reasons that analysts are important.
It won't always be easy - but it doesn't mean we shouldn't try (and - if necessary - try and try again).
As creating new strategies in telecommunication it is normal to have the moves that we doubted. Were afraid in the long run it won't work. Situations like this in business it is important to have thorough studies on the strategic way to successfully operated in the long run. I understand the challenges that we take in this project, the more we are challenge the more aggressive we are to do.
Joseph @ Nimble CRM
Post a Comment