Use of social media by IT vendors - A cultural marker?

There has been a lot of debate recently about the use of social media by analysts, and IT vendors in their dealings with analysts. Homing in on the latter, I have noticed a whole range of attitudes and activities, from those at one end who encourage genuine two-way communication with influencers, though those in the middle who use social media more in a broadcast manner, to those who, for various reasons, are not really engaging at all.

One of my colleagues, David Tebbutt, has just posted some thoughts on a couple of conversations he has had recently about why some organisations are perhaps not ready for social media from a cultural perspective – particularly those with a more ‘command and control’ management style. Interestingly, one of these organisations is a country (those who know David will be aware that he moves in some very influential circles), while the other is an IT vendor. Before you get too excited, though, both are referred to anonymously.

My own views on the matter are still evolving, and I have to say that we at Freeform Dynamics use blogs, for example, both as a publishing mechanism and as a way of interacting. Conversely, though, we are continuously using more traditional media in an interactive manner to engage with various communities, e.g. through online workshops, polls, surveys, etc hosted on major IT news sites. To my mind, the question is therefore more about how much you want to interact rather than how you do it. In that sense, social media is just another means to an end.

Given this, my guess would be that the IT vendors who are not embracing social media to engage with influencers at the moment are probably the same ones that have a tendency towards a highly controlled broadcast/monologue style of communication with analysts anyway. After all, why invite troublesome feedback through an open exchange now when slick PowerPoint presentations delivered by sharp-suited executives and well-rehearsed Q&As have always worked so well in the past? :-)

Analysts and Journalists - Beyond the Press Quote

Interesting post on SageCircle over here entitled 'Why reporters call the wrong analysts' looking at the practice of journalists embedding analyst quotes into their stories. Definitely worth reading for those in AR trying to get a handle on how such interactions work and how to manage or influence what goes on in this area.

Something not mentioned in the post is that journalists don't only call analysts for quotes.

A good investigative reporter writing a more in-depth considered piece will often poll opinions from a number of analysts while researching a topic and looking for interesting angles. They cannot quote all of these sources, but each one will have had an influence on shaping their thoughts and the piece that is eventually published.

There are then those long chats that myself and others have with the more elite group of journalists/editors who are at least as well informed as most analysts, if not more so. I regard these guys as peers in terms of industry insight and understanding. Exchanges with them are trusted in nature (i.e. they would cease if they were abused), and while we are always careful to protect proprietary information, we freely kick around ideas, toy with hypotheses, and generally compare notes on what’s going on in the industry. Conversations of this type might be tacked onto the end of a request for comment on a specific story (2 minutes on the immediate story, half an hour on stuff in general), they can happen opportunistically when chit-chatting at a Web seminar or some other event, or simply come about through periodic pinging (both directions) as we all maintain our valued relationships within the broader ecosystem.

The point is that as an AR person, if you just relied on monitoring quotes, you would run the risk of overlooking this kind of influence. You would also, incidentally, miss some important interactions between analysts and titles having an editorial policy that doesn't revolve around analyst quotes at all (e.g. The Register and some of the more business oriented press). Many of us interact with these guys as a spin-off from other stuff we might be doing with them (research, events, contribution of editorial, etc).

Anyway, I guess over the years, I have learned that analyst/press interaction is, just like so many other things, a lot about relationships. If were in AR, I would therefore be trying to understand which firms/analysts have a proactive approach to press relations in the broader sense. Monitoring quotes is a good starting point for doing this, but is certainly not the whole story.

Is the IIAR growing some teeth?

I was very encouraged to see the Institute of Industry Analyst Relations (IIAR) start to tackle the controversial issue of ethics.

David Rossiter’s post outlines some examples of dubious practices within the analyst and vendor community and in the comments that follow, the conflict of interest that sometimes exists within AR was highlighted – i.e. on the one hand, AR folk want analysts to be ‘clean’, but on the other, their job is fundamentally about encouraging analysts to position the firms they are representing favourably against the competition. It is all too easy to allow such encouragement to cross that ethical boundary, and I think anyone that’s been in the analyst or AR game for a while can probably come up with examples of where this has happened.

So, if we are going have this debate, then I would like to see it balanced. Ethical questions in this area are not exclusively associated with the interaction between vendors/agencies and analysts, but most of them probably are, and it takes two to tango. The point here is that questionable activity among analysts is typically only commercially worthwhile if it is supported by the vendor dollar.

I have to admit that in practice, I have no idea how many dodgy commercial dealings go on in this space, and there is always the problem that people draw the lines in different places. I am therefore fascinated to see where this discussion goes and who picks it up. Will the IIAR be opening a can of worms by pursuing this then leave a wriggling mess on the floor? Or will it be brave enough to follow through and ultimately drive out a consensus or code of conduct that is actually going to provide some useful guidance? For the record, if anyone in the IIAR is reading this, I would gladly support such an initiative and would welcome the opportunity to contribute during any consultation process.

In the meantime, I am pleased that David highlights in his post the distinction between vendor funding/sponsorship and the question of ethics. The former is only related to the latter if the relationship is undisclosed. This is why I object so strongly to those who are continually inferring this link. Not only are they barking up the wrong tree by targeting firms like ours with an openly declared sponsorship or patronage model, they are also totally out of order.

So, it would be great to see the IIAR hammer out some principles a bit more objectively – and even better if it develops some teeth and challenges firms, both analysts and vendors, regardless of their size, on undesirable behaviour. This needn’t be in public, but it would nice to know that someone was keeping an eye on things.

Analyst abuse

Interesting post over here from Robin Bloor on analyst abuse. He makes some good points, most of which I agree with.

As someone who receives more briefng requests than I can possibly accept, and sometimes feel a bit guilty about having to say "no", it helped me reading Robin's forthright views on how vendors often try to take advantage of analyst goodwill.

Just like Robin, I am a firm believer in an open dialogue during briefings, but there is a line to be drawn, which if crossed, is really not conducive to a mutually productive relationship.