Comments on Open Reasoning: What does analyst relations have in common with th...

When I started working in analyst relations, I was...

2007-11-21T19:27:00.000Z

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).

Re spokespeople, there are two kinds, and it is im...

2007-11-19T13:03:00.000Z

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.

James, Thanks for correcting the typo, yes, I mean...

2007-11-19T12:21:00.000Z

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.

Of course the boundaries are fluid. Its the nature...

2007-11-19T11:02:00.000Z

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".

I think there is also a "granularity" issue that's...

2007-11-18T09:46:00.000Z

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.

Thanks for the comment ARonaut - I understand the ...

2007-11-17T21:06:00.000Z

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.

Great analogy Dale and it's great to read your rea...

2007-11-17T18:47:00.000Z

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.