Should you sue your influencers?

Via AnalystAnalyst I see that tech vendor ZL is suing Gartner. Interesting tactic. My first thought was that this strategy is unlikely to encourage Gartner to write nice things (or anything) about ZL in the future. They’ll probably just ignore them. Which is probably worse than being in the bottom left corner of the MQ.

ZL might have invested more time and money in analyst relations than in lawyers fees, but I’ll watch the outcome with interest. For example, might this action lead to Gartner requiring vendors to sign a ‘promise-not-to-sue’ agreement (must be a legal term for this…)? Might Gartner refuse to cover the more litigious vendors? Or, if ZL wins its case, will it make analysts’ analysis bland and generic?

Magical Magic Quadrant

For those of you who are skeptical about Gartner’s Magic Quadrants, I stumbled across this spoof MQ while researching for a client:

Thanks to Matt whose blog I read, and to Nate, the originator.

You gotta laugh…

Smoke & mirrors from adland

“Pre-Click Ad Influence” – creativity clearly isn’t dead!

http://www.clickz.com/showPage.html?page=3624442

Thanks to Gartner’s media blog for highlighting this tosh.

How analysts can increase their influence

It turns out that I’m becoming known for my “analyst bashing” blog posts and other writings. It’s not a reputation I’ve sought. But I’ve made no secret that I think analyst influence is generally overstated, and that’s with eleven years of inside knowledge at Ovum and IDC. I’ve seen analysts with huge influence and those with very little. The real issue is, how do you tell them apart?  

As Richard Holway told me:

Any fool can be an analyst
But very few get to be influencers.

Bill Hopkins’s AR text Influencing the Influencers maps out very clearly why a few analyst firms carry the majority of influence within the analyst community – I commend you to read it. As Bill states in the book, “Some influencers are more vital to you than others.” Though it’s completely obvious if you think about it, many vendors (and AR agencies) don’t think about it, and propagate blanket importance of analysts. PR agencies do the same with journalists.

I think a primary challenge for all analyst firms is to make their analysts more influential. The first question to be asked, as always, is who do they influence? A better way of understanding the relevance of this question is to ask another: who do vendors want to be influenced by analysts? Usually, vendors are trying to influence decision makers, so that they buy products and services. It’s logical, therefore, to want to know which analysts have influence over those decision makers, that can sway a decision in one direction on another. These are what Hopkins calls Deal Makers and Breakers.

Clearly, then, the more analysts are influencing decision makers the more influential they are to vendors. And while it’s risky to categorise all analysts within one firm together, a firm’s business model will point to the likelihood of influence on decision makers. So Gartner, with its end-user research focus and consulting business, is likely to be more influential than, say, IDC, which has a predominantly supply-side viewpoint.

Additionally, the closer an analyst gets to the decision maker, the more influence they will have on that decision. In my experience, this deep level of influence is delivered only through client engagements and consulting. So analysts that directly advise decision makers carry the greatest influence.

There is also an issue of when influence is being applied. Analyst research papers are used by end-users as guidance and pointers, sometimes in the development of shortlists. This occurs early in the decision making process. Consulting, again in my experience, happens later in the process where evaluations and recommendations are being made. At this point the stakes are high, and individual analysts much be sure in their understanding of both the needs of their client and the capabilities of the vendors they are judging.

I think that this is where many analysts, and analyst firms, cop out. They are unwilling, or unable, to help a specific end-user client make a final decision. They may claim that doing so would conflict with their vendor independence. Nonsense. Recommending a specific product to a specific end-user organisation does not conflict with independence, as long the same analyst is just as likely to recommend a different product to another client with different needs.

So I think analyst firms should tell their analysts to get out more. Talk to, engage with, and start influencing end-user decision makers. It’s the only route to real influence.

Review of H+K’s Influencing Technology Decision Makers research

There’s a really interesting video and white paper produced by Hill and Knowlton, the PR/AR firm. The title is Influencing Technology Decision Makers (sounds relevant!) and the work is based on a research project carried out on behalf of H+K.

On the whole it is a really thought-provoking piece of research. The interesting bits, for me, are (in italics, with my comments):

• Previous experience is the primary driver for decision making. I agree, and where a decision maker doesn’t have this experience they have to borrow it from another source – influencers.
• Decision makers are cynical towards sales collateral and marketing messages. Yep.
• There is increasing influence of blogs, even in the C-suite. I disagree – we’ve completed a round of research for a client which shows that, except in France, blogs have little influence at the C-level. Blogs do tend to influence more technical audiences, and where blogs are part of the cultural make-up of the market under investigation (i.e. predominately online markets).
• Gartner and Forrester are the leading analysts, and there is not much between them. Gartner has greater influence on the IT managers, while Forrester is more widely read in the boardroom. Interesting. This indicates that Forrester has caught up with Gartner, and has more credibility with senior decision makers. We certainly see these two far and away the biggest influential analysts.
• Events are not that influential. I think this referred to analyst events, but I find it’s true in general. Gartner Symposium is the only analyst event that occurs in our research on a regular basis.
• The Financial Times is the most influential non-IT publication. The Wall Street Journal leads in the US but trails the FT in other countries. In the UK, the Sunday Times, Telegraph and The Economist ran highest. No real surprises here, except perhaps for the poor showing of the Journal outside the US.
• Print media is more widely read than online media. I agree, though the boundaries are often being blurred. As far as I know, the study didn’t track whether a respondent that read the FT did so in print or online format.
• Analysts are important throughout the decision making process. Absolutely. In the book we’ve mapped various influencer types to the decision making process, and analysts play more roles than any other type. It’s important to understand, though, that although analyst firms play various roles, it’s not the same analysts that play all roles.
• Use the media and analysts to influence decision makers, not to please your CEO on tour. Hoorah! If vendors take a decision maker focus, rather than creating noise to satisfy their own internal ends, then they might not annoy their customers and prospects so much. It is refreshing to hear this from a PR/AR firm.

The big criticism: where are the other influencers? This study only looks at the media, analysts and blogs. What about consultants, resellers, peers, user groups, academics, procurement experts, gurus and thought leaders, or the vendors themselves? I’d love to see the research run next year with this broader remit.

(A few words on the methodology. The research involved 420 interviews, across the UK, US Canada and China, and were conducted using a mix of online, face-to-face and telephone interviews. Interviews were also split by C-Suite and IT managers, and by large enterprises and SMEs. The sample looks a bit thin, when spread across all of these splits. But good food for thought.)

Analyst influence diminishing further…?

A couple of months back we published a White Paper entitled Analyst Influence is Diminishing. What was remarkable about the paper’s reception was its wide acknowledgement as fact, apart from one or two AR blogs. Most marketing directors and AR people we spoke to were pleased to have their views confirmed, but weren’t hugely surprised by our promouncement. So much for being controversial.

One of the points we made was the dissipating influence of analysts, due to erosion of credibility. ARmadgeddon is running a poll on analyst “unpredictions” and has already recorded some examples where Gartner gets it wrong, mainly around its magic quadrant.

Our view is not that analysts are losing their influence. It is that analysts are having to share influence with other influencer types, that may be less obvious but just as important. Analysts have got predictions wrong for ever – at Ovum we used examples of poor predictions in our forecasting courses (politeness forbids naming offenders, except that one of them is me!).

Still, we enjoy with schadenfreude the current cycle of criticism…