The fine line between influence and coercion<\/strong><\/span><\/p>\nHaving worked for some of the traditional research firms myself in my earlier career, I can recall the pressure to shower the top\u00a0paying\u00a0clients with praise and frequent\u00a0coverage… “Phil – you need to write more about xxxx as the renewal is coming up soon” was the frequent request from sales.\u00a0I rarely complied, unless there was actually something worth writing about.<\/p>\n
However, it is the unwritten rule that several leading vendors have, for years, paid handsomely for analyst firm access, where the analysts are lavished with ego-stroking, first class airfares and marketing hype to write lots of nice things about them. \u00a0If anyone wants to challenge this fact, be my guest.\u00a0Ask any vendor marketeers, analyst relations professionals etc, over a discreet bottle of wine, and some will proudly regale stories of how skilled they are at “influencing” certain analysts. \u00a0Many stake their\u00a0reputations and careers on getting their firms praised in puffy reports and placed in favorable corners of scatterplot charts.<\/p>\n
However, what is completely unacceptable (if true), is Mark’s claim that some vendors have actually purchased the right to change<\/em> what an analyst has written about them:<\/p>\n\nMany of we newer analyst firms refuse to play into this game of contractual review of research as it crosses the line beyond which we stop being independent and objective research and advisory services firms.<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n
While we haven’t been approached directly at HfS to enter into such a contractual arrangement, I have been convinced that this is going on at a widespread level. \u00a0Moreover, I am also hearing about industry analysts being given payments in vendor stock and other sweeteners.<\/p>\n
Industry analysts are completely unregulated, so beware what you read<\/span><\/strong><\/span><\/p>\nIt’s come up in several discussions that today’s industry analysts should be regulated, such as equity analysts are, whose analysis can directly impact stock prices.<\/p>\n
I am not sure how enforceable this is (or whether it would do any good), but there is little doubt that the traditional analyst business is at an all time low when it comes to credibility. \u00a0Moreover, in today’s social world, there is a proliferation \u00a0of boutiques and\u00a0individual\u00a0“influencers” who are able to get their research and insight to market quickly and easily. \u00a0How can you\u00a0gauge\u00a0whether their work is credible or not?<\/p>\n
Three simple steps you can follow to assess the reliability of research, if you are impacted by the analyst’s research<\/strong><\/span><\/p>\n1) Request to talk to the analyst about her\/his research.<\/strong> \u00a0Most analysts worth their salt are happy to talk with someone who actually bothered to read their spiel. \u00a0Get them on the line and ask them to elaborate further on why they said what they said… hearing it from the horses mouth will help cement their credibility. \u00a0If you paid for the report, it’s your right to at least get a phone call with the author. \u00a0If the firm \/ \u00a0individual from where you bought it will not talk to you about the findings directly, demand a refund and find another analyst somewhere else to talk to you.<\/p>\n2) Ask the analyst how many buyers they talk to on a regular basis, how experienced they are in the subject matter, their methodology behind the findings.<\/strong> \u00a0Do not accept pages of canned bullsh*t to explain how their firm does research either – demand your simple questions to be matched with simple answers.<\/p>\n3) Ask the analyst to disclose whether they\/their firm take money from the vendor they covered.<\/strong> \u00a0A pregnant pause will speak volumes. \u00a0There’s nothing wrong if they do, but they should\u00a0disclose\u00a0it without hesitation. \u00a0Ask them about their business model and what is their revenue split between buyers and vendors. \u00a0All analyst firms in tech and services take money from both – and many actually make 100% of revenue purely from vendors.<\/p>\nAll-in-all, the research world is the wild west –\u00a0you<\/em>\u00a0believe what you want to believe –\u00a0you<\/em>\u00a0decide if the research is credible. \u00a0You may live and die by their insight, so\u00a0you<\/em>\u00a0need to be smart and form your own judgement whether said analyst really\u00a0knows<\/em>\u00a0what she\/he is writing about.<\/strong><\/span><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"Mark Smith is CEO, Ventana Research, and doesn't hold back… Ventana Research CEO, Mark Smith,\u00a0convincingly blogs that some major vendors…<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":3,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[53,78,88],"tags":[533],"organization":[],"ppma_author":[19],"class_list":["post-1325","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-confusing-outsourcing-information","category-hfsresearch-com-homepage","category-outsourcing-heros","tag-mark-smith"],"yoast_head":"\n
Shock, horror! Some vendors have bought the right to ''edit'' analysts' research... - Horses for Sources | No Boundaries<\/title>\n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n\t \n\t \n\t \n