InformationWeek to Put IT Analysts on the Hot Seat

More good news. InformationWeek is going to revisit their coverage of the IT Analyst world and the big companies undue influence in next week's edition. Here a clip from Larry Greenemeier's intro.

"InformationWeek set out to answer the credibility question in a story we'll be publishing in our February 6 issue. We interviewed dozens of IT vendors, end users, and executives at the top analyst firms. The resulting brushstrokes from each conversation helped paint a picture of an analyst industry that's tapped into an almost desperate need that businesses have to stay on top of emerging technology and a community of IT vendors even more desperate to make the sale."

As with pretty much everything else, I have an opinion on the topic. It's increasingly challenging for end users to keep pace with the change and complexity of today's IT environment. It's also true that vendors have an increasingly difficult time differentiating from the countless number of competitors in every interesting market space. So analysts can play a role on both sides, but do they? That is ultimately what InformationWeek and everyone else really wants to know.

I've already ranted about "The Farce of Market Sizing" and why those huge, unrealistic market projections are needed by some vendors, who pay significant money for them. But thus far I've reserved my judgement on the end user side of the business. You know, the business of end user IT advisory dominated by the one that starts with a G.

What you'll find in the big firms is a mixture of everything. You'll have some very smart, very diligent, very good analysts and some not so much. Some will do the work and some won't. Any time you have over 100 analysts (G has over 600), you are going to get some dim bulbs, it's just statistics. For better or worse, based on what their business card says all of them are influential. 

It begs the question about why the end user analysts are important. Basically because end users are looking for either:

1. A Sanity check - The end user has done the work, they know what makes sense for them and basically want an analyst to bless their decision or tell them is something is not kosher.
2. Someone to do their work - As much as it's a fact of life that some analysts are lazy, lots of end users are lazy too. If they can just lift the Leader Quadrant and cut down the number of vendors they need to talk to, what's the harm in that? So some companies use those rankings to specifically define a short list, which is not advisable because every company has different requirements. Additionally, the "methodology" to define leadership in those quadrants and waves are suspect at best.
   
3. Someone to cover their ass - Sometimes the end user does the work, but comes up with a "politically incorrect" answer and may need some air cover to show that it makes sense. Analysts are great in this regard because they can listen for 30 minutes and know that the user did the work, and if there are no obvious flaws in their thinking, the analyst has their back. It's also reasonably powerful to say that a top tier analyst said this was a good direction. Eliminates a lot of the internal bickering that usually accompanies high profile projects.
   

Regardless of what InformationWeek comes up with, and I'm sure there will be a few "deep throats" that say they are scared to say anything bad publicly for fear of retribution, analysts help end users make better decisions. That is, if the end user understands how to use the analyst. I can only hope it's a balanced portrayal, as opposed to a bunch of grumpy vendors who ended up in the loser quadrant. 

As a vendor, you can't really know if the analyst is doing the work until it's too late. There are some "tricks of the trade" that can help you make inroads with the big guys (yes I know what they are, so pop me an email if you want to discuss), but for the most part if you get a weak analyst who happens to not like you (maybe because you made it clear they were weak), you are in for quite a few long days. This will hurt your business, there is no doubt about it.

On the other side of the coin some vendors don't really want to listen to what the analyst has to say. I've experienced this from both sides of the fence. Sometimes, regardless of what you say, the vendor isn't interested in the feedback. They know it all. When I was on the vendor side, I've had battles trying to get the organization to constructively consider the feedback offered by the analyst, who happened to be right. Just because an analyst says bad things about a vendor doesn't mean they are wrong or in the pocket of a competitor. Those are just excuses to discount a message the vendor is not interested in hearing.

Then you have the analysts that really position themselves as "trusted advisors" to the vendors. Basically that means they are paid mouthpieces. InformationWeek gets the gist:

"After all, analysts sometimes write reports that have been funded by technology companies, and they appear in Webcasts and at trade shows for fees."

Unfortunately, some "analysts" pretty much write what the vendors want to hear and what will provide a compelling piece of marketing collateral. Maybe that's unfair because there are exceptions, but not too many. If an analyst gets paid predominately by vendors, then you should discount their perspectives. That doesn't mean you DISCARD what they are saying, but understand that bias is there, whether the analyst admits it to themselves or not.

But, notice I said paid "predominately by vendors" not that a specific assignment is sponsored. As long as the analyst can remain objective and points out both positives and negatives, sponsored "guru consulting" assignments (like white papers and webcasts) can be a win for users because they get access to research they probably can't afford. My caution pertains to those analysts that get a bulk of their revenue from vendors, so they have less ability to tell "big daddy" to pound sand and are more likely to cross the objectivity line. 

I'm looking forward to reading what InformationWeek has to say on Monday. Look for another post on Monday that details their findings.