MQ does matter - even if G doesn't think so

I've been sitting on this post for a couple of weeks, figuring at some point I'll be grumpy enough to do it justice. Well today is that day. I'm kind of tired and had some personal stuff keep me out of the office all day, so now I'm way behind on my deliverables. So, I think I'll blow a bit more time and rant about another one of the things that I absolutely despised when I was a marketing guy - the Magic Quadrant.

What got me going is a series of posts about the impact of the Magic Quadrant on many start-ups and why folks obsess about it. Then Andy Bitterer of G (formerly of META) responds in this post (http://bitblueblog.com/2006/04/show-me-your-quadrant-and-i-show-you.html) and basically calls the vendor community boobs for obsessing about measuring millimeters on the chart.

Andy also wonders how could customer's only be concerned with vendors that are in the leader's quadrant. Here is the direct quote: "If only the vendors from the leaders quadrant would really matter, then we could just as well get rid of the other three quadrants altogether, publish a list of the three "leading" vendors to pick from and be done."

He makes a few other statements that make it very clear to me that Andy has forgotten what it's like to work for a vendor (he was with IBM for 15 years). He's also never worked for a start-up vendor. He's never gotten his teeth kicked in because of a poor showing in a MQ. And he's never been excluded from deals exactly because his company was not listed in the Leader quadrant.

These kind of comments make it clear that he doesn't understand how the MQ is used in practice by both users and vendors. I suspect most of the G analysts out there are in the same boat. They just have no idea.

Having the pleasure of experiencing both "winning" and "losing" a MQ and also not even making the cut, I thought I'd give him (and everyone else) a view on how these things are used in the real world. Not in the nirvana of technology punditry where analysts and customers sing kumbaya and all the vendors get a chance to compete for every deal.

Now, I fundamentally agree with many of his thoughts. It is stupid to measure millimeters between vendors, just as it is stupid for users to consider only vendors in the Leader's Quadrant. But it doesn't matter what is stupid - it's what happens. Many end users are very lazy and it's just easier for them to pick someone that is a "leader."

This uninspired majority doesn't have to answer to the CFO about why they'd pick a "challenger." "Visionary" is a bit easier to swallow, but all things considered - who wants a visionary when you are clearly buying a product to solve a problem you have today? You want the LEADER. And forget buying something from a "niche player." There is no way to spin why you want to buy a product from a loser.

The vendor community also uses these things to add fuel to the fire during the sales cycle. That's why the millimeters make a difference. I was fortunate to enjoy half of my tenure with CipherTrust as the only anti-spam appliance in the Leader's Quadrant. We ALWAYS made it to the short list because we were the only game in town. The customer had to look at two, but it was usually our game to lose. The customer was already predisposed to us winning. We were the leader.

But last year, though CT was still in the Leader's Quadrant, there were other folks there too - and some were even further to the top and/or right. And you bet that our competitors had out their laser rulers to tell any customer that would listen that they were 1 inch further to the right than CT in "completeness of vision." Yes, it's silly - but it really happens. I couldn't make this stuff up.

Let me also address the importance of being the leader on the quadrant and calling yourself the leader in all of your marketing materials. I come from the school that if you have to call yourself the leader, then you aren't. Customers decide who is the leader, if you are a vendor focus your market positioning on what you do for customers. Sure being in the Leader's Quadrant is a validation point, but ultimately you better be able to communicate how you solve the customer's problem.

So what's my point? Basically I wanted to rant a bit because despite G's official positioning that customers should not be making decisions based on what is in a Magic Quadrant - THEY DO. It was very frustrating that the G analysts that I dealt with didn't understand the impact that f****ng document has on many a vendor's sales cycles. They don't realize that the MQ can make or break a vendor - literally.

It doesn't mean you can prosper if you are listed as a "niche" vendor. I assure you that Barracuda couldn't care less where they are on the chart. It just means you won't be selling much to the large enterprise.