Posted on April 6, 2009 by sagecircle
Recently Gartner Research VP French Caldwell (bio, blog, Twitter) grumbled a little bit in Twitter about poor AR practices by vendors he covers in the Magic Quadrant for Enterprise Governance, Risk and Compliance Platforms.
This little tid-bit illustrates that analysts expect vendors to proactively reach out to them (for more background see SageCircle’s Hierarchy of Analyst Needs). If a vendor does not actively brief the analyst, then in the analyst’s mind the vendor gets what they deserve, whether a poor rating in research or even dropped all together from a research report. This research downgrade could have a direct impact on lead generation and sales as technology buyers (aka end users, typically IT managers for Gartner) often ignore vendors not ranked well in Magic Quadrants or other research. This is especially true when a competitor’s sales representative brings the vendor’s downgrade to the attention of a prospect.
Another point this incident illustrates is that analysts are using social media to discuss their research agenda and make their displeasure about vendor performance known. Vendors that are not monitoring analyst commentary in tweets or blog posts could be missing important data points.
- AR programs need to use a mix of interactions throughout the year to maintain top-of-mind presence with the analysts and ensure they are up-to-date on the vendor’s capabilities and differentiation
- AR programs should have an active plan for influencing all recurring signature research such as Gartner Magic Quadrants or Forrester Waves
- AR programs need to monitor analyst commentary in social media. This will not necessarily require significant work as the volume of analyst blogs and tweets is still relatively small for any particular market
Bottom Line: While vendor executives like to complain that the analysts need to “do their jobs” by proactively reaching out to request updates, the reality is that vendors need to be the ones doing the outreach.
Question: AR programs – If you are on a Magic Quadrant or Forrester Wave, why do you not periodically brief the analyst?
Filed under: AR best practices | Tagged: analyst relations, AR, French Caldwell, Gartner, Magic Quadrant, Twitter | 17 Comments »
Posted on October 20, 2008 by sagecircle
There have been some updates to the various directories that SageCircle maintains for the analyst ecosystem.
- Keep SageCircle up-to-date on changes to any of the directories
Filed under: Analyst industry | Tagged: analyst relations, AR, AR contractors, Gartner Blog Network, Twitter | Comments Off
Posted on September 26, 2008 by sagecircle
Nice gesture by Forrester’s Merv Adrian (bio, Twitter handle, no blog) to give a shout out to the Oracle AR team.
There is also a serious message here for all AR teams planning an analyst event — don’t try and cut off the analysts from the Internet. While you might want them to Continue reading
Filed under: AR best practices | Tagged: analyst relations, AR, Forrester, Merv Adrian, Oracle, Oracle AR, Twitter | 7 Comments »
Posted on September 8, 2008 by sagecircle
After promoting the Dealing with Problem Analysts webinar (September 17th at 8:30 am PT and 4 pm PT) on Twitter, I got the following tweet from Martin Atherton (profile, Twitter handle) of Freeform Dynamics:
The tweet was good for a chuckle, but it got me thinking. Martin has great points, but what he brought up were just AR best practices* not true problems. However, it sparked a thought that vendors could “manufacture” a problem analyst. Here are some “worst practices” that AR should consider avoiding:
- Complaining about perceived bias without offering measureable proof
- Demanding changes to draft or published research without Continue reading
Filed under: AR best practices, AR management | Tagged: analyst relations, AR, dealing with problem analysts, Online SageContent Library, problem analyst, seminar, Twitter, webinar | 7 Comments »