• Recent Posts: Influencer Relations

    Netscout continues unwise Gartner suit

    Netscout continues unwise Gartner suit

    Netscout and Gartner have scheduled their trial for next July. The case stands little chance of improving Netscout’s value. It does, however, risk harming the reputation of both analyst firms and analyst relations professionals. Over the last weeks, pressure has mounted on Netscout’s lawyers. Netscout claims Gartner’s Magic Quadrant harmed its enterprise sales and that the truth of Gartner’s statements […]

    Is this how the Quadrant lost its Magic?

    Is this how the Quadrant lost its Magic?

    Gartner’s Magic Quadrant is the most influential non-financial business research document. In the late 1980s, it was a quick and dirty stalking horse to provoke discussions. Today it is an extensive and yet highly limited process, based on the quantification of opinions which are highly qualitative. The early evolution of the MQ tells us a lot about the challenge of industry […]

    Saying farewell to David Bradshaw

    Saying farewell to David Bradshaw

    A funeral and celebration for David Bradshaw (shown left in this 2000 Ovum awayday photo, arm raised, with me and other colleagues) is to take place at West Norwood Crematorium, London SE27 at 2.45pm on Tuesday 23rd August and after at the Amba Hotel above London’s Charing Cross Station, on the Strand. David considered that that Ovum in that incarnation was […]

    David Bradshaw 1953-2016

    David Bradshaw 1953-2016

    David Bradshaw, one of the colleagues I worked with during my time as an analyst at Ovum, died on August 11. He led Cloud research in Europe for IDC, whose statement is below. David played a unique role at Ovum, bridging its telecoms and IT groups in the late 1990s by looking at computer-telecoms integration areas like CRM, which I […]

    AR managers are failing with consulting firms

    AR managers are failing with consulting firms

    Reflecting the paradoxical position of many clients, Kea’s Analyst Attitude Survey also goes to a wide range of consultants who play similar roles to analysts and are often employed by analyst firms. The responses to the current survey show that consultants are generally much less happy with their relationships with AR teams than analysts are. The paradox is that as […]

Best practice for responding to analyst draft research

This best practice comes from guest contributor Gerry Van Zandt (Twitter handle), AR manager with HP Services.

Often (as you know) analysts will provide drafts of research notes or event-reaction pieces to vendors to review for inaccuracies.  You have a limited opportunity to provide a response or comment and need a process for action. Here are tips on how best to respond to draft research:

  • Be prompt — Help the analyst(s) by meeting the often very tight deadline they are providing for feedback. Respect the analyst’s business and don’t try to buy more time or delay by asking for an extension.
  • Check facts — Analysts will always want to ensure all facts and figures are correct, and will generally take vendor input and corrections here (for example, for revenue or employee data) unless they have additional, reliable sources. If the facts are totally correct be sure to tell them and thank them for their accuracy.
  • Be reasonable — Provide reasonable commentary and adjustments to analyst statements that you or your firm may not agree with. Don’t expect analysts to change their statements wholesale based on your comments or proposed corrections. If you take strong issue with an analyst’s statement or viewpoint, back up your response with facts and/or customers who can help reinforce your comments.
  • Set and manage internal expectations — If you get notice via a draft research note (Gartner Magic Quadrant, Forrester Wave, Navigator, SWOT, etc.) that your organization may not be rated as highly as you (or your executives) feel it should, you should prepare them as soon as possible and seek to mitigate potential negative impact among customer base or prospects. This does not mean issuing a press release or other public statement, but rather preparing talking points or other credible information that can be disseminated internally and to your field team to help prepare them. Do this as soon as possible and BEFORE the research becomes publicly available. If the research is appropriately positive you should prepare talking points and/or a silver bullet document for sales.
  • Manage executive response appropriately — If executives take strong issue with published research, discourage them from calling the analyst on the phone and venting. Rather, set up an inquiry through your account-team channels, and sit down with your executive(s) to rationally prepare a response. Seek to provide alternative viewpoints or provide additional references from customers that can reinforce your position. Conduct the meeting as a conversation and do not point fingers or reactive negatively. Use the discussion as a vector to improving the relationship, and find out from the analyst what he/she feels your firm needs to be doing better.
  • Close the loop — Distill the research and provide analyst feedback back into the executive ranks of the company, where it can do the most good in terms of decision-making.

Update: Here is what two Twittering analysts commented about when it came to AR responding to draft research. Not good.

Do you have AR, analyst or research consumer best practices that you would like to share with the community? If so, send them to info [at] sagecircle dot com. We are looking forward to hearing from you.

Bottom Line:  Being asked to review draft analyst research is a golden opportunity to strengthen relationship and develop credibility as a go-to resource for acting as a sounding board for new ideas, not just ensuring the facts are right. AR managers should give every draft research review request a high priority and provide valuable, non-self serving comments.

Question: AR managers – Do you give responding to analyst draft research a high priority? Do you approach the task in an ad hoc manner or do you have a set process you follow?

4 Responses

  1. A few others:

    Don’t Rewrite – We just *love* it when “X doesn’t work well for Y” comes back to us as “X is a strong choice for Y, with outstanding functionality and market-leading capabilities that are unmatched by any competitor.”

    Factual Foundation – We’re submitting for accuracy, so if you think we got something wrong, better have some facts, proof points, data, evidence or *something* to back your points up, not just “we didn’t think the tone was right” or “here’s how our marketing department would like to see this written.”

    Btw, for Illuminata, prompt = 2 business days.

  2. Excellent post. I find most vendors to be prompt and realistic, but there’s always some that try to transform the analysis into PR content.

  3. Hi Jonathan and Jonathan, Thanks for the comments.

    Great point about having some facts to back up any suggested changes.

  4. […] the Forrester…Gerry Van Zandt on Who is attending the Forrester…sagecircle on Best practice for responding t…Jonathan Block on Best practice for responding t…Jonathan Eunice on Best practice for […]

Comments are closed.

%d bloggers like this: