• Recent Posts: Influencer Relations

    Fersht: some IIAR award-winners “just tick the boxes”

    Fersht: some IIAR award-winners “just tick the boxes”

    Some of the firms mentioned by the IIAR’s analyst team awards fall short of excellence. That’s the verdict of several hundred analysts who took our Analyst Attitude Survey, and of the CEO of one of the top analyst firms. Phil Fersht left the comment below on our criticism of the IIAR awards. We thought we’d reprint it together with the […]

    Do the IIAR awards simply reward large firms?

    Do the IIAR awards simply reward large firms?

    The 2016 Institute for Industry Analyst Relations’ awards seem to be rewarding firms for the scale of their analyst relations, rather than their quality. In a blog post on July 6th, the IIAR awarded IBM the status of best analyst relations teams, with Cisco, Dell and HP as runners-up. Together with Microsoft, which outsources much of its analyst relations to […]

    Unmaking fruit salad: 6 ways to help analysts segment markets

    Unmaking fruit salad: 6 ways to help analysts segment markets

     It’s a common challenge for providers: some new or fast-changing market contains very different solutions. Clients want either apples or oranges, but the analyst research reads more like fruit salad. As new solutions come into old markets, or as analysts try to squeeze hot new solutions into their less-exciting coverage areas, it’s increasingly hard for users of analyst research to make […]

    Control in Analyst Attitude Surveys

    Control in Analyst Attitude Surveys

    Because a lot of analysts take part in our Analyst Attitude Surveys, we are able to offer clients what we call a control group. In the language of research, a control group is a group of people who don’t get the treatment that we want to measure the effectiveness of. For example, most firms might be focussed on a top tier […]

    Time for a new direction in AR measurement?

    Time for a new direction in AR measurement?

    Worldwide, Analyst Relations teams are committed to fostering the best information exchange, experiences and trusted relationships with tightly-targetted global industry analysts and influencers. Sometimes the targeting is too narrow and analysts are treated inhumanly. However, the technology buying process is transforming and so must the benchmarking of analyst relationships. There’s already a long-term transformation of analyst relations. Over one-third of technology […]

The Top 5: AR Metrics Mistakes

AR Metrics & MeasurementOrganizations that use the Balanced Scorecard to report the effectiveness of their interactions with influencers often make their lives more difficult and the Scorecard less useful by picking the wrong items to measure. This Top 5 looks at issues surrounding the selection of metrics to put into the Balanced Scorecard.

5) Not picking items whose data collection can be out-tasked. Because data collection can be burdensome, managers should pick some items for the Scorecard whose data collection can be out-tasked (e.g., a clipping service for analyst quotes or a consulting firm for AR effectiveness surveys).

4) Picking items to measure that are too granular and thus too difficult to gather. A classic problem is picking metrics that require a significant amount of work to collect, analyze and report. This leads to the Balanced Scorecard being dropped from the regular activity list.

3) Not picking items that dovetail with corporate and departmental goals. A Balanced Scorecard can lose its relevance quickly if the metrics reported do not relate to the goals of the department and the company as a whole. This is not just a problem when initiating a Balanced Scorecard.  It can also impact an ongoing Scorecard that has remained static in measurement even as corporate and departmental goals have changed.

2) Not balancing operational and performance metrics. Only picking operational metrics (e.g., number of mentions in the press or reports) provides a skewed view of the influencer efforts. There needs to be a mix that includes performance (e.g., auditing the spoken word and sales impact) metrics.

…and the number one worst practice is

1) Picking items to measure that you cannot affect. There is the temptation to pick a metric (e.g., stock price) that is important. The problem is that it is very difficult to isolate what contribution AR actually made in impacting this metric.

Clients of SageCircle can get more information and a balanced scorecard template from the Online SageContent Library.

3 Responses

  1. […] trying to develop measurements and integrate them into balanced scorecards? Carter and Dave have some suggestions, but while they certainly picks up on challenging aspects of measurement, I’m not sure if […]

  2. Wow – this really generated a lot of ideas with me. I’ve written them up here: http://www.analystequity.com/?p=1241

  3. Duncan,
    We certainly did not mean that these are the only mistakes that people make regarding metrics and certainly each AR program needs to determine how and what they should measure.
    We believe that if you don’t measure something it cannot be managed. Performance metrics, the most difficult to measure, are the most important. These should be matched to your corporate goals and oriented toward generating revenue.
    Thus, placing a focus on your competitors and on mentions in research are probably not good performance metrics as they miss the more impactful advice from analysts that is provided verbally. Good performance metrics go beyond spoken word audits, but do look to how analysts impact sales deals.

Comments are closed.

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

%d bloggers like this: