Advertisements
  • Recent Posts: Kea SageCircle

    AR Classics: Identifying and Measuring Impact and Influence

    AR Classics: Identifying and Measuring Impact and InfluenceHow can analysts in non-traditional, freemium, analyst firms prove their value, and how should analyst relations professionals respond to their growing impact? Until analysts start to track their impact in the fullest way, they will always be underestimated by suppliers in the high technology and telecommunications industries. Back in 2015, when this was posted, Edelman’s Read more about AR Classics: Identifying and Measuring Impact and Influence[…]

    Investor relations head takes over AR at Tata

    Investor relations head takes over AR at TataThe IIAR is discussing a big surprise: one of the big 3 IT services brands just put its analyst relations (AR) under the control of its head of investor relations (IR). It would be unimaginable in most firms, and perhaps Tata Consultancy Services (TCS) is one of the few firms that can do that well. Tata Sons’ Read more about Investor relations head takes over AR at Tata[…]

    Peter O’Neill joins Kea Company as Research Director

    Peter O’Neill joins Kea Company as Research DirectorLONDON. February 1st 2018 — Longtime industry analyst Peter O’Neill has been appointed Research Director by Kea Company, the world’s largest analyst relations (AR) consultancy. O’Neill was previous research director at Forrester Research, leading the firm’s services for analyst relations professionals as well as research for B2B Marketing professionals.   At Kea Company, O’Neill will Read more about Peter O’Neill joins Kea Company as Research Director[…]

    AR Classics: Barbara French on how to grab an Influential Analyst’s Attention

    AR Classics: Barbara French on how to grab an Influential Analyst’s AttentionBarbara French’s Grab an Influential Analyst’s Attention: 3 Secrets & 4 Tips helps companies to avoid some of the most common errors in analyst relations. We especially appreciated these points in the article. Marketers can use analysts and analyst research to add credibility to their businesses without ever having the analyst specifically endorse their company. Read more about AR Classics: Barbara French on how to grab an Influential Analyst’s Attention[…]

    What research users can learn from analysts’ use of competitors’ analysis

    What research users can learn from analysts’ use of competitors’ analysisFor the first time, Kea Company is making reports from our Leaders Service generally available. The first discusses what research users can learn from analysts’ use of competitors’ analysis Although our Analyst Value Survey reports and Firm Awards exclude many analysts’ responses, this supplementary analysis suggests that many analysts are regular uses of research produced by Read more about What research users can learn from analysts’ use of competitors’ analysis[…]

ZL Technologies files amended complaint against Gartner

This information was provided originally as a comment to an existing blog post. It is being promoted to a full blog post to ensure that the news receives proper attention.

ZLTI v Gartner in logos

Tip o’ the hat to Rob Elliott of ZL Technologies for this update…

On December 4, 2009, ZL Technologies filed an amended complaint against Gartner, Inc. in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California. The Court granted ZL the opportunity to clarify and augment our earlier allegations of defamation and trade libel.

In the first round of ZL’s legal dispute with Gartner, Gartner argued to the Court that its rankings and other statements in the proprietary “Magic Quadrant Reports” are merely opinions that are not based upon fact, and that they are understood as such by the readers of those reports. However, Gartner’s past statements in marketing materials, white papers, blogs and even the Magic Quadrant Reports themselves, assert that their research and analysts’ opinions are based on a body of facts compiled through what is asserted to be a rigorous process.

The amended complaint clarifies ZL’s contentions about the inaccuracy of Gartner’s reports, the inherent conflict of interest arising out of Gartner’s voluminous business with the vendors it reviews, and its subsequent bias towards large and established vendors. The amended complaint also adds new detail about Gartner’s repeated claims that its research is based on objective fact—a position exactly opposite to the stance forwarded by Gartner in court.

While this case is focused on ZL’s dispute with Gartner over the erroneous statements in Gartner’s publications, the issues here also implicate Gartner’s larger business model. Gartner plainly admits that it attempts to leverage value from its largest clients, many of whom are also vendors covered in the company’s research. ZL’s legal filings describe how that business model causes Gartner to favor those large companies at the expense of identifying the best technologies, thus misleading not just the vendors who are inaccurately reviewed by Gartner, but the consumers who base their IT purchasing decisions on Gartner’s biased research.

ZL is seeking injunctive relief as well as compensatory and punitive damages from Gartner.

The amended complaint can be found here: http://www.zlti.com/courtdocs/docs/First_Amended_Complaint.pdf

Advertisements
%d bloggers like this: