• 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 facts point to Gartner not relying on consulting revenues

There was a recent comment to a rather old (August of last year) post. Because it is about something that we hear periodically, we decided to elevate to a full post to bring the comment and our response to everybody attention.

 The comment is from the reader who called himself “Me” and referred to the post Are the vendor-centric analyst firms heading for tough times? Will end-user centric analyst firms do fine?

 “Me, on April 20th, 2009 at 5:33 pm Said:

 From what we’ve seen, vendors are more willing to spend than end-user firms. End-user firms are retrenching, eliminating anyone but Gartner, or even their entire budget while many vendors are seeing the recession as an opportunity to gain on weaker competitors, so they are looking to research firms to help with marketing plans, strategy assessments, and the like.

 End user focused firms are having to become consultants to survive, changing from retainer-based pricing to per-project pricing because end-user companies can’t get budgetary approval for research licenses.”

 This is an interesting opinion, and one many vendor personnel – especially executives – would love to come true because it implies that advisory firms are losing their influence. Frankly this is wishful thinking because the facts do not support this position. Here are data from Gartner’s financial reports. We start with 2004 because Gene Hall was appointed CEO in August 2004 and made a number of important strategic decisions that put more emphasis on syndicated research.

  • 2004
    • research was $480m or 55% of total
    • consulting was $259m or 30% of total
  • 2005
    • research was $523m or 54% of total
    • consulting was $301m or 31% of total
  • 2006
    • research was $571m or 55% of total
    • consulting was $305m or 29% of total
  • 2007
    • research was $683m or 58% of total
    • consulting was $325m or 28% of total
  • 2008
    • research was $773m or 60% of total
    • consulting was $347m or 27% of total

2005 saw consulting’s percentage of total revenue grow to 31% but that was because of the META acquisition. META had a higher mix of Continue reading

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.