For those of us who wear an AR hat on a regular basis, a very interesting piece appeared in InformationWeek that digests the credibility of industry analyst research. It attempts to shed some new light on the old question of pay-for-play and real independent research.
A few interesting excerpts:
“Research firms and their tech-vendor clients are less than forthcoming about the nature and extent of their relationships. Some IT researchers don’t disclose how much of their business comes from tech vendors or which tech vendors are clients. In turn, tech vendors avoid straight answers about how much they spend on IT research. Microsoft, for one, declined to be interviewed for this story.”
“Predicting tech trends is notoriously difficult, and no research firm is perfect in its advice. But their motives must be beyond reproach. Gartner VP Larry Perlstein tackled the pay-for-play question on the company’s blog. “Aside from the occasional comment on a blog or backroom chatter, we have not had any vendors complain to the office of the ombudsman directly since the office opened in September 2004,” Perlstein wrote. “So my message is, if anyone believes that they know of a legitimate issue, please step forward regardless of your client status.”
There is no “mea culpa” but good to know that research firms are being challenged…
By the way, ever wondered what your options are as a vendor with Gartner’s Magic Quadrant research? Gartner gives you the answer on the Ombudsman blog. Basically, Gartner says: “vendors can’t opt out of a magic quadrant or pay to get in.” Brings a new meaning to “stealth.”
— John Welton