Anybody working in a technology market will be familiar with the main analysts, Gartner et al, and the power they are perceived to have in the market. But do technology businesses give them too much "respect"? Is the wish to be placed favourably on their "magic quadrant" limiting the effectiveness of how well these same companies postion themselves and communicate their services to the market?
Over recent weeks I have began to question whether the wish to appear in the "Leaders" quadrant is distracting to many technology marketers - especially, but not only, those that are working for listed companies - and whether it is in fact limiting their ability to market effectively.
Here's the problem. Analysts write reports on various groups of suppliers and rate their offerings and their abilities usually from a technology standpoint. They imagine a future view of the market and assess each supplier in relation to how well positioned they are to succeed in that "imagined" environment. In the absence of any other independent assessment of the market, suppliers read these reports and judge their own performance or strategic positioning based on what the analysts say. So what's wrong with that?
The problem lies in the fact that they are not IT buyers - they live in a hypothetical world, they use a different language and they seem to judge technology innovation as the be all and end all, not giving adequate weighting to service levels and the other softer elements of what makes a good business - branding for example.
The language issue is the thing that struck me. Look at some websites of some technology buyers and you'll see them decribing themselves using analysts' words. Everything is mission critical, they all optimise or maximise some process or another, transformation or integration appears on every other line and if they can get the word collaboration in then they will. The reality is that most IT departments don't use language like this. It may sound clever and current but it doesn't position them in the eyes of their buyers and in relation to their competitors.
In a client meeting last week, whilst reviewing a new positioning, a member of the client team commented - "I love it, but the analysts won't like it". That can't be right. If it's right for the customer and it's right for the brand, then the analysts should see the merits.
I would like to see technology marketers stand up to the analysts. I want them to challenge how they judge suppliers. And I would like them to move from being Analyst centric to being Customer centric. If they all do it them the analysts themselves will have no choice but to follow suit.
To a great extent I agree with you. The IT Market place itself is reasonably cynical about the motivation and value of the analyst community. To some extent they see them as a necessary evil. This, in our experience is forcing the analysts to think more pragmatically.
However the declared "vendor agnostic" stance of the analysts is a useful marketing tool and channel, if used appropriately. Evidently at "buyer level" the analysts get little visibility and frankly I think we can all guess who will be in the top right hand corner of any magic quadrant. However among the higher echelons, where the planners and strategists live, the analysts provide a level of comfort and ratification for any decision or strategy. So for those who are looking for the "no one ever got fired for buying...." kind of reassurance, the analysts play a vital role. The other consideration of course is that at this "C" level, many hold a careerist agenda and are seeking the "next breakthrough" strategy to take the to board. If you can get someone like Gartner to back up your thinking, you're on the right road to fame, fortune and your next high profile position. So what? So like all channels and routes o market, if you know who you're dealing with and who values their opinion, you can make them work for you and your clients.