I’m a fan of analyst firms that market their data through interactive tools. Examples include interactive calculators and animated trending charts embedded into websites. These kinds of web apps can make research data relevant and easy to understand.

Plus, adding an interactive research tool to a web page is about as close to “sticky” and “viral” marketing as most industry analysts can get, short of donning a chicken suit.

Interactive technologies are already finding their way into the research products. You’ve seen them as weighted vendor short listing tables and other decision support tools. By comparison, adding simple interactive web apps to websites and blogs is easy. So, why isn’t everybody all over this as a marketing tactic?

Analysts I’ve spoken with generally share the same 3 challenges:
1. What to aim for (concept)
2. How to build it (design, program, test)
3. Finding time for #1 and #2

A quick way to start tackling the first challenge — concept — is to spend a few minutes reading UIE expert Jared Spool’s post, “Playgrounds for Data: Inspiration from NYTimes.com”. Spool highlights what he likes best about the New York Times’ recent use of web apps. An excerpt:

… represented as a table, this data would have hundreds of rows and dozens of columns. It wouldn’t be interesting and it would be hard to discern interesting patterns.

Yet, as an interactive map, it becomes a different story … Using color, shape, location, and a clever fly-over display, the team has taken a ton of variables and presented them in a more useful format.

It seems likely that interactive web apps also deliver benefits beyond the data presentation itself. What about attracting more inbound links, reader comments, and reader ratings? Improving visitor conversion rates? Or, giving RSS readers a compelling reason to click through to the mothership.

I was on hand Tuesday evening when the Churchill Club served up drinks, dinner, and a panel on “trends in trust and influence” among business leaders. The panel, much like the apricot chicken on skewer, was interesting because of its notable contrasts, sitting side by side:

Richard Edelman (Edelman) spoke about the dramatic shifts in public trust revealed by the 9th annual study, “Edelman Trust Barometer 2008.” He touched on several findings. To paraphrase a few: We trust social peers (”people like me”) the most, followed by NGOs and businesses. People have far less trust in their governments than a year ago, except in Asia. The most trusted media channels are the ones used the most: newspapers, television news, and business magazines. A digital divide exists in trust, tied to differences in emerging and mature industrial economies. He also shared his personal views about how these trends in trust affect advertising, the news business, corporate spokespeople and corporate reputation.

Dr. Robert Cialdini (ASU, Influence At Work) emphasized that trust is a participative sport. Do something about it. Learn how trust works, when it works, how to build it through listening and language. His research indicates that trust is based on a personal history of repeated contact. (This reinforces Edelman’s findings on the most trusted media sources being the most frequently used). Yet, in many situations, we have only moments to establish initial credibility. Learn to master the opportunities.

Chris Kelly (Facebook) and Katie Hafner, (New York Times) each mined their employer’s high profile experiences in breaking faith with loyal audiences for kernels of truth about trust. Both were candid enough to acknowledge that the way forward at their company entails as much trial-and-error as grand design. Mistakes will be made. Both agreed that a rapid, genuine response from the top helps speed the repair work. Hafner was put off by some of Edelman’s advertising and Cialdini’s influence tactics, on the grounds of manipulating trust. She was politely rebuffed, either unable or unwilling to deliver a knock-out punch.

Anastasia Goodstein (Ypulse) spoke to the nature of trust among online youth. Her research finds them less cynical, less fearful, more open, more creative, and more experimental than any other generation online today. They trust popular online environments. For example, they don’t question whether social networking sites, gaming sites, branded content sites, etc. are protecting their personal privacy and the content they post — unless they’ve been burned. She pointed out the need for companies to acknowledge this unique window of trust and act responsibly.

I came away with several conclusions.
1. Each generation judges online reputation differently. What is horrific to one generation may be anecdotal to another.
2. While the specifics about who we trust are constantly evolving, the underlying mechanics of why we trust are fairly constant.
3. Stock and industry analyst reports still have very strong credibility overall as information sources. By contrast, blogs — and most new communications channels — still have very weak credibility overall, except in certain countries.
4. “But” can be a powerful word.

You can order a CD or video of the event from the Churchill Club. Also, check out the Edelman web site, for a free podcast of Richard Edelman and Laurence Evans discussing the report, Edelman Trust Barometer 2008.

Analystivist: Someone who seeks to effect reputational change through an industry analyst report.

Inspired by Kristen O, posting at Ypulse, “Apptivist: Someone who seeks to effect social change through a Facebook app or widget” (attributed to Fletcher Kaufman).

Jonny Bentwood, an Edelman employee who blogs at Technobabble 2.0, has issued his quarterly ranking of the “Top 100 analyst blogs”. The ranking is based on his own system of points, applied to the Tekrati analyst blogs directory plus additional blogs that he identifies.

This time around, the top honors went to Jeremiah Owyang’s blog, Web Strategy by Jeremiah. This is the first ranking published since Jeremiah joined Forrester Research.

In browsing the rankings, I’ve spotted 3 blogs not listed in the Tekrati directories:

The Net-Savvy Executive by Nathan Gilliatt, of Social Target (ranked 31)

Greenmonk, an open source / cleantech community founded by James Governor, Redmonk (ranked 65)

Holway’s HotViews by Richard Holway, until recently an active icon in the industry analyst community (not ranked)

The Top 100 also includes some blogs no longer appearing in the Tekrati directory.

Props to Jonny Bentwood for outstanding work! Props to every blogging analyst, on the list or not!

One of the big changes taking place in the industry analyst business is the rise of the IMT analysts. IMT stands for Internet, Media, Telecoms. It encompasses the convergence of the Internet (all things web), Media (broadcast, print, movies, etc.) and Telecommunications (voice and data) industries. It’s the right time to start paying attention to how IMT is affecting the analyst business, if you haven’t been.

To set the stage, think about the many ways that IMT has suddenly shown up in our daily lives. It’s the GPS applications on our mobile phones. It’s our children watching movies on game consoles. IMT lets us ditch the phone company for cheaper Voice over IP service, or opt for a “multi play” bundle of land phone, cell phone, Internet access, and premium TV services all on a single bill.

Much of the buzz about “social media” and the “consumerization of tech” is related to IMT.

IMT has been coming for a long time. Lately, however, there’s been a rise in both the number of IMT analysts and the type of IMT coverage. IMT is coming out of its corners in the telecom and media market research. For example:

IMT content included in existing research services: In-Stat and Analysys are putting a good deal of IMT content in telecoms and semiconductor forecasts, market analysis, and business strategy consulting

New IMT-friendly research and consulting services: Companies setting precedents for defining new IMT-oriented practice areas — and recruiting and aligning staff — include Yankee Group, Strategy Analytics, and ABI Research

New IMT analyst firms: The wave of IMT firms founded over the last 10 years includes Hitwise (now part of Experian), M:Metrics, Telephia (now Nielsen Mobile), Juniper Research, up through the 2007 debut of Multimedia Intelligence

The social media release (SMR) is being promoted as an updated take on the old fashioned press release. There’s a good general overview by Brian Solis reprinted in this week’s New Communications Review.

Research companies need to take a good look at the concepts and suggested implementations presented by Solis and his collaborators. Same goes for tech suppliers promoting research studies, analyst references, and other analyst content.

What I like about the SMR: helps bake the “socializing” aspects of online story promotion deep into the communications process

What I don’t like about the SMR: does not yet accommodate “personalizing” or “globalizing/localizing” online story promotion

One of the challenges for research-related stories is making them relevant. The research finding — the “what” — is only important in the context of “why” or, “so what?” in today’s parlance. For researchers, that means coming up with the specific context (and appropriate points for credibility) for each audience segment.

Of course, research companies that engage PR agencies can continue to handle the granular audience pitching offline.

James McGovern suggests that our personal comfort level with abstractions affects our attitudes toward industry research. Some people prefer clean, general concepts. Others prefer to peel the banana — get into the messy physical evidence, deployment intel, etc. — before swallowing analyst conclusions.

That rings true to my experience. It comes up in subtle ways in most conversations with IT folks about sourcing research. For example, I’ve found that the architectural approach that makes Burton Group appealing to one research buyer can be a complete turnoff to another. Likewise, IT people tend to love or hate the Forrester Wave(TM) as decision support for short listing suppliers. Once they’ve made up their minds, it’s hard to convince them to reconsider.

Get another riff on James’ idea from Dave Oliver, who says “keep an open mind and choose your weapons carefully.”

Canopus Research and Strategy Analytics stirred up some buzz this week with new research services focused on virtual worlds. It brings up some interesting implications for analyst relations.

Before we go any further: I have no Second Life presence. I don’t even qualify as a n00b. I’m just calling it like I see it, from out here.

First, the latest buzz:

Canopus Research is building a field office in Second Life. This came to my attention via Canopus Research’s page on Facebook, where Will Zachmann posted a photo album of his SL field office and Mr. Arifi Saeed, “Research Director, SL”.

Meanwhile, Strategy Analytics is venturing into virtual worlds in pursuit of metrics. They’re out to benchmark the virtual world critical success factors, like perceived engagement and expected time spent. This caught my attention via a press release featuring a color photo of Wett Mopp, “Virtual World Analyst”.

What are some of the implications for analyst relations?

1. You don’t need to join virtual worlds to find analysts with presence, but vetting them may be a challenge. You can figure out who’s where by tapping your social networks, formal business comms, feeds, offline networks. Figuring out who has street credibility in a virtual world, let alone across multiple platforms, is a different kettle of fish.

2. Avatars are already part of the analyst landscape. This raises questions around transparency — for clients, research subjects, and analysts alike. Historically, hidden identities and multiple identities have been hallmarks of virtual environments.

3. Nobody knows (yet) how virtual worlds will change analyst services. Research needs are emerging. Analysts are experimenting with coverage areas and office locations. Some are temporary: Brandon Hall added an SL office for its 2007 conference registration. Others are intended to last.

4. It’s feeling like last call for early adopters. Anyone lusting for First and Only claims on virtual world stuff had best saddle up!

How can you sell high priced research services when there’s so much free and low cost information flooding the internet? One way is to take a page out of Mike Bloomberg’s playbook. At Seeking Alpha, Felix Salmon spotlights the Bloomberg approach (it’s a riff on a Paul Kedrosky-Jim Cramer webcast).

In his (and Cramer’s) eyes, the genius is in how Bloomberg goes about “being more client-focused and responsive and invaluable.”

It’s fair to say that most industry analyst companies believe they are already all that — client focused, responsive, invaluable. I’m not disagreeing. The challenge is that those attributes are moving targets. And, they’re moving faster and faster all the time.

Yet, the analyst business has been fairly staid. (Feel free to disagree with me.) Most industry analyst firms demonstrate responsiveness, for example, by making periodic changes to their research coverage areas and eventually reflect some of those changes in their events and speaking gigs. The underlying assumption was that new topics should slip seamlessly into an existing structure of research products and consulting services. This could be represented as:

new information + existing client-facing deliverables = research product

By contrast, Salmon highlights the Bloomberg approach:

new information + new client-facing functions + rapid deployment = research product

Applying Bloomberg’s approach doesn’t mean adopting custom keyboards. It does mean rethinking the role of base research, publishing platforms, pricing, Ts&Cs, and more.

Food for thought.

This week, Gartner and Forrester are announcing financial results. The announcements should shed more light on their transition to peer-council and roles-based packaging, pricing, and structural alignments.

Each company is executing the transition differently. Forrester is moving faster and making sweeping, comprehensive changes. Gartner is transitioning more slowly, rolling out changes in more gradual steps, and creating an “evolutionary” experience for customers. They seem to be in a dead heat in transferring the concepts to their events businesses.

Against this backdrop, the mothership of peer-driven roles-based research and consulting — the Corporate Executive Board — today announced mixed results. CEB fell short of expectations for 4Q 2007 growth in contract value. The growth was just above 10%. However, other CEB news speaks to why its model is so attractive to Wall Street: more than 90% customer retention for the year, impressive expansion into new international and mid-sized enterprise markets, service introductions tracking rapidly emerging opportunities.

Some say Wall Street prodded Gartner and Forrester into embracing CEB’s peer councils and role-based research. That sounds reasonable, but that’s the past.

Today, the change is well underway. It’s high time we see if the CEB model can teach the old dogs some new tricks.