The analyst relations organization based in the UK, Institute of Industry Analyst Relations, is gearing up to name this year’s most popular industry analysts, analyst blogs, and research companies, as determined by online votes from analyst relations professionals. You can also name the 3 companies that lost the most mojo over the last year. If you believe you perform analyst relations as part of your job, you can vote by filling out the IIAR’s Analyst of the Year survey. You don’t need to join the IIAR to participate, however you must include registration info with your votes — no anonymous cowards.
This is not quite American Idol. Only one vote per person (unlimited people per company, as long as each voter works in AR. Plus, no independent 3rd party is counting/rejecting the votes and validating results — the IIAR is doing this inhouse. Finally, you won’t be voting analysts off the stage. At least, not directly.
Voting closes at the end of April.
The program raises some interesting questions for industry analysts as well as vendors and agencies. For example, is it a good thing for an analyst to be identified as a favorite by vendor/agency analyst relations people? If you are analyst, what do you do about being named an idol, or having your company named a loser? If you are an analyst relations person, do you tell your favorite analysts you’ve voted for them? Do you console those who are not voted as idol? Do you treat this kind of information as competitive intel, or share it with your professional peer group?
Tags:
Loading ...
April 22nd, 2008 at 2:27 am
Thank you Barbara. I didn’t want to say the above myself, but now you have asked the questions openly, I’ll come out and say that I can’t really see any upside for anyone in this little exercise, within either the AR or the analyst communities. Being quite candid - either a positive or negative mention from our perspective would cause perception challenges for the reasons you have highlighted.
As a questionnaire designer myself, when I look at the IIAR survey, I know from experience that Question 3, “Which 3 analyst firms did you consider to be the most important for your company in 2007″, very firmly sets the context for subsequent questions as revolving around importance/relevance to vendors rather than end users. When you have analysed as many surveys as I have, things like this are pretty obvious, but it may not be to others who could easily be misled, especially if the data from subsequent questions is presented out of context.
Given these limitations, my advice to the IIAR is to make sure the outcome is positioned very carefully indeed, with all of the appropriate caveats, also remembering that relationship management is a central pivot of effective AR, that AR professionals represent vendor interests, and that anything undermining the perceived impartiality of an analyst, no matter how well meaning the motive, is an issue.
Anyway, a little firm like us is unlikely to figure at either of the two extremes - so fingers crossed we are not mentioned at all.
April 22nd, 2008 at 9:28 am
Yes, that’s what I’m thinking, too. Careful positioning is key.
Not that long ago an association survey like this wouldn’t make much of a ripple beyond the members. Social media has changed that. User generated content can get a great deal of attention, and often not in the way that the originators intend. Once the results are published, online communities will “own” the interpretation — not the IIAR.
April 23rd, 2008 at 9:30 am
Dale,
I hear you loud and clear: thanks for offering your help for designing next year’s questionaire, I am sure Jonny will appreciate the help!
Seriously, the whole purpose of this exercice is to promote analysts we feel do some good work. There are no other intentions, but just to remind you, the goal of the IIAR is to promote the AR profession and IT Analysts themselves. This is why we’ve started the interviews and try to share best practices.
Other ideas welcome of course!
April 23rd, 2008 at 7:00 pm
[...] as part of your job, you can vote by filling out the IIAR??s Analyst of the Year survey. …http://opinion.tekrati.com/2008/04/21/analyst-idols-vote-for-the-best-and-worst/The Public NickelSo David Cappiello — a State Senator and Congressional hopeful — is having a [...]
April 24th, 2008 at 12:32 am
I would like to comment on a few of the points raised.
Firstly, the sole objective of this exercise is to promote analyst relations and those analysts and firms who people believe deserve recognition for doing outstanding work.
This is not isolated and regularly happens in other fields such as PR (see PR Week Power Book). I think it is only natural that a similar exercise is rolled out across AR too.
For too long AR has been seen as an add-on extra to a PR campaign - the IIAR aims to combat this largely by raising awareness and this is a great tool top do so. I am hoping that raising awareness can only be food for the industry which will include companies such as Tekrati and FD.
Nevertheless I am concerned when people question the independence of the IIAR as no 3rd parties are validating the results. The survey and in its final form was agreed by approx 10 people working in-house and from agencies - the consensus-approach to this survey will ensure that no tampering is possible.
A few things this survey will and will not do:
It will say who people think are the best analyst and analyst of the year are.
It will not say the worst.
With regard to the questionnaire layout. Even though this was tested and approved by a dozen people I think there is large room for improvement. It is a bit late now to backtrack on the questions and agree it could improve - which it will for next year.
It is inevitable that with any survey people will get worried about the results. This is something that the IIAR have no control over - people will vote for whoever they see fit. If that person or company gets the most votes then they will do well regardless. We have always tried to make this as open as possible and I am pleased that my peers throughout the industry globally have promoted the survey.
As a final point - the survey is still open. The IIAR is open to all ideas about how we can promote ICT analysts and AR - if you would like to help do this (either as part of this survey or in general) please get in touch with the IIAR.
April 24th, 2008 at 12:33 am
I would like to comment on a few of the points raised.
Firstly, the sole objective of this exercise is to promote analyst relations and those analysts and firms who people believe deserve recognition for doing outstanding work.
This is not isolated and regularly happens in other fields such as PR (see PR Week Power Book). I think it is only natural that a similar exercise is rolled out across AR too.
For too long AR has been seen as an add-on extra to a PR campaign - the IIAR aims to combat this largely by raising awareness and this is a great tool top do so. I am hoping that raising awareness can only be food for the industry which will include companies such as Tekrati and FD.
Nevertheless I am concerned when people question the independence of the IIAR as no 3rd parties are validating the results. The survey and in its final form was agreed by approx 10 people working in-house and from agencies - the consensus-approach to this survey will ensure that no tampering is possible.
A few things this survey will and will not do:- It will say who people think are the best analyst and analyst of the year are. - It will not say the worst.
With regard to the questionnaire layout. Even though this was tested and approved by a dozen people I think there is large room for improvement. It is a bit late now to backtrack on the questions and agree it could improve - which it will for next year.
It is inevitable that with any survey people will get worried about the results. This is something that the IIAR have no control over - people will vote for whoever they see fit. If that person or company gets the most votes then they will do well regardless. We have always tried to make this as open as possible and I am pleased that my peers throughout the industry globally have promoted the survey.
As a final point - the survey is still open. The IIAR is open to all ideas about how we can promote ICT analysts and AR - if you would like to help do this (either as part of this survey or in general) please get in touch with the IIAR.
April 24th, 2008 at 4:21 am
Hi Ludo - to be clear, there is nothing wrong with the questionnaire per se, but when you have one question implicitly setting the context for subsequent ones, the golden rule is to make sure you report the output completely and coherently to avoid misinterpretation.
I think you know that I am a fan of the IIAR and understand your motives.
April 24th, 2008 at 4:38 am
Hi Dale,
What you say is quite true actually, but I guess AR Managers must be smart because there’s quite a disconnect between the answers those two questions. Jonny can comment on this better as I haven’t seen the detail (for confidentiality reasons, we have decided that only one person would see the details) but that’s what he reported.
Anyway, the purpose of this was to bring out good news and share the praise
On the questions Barbara raised, I am not completely sure of their relevance in today’s world -we pretty much live in the open, the analysts I value know this and I don’t think I need to tell them I voted for them, I’d rather buy them a drink.
April 25th, 2008 at 2:53 am
Jonny, Ludovic and Dale,
Although I’ve been focused on the New Comm Forum all week, I’ve been keeping an eye on your comments here. You’ve each made important points. It’s appropriate at this point to add some clarification on the context of my original post.
I am not questioning the IIAR intentions with the Analyst of the Year program. I am questioning how the results will be perceived. And, I am suggesting that analysts and analyst relations people think about the survey results in terms of risks as well as benefits before deciding how to react.
Here’s where the element of risk comes into play:
The tech industry expects industry analysts to be fair and unbiased. We know that. However, we’re seeing increasingly frequent blog conversations about a perceived gap between the integrity we want from analysts and the integrity we think we are getting. Industry trust in the analysts is not broken, but it’s becoming more and more fragile. And vendors are at the crux of the perceived problem: analyst integrity issues almost always start with perceptions about analyst-vendor relationships and the effects of vendor money on analyst coverage.
True or false, right or wrong — this perception of analyst-vendor collusion exists. And it is being expressed more frequently and more fervently in various social media. Presumably the IIAR is well aware of it — hence the recently announced IIAR initiative on Analyst Ethics.
With this in mind, I raised simple, straightforward questions to spark some thought among analyst relations and analysts as to risks and benefits, and appropriate actions.
There’s no single answer to what to do about the survey results — it comes down to specific 1:1 relationships for the analyst relations people, and to the specifics of brand management for the analysts.
I was expecting someone from the IIAR might respond to my post with a statement about having already thought through the risks and decided XYZ. I wasn’t expecting to be told by you Ludovic or others in IIAR leadership that these points may not have “relevance in today’s world.” We have very different ideas about what’s relevant in the world today.
Happily, we seem to agree on buying beverages as an AR best practice. This gives me great hope for the IIAR.
April 25th, 2008 at 4:47 am
Jonny, Ludo, et al
Lots of interesting views there, and I wish you luck with unravelling the dependencies and perceptions. Just so you are aware, while it is only Barbara and I (AFAIK) that have come out openly with a caution, there is a silent group (in the online sense) of others out there with similar thoughts that’s watching with interest what you guys do with this. I think it is just that straight-talking bloggers like myself, Jon and Barbara are more comfortable than most to say what’s in our minds and bring the unspoken out into the open.
And this is a positive thing; if the result of this exchange here on Barbara’s blog leads to a stronger and tighter set of output from the IIAR, then everyone benefits. I know we at Freeform have tuned some of the ways in which we report things as a result of discussions around perceptions associated with sponsored research, and our deliverables are stronger as a result.
On a different note, something to consider for the future: I think there is a place for a different kind of IIAR survey that would help people to understand the relevance of the analyst profession as a whole (and indirectly AR), and provide ammunition to promote the internal sell you refer to. This would look at the value analysts bring in a holistic way, beyond just simple deal making/breaking in the sales cycle. Those of you who know me will be aware that I have written about this several times on the Open Reasoning blog in one way or another, and I think research in this area would be a much stronger and more precise way of articulating both the analyst proposition and the difference between analysts and the press (and thus AR and PR).
Anyway, good luck with reporting the latest survey, and in the meantime, I would like to put a stake in the ground for Freeform if Barbara decides to run the proper Analyst Idol competition. See here, courtesy of our research assistant, Linsey. Though later she thought that this would be more appropriate for the motley crew of aging Freeformers.
April 25th, 2008 at 3:51 pm
Oh great! I’ve been wanting to update my Freeform Dynamics photo lib…
April 28th, 2008 at 8:11 am
Two reactions to Dale.
>>I can’t really see any upside for anyone in this little exercise, within either the AR or the analyst communities.
There’s certainly a massive upside the IIAR, since it will get more profile, and for any firms that do well in the survey. Some analysts firms are informing their clients about the survey, and they certainly see some self-interest.
>>I think there is a place for a different kind of IIAR survey that would help people to understand the relevance of the analyst profession as a whole.
Who would that be a survey of? If the results will be useful to education AR managers, then presumably the insight has to come from elsewhere? And is that a survey that compares analyst firms, or shows how useful the industry is as a whole?
June 2nd, 2008 at 2:36 am
Well, the results are now out and can be seen here: http://iiar.wordpress.com/2008/06/02/the-iiar-analyst-of-the-year-survey-and-the-winner-is/
It’s an interesting mix of big and small.
Cheers
David