Only one IT industry analyst company could usurp rumors of a 3G iPhone with the hottest Apple story-of-the-hour among business, tech and consumer press and bloggers worldwide. That would be Forrester Research. They have proven once again that issuing a well-timed (and well promoted) vision will score more market attention than a rigorous reckoning of the here-and-now.

The viral news coverage centers on the report, “The Future Of Apple Inc. - By 2013, Apple’s Product Mix Will Make It A Credible Hub Of The Digital Home”, by J.P. Gownder and James McQuivey.

The swarm of press and blog coverage in the last 48 hours ranges from /. and CrunchGear, to the Wall Street Journal and the BBC. A few of my favorites:

Wall Street Journal: Apple Daydreaming: Report Predicts Move Toward Home Devices (tch, Mossberg was out of the office)

Computerworld: “Apple will rule the living room by 2013, Forrester says”

IT News: “Apple to ‘rule the home’ by 2013″ (hat tip to Slashdot)

Some reporters — such as iTWire’s Alex Zaharov-Reutt — have concluded that no one will buy the report. After all, the contents have been dissected thoroughly in the freely available press.

My take is that Forrester was much more interested in leveraging this analysis for publicity and branding, than for sales of a $249 report. The combination of topic, timing, and media relations is flawless. All in all, another impressive bit of marketing savvy from Forrester.

I look closely at ICT industry research marketing tactics. Sometimes, I’m not sure how to react to what I see. For instance, one ICT research company says it offers superior content because it produces “forecasts,” not “predictions.” The clear implication is that its competitors issue hollow predictions pretty much plucked out of thin air.

I’m not sure what to think about that claim or the research organization using it.

The only way this claim works is if the audience knows of a competitive research company producing nothing but predictions. Hmmm. What firms produce no analysis, no scenarios, no what-ifs, no range of possible outcomes — nothing but predictions? And how do you spot them? By their one-line research reports and one-sentence webcasts?

Research buyers don’t want to watch you split hairs between forecasts and predictions. They want compelling marketing materials. They want to see proof points about the quality of your research — expertise, methods, accuracy, objectivity, consistency. Increasingly, they also want some insight into your business culture and values.

The days of getting away with obscure, unsubstantiated marketing claims are drawing to a close. That’s not a forecast or a prediction… merely an observation.

Kathleen Garlasco and Harry Gotimer have opened Garlasco & Gotimer, an industry analyst relations agency with strategic as well as tactical capabilities. Their speciality:

providing direct support to professional services firms, outsourcing providers and software companies seeking assistance with comprehensive AR outsourcing and AR strategy execution, as well as select AR project execution

Kathleen has built a strong track record in building analyst relationships and designing and executing AR programs at PricewaterhouseCoopers. Harry brings a GM’s perspective to ensuring that client engagements deliver real business value — no small feat in the relationship management business.

What’s my take? From where I sit, the demand for analyst relations support seems to be holding steady. I don’t see signs of imminent boom or bust, or serious calls for strategic reinvention of the AR function. Longer term, we all know change is coming. AR cannot escape the seachange slowly seeping into the big-budget areas of high tech marketing and product development: advertising, innovation, market intelligence, brand management, conversion, etc. And that will be compounded by changes in IT procurement and resulting changes in the analyst business models.

Engaging senior AR advisors like Kathleen is a practical way to get the right things done today while sleuthing the optimal playbook for next year’s budget negotiations and org charts.

Best wishes to Kathleen and Harry.

Harris Interactive is offering me $20 to fill out an online survey on advertiser perceptions: “Media Influencer Survey: $20 Incentive & Survey Results.” That got me thinking, what is the going rate for my opinions?

Individual compensation for participating in market research studies is all over the place. Most focus groups offer well over $100/hour. ICT analysts offer research reports valued at a few thousand (or executive summaries worth nothing) or a small contribution to a charity. Meanwhile, online “insta” polls offer nothing. Likewise for blogs and review sites.

Worst case scenario is paying a researcher to give them your opinion. I think there’s a bit of that going on with some (not all) of the hybrid peer council / roles-based analyst research services.

Back to the Harris email, I’ve decided that $20 and an executive summary is not worth it. I probably would have filled out the survey, had they let me negotiate the compensation — such as a contribution to any one of a half dozen critical humanitarian causes. In the here and now, that’s what my opinion is worth.

I just discovered that video excerpts from Gideon Gartner’s May 2007 appearance at the Computer History Museum are available on YouTube. During the event, Gideon and Neill Brownstein discussed the roots of Gartner, Giga Information Group and the IT industry analyst business. The CHM videotaped the event and the QA.

Segments from the discussion with Neill:

Gideon Gartner on the genesis of Gartner Group

Gideon Gartner on the future of IT research

Segments from the audience Q&A:

Gideon Gartner on selling his Gartner shares in ‘93

Gideon Gartner on the Magic Quadrant”

As I recall, about 250 people attended the event, many of them from the analyst business. Although Tekrati co-hosted the event, I’m tipping my hat to Robert X. Cringely for the YouTube find. He linked to one while expounding — er, pounding — on Gartner Inc., IDC, Forrester, Yankee, and the IT professionals who hire them.

Cisco was one of the first vendors to experiment with blogging as an analyst relations tool. This month, the Cisco Analyst Relations Blog is showing signs of life again, thanks to the efforts of Terry Anderson, vice president of corporate communications at Cisco.

The Cisco AR blog was launched in mid-2007 by Skip MacAskill, then director of industry analyst relations, and Blair Christie, then vice president of corporate communications and investor relations. Skip seems to have returned to Nortel Networks, as Director of Global Analyst Relations.

Best wishes all around.

Analyst relations professionals can get a quick reality check from Alan Pelz-Sharpe, an analyst with CMS Watch. Alan has expanded and updated his candid AR tips for dealing with analysts, now organized as 12 Do’s and Don’ts.

I would say #7, “don’t kiss my a**,” is not widely applicable. However, individual skills in puckering up do count. If you don’t do it well, you’re at a disadvantage. On the other hand, #8 - “don’t ask me for advice,” is a universal reminder that analyst feedback during a briefing is best viewed as a priviledge and a courtesy, unless the analyst has been contracted for feedback.

CMS Watch defines “independent analysts” as those research firms that do not earn revenues by consulting to vendors. In fact, CMS Watch sees taking vendor revenues as a conflict of interest. This is one of the most extreme and controversial definitions of “independent analyst” that I’ve encountered.

For many years, I’ve used the term “independent analyst” to describe small and sole proprietor research companies. It’s more comfortable for me than saying the more popular term “boutique analyst.” Who wants to look an executive in the eye and say, “This quarter, we should spend an extra $50K with these boutique analyst shops.”

Lately, I’m thinking that Alan and his colleagues have the better idea. It’s time to start using SOHO, mid-size and large as appropriate. Leave “independent” where it belongs, on the competitive battlefields of objectivity and transparency.

There’s an interesting conversation at the Sagecircle blog on the definition of an analyst. The comments reflect the lack of consensus on defining what makes a person an analyst as opposed to any other species of professional.

Check it out, have your say.

Consider contributing to the wikipedia article describing industry analysts, as well.