There’s some interesting groundwork being done on redefining long-held ideas about influencers and tech purchase decisions. Two of the blogs I recommend, read and sometimes comment on are Influencer50’s Infuse and SAP’s Everyday Influence. Both use custom models of the tech decision process, and map influencers to each stage of the decision process. The ICT industry analysts are an important component of these emerging influencer models, and figure prominently — though not exclusively — in several phases. Examples include analysts influencing short-lists and validating IT strategies and pricing.
I’d like to see the models extend into the final phase of a decision process: the post-purchase phase. I think of this as the window between signing the contract and getting onboard with maintenance. It’s a delicate stage: as Todd Olson (6th Sense Analytics) said last week, “it’s easy to make recommendations — it’s hard to execute them.”
Historically, the post-purchase phase has been “owned” by sales support and customer satisfaction. Analyst relations has been kept clear of these buyers. Yet, social media is challenging many corporate controls, including customer commentary shortly after signing a contract. A quick look at Twitter, expert communities, and review sites shows how much norms are changing. Post-purchase buzz is becoming a big deal. I’ve got to think that analysts and analyst relations can play an important role here, whether through social media or offline relationships.
So, where will the industry analysts figure in this new world of post-purchase buzz? To what degree will they influence the post-purchase phase? What are the opportunities and risks for analysts? for analyst relations?
Tags:
Loading ...
July 18th, 2008 at 5:44 am
Hi Barbara,
Firstly, thanks for the name check. Secondly, wow! What a tough question. I confess that at Influencer50 we focus on the influence surrounding purchase decisions and decision makers. That’s hard enough for us, and was sufficient scope for our book. What happens after the purchase is someone else’s problem!
My guess is, having thought about this for only 5 minutes, is that most analysts would run a mile from post-purchase involvement. My personal experience working at analyst firms (IDC, Ovum) leads me to suggest that the majority of analysts have very little practical implementation experience.
The other barrier to analyst involvement might be accountability. An analyst might make a purchase recommendation, but would they (could they) be accountable for it? I doubt it. I think they’d rather recommend a SLA regime and strong procurement negotiation, to mitigate against any foul-up in implementation.
It’s extremely likely that, in addition to analysts, other influencers are also involved in a decision. Consulting firms, procurement professionals, reference customers, or the vendors themselves, may be more influential in the post-purchase phase that analysts.
But your tracking of post-purchase buzz does bring the issue into question…
Best regards,
Duncan
July 18th, 2008 at 7:01 am
Hi Barbara,
I’m not sure if AR really has kept clear of the post-purchase stage. Both Lighthouse and Analyst Strategy Group have conducted regular surveys of buyers to see which influencers they use at each stage of the cycle - and that includes the execution and maintenance stage. I also think that many AR managers understand that analysts are an ongoing influence of existing clients’ feelings about the vendors they have decided to buy from.
While social media give a new platforms for buyers to pool their opinion, the major channels for peer communication remain face to face discussions and peer networks.
July 18th, 2008 at 12:22 pm
These are articulate, contradictory — and IMHO — representative perspectives on analyst roles in post-purchase buzz.
Here’s a sales-marketing-engineering war story from my past:
One of the vendors I worked for released a software product that was both mission critical for customers. The company had a solid reputation. However, this particular release was extremely buggy. In fact, the application not only failed — it could shut down all inbound and outbound network traffic.
Unfortunately, marketing was not informed about the quality issues.
I only discovered them when a Gartner analyst called. He was following up on a complaint from one of his (now irate) clients. He wanted some answers before his call with the (now irate) client — i.e., right this minute. His positive opinion of the product had put his professional reputation at risk.
In this case, the post-purchase window was not a happy place.
To Duncan Chapple’s point, it’s an example of natural analyst and analyst relations involvement in the post-purchase window.
To Duncan Brown’s point, this is an example of why analysts are wise to avoid using the word “recommendation” when describing their role in product or service purchases.
July 24th, 2008 at 7:42 am
One of the challenges the AR person faces is to understand the cycles, culture, processes and matrix of relationships of IT, and the integration of industry analysts therein. As others have observed, few AR personnel have IT experience. Similarly, few AR types have been industry analysts. Thus it is difficult for most of us to put ourselves in the shoes of what happens between analyst and IT, or IT and any other 3rd party source of help for that matter.
Fortunately all this is not so mysterious: Just like any professional, IT practitioners build up networks, usually semi-consciously, of supporting information and expertise - their trusted advisors and sources. The advisors can come from all walks of life, an old friend from an IT Services firm, some specialty consultants, a mentor, a circle of like-minded geeks, dependable co-workers, and yes, and industry analyst or two. The “sources” can include industry analyst reports.
I think one can think of most analyst-to-IT interactions in two categories. One category is the general information inquiry, and involves early stage questions about a technology, a best practice, a market or trend, maybe an overarching discussion about a gaggle of vendors. Whether or not the asker and the answerer have that trusted advisor relationship or not is almost immaterial from an influence perspective here, since the “influence” is far out away from any decision point. It may shape thinking but it will not cause doing any time soon.
The 2nd type of interaction is tactical, it could be about ANYTHING in the realm of IT, not just the buying decision, but it is about the doing of something rather than merely the thinking. In short, type 2 interaction is about helping someone making a decision. Few IT people will make a final decision based on what any analyst says, but many will be seriously guided by an analyst with whom they have a trusted advisor relationship.
The important concept here is that the advice can apply to any point of the “lifecycle” because IT decisions arise throughout the lifecycle. With all the focus on MQs and Waves AR people tend to, in my opinion, over-focus on the “short list.” Yes, yes, the panicking salesperson trying to win that $5m project barking over the phone “AMR is going to cost me the deal!” will get the attention of senior management and thus the politically minded AR person - and AR is ultimately about politics in some fashion. But analysts who have climbed into that trusted advisor seat with IT decision makers talk to their IT buddies about all kinds of things, not just the $5m CRM project spend. And those points of decision throughout the lifecycle influence all kinds of minor, and major, buying decisions further down and around the lifecycle. A good IT person never starts out a new undertaking with a tabular rasa, she or he brings the accumulated experiences, knowledge and skills to the task - learned throughout the many twisted lifecycles of IT.
AR professional who concentrate only on the buying decision, or press references, really miss the point of AR, and of the influence of industry analysts. And AR people who don’t endeavor to educate their senior managers about the nature of the analyst-to-IT trusted advisor relationships are doing their senior management team, and thus themselves, a disservice.
Oh, there is a 3rd type of interaction between IT and analyst, we can call it the “bitch session” interaction where the IT person basically uses the analyst as a therapist for a half hour or so. And these three categories of interactions can actually commingle inside a single inquiry session. Funny, like the 2nd type of interaction, most of the 3rd type is also only held with the trusted advisor analyst.
Evan Quinn, HP, Director of Corporate AR
July 30th, 2008 at 10:24 am
Evan,
Thanks for sharing your perspective here. HP’s AR team has set a great example by sharing proprietary research into influence and influencers across HP products. I hope you’ll be able to continue sharing some of that insight and its impact on HP’s model of influence + influencers.
Best wishes for success as you settle into the new position at HP!
July 31st, 2008 at 7:19 am
Thanks Barbara, I appreciate it. But “settled in?” Ha, 2 weeks after I started in poured the pending EDS acquisition - forces one to settle in fast. Not sure how different HP’s research on subjects like reputation, perception and buyer and influencer behavior is from other computer industry firms who value that information. What is somewhat unique is that HP’s client base spans enterprise IT and consumer IT, which yields challenges, and opportunities, in terms of perception management. Vendors like Microsoft crossed that bridge a long time ago, so we still have much to learn.
But it strikes me that regardless of whether your “influencer” (a term I am coming to despise - I think you have to think of analysts as business partners who have the job of acting as the voice of the market and/or customer) works in the consumer or enterprise realm, the fundamentals remain the same. Despite the emergence of some new channels of influence, mainly of the social networking ilk, you need to communicate and collaborate like hell. If influencers don’t know what you think they won’t consider your view or will misrepresent the facts of your organization, if you don’t know what they think you are flying blind - and worse your executives are flying blind. It doesn’t matter whether you Twitter, Facebook, teleconference, text, meet for lunch, meet at an event, email - those are all simply channels - fundamentals apply in all cases.
That said, you have done the strange little niche of IT AR a great service with Tekrati - itself a unique and important channel.
Evan
August 4th, 2008 at 3:04 pm
Hi Barbara… Thanks for the links to Influencer50’s Infuse and SAP’s Everyday Influence. Good stuff.
In response to … “So, where will the industry analysts figure in this new world of post-purchase buzz? …”
I don’t believe that there is a “new world”–at least not specific to the analyst/client relationship. It’s all about trust, which is why the analyst is privy to information that the vendor would never hear directly from its client. In fact, vendors often hire analysts for their assessment in aggregate of what they hear from clients about the vendor’s product/service. (No client names or exact situations are ever discussed, of course)
Back to your questions…
A good analyst will ask post-purchase questions during a normal inquiry call. A great analyst will do some pattern matching to “sanity check” what the enterprise client told her. This is the nature of the industry analyst business.
When degree of trust must be tight, voice or F2F is the media of choice. “New media” is community focused, where the expectation of trust is at a way lower level.