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?

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.

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.

The industry analyst business is no stranger to M&As. Generally, most of the dust settles within a few weeks or months. However, there are rare occasions when the business integration takes so long that everyone forgets they’re waiting for closure. We’ve got one of those rare cases today: the official integration of Analysys, Mason and Catalyst into Analysys Mason.

The official integration was unveiled today. Datatec announced plans for it back in August 2004. Almost four years in the making.

The new Analysys Mason footprint uses what’s becoming the universal analyst business org chart: analysts on one side of the aisle, consultants on the other. On paper, this model benefits research and consulting clients alike.

For prospective clients and the rest of us, the new brand means less confusion at last between Analysys and Analysys International.

Much about Analysys does not change. I continue advising prospective research buyers to look into Datatec, the majority owner of Analysys Mason, as part of the analyst selection process. I’ve never heard a single criticism stemming from the Datatec ownership since the acquisition. However, what’s the point of demanding transparency if you don’t take advantage of it? Make sure you’re informed and comfortable. Datatec puts its subsidiary holdings into perspective in a handy menu.

Best of wishes to all at Analysys Mason.

Several bloggers have been talking about industry analysts and high tech startups. Brings back the dotcom days, when startups rolled down 101 in their stretch limos, on their VC and analyst tours. Everybody needed a nod from Gartner or Forrester to clinch that next round of funding. Much has changed. Some suggest the changes include a more mature view of where analysts fit in startup strategies:

Carter Lusher suggests the analysts as more important than PR for startups. He sees analysts as almost a sales lead generation/conversion resource. He’s got a case study where the entire marketing budget went to Gartner to Gartner and a customer reference program.

Raj Kanaya and John Oh advise startups to look to at least two customer-focused advisory analysts — smaller firms in particular — to help offset the typical bootstrap shortage of product marketing expertise as well as market data. (Hat tip to Duncan Chapple for pointing to their blog.)

It’s good advice, but analyst sales reps should size up the obstacles. The biggest: getting startups to look past the nearest Gartner Magic Quadrant or Cool Vendors list. The other biggest: convincing startups and their boards/VCs that they should part with cold cash for analyst services.

Free is a very attractive idea. Selling analyst services to startups is not a walk in the park. There are lots of indicators out there that the “zero marketing budget” mindset of the old open source software crowd is about to come back even stronger on the wings of social media and community based conversation.

Of course, analysts could turn this momentum to their advantage. Chris Kelley suggests that analysts interested in the early adopter markets could use microblogging tools like Twitter to slash overhead and boost loyalty.

Interesting ideas.

The ReadWriteWeb reviews a tool many market watchers will crave and therefore every industry analyst should study: Trendpedia. It represents a new approach to promoting market research:

The service, now out of beta, lets you scan the blogosphere for trends to see what’s getting buzz. Trendpedia also lets you compose visualizations of those trends as charts and graphs, which can then be shared on the social web.

I can see in Trendpedia a template for a topic-specific trend watcher tool. Instead of searching against blogosphere buzz statistics, imagine searching against an analyst’s statistical data for trends in something that matters to you — be it virtualization or outsourcing or cellphone vendor rankings. Imagine using this kind of simple form for on-demand insights from some — or, on a paid basis all — of an analyst’s statistical knowledgebase.

For me, Trendpedia proves that you can make some types of research data fun and relevant. It’s a great way to stimulate User Generated Content around market data. It’s a natural for gaining visibility through company blogs/sites, media partner sites, and social media platforms, like Wordpress, Facebook and LinkedIn.

I suspect this sort of application would be fairly easy to mobilize, as well.

Brian Clark, who writes Copyblogger, put together a great post on The 5 Immutable Laws of Persuasive Blogging. It’s good advice. It reminds us that there’s more to an influential blog than a famous author or a Technorati ranking.

Brian also touches on a point about persuasion that deserves attention: whether the style of writing prompts action.

By tradition, analysts who address best practices write copy intended to prompt action. Analysts focused on market and technology analysis are less likely to do so. Instead, these analysts write copy designed to educate readers or persuade readers to agree with their opinion, be it positive, negative, or neutral. Both types can be influential. The difference is the outcome.

Blogs eliminate many traditions, including analyst writing styles. Like everyone else, analysts can exercise greater personal choice in how they express themselves in their blogs. Their blogging voice is not determined by their employer or their other publication channels. There’s only one way to figure out what kind of persuasion — if any — is at work in an analyst blog: you read it.

For more on persuasive writing techniques, check out Clark’s other post, Ten Timeless Persuasive Writing Techniques. It summarizes techniques associated with personality as much as style.

What do you think? I’d like to develop this idea further. I’ll come back from the New Communications Forum (April 22-25 in Sonoma) with more on this idea. Catch up with me there (contact me for special Tekrati discounts), or link/share your thoughts here.

Analyst relations managers can make good use of the social media release, as shown this week by Visible Technologies. The company announced on Tuesday that it has been selected as one of Gartner’s Cool Vendors for 2008, in the High Performance Workplace category. They also pushed the news through the company blog.

For comparison, check out LucidEra’s traditional press release. They were named a Gartner Cool Vendor in the Business Intelligence and Performance Management category.

Both releases are written well. Both conform to strict Gartner requirements. Both go beyond the bare bones minimum for approved content. Yet, the formats make the releases come across quite differently.

I’ll be pigeonbuttonholing some of the A-listers on using new media for industry analyst relations and industry research promotion at the New Communications Forum, beginning April 22nd in Sonoma. If you’re interested in learning more too, why not attend? Contact me for info on my special media sponsor discount.

Check out Johnny B’s April 1st post, ““IDG to merge IDC with Gartner?”

I’d put money on the global analyst relations community reacting something like this.