Check out iLocus’ blog for some inspired tips (10 tips for PR folks) on engaging smoothly with high tech industry analysts. The list, posted by iLocus Managing Director Jahangir Raina, reflects how analyst workflow is beginning to change with social media and web media. For example, he recommends adding some streaming content to detail backup documents, sharing photos on Flickr, and taking responsibility as a tech-knowledgeable intermediary.

I chuckled on No. 10, easing up on reverse sex discrimination within the PR/AR rank and file. The PRSA has documented this bias in the PR industry as a whole. The tech sector seems to be consistent, with women outnumbering men in client-facing analyst relations jobs.

Why is it, then, that there are more men blogging about analyst relations than women?

Accuracy should be an important factor in choosing an ICT industry analyst as a trusted advisor. Analysts provide input to key decisions where accuracy counts, from negotiating prices to building business plans. That means analysts should willingly demonstrate their track record in producing accurate market forecasts, rankings, trends, and analysis.

It would be refreshing to see clear grounds for analyst bragging rights on accuracy. I’m talking about a year by year, market by market listing of the firm’s important positions, along with pointers to proof of their accuracy. Published right out there in the open, on the company’s web site.

So, why isn’t this happening?

The obstacles are not that great. It’s easy to prove the accuracy of some predictions — such as the timing of the next iPhone debut, or drop in average retail prices by year-end. For these kinds of market milestones, facts are easily verified through 3rd party sources.

Granted, it’s much more difficult to prove the accuracy of complex market forecasts, best practices, and trends. After all, there is no definitive source for 20-20 hindsight on complex market analysis. (And, if a definitive 20-20 source existed, the analysts wouldn’t want to acknowledge it — it’d put them out of business.) However, reputable analysts use a sanity check to cross-check the accuracy of their work. Publishing some of this QA to the public seems like a reasonable expectation.

So much for the obstacles. What about the risks?

Analyst claims about research accuracy can backfire. Publishing a track record can raise new sales objections. It can generate ridicule. It can undermine the perceived value of premium research content.

My sense is that the rewards will outweigh the risks within a few years. Consider the growing competition for traditional research and consulting budgets, and not just from other analyst firms. Accuracy will be easier to demonstrate than attributes like vendor independence.

Social media is another factor. Someone is going to lead the conversation about market research accuracy, and it doesn’t have to be an analyst. The Industry Standard (still in beta) Prediction Market is a good example of what comes out of left field when engaged users generate content about analyst accuracy.

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.

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.

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?

Press releases about research studies cross my desk every day. Here are a few of the basic tips I like to share with research marketers and PR agencies.

Keep the headline short. 10 words is the maximum. Anything longer is sheer vanity or an inability to communicate.

Start with the keywords that matter most to the audience. Unless you are promoting your latest study for Britney Spears or Al Gore, embrace this truth: your company name is not the most important word in the headline or lead paragraph. Don’t treat it as though it is, by placing it ahead of other keywords in the headline and first paragraph. People are looking for news about the topics you cover — not about your company. Find the right wordsmithing formula so that your keywords get picked up with highest priority and your company name gets picked up as well. Don’t try to cheat with a report title containing the keywords. That’s advertising in a flimsy disguise.

I do recommend leading with the company name in other types of releases — financials, business announcements, events.

A report catalogue description is not newsworthy; don’t publish it as a press release. This seems to elude decision makers at research companies. Think about it like this: Would you hold a telebriefing dedicated to reading the table of contents of one of your reports? Seriously, would you expect people to dial in or download the audio file, just to hear you read the table of contents or some other list of topics that are covered in a report? No, of course you wouldn’t. Nor should you use a press release in this way.

Use consistent names. Don’t switch back and forth between a full name and a nickname when quoting the research staff. Use the same, precise spelling on your website, biographies, report descriptions, promotions, press materials, and tags on all of these things.

Avoid those leading vendor traps. Here’s the deal: research companies live in glass houses. Any sweeping claim — “first study ever”, “only comprehensive study”, “only accurate study”, “industry bible” — should reflect some quality competitive research. Otherwise, such claims could backfire and undermine corporate credibility.

Use clean code. Make sure that all symbols are encoded properly. It’s still very easy to break your own RSS feed — and others’ — with a errant percentage sign or ampersand. That applies to company names as well as research findings.

Other tips, opinions are welcome!

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.

Yesterday, WSJ’s Lee Gomes revisited his 2002 criticisms of Aberdeen Group. (2008: Vendors Still Paying…; 2002: Glowing Report on Firm X Isn’t… . I respect Lee Gomes. I suggest that analyst watchers and research buyers read the piece, not only for what’s there but for what’s not.

In short: Mr. Gomes checks up on Aberdeen, now part of Harte-Hanks and risen from its own ashes (from a fire many credit Gomes with lighting). He acknowledges some key changes at Aberdeen — such as transparency on vendor sponsored research — but essentially sends readers away with the bitter scent of pay-for-play hanging in the air.

I’ve been impressed with the Aberdeen business model. I see it as one that successfully links high-volume, low-cost benchmark surveys with vendor demand-generation programs. It’s closer to traditional market research and more scalable, on paper, than many of its IT analyst competitors engaging in the same kinds of activities. Of course, final judgement on whether any of this is good or bad comes down to daily execution.

Gomes finds much to criticize about that.

Yet, he avoids a couple of elephants standing in the middle of the room.

One of these elephants is whether ICT industry analyst research warrants the kind of mandated clean-up we saw with U.S. investment industry research.

Gomes finds that 5 years of Aberdeen self-imposed improvement still come up short of the mark on business ethics. What now? Is it time we progress into a full-fledged debate on government intervention?

After all, WSJ readers are not likely to be thinking this as an isolated situation at one IT industry research company. More likely, they’re seeing it as a tacit statement on ethics across the IT industry analyst sector. And, the WSJ readership embodies a hefty chunk of the IT analyst customer base.

Another elephant in the room is whether the old distinctions between market researchers and IT industry analysts still hold true.

What is the difference? Do we understand it? Is it relevant?

Or should we put the “industry analyst” distinction on moth balls, just another Maginot Line left over from the 20th century?

More blogger reactions to Lee Gomes coverage on Aderdeen

Investile Dysfunction: IT Research Firms Get the Smackdown from the Wall Street Journal

The Whole Nine Yards: Lee Gomes vs Aberdeen: Round 1

Technobabble 2.0: Aberdeen Group - guns for hire, which includes a response from Stephen Gold, President of Aberdeen Group, a Harte-Hanks company

AttentionMax: TThe Future Of Industry Analysts In The Tech Sector

ITtoolbox: Is it really research or is it paid advertising?

Spend Matters: The WSJ Shows No Love for Aberdeen

Paula Rosenblum’s Blog: WSJ - It’s so easy to Misunderstand

UPDATE Feb 8:
Analytics Evolution: Aberdeen Group Under Fire from WSJ Reporter

I want to point you to Vinnie Mirchandani’s Deal Architect blog, for a clear and refreshing narrative on analyst influence in the real world.

Lately, there has been a growing emphasis on industry analyst influence — how to influence analysts, how to measure analyst influence, which analysts to influence, what analyst influence matters, etc. The implication is that influence is a major part of the analyst business. I disagree. I contend that influence — and its ugly cousin, message testing — is not the point of the analyst business. At best, influence is a by-product of a successful analyst business.

I’ve always maintained that vendors profit the most from the industry analysts by making them part of fact-based decision processes throughout the vendor company. That means tapping the right analysts to participate in decisions and discussions within the right parts of the vendor organization and at the right time.

I wonder if we’re reaching a point where there are two types of vendors: those who value analysts as part of ongoing business and operations decision processes, and those who value analysts as part of marketplace influence and spin.

Bringing in external advisors — analysts, consultants, integrators — is always messy.

But so is devising vendor-analyst relationship programs based solely on multi-tier, dynamically weighted, bifurcated, theoretically validated models of analyst influence mojo.

Sam Whitmore’s Media Survey this week shines its Tech Editorial spotlight on the Gartner Magic Quadrant. The live teleconference takes place tomorrow at 4:00 pm EST, 1:00 pm PST. I’m on the show, along with Carter Lusher, director of analyst relations at HP, and a Gartner spokesperson TBA, and of course, the outspoken Sam Whitmore and his SWMS clients. As usual, this group has compiled an interesting list of questions and discussion points, including which parts of the MQ get the most readership, how do I get my client onto one, how do I get my client off of one.

I characterize the Magic Quadrant as the most reviled form of industry analyst research being published anywhere on the planet today. One of the main reasons it is so deeply hated is that it is so deeply loved. Much of the intense loathing that the MQ evokes is a direct response to its popularity with IT vendors. Check it out:

• The term “magic quadrant” was included in more than 400 press releases distributed through Business Wire during the last 12 months
• Google finds about 757,000 web pages including the words Gartner and “magic quadrant”, and that’s limiting results to web pages first seen within the last 12 months and excluding all results from the gartner.com domain

Everyone’s got an opinion on what to do about Magic Quadrants, especially the analyst relations consultants and those who believe they are AR experts whether or not they have ever actually executed on analyst relations themselves. Gartner analysts are a good case in point. Many Gartner analysts make buckets of cash from the Magic Quadrant long after they leave Gartner employment, by providing MQ training, consulting, project management, insider tips, whitepapers, and related expertise ad nauseum.

We’ll see what opinions pop up tomorrow.