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.

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.

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!