Analystanalyst’s Weblog

Who analyzes the analysts? – analystanalyst.com

Policing the Police

OK, maybe I came over a bit strong and discussion today has proved this – sha512 has hit the nail on the head…

I am NOT anti-analyst.

My point is simple.

As an end-user or vendor, how do I know which analyst to give my money to?

If I am buying hardware or software or services or thinking of moving into a new technology or market then I can ask an analyst or read a review.

Where are the reviews of analysts?  Where’s the product guide comparing Gartner’s portal to IDC’s???

That is what I am referring to.  That’s what I mean by Analyst Analyst.

 

Let’s have some opinion, lets create the review-site for analysts.

Let’s gather thoughts good and bad…

Advertisements

April 24, 2008 - Posted by | Uncategorized

4 Comments »

  1. I love the idea of this site. And I agree whole-heartedly that this should not be a bitch site against the analysts. They provide a tremendous value to the industry – both to end customers and to vendors. But, there is definitely a need to understand and help people be aware of some of the realities of the analyst trade. Some analysts are ‘better’ than others. Some analysts tend to confuse end customers more than others because they either a) agree with the popular vote because they don’t have an original opinion (this does not add value), or b) disagree with the trends because they want to appear as if they have a novel thought but it’s merely for self-promotion. I’ll be sure to come back to this site and add some additional thoughts and MOST IMPORTANTLY examples to substantiate my thoughts.

    regards,
    dbmrktprof

    Comment by dbmrktprof | April 24, 2008 | Reply

  2. There are many criteria that can be used for doing an “Analyst MQ” — Gartner, Forrester and Ovum have their MQ/Wave/Navigator criteria well-defined.

    I’m not so sure you can do this for analysts in general, unless you have different MQs for different types of analysts, research types, business models, and delivery mechanisms.

    I mean, are you going to create an MQ for advisory analysts, and a different MQ for “numbers” analysts, and yet another for “report-writer” analysts?

    Or lump them all on one grid and base it on two key axes such as “ability to influence customers” and “completeness of services portfolio/coverage”

    What about smaller firms who are specialized in their respective industries, yet are not broadly known in the industry at large?

    Elements such as the delivery mechanism for reports (ease of use to find information), content/structure of reports, and actionability of advice are IMHO very important.

    I think you’re going to have to approach this very carefully, and be explicit with your INTENT, METHODOLOGY and CRITERIA.

    Cheers,
    Gerry

    Comment by Gerry Van Zandt | April 24, 2008 | Reply

  3. Hey – welcome. Always good to have more people watching the activities of we analysts and how the industry is evolving. I will put a link to your blog on my Open Reasoning blog, which is also focused on the analyst business.

    Comment by Dale Vile | April 27, 2008 | Reply

  4. Dale – that is great, thanks!

    Simply put, I want to make it easier for the ‘outsider’ to navigate the world of analysts, making it very clear where to go to get the type of advice and/or insight they are looking for…

    Not sure how to do that, but I am looking for advice.

    I am hoping my journey to the answers will enlighten some.

    Comment by analystanalyst | April 27, 2008 | Reply


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: