Posted on Thursday 10th April 2014 by Bram Weerts
Originally posted by Bram Weerts from KEA on BramWeerts.com: Non-Academic Views.
On the 5th of March, the IIAR (The Institute of Industry Analyst Relations) will hold a panel that will discuss what the ethical standards should be across the analyst industry. Kind as they are at the IIAR, they have invited me to take place at the table in London. I would like to take the opportunity to give a bit of my vision before the 5th. Since nobody reads my words, it will not hurt the discussion.
Filed under: AR debates, ethics, IIAR | Tagged: AR debates, Ethics, IIAR | 4 Comments »
Posted on Tuesday 30th April 2013 by dick4sanchez
By John Simons (@JohnSimonds, LinkedIn),originally posted here a year ago. It’s vintage and all the better!
Recently, I’ve done joint announcements with Oracle, SAP, HP, Tibco, Software AG and HP. As you can imagine, I’ve had varying relationships with each and I’m happy to report that the state of the A/R industry is good and that we can work together.
When I was in PR, it was cat fight supreme with territorial ism and turf wars. Most of the announcements I did with these companies when in Analyst Relations didn’t have that element. For the most part, the announcements were about standards, not products. So that went a long way towards working together. Still, if you include IBM, the companies I’ve named here aren’t known for being best buddies.
As and aside, I can say that the executives (who can be the source of most problems) all worked towards the cause of the best briefing possible. Continue reading
Filed under: AR Best practices, ethics, Guest Post, IIAR Best Practices Paper | Tagged: announcements, AR Best practices, co-opetition, cooperation | 1 Comment »
Posted on Thursday 17th March 2011 by Duncan Chapple
A while back, Curt Monash (@curtmonash, blog) caught our attention by calling on tech vendors and solution providers to disclose which IT analysts’ white papers posted on their web pages, or otherwise used in marketing, are sponsored. That’s good practice, and one which most AR professionals have supported over the last decade or more.
But since AR is a two-way street, what about the reverse? Shouldn’t IT analysts (and actually, pretty much about everyone, including bloggers) disclose if a specific research area, project, note, blog post, white paper, speech, webcast, etc, is being paid for by a third party?
Filed under: AR, AR Best practices, ethics | Tagged: AR Best practices, Ethics | 9 Comments »
Posted on Friday 7th March 2008 by David Rossiter
There’s been a bit of a discussion going around lately on ethics in the industry analyst sector.
I understand why the ‘pay for play’ model can seem an attractive option for smaller companies looking to generate business but firms that go down this route always tend to get found out. Their credibility is eroded, they cannot attract quality analysts and their business slowly disappears.
Any analyst firm which values its long-term reputation in the market has to ensure that its research is independent (and also seen to be independent: for instance, I’d argue that there’s a greater need for analyst firms which produce sponsored research to be very open about their methodologies so they avoid any suggestion of conflict of interest).
However we do need to be realistic about the economics of the analyst business. Most analyst firms couldn’t exist without vendor cash – be it via sponsored research, consulting projects or speaking engagements.
And so long as analyst firms clearly communicate who is sponsoring their work, I’m fine with that. After all, the old principle of “caveat emptor” must always apply.
But what about:
- the UK company that publishes a company profile – but gives no indication that the piece was commissioned by the vendor (and for which the vendor was effectively given copy approval)
- the analyst that writes blog posts promoting a project that his consultancy is involved in – without disclosing his connection
- the division of a large group that prioritises briefings based on the likelihood of selling reprints of the resulting company profile
- the analysts that use a briefing as an opportunity to pitch their own services
- the global company that says its analysts are more likely to recommend vendor clients to prospective buyers (because the analysts know clients better than those that are non-clients)
- the vertical firm that refuses to take briefings with non-clients because it’s so busy doing consulting work it can only handle briefing requests from clients
- and what about this experience highlighted by the corporate AR team at HP?
Thankfully these kinds of behaviour are limited and the examples are few and far between. But it does still happen.
As analyst relations professionals, we face a challenge. What responsibility do we have for ensuring these practices are stamped out? Are we proactive or do we just refuse to support them? Do we have a ‘quiet word’ in the right ear? Do we out the bad apples in public?
Or do we turn a blind eye – because actually it’s good to know that you can sometimes bung a few quid to an analyst and get something positive written-up about the company we work for?
Filed under: AR debates, ethics, IIAR | Tagged: Ethics, Independence | 22 Comments »