Machina Research – Institute of Industry Analyst Relations (IIAR) https://analystrelations.org The IIAR is a not-for-profit organisation established to raise awareness of analyst relations and the value of industry analysts, promote best practice amongst analyst relations professionals, enhance communication between analyst firms and vendors, and offer opportunities for AR practitioners to network with their industry peers. Thu, 11 Oct 2018 16:43:42 +0000 en-GB hourly 1 76177372 The IIAR Tragic Quadrant for 2017 https://analystrelations.org/2017/02/24/the-iiar-tragic-quadrant-for-2017/ https://analystrelations.org/2017/02/24/the-iiar-tragic-quadrant-for-2017/#comments Fri, 24 Feb 2017 11:49:40 +0000 https://analystrelations.org/?p=155166 Two years ago, in 2015, we produced the first IIAR Tragic Quadrant. It was met with much enthusiasm and comment, thus we have decided to repeat the exercise once again this year. Below we present the Tragic Quadrant for 2017. The Tragic Quadrant is compiled from data collected as part of the 2016 IIAR Analyst of the Year Survey, where, annually, we invite analyst relations professionals to rate individual industry analyst and the firms they work for. This year more than 100 different individual organisations responded to our survey. We were interested to see if we could do further analysis on the data that was collected.

In producing the Tragic Quadrant what we sought to do was to rank analyst firms according to three criteria. We chose these criteria because this is what the IIAR survey asks respondents to assess:

  • Impact: The Y axis depicts the ‘Impact’ of the industry analyst firm on the purchase decision. This also relates to their perceived credibility and capability to provide an objective opinion.
  • Relevance: The X axis marks their ‘Relevance’ for the purchase decision. This means their capability to cover the market and their specific geographical allocation. It also includes public recognition of their presence in the market (e.g. as an expert).
  • Interaction: The size of the bubble is ‘Interaction’. This relates to issues of communication (e.g. how easy is it to get to them and to talk to them).

The IIAR Tragic Quadrant 2017 featuring Gartner, IDC, Forrester, 451, Ovum, ESG, Machina, Crisp, Constellation, HfS

IIAR Tragic Quadrant 2017

We are able to represent the top 10 industry analyst firms according to this new analysis. Gartner is “up and to the right”, which means that it leads in terms of impacting purchase decisions and relevance (e.g. their analysts know their stuff).

However, the small size of its bubble indicates that analyst relations professionals think Gartner is amongst the hardest of analyst firms to do business with out of all the analyst firms represented. Close behind is Forrester and IDC. The size of IDC’s bubble merits attention, as it was reported to be “one of the most flexible firms” to deal with, to use the words of one of our respondents. All three firms more or less maintain the same ordinal position in the top right quadrant as last time (see the Tragic Quadrant for 2015 below).

Other notable developments is HfS which has improved its ‘relevance from the previous Tragic Quadrant but it is perceived to be slightly less impactful by analyst professionals. Ovum and 451 Research maintain more or less the same position with regard to the ‘Big 3’, but 451 has overtaken Ovum in terms of relevance, whilst Ovum has made a dramatic improvement in terms of ease of interaction. Constellation remains more or less in the same position as last time. New entrants this year into the Tragic Quadrant include Machina and Crisp Research, with the former, by some degree, perceived as the most flexible of analyst firms to work with by analyst relations professionals.

IIAR Tragic Quadrant for 2015

The IIAR Tragic Quadrant 2015 featuring Gartner, IDC, Forrester, Ovum, HfS, Constellation, 451 Research, Celent, Pac, ESG, Digital Clarity Group, Ventana, SMB Group

For those who have not come across the Tragic Quadrant before, it gets its name from the infamous GartnerMagic Quadrant’ of course. We see it as a kind of ‘Magic Quadrant of Magic Quadrant’. We are not claiming that it is the results of an exhaustive study. Nor do we pretend that the Tragic Quadrant is a completely serious piece of research. (There is a clue in the title “Tragic”). Nonetheless, we do think the data collected – and note, that we now have Analyst of the Year surveys stretching back several years – throw some interesting light both (a) onto the changing nature of the industry analyst landscape and (b) how analyst relations professionals view the analyst ecology. It is demonstrating that in engaging with analyst firms IT vendors are balancing the requirements for these firms to have ‘impact’, ‘relevance’ and to be ‘easy to work with’.

Analyst relations professionals could therefore use a tool like this to look at their target audience engagement strategies. It would encourage them to balance ‘ease to do business with’ against ‘relevance’ and ‘impact’. To say the same thing in different words, they shouldn’t brief analysts just because they’re easy to deal with. Or, conversely, they should approach those analysts which are less of a pain depending on the type of impact the AR professional is looking to achieve (see the AR SOSM model).

Analyst firms might also use this tool to monitor the ‘transactional tax’ that they impose on analyst relations professionals. If they raise the ‘interaction barrier’ too high (e.g. make it too difficult for analyst relations professionals to interact with them) while not providing sufficient coverage and showing impact, this could affect their vendor information source. They may be left with only a partial view of the market (raising exhaustivity and fairness issues). Finally, their vendor revenues might suffer too.

 

By Fabio Rocha (LinkedIn), Ludovic Leforestier (LinkedIn@lludovic), Neil Pollock (LinkedIn@neilpollock).

 

Related posts:

]]>
https://analystrelations.org/2017/02/24/the-iiar-tragic-quadrant-for-2017/feed/ 6 155166
Winners announced: IIAR Analyst of the Year 2016 https://analystrelations.org/2016/12/06/winners-announced-iiar-analyst-of-the-year-2016/ https://analystrelations.org/2016/12/06/winners-announced-iiar-analyst-of-the-year-2016/#comments Tue, 06 Dec 2016 19:30:25 +0000 https://analystrelations.org/?p=141292 The IIAR is delighted to announce the winners of this year’s

IIAR Analyst of the Year 2016 and IIAR Analyst Firm of the Year 2016

AOTY

AND THE WINNERS ARE…

Keep reading below for the IIAR Analyst of Year 2016, IIAR Global Analyst Firm of Year 2016, IIAR Independent Analyst of the Year 2016 and the best new entrants

Analyst relations pros voted for over 170 different individual analysts. Having run the survey over several years, it was striking to see the amount of new analysts that figured this year as compared to previous ones. This goes to show the dynamic nature of this space. There are now hundreds of so-called ‘upstarts’ firms, analysts continue to move between firms, and new analysts enter into the picture.

The analysts were rated along a wide range of criteria that included: i) their knowledge of the domain, whether their research gives actionable advice, is their writing novel and thought provoking etc; through to ii) questions about their impact on technology adoption decisions; and iii) whether the particular analyst was easy and flexible to work with from an analyst relations point of view.

Unlike last year, where the vote was a close run thing, this time around there is a clear winner. One analyst stood “head and shoulders” above his peers with respect to how he was viewed by analyst relations pros.

The IIAR analyst of the year 2016 is Phil Fersht from HfS Research (LinkedIn@pfersht). Phil was runner up in the award last year, behind Julie Short of Gartner. This is a hat-trick for Phil as was he was also a previous winner of the award in 2010 and 2011. Congratulations once again to Phil. He is obviously doing something right!

The winner of the analyst of the year was nominated for the following reasons:

“Thought leader…say no more”.

“He is head and shoulders above all industry analysts as an influencer in the market and gives great unvarnished advise to our senior leadership”‘.

“Phil is very approachable and his advice brings in a different dimension to our thinking towards our strategy and business”

Phil Fersht

The runners up this year were Julie Short (LinkedIn@JulieDShort) from Gartner and Doug Cahill (LinkedIn, @dougcahill) from Enterprise Strategy Group. Whilst Julie was winner of the award last year, this is the first time that Doug has featured on our winners dais. Congratulations on their second and third places. Here are some reason why they received so many votes:

Julie is “driven, smart and easy to work with”.

Doug has “strong ability to distill and interpret complex concepts into key takeaways and actionable guidance – whether that is to end users or vendor clients”.

Following close, and unlucky not to be included in the final shortlist of three, were a large group of highly rated analysts. This included Chris Pang, Gard Little, Liz Herbert, Barbra McGann, Andrew Butler, Andy Mulholland, Mark Grannan and Ray Wang.

 

Global and Independent Analyst firms of the year were run using the same format based on 15 criteria, but in separate categories to allow for more equitable comparisons between the larger and smaller firms. The industry analyst market is segmented in terms of role and by size.

IIAR Global Analyst Firm of The Year

The IIAR Global Analyst Firm of the Year 2016 is Gartner.

The runner ups are Forrester and IDC.

This year again, Gartner was the clear category leader, followed by Forrester, IDC and Ovum. Forrester managed to reverse its position from last year where IDC came out in front. Special mention should be made of Ovum who continue to close the gap on the firms in front of it.

Here are just some of the comments we received about Gartner:

“I like how quickly and aggressively Gartner has grown out their marketing practice over the past 3 years”. 

“Gartner is premium priced, but delivers business value. Gartner has the broadest and deepest coverage of end-to-end data management. At least with the analysts I deal with on an ongoing basis, the analysts are client service focused and check their egos at the door”. 

“Gartner is the leading analyst firm by far, and their new recruited analysts are eager to learn. Great account team!!!”.

Here is a selection of comments about our runners up:

Forrester:

“Their account management exceeds the competition, and they make a true effort for us as a client to feel we are getting a full value from our investment”.

“Great group of analysts, Sales teams, and management. Fair pricing considering the competition above them…”.

IDC:

“Regional and WW a great firm to get data on markets and products, very useful to build GTM plans and activities. Nice people!!”.

“What I enjoy about IDC is that their analysts are very approachable (they are not as formal as say Gartner), they are covering more and more of what we do, they publish a lot of Marketscapes which is difficult in terms of time commitment and resources but when the end result is positive its a good outcome/visibility for the firm, the analysts are good at writing ad hoc pieces (IDC Links) and working with them for PR or marketing purposes is easy”. 

“This is the ONLY global analyst/research firm that focuses on manufacturing and related technology on a truly global basis”.

 

IIAR Independent Analyst Firm of The Year

The Independent Analyst Firm of the Year 2016 is HfS

The runner ups for this year are and ESG and Constellation Research.

In the Independent Analyst Firm of the Year category, HFS emerged as the clear winner, with ESG and Constellation fighting it out for second and third respectively. 451 Research and RedMonk also scored well.

Respondents described how HfS were:

“Thought leaders, flexible and very fast to see the latest trends”.

“Great firm, and growing global influence. Still needs to catch the Big 2”.

“HfS analysts are very easy to approach. Their content is easy to understand and use. They are very flexible in their deliverable usage”.

 

IIAR New Firm of The Year

Best New Entrant

In this category, our respondents were asked to identify a number of promising and potentially disruptive new firms. A wide range of new firms were mentioned. This shows that there is not one ‘market’ for industry analyst research but diverse markets with theses smaller firms able to cater for specialized products, technical fields and industrial settings. Here we list some of the firms in order of the votes they received: Moor Insights and Strategy, Aite GroupMachina Research, Current Analysis, IHS, ABI Research, Aptitude Research Partners, Celent and Creative Strategies.

 

About this survey

The data was collected and analysed by Fabio Rocha (LinkedIn) and Neil Pollock (LinkedIn, @neilpollock). Fabio is a seasoned executive with more than 20 years of enterprise sales, marketing and business development experience in IT software and services. He is currently completing a PhD at the University of Edinburgh Business School. Neil is a member of the IIAR board. In his day job he is Professor of Innovation at the University of Edinburgh Business School. He has recently published How Industry Analyst Shape the Digital Future. A more detailed analysis of the findings will be posted in due course, including of course a new version of the IIAR Tragic Quadrant. Finally, Ludovic Leforestier (@lludovicLinkedIn) oversaw the development of the survey and has been behind its continued improvement over several years following the original version by Jonny Bentwood  (LinkedIn@jonnybentwood).

 

Past winners

The IIAR Analyst of The Year has been running since 2008, see below the past winners.

]]>
https://analystrelations.org/2016/12/06/winners-announced-iiar-analyst-of-the-year-2016/feed/ 2 141292