News, opinions and thoughts on the world of industry analyst relations
Good stuff. Small firms with evolved business models (like us, and like RedMonk) have much less to lose and much more to gain by making our analysis and ideas open, than the big boys. I can't speak for RedMonk, but for MWD our published work (whether more informal, via the blog; or more formal, via freely-available reports) is created to provide evidence that we have value to add to the industry. It's part of our marketing. There are various takes on this (some see it as almost a social movement in our little industry; we have a more pragmatic view) but for all of us smaller players, blogging and being open in other ways is about giving us a better chance of being heard, and having a "share of influence".
Hi Neil. I agree. For smaller firms like Macehiter Ward Dutton, the argument to make more (all?) research available is compelling. It provides an opportunity for all sorts of potential customers to get a taste of your knowledge and expertise. Hopefully, it also provides a means for them to get a sense of the value you're be able to bring. The larger firms have an established revenue stream coming in from published research. Changing that model may be the right thing to do (time will tell) but it's undoubtedly going to involve long - and I suspect heated - discussions. I find both Ovum and Quocirca's approach to this area interesting. In some ways, they have adopted very different approaches. Much of Ovum's research is only available to customers whereas all of Quocirca's research is available free of charge on its website, provided you register. In other ways, the two have adopted a very similar approach, ie make summary 'opinion' pieces freely available either via the web (Ovum Comments) or the media (Quocirca in The Register and silicon.com). I suspect that this hybrid approach could prove to be the most appealing route for the larger firms.
Post a Comment