It sounds so simple: tell me your definition of an industry analyst. In truth, coming up with a viable definition for the tech “industry analyst” is not such a simple exercise. Clear-cut distinctions between industry analysts and other types of influencers have been dissolving over the last few years.
From 2006 to 2008, I helped the industry come to some common understanding by writing and curating the base Wikipedia article on industry analysts. It doesn’t quite do the job anymore.
Today, definitions of the industry analyst role run into trouble on several fronts. You’ve got big differences in the balance of research and consulting revenue streams at the largest to the smallest of analyst firms. There’s also competition from more and more quarters, including diverse businesses, organizations and social media groups publishing “good enough” research and vendor reviews, not to mention decision advice and thought leadership. Then too, there’s the growing number of SOHO professionals who take the label.
Hard and fast rules for what constitutes an industry analyst may work on paper, but they rarely hold up in the marketplace. Behind closed doors, tech decision makers and vendor AR teams alike regularly debate the criteria for what constitutes an industry analyst.
I think the conversation about what’s an analyst — the debate itself — is the answer.
Instead of aiming for one rock-solid definition that fits all analysts all the time, we can make deciding who’s in and who’s out part of an ongoing process. Each of us can make it our own process. Involve our customers and supply chain partners. Involve our salesforce. Revisit our assumptions, criteria and earlier judgements in a fluid never-ending process.
From an execution standpoint, this only works if we ask the tough questions regularly. We can’t wait for a decision event or a crisis to ponder whether someone is, or is not, an industry analyst.
Popularity: 2%
August 11th, 2009 at 1:37 pm
I think you have it absolutely right. Trying to define an industry analyst is no longer worthwhile nor necessary. The important thing for a marketer is to communicate their product (or service) benefits and positioning to anyone that is likely to have an influence on a buying decision affecting their product (or service).
This has become both a lot harder and a lot easier recently. Harder because those with opinions willing to share and therefore influence have, with the advent of social media, been even more able to make their views heard. Easier because the same advent of social media means that marketers can use a whole new set of tools to reach, and actually have a conversation with, those influencers.
The boundaries between the pidgeon-holes we used to use to categorise people have dissolved, but the job of influencing the influencers continues, and the tools with which to do it have made it more measurable. In the end only great products (or services) with real business benefits will win. Those with great marketing will find it easier than those without.
August 11th, 2009 at 9:55 pm
Mike,
You’ve hit it out of the park with your comment that the boundaries and pidgeon-holes have dissolved, but the job of influencing the influencers continues. Absolutely. This is brave new world thinking.
Thanks,
Barbara
August 14th, 2009 at 2:34 pm
As an “industry analyst,” I couldn’t agree more with Mike’s comment. The label is far less important than the effort that we are putting into both understanding and influencing behavior both for end-users and vendors. Although the MBA brain in me understands that the desired business result is to drive sales and revenue, the end user part of me that read research for years also realizes that analysts/writers that push vendors too directly aren’t credible. It’s why I speak to 5-10 end users per week and work at a firm that is based on significant primary end user research.
So, I think there is still a subtle human judgment call needed to see which analysts and other writers are most influential. Because it’s not just about sheer volume of work and it’s not just about wowing other analysts or AR personnel or even other vendors overall. At the end of the day, if I as an analyst do all those things, but don’t make sense to end users and the challenges that they face, it’s all a waste of time. The best analysts and thought leaders are able to do all of those things to drive their industries to next generation solutions that meet end user demand.
September 2nd, 2009 at 7:05 pm
Hyoun,
Thanks for your comments. You’re advocating what I call “keeping it real” — measuring an analyst based on the value of advice he or she delivers, and the level of trust received from clients in return.
That’s worth more than all the analyst biz buzz and the analyst-vendor navel-gazing combined.
As I see it, the analyst profession has become institutionalized. Trapped in its own trappings. Other labels — ones that raise fewer debates and myths — are more fitting today than the “tech industry analyst” label.
September 3rd, 2009 at 11:26 am
Barbara,
I agree with Hyoun, whom I used to work with in a previous life time. I, personally, shy away from ever calling myself an analyst and focus on driving value for my clients as a trusted advisor. There’s a big difference in my mind.