spend matters spend matters About this site
Advertise with Spend Matters
Advertise with Spend Matters
 

March 19, 2010

 

Five Things the Gartner/AMR Deal Suggests for the Future of Industry Analyst Research

As I sat down to write about the Gartner/AMR deal this morning (click here for the details and Spend Matters' initial take), I realized that I could probably fill a book with my thoughts on what the deal bodes for the future of research, publishing and expert consulting models in the technology sector. But rather than ramble on about it, I thought I'd structure my initial thoughts into five key concepts that suggest what the Gartner / AMR deal might mean for the future of industry analyst research and business models in the Spend Management sector and far beyond. Without further ado let's dig in.



1) The traditional industry analyst market is mature and becoming more so. Consolidation will create fewer voices from existing and even new players that continue to adhere to legacy business models. This will in turn open up the industry to new approaches. I believe that the line will blur between publishing companies, event companies, blogs, analyst firms and even consultancies with particular technology expertise when it comes to expert advisory in the coming years (more on this in a minute). Perhaps the largest wildcard here is event companies (e.g., IQPC, Procurement Leaders, etc.) becoming more active on the publishing and advisory sides, including but not limited to technology. For example, Procurement Leaders Intelligence Unit, really is a type of new analyst model for commodity market research.

2) The market for non-customized paid technology content will continue to decline unless the research is highly focused around a specific vertical or category. I believe that people will always pay for expertise (and it can be worth paying a top analyst $10K or more a day if they really know their stuff and can steer you to make a better business decision). But with the rise of blogs and expert, in-depth downloadable content, I believe that in-depth analysis that's paid for by those looking for leads will continue to gain favor relative to per-report or research subscription research models. Aberdeen gets this (which says nothing for the quality of their content, mind you). I wonder if others will as well. This is a direction Spend Matters plans to embrace going forward in a new research offering we'll be launching in January. But more on that later.

3) Individuals will be branded rather than firms. With former top analysts like Ray Wang, Vinnie Merchandani, Brian Sommer and Jason Corsello striking out on their own or headed to smaller shops with new business models -- not to mention publishing their thoughts daily on blogs which are free -- I believe that top individuals will drive influence in shaping market opinions (and buying decisions) regardless of whether they're independent or working for larger firms. This will also force firms to pay top performers even more to stay, giving them a stake of the action just as sell-side analysts on Wall Street have material upside based on their book of business (though not as much as before, as some ex-Morgan and Merrill folks will most certainly attest to). I know that personally, it would be hard to walk away from a model like Spend Matters given the independence and benefits of working individually relative to the upside or bonus of working for a larger entity.

4) Vendors will need to take a close look at how they allocate resources to their analyst relations and communications efforts. I still love companies that hand Spend Matters off to a PR group or outside firm rather than trying to engage in meaningful conversation at the industry, solution or tool level. It provides entertainment on stressful days to see how long it takes some people to get it. Moreover, vendors will need to think about how best to allocate their budgets to analyst firms. As one contact put it to me this morning regarding this specific deal, "It is unlikely they [Gartner] will continue the same research agenda, level of inquiry support, and content that vendors had contracted [for] with AMR. They'll certainly want to Gartnerize these service lines -- and that's not what we signed up for."

5) Practitioners will begin to turn more frequently to new sources of expert analysis provided by incumbent services providers than traditional research firms. I believe increasingly that outsourcing providers (e.g., IBM, Infosys, etc.), large SIs/consultants (e.g., Accenture, Deloitte) as well as smaller, independent technology integration shops will continue to become more influential in technology selection, negotiation and buying decisions as the traditional industry analyst market consolidates. I also think that benchmarking and strategic advisory firms with technology depth such as Hackett Group will also become invaluable to practitioners as legacy research models become fewer and far between.

What do you think about these key takeaways? And are there any that I'm missing?

- Jason Busch

Comments
I read Chris Anderson's Free over the weekend. One of the questions I had in the back of my mind while reading the book is how Web 2.0 will disrupt the traditional approach to market research. And you nailed it head on in this blog. This is the best post I've seen to explain how non-traditional players are diversifying the types of market research available to corporations. Individual thought leaders, whether they are bloggers, authors or sell-side analysts, are going to create new business models which will permanently change the landscape of market research services. I also think the pricing models will change. Instead of paying $200K per year for access to Gartner, over time much of the content will be free to maximize distribution of the ideas. Instead of paying for reports companies will pay for follow-on services customized, in-depth research; speaking engagements; consulting days and marketing rights to reports in exchange for leads (e.g. Aberdeen). I think you guys are heading the right direction expanding into research and advisory services with Spend Matters.
# Posted By Steve Keifer | 12/1/09 9:51 AM
You forgot to mention Jason Busch in the list of individual brands:-)
# Posted By Zoli Erdos | 12/1/09 9:57 AM
Zoli,

Thanks, but I'd never put myself in the company of some of the names I mentioned. I think I'm a decent consultant and writer and someone with a passion for procurement -- and building new business models that serve the community. Ray, Vinnie, Brian, Dennis and other EIs are far better on the analyst front than I could ever hope to become. In the procurement space specifically, I consider Pierre Mitchell and Mickey North Rizza -- regardless of current "titles" or roles -- to be the two best analysts out there.

I'm just the guy in the peanut gallery who likes to shake things up.
# Posted By Jason Busch | 12/1/09 11:03 AM
Jason -- All great points. As a tech journalist, I am constantly thinking about this point you make: "I believe that the line will blur between publishing companies, event companies, blogs, analyst firms and even consultancies with particular technology expertise when it comes to expert advisory in the coming years...." I think, to some degree, the line is already blurring, especially given that, as you point out, high-profile analysts are already "publishing" their thoughts and opinions each day. Further altering the traditional landscape is just what constitutes "research" today? That seems to be changing each day. And lastly, and this is obviously affecting journalism as well, is that individuals' brands have, in many cases, superseded the brand power of the business/publishing companies' they are employed by. All interesting, fun and scary stuff to watch and try to figure out in 2010. Thanks for the post.
# Posted By Thomas Wailgum | 12/1/09 12:49 PM
Really good post Jason. Web's openness is allowing real good journalism to flourish once again without any control and bias.

- Monty
# Posted By Monty Kalsi | 12/1/09 1:39 PM
Nice post; thoughtful and insightful. A comment or two in response:
The emergence of branded free research is continuing the erosion of the syndicated publication model that has been underway for a decade. Primary research, with deep data and rich analysis, will continue to command a premium price, but the 2-6 page, opinion style pieces that most analysts crank out monthly for the big firms are increasingly less valuable by comparison to good content on the net. The growth of the big firm rosters is in part a way to make a subscription more valuable by attempting to cover more bases and keep publication volume high. Yet, in most customer shops, research is read only when a need is imminent - few customers hang on analysts' every word. These factors and the newfound ability of analysts to build a brand in cyberspace will drive the trends you discuss - and perhaps even faster in the year ahead.
# Posted By Merv Adrian | 12/1/09 1:55 PM
Really nice job, Jason. At RSR we like to think that deep vertical industry domain expertise matters in the "research analyst of the future" model. Especially when coupled with real-world, up-close and personal data.

I suppose there will always be a place for quadrants, waves, and maturity models, but the most relevant offerings will be about how to do business better...today.

I also think the days of selling "seats" to read the stuff we write are gone.

The only point I question is whether the Si's and consultants can get their price points affordable enough to be relevant to the vast mid-market. So far, I don't think they can.

Anyway, a great couple of reads. Kudos!
# Posted By Paula Rosenblum | 12/1/09 2:16 PM
There is one more key takeaway in my mind - on one side there is consolidation of research analysts - on the other side there are increasingly influential bloggers (read subject matter experts) who have their viewpoints and often times unique/quirky but visionary insights. On the lines of open source - there is bound to be an open-herd-insight / inclination intelligence that decision makers would also tap in addition to established research houses and researchers. Just like you get google analytics results for websites - there may be an application that gets you meaningful possible outcomes/insights for market research / analyst query kind of decision making.
# Posted By shaloo shalini | 12/3/09 12:18 AM
I disagree somewhat with points 3 and 5. Yes, analysts have individual brands, but research firms offer a portfolio. Enterprise IT leaders dont want to shop around and have dozens of individual suppliers, one per topic. They might use a few sole-practioners, but they also want one strategic supplier (Forrester, hopefully) who they can ring up and ask to speak with a really deep expert on msft licensing, virtualization, anti-hacking protection or whatever.

Re SIs and consultants, many do a great job, but its hard for them to keep their advice independent. I was speaking to one the other day who wanted my help making a case for ripping out some legacy systems and replacing them with a mega-suite. Might be the right move, but isnt there a big risk that its recommendation is influenced by the fact that its recommended option would involve $m in fees for it, and the alternative would not?
# Posted By Duncan Jones | 12/3/09 11:36 AM
Duncan,

You sound a bit like SAP making the ERP + apps argument ... ;-)

Actually, you do raise a very good point here that I did not tackle around the advantages of a single provider looking at all the areas of the enterprise together. I'll grant you that!

BTW, it will be interesting to watch where this move leaves Forrester. If anything, I think it's good for you guys. Now, there's only two firms with any global scale and credibility vs. three.
# Posted By Jason Busch | 12/3/09 11:46 AM
About Us | Advertising and Sponsorships | Advisory Services | Contact Us   © 2004-2010 Spend Matters, LP All rights reserved