Analysts', vendors' top 5 pet peeves about each other

Analysts', vendors' top 5 pet peeves about each other

Summary: Vendors: 'Analysts think they know everything.' Analysts: 'Please, no long history lessons!'


Talk about watching scorpions fight it out in a bottle... Analysts often don't trust vendors, and vendors are suspicious of analysts. And enterprise end-users would prefer to ignore both if they could. 

John Ragsdale TSIA

John Ragsdale has been on both sides of the fence (stints with Forrester, Giga, and CRM startups), and shared some of the top pet peeves the two sides have about each other in his latest book, Lessons Unlearned: 25 Years in Customer Service. No doubt end-users would agree with the peeves of both camps!

Top 5 Vendor Pet Peeves about Analysts:

  1. Analysts think they know everything about your business.
  2. No review of sufficient time for review of research material. Sometimes, vendors get less than 48 hours before analysts want to push reports out to the publi, says Ragsdale.
  3. Analysts aren't engaged... especially during briefings. They're sitting behind laptops, but maybe they're checking email?
  4. Painting a vision that is unachievable... for vendors and for customers. "Analysts spend all of their time in ivory towers, where every trend is preditcable, every problem has a solution, and everything would be better if only they were in charge," says Ragsdale.  Ha!  And how many multi-billion-dollar markets have never materialized over the years, right?
  5. The age-old concern: pay-for-play. The accusation that analysts award more positive coverage to high-paying vendor clients is is a subject of roaring debate, and I'm sure every analyst will deny it up and down. But Ragsdale points out that the high-paying vendor clients simply will occupy more analyst mindshare, whether intentional or not. Plus, Ragsdale points out that analysts will get reamed out by a high-paying vendor client if they publish something they don't like.  I personally know of instances of this as well.

Top 5 Analyst Pet Peeves about Vendors:

  1. Sending a 60-slide deck for a 30-minute call.
  2. Claiming the vendor is the "first" to do something.. and then trying to justiofy it on the basis of a questionable metric. No way -- that kind of stuff doesn't happen, does it?
  3. "We'll be in town, and we'd like to come by your office for a briefing." Boston and Stamford may be HQ, but most analysts now telecommute from their homes, which could be anywhere these days.
  4. Spending the first 20 minutes on "positioning" and "messaging," and ignoring pleas to skip ahead.
  5. Showing slides that contain glowing complimentary quotes or market sizing from a rival analyst firm. "If it appears that a competing analyst firm is writing glowing things about you, I might just start looking for the other side of the story to prove them wrong," says Ragsdale.

Topics: IT Priorities, CXO, Tech Industry

Kick off your day with ZDNet's daily email newsletter. It's the freshest tech news and opinion, served hot. Get it.


Log in or register to join the discussion
  • This is real list of peeves about analysts:

    1) ignorant;
    2) clueless;
    3) stupid;
    4) useless.

    Points #1 and #2 might seem as the same thing, but there is difference.
    • Expanded:

      1) analysts are profoundly ignorant, they have no real knowledge about the underlying technologies of the sectors they cover -- only superstitious information that lead them to wrong conclusions;

      2) analysts are clueless about developments of the industries they cover, they often do not know the latest news and write they reports based on old, outdated information. They also clueless in sense of understanding major market driving points, buyers motivations, which makes them consistently wrong about predicting success or failure of the companies they cover;

      3) analysts are stupid, because even when they understand the underlying technology and know what happens on the market and in research, they still can not add two plus two and come to coherent conclusions. The thought makes leaps and comes to totally weird places -- so all you can think of it is "How did manage to make this conclusion, genius?";

      4) since the services analysts provide as of so low quality, there is no real usefulness in them.

      Obviously, there should be exceptions (that I just not aware of).
    • I agree.

      The worst is Gene Munster. Why anyone in the tech world quotes him is beyond me.

      I don't think he's gotten anything right in the last two years.
      William Farrel