Securosis

Research

Earning Quadrant Leadership

Our friend Richard Stiennon put his promotional engine in gear this week to push his new book, UP and to the RIGHT. So my Twitter stream has been blown up by all sorts of folks praising Richard’s work. Which is great for Richard. I know what kind of commitment is required to write a book and what’s involved in self-publishing one. Including the Herculean task of getting your buddies to write glowing reviews and generating buzz in the echo chamber. Richard is a good analyst. He has seen the process of vendor ranking from both sides, as both the analyst and the vendor. If someone is going to write a book about optimizing a vendor’s position on the Magic Quadrant, it should be Richard. If you just fell off the turnip truck and have no idea how analyst relations works, then maybe you need a book to teach you what to do. But it has been a long time since I’ve talked to someone at a high level within a enterprise class security vendor who doesn’t understand how the process works. In terms of disclosure, I haven’t read Richard’s book and I’m not going to. I’ve lived Richard’s book. So has Rich (from the analyst side) and Adrian (from the vendor side). So maybe Richard has new nuggets of wisdom for all of us. But let me save you all a little time and tell you vendor folks the two steps to a better ranking on any of the analyst charts. Step 1: SELL. MORE. STUFF. TO. ENTERPRISE. CUSTOMERS. Step 2: Go back to Step 1. It’s not really any more complicated than that. Of course you can spend a zillion dollars on subscription services and analyst days and conference sponsorships. That may move your dot a little bit. But it won’t move your dot a lot. The only thing that will truly shift your ranking is customer success. That’s what most folks don’t understand. Or don’t want to understand. Lots of vendors (strangely correlated with those in the ‘loser’ quadrant) continue to hide behind the pay for play bogeyman, figuring they aren’t ranked better because the big competitor spends a bunch more money on analyst services. That’s rubbish. In my experience, it doesn’t work that way. And by the way, marketing professionals can’t fix a busted product or a company and finagle a better ranking. Analysts (even the bad ones) involved in an MQ or Wave project talk to a lot of people. They hear the good and the bad. Calling in favors to get your good customers to call the analyst (‘unprompted’) and tell them good things may help. But not if the ratio of calls talking about replacing your gear to those good calls is 4:1. Believe me, I’ve tried. I’m not going to minimize the importance of spending time building rapport with the analyst who covers your company. Oh, by the way, you may actually learn something if you spend half a second listening to what the analyst says about what’s happening in your market. As opposed to spinning like a nuclear centrifuge for the entire meeting. Talk to them quarterly. Keep them updated on what’s going on with your company. On your success and your failures. They are going to hear about your failures anyway, so you may as well be honest. If you have a compelling vision that aligns with how they see the world, then these briefings may move your dot a little to the right. But not a lot. I’m sure there is a lot of great stuff in Richard’s book. But nothing in a book is going to help you sell more stuff to the end users who Gartner and Forrester are talking to every day. If those folks aren’t looking at your product or service, and if they aren’t deploying it, you have no shot. You deserve to be in the loser quadrant. And no number of strategy days is going to change that. Photo credit: “Magic Quadrant Fruits White” originally uploaded by Jinho Jung Share:

Share:
Read Post

Totally Transparent Research is the embodiment of how we work at Securosis. It’s our core operating philosophy, our research policy, and a specific process. We initially developed it to help maintain objectivity while producing licensed research, but its benefits extend to all aspects of our business.

Going beyond Open Source Research, and a far cry from the traditional syndicated research model, we think it’s the best way to produce independent, objective, quality research.

Here’s how it works:

  • Content is developed ‘live’ on the blog. Primary research is generally released in pieces, as a series of posts, so we can digest and integrate feedback, making the end results much stronger than traditional “ivory tower” research.
  • Comments are enabled for posts. All comments are kept except for spam, personal insults of a clearly inflammatory nature, and completely off-topic content that distracts from the discussion. We welcome comments critical of the work, even if somewhat insulting to the authors. Really.
  • Anyone can comment, and no registration is required. Vendors or consultants with a relevant product or offering must properly identify themselves. While their comments won’t be deleted, the writer/moderator will “call out”, identify, and possibly ridicule vendors who fail to do so.
  • Vendors considering licensing the content are welcome to provide feedback, but it must be posted in the comments - just like everyone else. There is no back channel influence on the research findings or posts.
    Analysts must reply to comments and defend the research position, or agree to modify the content.
  • At the end of the post series, the analyst compiles the posts into a paper, presentation, or other delivery vehicle. Public comments/input factors into the research, where appropriate.
  • If the research is distributed as a paper, significant commenters/contributors are acknowledged in the opening of the report. If they did not post their real names, handles used for comments are listed. Commenters do not retain any rights to the report, but their contributions will be recognized.
  • All primary research will be released under a Creative Commons license. The current license is Non-Commercial, Attribution. The analyst, at their discretion, may add a Derivative Works or Share Alike condition.
  • Securosis primary research does not discuss specific vendors or specific products/offerings, unless used to provide context, contrast or to make a point (which is very very rare).
    Although quotes from published primary research (and published primary research only) may be used in press releases, said quotes may never mention a specific vendor, even if the vendor is mentioned in the source report. Securosis must approve any quote to appear in any vendor marketing collateral.
  • Final primary research will be posted on the blog with open comments.
  • Research will be updated periodically to reflect market realities, based on the discretion of the primary analyst. Updated research will be dated and given a version number.
    For research that cannot be developed using this model, such as complex principles or models that are unsuited for a series of blog posts, the content will be chunked up and posted at or before release of the paper to solicit public feedback, and provide an open venue for comments and criticisms.
  • In rare cases Securosis may write papers outside of the primary research agenda, but only if the end result can be non-biased and valuable to the user community to supplement industry-wide efforts or advances. A “Radically Transparent Research” process will be followed in developing these papers, where absolutely all materials are public at all stages of development, including communications (email, call notes).
    Only the free primary research released on our site can be licensed. We will not accept licensing fees on research we charge users to access.
  • All licensed research will be clearly labeled with the licensees. No licensed research will be released without indicating the sources of licensing fees. Again, there will be no back channel influence. We’re open and transparent about our revenue sources.

In essence, we develop all of our research out in the open, and not only seek public comments, but keep those comments indefinitely as a record of the research creation process. If you believe we are biased or not doing our homework, you can call us out on it and it will be there in the record. Our philosophy involves cracking open the research process, and using our readers to eliminate bias and enhance the quality of the work.

On the back end, here’s how we handle this approach with licensees:

  • Licensees may propose paper topics. The topic may be accepted if it is consistent with the Securosis research agenda and goals, but only if it can be covered without bias and will be valuable to the end user community.
  • Analysts produce research according to their own research agendas, and may offer licensing under the same objectivity requirements.
  • The potential licensee will be provided an outline of our research positions and the potential research product so they can determine if it is likely to meet their objectives.
  • Once the licensee agrees, development of the primary research content begins, following the Totally Transparent Research process as outlined above. At this point, there is no money exchanged.
  • Upon completion of the paper, the licensee will receive a release candidate to determine whether the final result still meets their needs.
  • If the content does not meet their needs, the licensee is not required to pay, and the research will be released without licensing or with alternate licensees.
  • Licensees may host and reuse the content for the length of the license (typically one year). This includes placing the content behind a registration process, posting on white paper networks, or translation into other languages. The research will always be hosted at Securosis for free without registration.

Here is the language we currently place in our research project agreements:

Content will be created independently of LICENSEE with no obligations for payment. Once content is complete, LICENSEE will have a 3 day review period to determine if the content meets corporate objectives. If the content is unsuitable, LICENSEE will not be obligated for any payment and Securosis is free to distribute the whitepaper without branding or with alternate licensees, and will not complete any associated webcasts for the declining LICENSEE. Content licensing, webcasts and payment are contingent on the content being acceptable to LICENSEE. This maintains objectivity while limiting the risk to LICENSEE. Securosis maintains all rights to the content and to include Securosis branding in addition to any licensee branding.

Even this process itself is open to criticism. If you have questions or comments, you can email us or comment on the blog.