Securosis

Menu

Research

Tech media has fallen down, and it can’t get up

Mike Rothman August 9, 2012 7 Comments

I’m going to rant a bit this morning. I’m due. Overdue, in fact. I have been far too well behaved lately. But as I mentioned in this week’s Incite, summer is over and it’s time to stir the pot a bit. Tech media isn’t about reporting anymore. It’s about generating page views by hook or by crook, and when that doesn’t work, trying to get vendors to sponsor crappy survey-based reports that rank vendors based on … well, nothing of relevance. The page view whoring has driven quality into the ground. Those folks who used to man the beat of security reporting – giants like Brian Krebs, Ryan Naraine, George Hulme, Dennis Fisher, Paul Roberts, and Matt Hines – have moved out of mainstream media. Matt left the media business altogether (as have many other reporters). Ryan, Paul, and Dennis now work for Kaspersky with their hands in Threatpost. George is a freelance writer. And Krebs is Krebsonsecurity.com, kicking ass and taking names, all while fighting off the RBN on a daily basis. Admittedly, this is a gross generalization. Obviously there are talented folks still covering security and doing good work. Our friends at DarkReading and TechTarget stand out as providing valuable content most of the time. They usually don’t resort to those ridiculous slideshows to bump page views and know enough to partner with external windbags like us to add a diversity of opinion to their sites. But the more general tech media outlets should be ashamed of themselves. Far too much of their stuff isn’t worthy of a dog’s byline. No fact checking. Just come up with the most controversial headline, fill in a bunch of meaningless content, SEO optimize the entire thing to get some search engine love, and move on to the next one. Let’s go over a few examples. A friend pointed me to this gem on ZDNet, highlighting some Webroot research about Android malware. Would you like a Coke or a side of exhaust fumes with that FUD sandwich? It seems the author (Rachel King) mischaracterized the research, didn’t find alternative or contrary opinions and sensationalized the threat in the headline. Ed Burnette picks apart the post comprehensively and calls out the reporter, which is great. But why was the piece green lighted in the first place? Hello, calling all ZDNet editors. It’s your job to make sure the stuff posted on your site isn’t crap. FAIL. Then let’s take a look at some of the ‘reports’ distributed via InformationWeek. First check out their IDS/IPS rankings. 26 pages of meaningless drivel. The highlight is the overall performance rating, based on what, you ask? A lab test? A demo of the devices? A real world test? Market share? 3rd party customer satisfaction rankings? Of course not. They based them on a survey. Really, an online survey. Assessing performance of network security gear by asking customers if they are happy and about the features of the box they own. That’s pretty objective. I mean, come on, man! I’d highlight the results, but in good conscience I can’t highlight results that are totally contrary to the research I actually do on a daily basis. And what’s worse is that InformationWeek claims these reports “arm business technology decision-makers with real-world perspective based on qualitative and quantitative research, business and technology assessment and planning tools, and adoption best practices gleaned from experience.” But what qualitative research wouldn’t include Sourcefire in this kind of assessment of the IDS/IPS business? Their SIEM report is similarly offensive. These are basically blind surveys where they have contracted folks who know nothing about these technologies to compile the data and bang out some text so vendors on the wrong side of the innovation curve (but with name recognition) can sponsor the reports and crow about something. At least with a Magic Quadrant or a Wave, you know the analyst applied their own filter to the lies responses on vendor surveys. What really hurts is that plenty of folks believe what they read in the trade press. At times I think the Borowitz Report does more fact checking on its news. Far too many unsuspecting end users make short list decisions based on a farcical research reports that don’t even meet The Onion’s editorial standards. I have been around the block a hundred times, and my BS filter is highly tuned. I know what to pay attention to and what to ignore. Everyone else deserves better. Share:

Share:
Read Post
dinosaur-sidebar

Research

view all

Sign Up for Our Newsletter

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.