AR in a credit crunch

21May09

In the AR almanac my peers will no doubt give a hearty thanks to the banking industry for changing the way we work. As budgets are squeezed then discretionary spend (as Mike Cansfield views it), gets cut first. Some execs view that analyst relations falls squarely within this field and as a result we will simply have to do more with less.

This topic (AR in a credit crunch) was the panel item for discussion a yesterday’s IIAR meeting hosted at Edelman. Analysts included Martin Hingley (ex chief research analyst at IDC and now set-up as a sole practitioner), Dale Vile and Jon Collins from Freeform Dynamics and the aforementioned Mike Cansfield.

As a result of the downturn, the analysts argued that they must become more accountable. Dale explained that there has been a trend for companies to use analysts more as a tactical win rather than a strategic one. Whereas previously they may have been asked to provide long term visionary thinking and guidance, nowadays the need for quick, justified ROI on a bespoke project is essential. I’m not too surprised about this as the analysts firms themselves have been calling on vendors to provide clear ROI metrics when selling their solutions. Guess the shoe is on the other foot now?

One of the harsh realities of a recession is that as budgets are cut redundancies become common place. This have effected AR and analysts alike. Both sets of professionals are having to increase their scope of work and prove themselves as indispensible.

For an analyst, this may mean their coverage increases (which you may argue is not such a good thing) and as mentioned before they are having to provide more tangible value. Maybe this is why many people have noticed that they are being proactively offered far more inquiries, advice and support than ever before.

From the AR side, we have found that our skill set is used in transferable ways to target influencers beyond the analyst community (e.g. consultants, associations). What’s more teams are being cut and we are having to look after more analysts with fewer resources. There was wide consensus that when this is done badly EMEA AR is handled by American teams.

The way we interact with analysts has also changed. No longer are we able to fly analysts around the world to hear the latest news and organise 1-2-1’s. Fireside chats, more TC’s and virtual meetings will become the way to go. Whilst we can’t underplay the value of face-to-face meetings in building strong relationships (the ‘R’ in AR), we have to accept that we have to look to alternative methods to keep people informed. There will always be a time when travel is required – the difference is that it will no longer be the norm.

Just as previous recessions have forced companies to change the way they operate, the same will surely be true for AR. I wonder whether people will ever go back to the ‘way it was before’ when they find out they can manage just as well with less. Will firms sign the ‘huge’ contracts with Gartner, IDC, Forrester et al without blinking on a year by year basis or will they simply settle just for one? Will there be an increase in project based work and will analysts be more adept at showing their own ROI?

Perhaps creativity is the answer. There has been moderate success in using analysts in alternative ways – from getting involved in procurement on behalf of a vendor to an increase in ‘open-source analysis’.

One thing to remember is that the recession will not last forever. Jon Collins explained that analysts can no longer go back on the gravy train but in the same way, they need to make sure they know when the recession is over otherwise they will be unnecessarily be eating gruel.

Technorati Tags: analyst relations,AR,recession,credit crunch,iiar,martin hingley,freeform dynamics,forrester

Filed under: analyst relations   |  Leave a Comment

JCPR Twitter Index

05May09

It’s no surprise that Twitter has reached its tipping point when the number of techies and marketing-folk are easily outnumbered by celebrities using the platform. No longer do I have to start a conversation explaining what Twitter is, suffice to say – everyone knows.

It’s common knowledge that the UK’s own laureate Stephen Fry is a great advocate of this medium but who would have realised that Philip Schofield was more influential than Downing Street.

When I published the Social Media Index with David Brain that attempted to rank an individual’s presence across all platforms, we received a huge amount of feedback. A great deal of this focused on the fact that what we were listing was popularity and not what is more important which is influence or engagement. The resulting white paper on distributed influence tried to remedy this by analysing measurement in far greater detail.

Understanding that this is also going to ‘ruffle a few feathers’, I have been helping my colleagues at our consumer arm, JCPR, to apply the principles of SMI to the world of Twitter. The JCPR Twitter Index has been created to list individuals based upon their influence (and not like other tables, their popularity).

Influence can be measured on Twitter using the following formula:

(A full explanation of this is shown in the methodology at the bottom of this post).

What I find truly interesting is how an individual’s ranking is completely changed dependent upon whether we are looking at popularity or influence.

For example: Al Gore is rated as the 23rd in the world based upon the number of followers he has. Honestly though, how influential is he? For a man who has only tweeted 29 times (and not within the past 6 months) – I would say…not at all.

If I was to spend my money trying to get a person to endorse a company I would instead focus on the person who was far more engaged and who other people found interesting. Jonathan Ross in this case would be a great example.

I have listed three tables below, the first of these is the list of top twitters weighted by popularity, the second is by influence and the third by engagement. The full list of top 200 (celebrity) twitters are located at the bottom of this post and on the JCPR site.

Top 20 Twitters Weighted by Popularity, Influence and Engagement

Rank	Weighted by Popularity		Weighted by Influence		Weighted by Engagement
1	Ashton Kutcher		Jonathan Ross		Jonathan Ross
2	CNN		Perez Hilton		Jason Bradbury
3	Britney Spears		Stephen Fry		Alan Davies
4	Ellen DeGeneres		Ashton Kutcher		Perez Hilton
5	Twitter		Graham Linehan		Adam woodyatt
6	Barack Obama		Demi Moore		Rick Sanchez
7	Brian Dooley		CNN		Philip Schofield
8	Jimmy Fallon		Lance Armstrong		Dave Gorman
9	Shaquille O’Neill		New York Times		Yoko Ono
10	John Mayer		Will Wheaton		Neil Gaiman
11	New York Times		Shaquille O’Neill		Demi Moore
12	Lance Armstrong		Downing Street		Danny Wallace
13	Henry Dartnall		Jason Bradbury		Graham Linehan
14	Demi Moore		Philip Schofield		Jenni Falconer
15	Lizo Mzimba		Soulja Boy		Karl Rove
16	Perez Hilton		Jimmy Fallon		Andi Peters
17	Dan Tetsell		Barack Obama		Britney Spears
18	P Diddy		John Mayer		Stephen Fry
19	Coldplay		Michael Arrington		Dave Matthews
20	Ryan Seacrest		Ryan Seacrest		Coldplay

Even though this is a bit of fun, there is a serious side behind it. We are always trying to help our clients understand the influence that certain people have over particular sections of society. Behind all the glitz and glamour that goes with fame, it’s important to understand where real influence lies, which is often very different to mere popularity. The JCPR Twitter Index helps us define that within the hugely dynamic social media space.

Of course, this index has initially been used to score celebs but its methodology can easily be used to look at other segments (from analysts, musicians, politician and brands). I hope to be publishing the analyst version of this very soon.

As a final point, I know that when discussing this people tend to be far more interested in ‘influence’ rather than engagement. My view was nicely echoed by AdAge when commenting on Ashton Kutcher’s use of bill board advertising when trying to win the (in)formal ‘first to 1million followers’ against CNN competition. In this piece they quoted a New York commenter who goes by Stevewax:

Seems to me what’s useful with Twitter is creating a small, two-way community with people who aren’t busy running a Twitter team and who have time to SHARE ideas. Rather than broadcast them.

Just as PR has gone to public engagement, and AR has gone to analyst engagement, it is only natural that I believe that instead of mass-broadcast (shown by popularity) or mass-amplification (shown by influence), I believe that the purest form of interaction is via multiple targeted micro-conversations where people actively engage and interact with the community. This is why when scores are weighted for ‘engagement’ the ‘involvement index’ is given the largest priority. Additional commentary on this to follow in future posts.

Methodology

JCPRTI	JCPR Twitter index	Rg	Range assigned to score
Fo	Number of followers	Fg	Number users following
Up	Number of updates	@U	Number of name pointing
Rt	Number of retweets	Ta	Twitalyzer score
TaN:S	Twitalyzer noise to signal ratio	Ti	Twinfluence score
Tg	Twittergrader score	Ii	Involvement index score
Vi	Velocity index score	w	Weight assigned to each attribute
Z	Standardised score	p	Popularity
e	Engagement	i	Influence

Following – Twitter lists the number of people each user follows. The tendency for most celebrities is to only follow a few individuals – the more people that someone follows, there is an increased likelihood of them actively participating in conversations with the community instead of simply broadcasting to it. Following ranges were determined (i.e. more than 20, more than 30, etc.) and each range was assigned a number (0 to 30) that was used as part of the algorithm.

Followers – Twitter lists the number of followers each user has. Like subscribing to a feed, this is a clear indication of ‘popularity’ as it requires someone to actively request participation. Follower ranges were determined (i.e. more than 20, more than 30, etc.) and each range was assigned a number (0 to 50) that was used as part of the algorithm.

Updates – How often does someone update what they are doing. This number is purely objective as it scores someone highly no matter what the content of their post (i.e. how relevant is it). Nevertheless it is assumed that if someone posts frequently but has poor content then their ‘followers’ will decrease. Update ranges were determined (i.e. more than 20, more than 30, etc.) and each range was assigned a number (0 to 30) that was used as part of the algorithm.

Name Pointing – e.g. @name – How many people engage in conversation with a celebrity or point to their name. The clearest way to establish this is to run a search on the number of people who reference @username in a message. This calculation is based upon a one month period combined with a 24 hour period. The number of times this happens is calculated with each range was assigned a number (0 to 30) – again this was then used as part of the algorithm.

Retweets – Has a tweet caused sufficient interest that it is worth re-submitting by others? Despite a great deal of ‘noise’ (i.e. posts that are not relevant or interesting), when someone sees something that is of high interest, their post can be re-tweeted. The clearest way to establish this is to run a search on the number of people who reference RT @username in a message. This calculation is based upon a one month period combined with a 24 hour period. The number of times this happens is calculated with each range was assigned a number (0 to 50) – again this was then used as part of the algorithm.

Twitalyzer – “This is a unique (and online) tool to evaluate the activity of any Twitter user and report on relative influence, signal-to-noise ratio, generosity, velocity, clout, and other useful measures of success in social media.” This 3rd party tool is a useful method to combine automated metrics dependent upon criteria within posts and publicly available numbers. Where tools such as this are available, we incorporate them into the algorithm to achieve a more confident score. Twitalyzer gives users scores from 0 to 100. Ranges were determined (i.e. more than 20, more than 30, etc.) and each range was assigned a number (0 to 20) that was used as part of the algorithm.

Twitalyzer noise to signal ratio – Signal-to-noise ratio is a measure of the tendency for people to pass information, as opposed to anecdote. Signal can be references to other people (defined by the use of "@" followed by text), links to URLs you can visit (defined by the use of "http://" followed by text), hashtags you can explore and participate with (defined by the use of "#" followed by text), retweets of other people, passing along information (defined by the use of "rt", "r/t/", "retweet" or "via"). If you take the sum of these four elements and divide that by the number of updates published, you get the "signal to noise" ratio. Twitalyzer gives users scores from 0 to 100. Ranges were determined (i.e. more than 20, more than 30, etc.) and each range was assigned a number (0 to 20) that was used as part of the algorithm.

Twinfluence Rank – Twinfluence is an automated 3rd party tool that uses APIs to measure influence. For example: “Imagine Twitterer1, who has 10,000 followers – most of which are bots and inactives with no followers of their own. Now imagine Twitterer2, who only has 10 followers – but each of them has 5,000 followers. Who has the most real "influence?" Twitterer2, of course.” As with Twitalyzer, this index uses 3rd party tools to add greater confidence in the overall Twitter score. Similar to the other criteria, ranges were determined (i.e. less than 20, less than 30, etc.) and each range was assigned a number (0 to 20) that was used as part of the algorithm.

Twitter Grader – Twitter Grader is the final automated tool to add greater confidence to the final index. This site creates a score by evaluating a twitter profile. Similar to the other criteria, ranges were determined (i.e. less than 20, less than 30, etc.) and each range was assigned a number (0 to 20) that was used as part of the algorithm.

Involvement Index – As the only personal subjective measure in the algorithm, opinion points were assigned to each celebrity. People who scored highest in this category had frequent, relevant, high-quality content that actively involved the twitter community (asking questions, posting links or commenting on discussions) and did not purely consist of broadcasting. Ranges were determined (i.e. less than 20, less than 30, etc.) and each range was assigned a number (0 to 20) that was used as part of the algorithm.

Velocity Index – As more people engage on Twitter, it may become harder to keep activity going. The velocity index measures changes on a regular basis and assigns a score based on increased or decreased participation. Ranges were determined (i.e. less than 20, less than 30, etc.) and each range was assigned a number (0 to 20) that was used as part of the algorithm.

Weighting - Each specific variable listed above was given a standard score out of 10. Using a weighting scale I varied the importance of the each metric to establish an individual’s total score.

Weighted for Popularity – the key variable is the number of people someone has following them. There are many online tools that show this such as Twitterholic.

Weighted for Engagement – the key variables are an individual’s participation with the Twitter community (as measured by the Involvement Index), with additional emphasis on the frequency of people name pointing an individual (via @username), the numbers of followers and the signal to noise ratio. Other attributes were included in the final score but were given a lower weighting.

Weighted for Influence – the key variables in this instance is a combination of the number and authority of someone’s followers together with the frequency of people name pointing an individual (via @username) and the how many times and individuals posts are re-tweeted. Other attributes were included in the final score but were given a lower weighting.

Criteria for inclusion – There are many lists of top celebrities on Twitter – every one of these use ‘popularity’ as its main criteria. Edelman have used all these lists (such as The Times, Celebrity Tweet and Mashable together with selected and ‘interesting’ names from the top 100 from Twitterholic and used its algorithm to establish their influence.

Top 200 (Celebrity) Twitters – Weighted by Influence

Rank	Name	Country	Segment
1	Jonathan Ross	UK	TV Presenter, Comedian
2	Perez Hilton	US	Celeb blogger
3	Stephen Fry	UK	Comedian, Actor, TV presenter
4	Ashton Kutcher	US	TV Presenter, Actor
5	Graham Linehan	UK	Sitcom writer (Father Ted, Black Books, The IT Crowd)
6	Demi Moore	US	Actress
7	CNN	US	News Service
8	Lance Armstrong	US	Cyclist, sport
9	New York Times	US	News Service
10	Will Wheaton	US	Actor
11	Shaquille O’Neill	US	Basketball player, Actor, sport
12	Downing Street	UK	UK Govt, politician
13	Jason Bradbury	UK	gadget Show host, journalist
14	Philip Schofield	UK	TV Presenter
15	Soulja Boy	US	Rapper , music
16	Jimmy Fallon	US	Comedian
17	Barack Obama	US	US President, politician
18	John Mayer	US	musician
19	Michael Arrington	US	Tech News Service
20	Ryan Seacrest	US	TV Presenter, Radio DJ
21	Greg Grunberg	US	Actor, Heroes. TV
22	Alan Davies	UK	Comedian, Actor, TV presenter
23	Karl Rove	US	Political advisor
24	Twitter	US	Micro Blogging Platform
25	Rainn Wilson	US	Actor
26	Felicia Day	US	Actor
27	Michael Black	US	Comedian
28	Russell Brand	UK	Comedian, TV Presenter, Actor
29	Neil Gaiman	US	Author
30	Yoko Ono	US	Artist ,
31	Mariel Hemingway	US	Actor
32	Coldplay	UK	Music band
33	Rick Sanchez	US	American TV news anchor
34	John Hodgman	US	Comedian
35	Fred Durst	US	Musician
36	Phil Jupitus	UK	Comedian, radio show host
37	Will Carling	UK	Ex England rugby captain, sport
38	Adam Woodyatt	UK	Actor, Eastenders
39	BBC Click	UK	BBC News service
40	Snoop Dogg	US	Rapper , music
41	Imogen Heap	UK	Musician
42	P Diddy	US	Record producer, rapper, entrepreneur
43	Brent Spiner	US	Actor
44	Tony Hawk	US	Professional Skateboarder, sport
45	Britney Spears	US	Singer, Music
46	Dave Matthews	US	Musician
47	Brea Grant	US	Actor
48	Penn Jillette	US	Magician
49	Joe Trippi	US	Political Adviser
50	John Cleese	UK	Actor, Comedian
51	Oprah Winfrey	US	TV show host
52	Warren Ellis	UK	Writer
53	Jenni Falconer	UK	TV presenter
54	Fearne Cotton	UK	Radio DJ, TV Presenter
55	Ellen DeGeneres	US	TV Presenter, Actress
56	Jon Favreau	US	Film Director
57	Jimmy Carr	UK	Comedian, TV Presenter
58	Hedi Monatag	US	MTV reality star
59	Jane Goldman	UK	Jonathan Ross’ wife, writer
60	David Lynch	US	Film Maker
61	Tim Lovejoy	UK	TV Presenter
62	Mike Skinner	UK	TV Presenter
63	Andi Peters	UK	TV Presenter
64	James Gunn	UK	Comedian, writer
65	Pete Wentz	US	Musician
66	Dave Gorman	UK	Comedian, writer, TV show host
67	Richard Branson	UK	Owner of Virgin Group, Entrepreneur
68	Mathew Horne	UK	Comedian, Actor, TV presenter
69	Martha Stewart	US	Entrepreneur; TV and magazine personality
70	Robert Llewelyn	UK	Actor, writer, TV presenter
71	Al Gore	US	American politician
72	Eddie Izzard	UK	Actor
73	Suzi Perry	UK	Gadget Show Presenter
74	Krishnan Guru Murthy	UK	C4 News Presenter
75	Travis Barker	US	Musician
76	Chris Moyles	UK	Radio DJ, TV Presenter
77	Al Yankovic	US	Comedian.
78	Paul Daniels	UK	Professional Magician
79	Danny Wallace	UK	Journalist, author, script-writer, producer
80	Xzibit	US	Rapper, TV Presenter, music
81	Rob Brydon	UK	Actor, Comedian
82	Calvin Harris	UK	Musician
83	Paulo Coelho	Brazil	Author
84	50 Cent	US	Rapper , music
85	Miley Cyrus	US	Actor
86	Tom Felton	UK	Actor
87	William Shatner	US	Actor
88	Rory Cellan-Jones	UK	Journalist, Broadcaster
89	Jamie Oliver	UK	Chef
90	Solange Knowles	US	Singer , music
91	Bill Bailey	UK	Comedian
92	Bjork	Iceland	Singer , music
93	Toby Young	UK	Journalist, Broadcaster
94	Stan Collymore	UK	Ex-footballer, radio show host, sport
95	Kevin Smith	US	Film Director, Actor
96	Ben Goldacre	UK	Scientist, journalist
97	Arnold Schwarzenegger	US	Governor of California, former actor
98	David Hewlett	US	Actor
99	Richard Bacon	UK	TV Presenter
100	Tony Gardner	UK	Actor
101	Alexander Armstrong	UK	Comedian, writer
102	Emma Kennedy	UK	Actor, writer
103	Beverley Knight	UK	Singer, music
104	Matt Lucas	UK	Comedian, Actor, TV presenter
105	Richard Herring	UK	Comedian
106	Charlie Brooker	UK	Columnist, Writer
107	Annie Mac	UK	DJ
108	Tim Westwood	UK	DJ
109	Claudia Winkleman	UK	TV personality
110	Chris Addison	UK	Comedian
111	Alan Carr	UK	Comedian, TV Presenter
112	Scott Mills	UK	Radio 1 DJ
113	Aleksandr Orlov	UK	Comparethemeerkat
114	Rob Corddry	US	Comedian
115	Kim Kardashian	US	TV star
116	Hillary Clinton	US	Politician
117	Peter Andre	UK	Singer, music
118	Holly Willoughby	UK	TV presenter
119	Tim Minchin	Australia	Comedian, musician, actor
120	Taylor Swift	US	Singer, music
121	David Mitchell	UK	Comedian, Actor
122	Iain Lee	UK	Comedian
123	Katy Perry	US	Singer, music
124	Peaches Geldof	UK	Celeb daughter
125	Mark Kermode & Simon Mayo	UK	Radio
126	Edith Bowman	UK	Radio DJ, Presenter
127	Boris Johnson	UK	Politician: Mayor of London, Columnist
128	Janina Gavankar	US	Actor
129	Robert Webb	UK	Actor, Comedian
130	Sara Bareilles	US	Singer, music
131	Michael Phelps	US	Swimmer , sport
132	Brett Gurewitz	US	Musician
133	Kate Hewlett	US	Actor
134	Tom Harris	UK	MP, politician
135	Rufus Hound	UK	Comedian
136	Huew Stephens	UK	DJ, TV presenter
137	Lady GaGa	US	Singer , music
138	Graham Coxon	UK	Musician
139	David Schneider	UK	Comedian, actor, writer
140	Reggie Yates	UK	Radio DJ, TV Presenter
141	Brooke Hogan	US	Singer, music
142	Mandy Moore	US	Actor
143	Kelly Clarkson	US	Singer , music
144	John Thompson	UK	Actor, comedian
145	David Baddiel	UK	Comedian, TV presenter
146	Liam Gallagher	UK	Musician/Singer
147	Jamie Cullum	UK	Musician
148	Shanna Moakler	US	Musician
149	Heidi Range	UK	Singer/Sugababes, music
150	Vanessa Hudgens	US	Actress, Singer, music
151	Josie Long	UK	Comedian
152	Demi Lovato	US	Musician
153	Adam Buxton	UK	Writer/Comedian
154	Declan Curry	UK	Business journalist/BBC TV Presenter
155	Andy Murray	UK	Tennis Player, sport
156	Hugh Jackman	Australia	Actor
157	Elizabeth Banks	US	Actor
158	Ben Miller	UK	Comedian, writer
159	Dan Tetsell	UK	Comedian, writer
160	Melora Hardin	US	Actor
161	Regina Spektor	US	Musician
162	Mark Watson	UK	Comedian
163	Kyran Bracken	UK	Sports – rugby
164	Katherine Parkinson	UK	Actor
165	John Prescott	UK	Politician, Former Deputy Prime Minster
166	Brian Dooley	UK	Comedian, writer, TV show host
167	Robin Williams	US	Comedian, Actor, TV presenter
168	Armando Iannucci	UK	Writer, comedian
169	Lee Unkrich	US	Director, entertainer
170	Katie Price	UK	Model
171	Ronan Keating	Ireland	Singer/Boyzone , music
172	Billie Piper	UK	Actress
173	Rumer Wilis	US	Celebrity Daughter
174	Alexandra Burke	UK	Singer , music
175	Judge Jules	UK	DJ, TV presenter
176	Will Self	UK	Writer/Comedian
177	John McCain	US	Politician
178	Lauren Conrad	US	MTV reality star
179	Neil Innes	UK	Comedian, writer
180	Lizo Mzimba	UK	Journalist, Broadcaster
181	Jamie Oliver	UK	Musician
182	Raef Bjoyou	UK	TV personality – The Apprentice
183	Miranda Hart	UK	Comedian, writer
184	Henry Dartnall	UK	Musician
185	Hulk Hogan	US	Retired Wrestling Legend, sport
186	Lily Allen	UK	Singer , music
187	Selena Gomez	US	Actor
188	Joe Biden	US	US VP, Politician
189	Alex Zane	UK	TV presenter
190	Drew Pinsky	US	Dr. Drew TV Star
191	MC Hammer	US	Rapper, Musician
192	Mischa Barton	US	Actress
193	Steve Coogan	UK	Comedian, writer
194	Jusint Lee Collins	UK	TV presenter
195	Tom Green	US	Actor, comedian, writer
196	Graham Norton	UK	Comedian, TV Presenter
197	Alexa Chung	UK	DJ, TV presenter
198	Gail Emms	UK	Sport, badminton
199	Dave Berry	UK	TV Presenter
200	Lethal Bizzle	UK	Musician

As with previous measurement posts I have published, I welcome the community to comment on it and provide your feedback.

Technorati Tags: JCPR,Edelman,twitter,JPCR twitter index,#jcprti,influence,engagement,popularity

Filed under: social media   |  22 Comments

Analyst of the year

31Mar09

To take part in the ‘analyst of the year’ survey – click here

Last year, the IIAR ran a survey to identify who AR practitioners believe should win the award of ‘analyst of the year’ and ‘analyst firm of the year’. I am pleased to say that today, we are now launching the survey once again and hope that you can all take part.

This is your chance to vote for the analyst or firm who you believe deserves more recognition. All too often we only speak about analysts when we want something, but this survey gives you the opportunity to explain what criteria makes an analyst important and who you consider to be world-leaders for their segment.

The previous analyst of the year was Ray Wang, Principal Analyst with Forrester Research, Inc. Respondents praised his insight, depth of industry knowledge, and independent voice. Runners up for the title were David Mitchell of Ovum and James Governor of RedMonk. Ray was also named Analyst of the Year for the Americas, while David Mitchell of Ovum was voted the EMEA Analyst of the Year.

With respect to individual firms, Forrester was highly regarded by respondents in all regions, and was voted the Analyst Firm of the Year. It was commended for the strength of its analyst team, the quality of its client services and its ability to spot new trends. Gartner and IDC came second and third, respectively. Not only did the traditional global analyst firms perform well in the survey, but the smaller, boutique consultancies also scored highly. Freeform Dynamics and MWD came in the top five in EMEA with RedMonk in the top three in the Americas, and a number of other firms also received honourable mentions. Respondents liked their honesty, ability to innovate, the quality of their research and use of new media channels.

To see a copy of last year’s survey results click here for summary post or here for download.

For your benefit I have listed below a brief summary of the methodology used.

Methodology

1) Entrants:

This survey is open to anyone who works in analyst relations in any country, either in-house or at an agency/consultancy. In order for someone’s entry to be valid, you will need to submit your email address and company name to verify you are not an impostor trying to distort the results. (This happened last year from a global firm!!). The personal information will not be distributed or used beyond sending copies of the results to all participant. The survey will be open until the end of May. IP addresses will be taken to ensure that someone does not vote twice.

2) Questions:

The survey specifically focuses on an individual’s perception of the analyst world in 2008. Respondents are able to select from a pre-populated list of 501 firms which company they believe are the most important and relevant for a list of multiple segment areas.

3) Segmentation:

Respondents are able to specify their submissions based upon geography (US, EMEA, AsiaPac, Global), segment (Hardware, Software, Services, Communications and Networking, Green IT/Sustainability, Developer/IT Department) and customer-base (Enterprise, SMB and Consumer). Based upon these criteria further analysis could be made of the results to identify specific regional or segment champions.

If you have any questions or comments about this survey please contact either myself or Hannah Kirkman.

To take part in the ‘analyst of the year’ survey – click here

Technorati Tags: AnalystOfTheYear,IIAR,analyst relations,AR

Filed under: analyst relations   |  1 Comment

Best practice – how to perfect the Gartner MQ

30Mar09

My colleagues at the IIAR have produced a fantastic white paper sharing a best practice technique to ensure that your company is positioned fairly. Whereas, this isn’t the debate for whether the MQ is fair (heck even Gideon Gartner believes that  if he had his chance again, he would have made it a spider diagram!) there is ample opportunity to learn tips and techniques regarding how to do the job better.

What cannot be underestimated is the value that these little group of boxes have on procurement. I have heard many times companies state (much to the annoyance no-doubt of Forrester, IDC etc) that they will only select vendors who are in the top right hand quadrant of their respective MQ.

What this means is that getting the MQ process right takes you half way there to getting placed perfectly. Ed Gyurko explained in the recent IIAR meeting that if you follow this process, there should be no surprises regarding where a firm is positioned upon publication.

I agree and disagree.

My view is that when the MQ is published, there should be no surprises regarding where your firm is positioned relative to the competition. In my opinion too much time is spent focussing on where ‘we should be placed’. However, by taking into consideration the additional factor of positioning yourselves relative to the competition a company can make huge grounds in understanding relative merits (which can then be proactively countered).

The IIAR through Ed have created some fantastic IP which is available to all members. If you want to join, please let me or Hannah Kirkman know.

Recommended additional reading from SageCircle:

1. Don’t Obsess, Don’t Ignore: the Magic Quadrant & Tech Vendors [part 1]
2. Common Mistakes: the Magic Quadrant & Tech Vendors [part 2]
3. Homework – Gather Background Information: the Magic Quadrant & Tech Vendors [part 3]
4. Homework – Talk to the Analyst: the Magic Quadrant & Tech Vendors [part 4]
5. Moving the Dot: the Magic Quadrant & Tech Vendors [part 5]
6. The Danger is Complacency: the Magic Quadrant & Tech Vendors [part 6]
7. Equipping Sales for the MQ Effect: the Magic Quadrant & Tech Vendors [part 7]

Technorati Tags: magic quadrant,iiar,white paper,analyst relations

Filed under: analyst relations   |  1 Comment

How to do social media right in 2009

27Mar09

I’d like to highlight a presentation I have seen on social media – what makes this one different is that it avoids the normal clutter and makes a coherent discussion about what is important, how to do things right and how the web is evolving.

Even though there are several Edelman clients listed in here (disclosure) – this slide deck is pretty good if you need to explain to anyone best practice.

What I particularly like though, is that it attempts to explain ‘measurement’. Any regular reader of my blog will know that this is a focus-area of mine that I feel is critical to any implementation. We do not live in a ‘field of dreams’ world where simply creating content is enough to deliver success. More importantly (and especitally from a marketing POV), we need to be able to show how this process is a valauable use of (increasingly limited resources).

Technorati Tags: social media,web 3.0,pheasant

Filed under: pheasant, social media   |  2 Comments

When crowd sourcing goes wrong

25Mar09

You can imagine the marketing team at NASA sitting round a table thinking how can we get more people involved and excited about space (aside: anyone remember similar plot in the Simpsons). Either way, this creative bunch decided, ‘what better way than to ask the crowd what shall we name our new room in the space station?’

Genius.

…or so they thought.

What should have turned into a considered and thought provoking discussion with possibilities suggested by NASA including Serenity, Legacy and Venture turned into little more than a farce.

What happened was that comedian Stephen Colbert persuaded 230,539 of his Colbert Report viewers to vote instead on his last name. The result, he easily defeated the next closest contender by 40,000 votes. Nearly 1.2 million votes were cast overall.

What should NASA do now, overrule the crowd and pick their own name (which could cause more resentment) or stick with it? It’s a tough call… but not one that is unique.

I remember several years ago when Manchester City football club asked the crowd to help them name their new stand – there was a list of choices for people to pick. What they didn’t anticipate was that the vote would be hijacked by their main rivals (Manchester United) with disastrous and comedic results. In case you were wondering the new stand is called the Bell End (after Colin Bell).

What is the learning from this?

Never trust the crowd hasn’t got a sick sense of humour?

Or – be weary about what you ask, ask you may have to live the consequences.

Disclaimer: Edelman run the PR for Manchester City)
Disclaimer 2: I support Manchester United but have not been asked to work on the MCFC account.

Technorati Tags: pheasant,manchester city,colbert,nasa,space station,manchester united,social media,crowd sourcing

Filed under: analyst relations   |  1 Comment

How to lose a job via Twitter

24Mar09

I think that the Darwin awards needs to have a new classification under the 2.0 category.

Top of this list today would be @theconner on Twitter who made this ridiculous post:

Cisco just offered me a job! Now I have to weigh the utility of a fatty paycheck against the daily commute to San Jose and hating the work.

For some strange reason some people really believe that the things they tweet are private. (I am not talking about the very few people who turn on privacy settings in Twitter).

Either way, as a result of this clever Tweet, the ‘community’ rallied against poor theconner and said:

timmylevad: @theconnor Who is the hiring manager. I’m sure they would love to know that you will hate the work. We here at Cisco are versed in the web.

eweek points out “that "theconnor," who has since made private settings (with an ironic image that appears to have something stuffed in its mouth), is being wryly referred to as "cisco fatty" now. Not only has this response garnered a whole lot of attention from members of Twitter who are ridiculing the heck out of this person, it’s also spawned a Website ciscofatty.com.”

This post isn’t here to poke fun at theconner but merely to emphasise the view that what is published on Twitter is open to Google Alerts, searching and remains forever. Be careful, considerate and authentic with everything that is written.

Thanks to Graeme Thickins for pointing this story out on Twitter

Technorati Tags: twitter,darwin awards,pheasant,social media

Filed under: pheasant, social media   |  4 Comments

Jade Goody’s legacy

23Mar09

This post was originally published on the Edelman ‘how to kill a pheasant’ ning.

I shouldn’t have to start a post with an explanation, but I feel in this instance, it is due.

Firstly, I am not a Jade Goody – the reality TV star fan. I don’t even like Big Brother or any of the drivel that fills our tele screens on a daily basis.

What I do find interesting though is cause and effect. With the relentless media coverage that Jade’s cancer has achieved, many people have questioned her motivation, dignity and ethics over her approach to dealing with her own crisis. I am not here to judge (well maybe a little bit) but when I hear people saying that cancer is a private thing and that she should not be sharing her death with the nation I think people have failed to recognise the (unintended) result.

When initially queried as to why she was spending her dying days in the media spotlight, she emphasised that this was because she wanted to raise enough money for her sons while she still can. Good for her, but this is not the point I am trying to raise.

Jade Goody has never admitted to being the sharpest knife in the drawer and yet she has created a legacy that has become far bigger than she could have guessed. The media diary of her decline in health has tactfully made the younger generation more aware of death than they ever normally would (luckily). The fortunate fact of the matter is that people do not consider death at such a young age, many people will not have come face-to-face with it and hopefully will not for some time to come. And yet, here they are being told about how fragile life is on a daily basis through all kinds of media channels.

Which brings me back to her legacy.

There has been a 25% increase in the number of women having smear tests in the past few months, Max Clifford today is handing a petition to 10 Downing Street asking them to reduce the age restriction on tests from 25 to 20. This is Jade’s legacy – someone who through tragedy has saved lives.

Of course, none of this could ever have happened with the change in media consumption that we ‘enjoy’ nowadays. I am not a Jade Goody fan but I find it compelling and fascinating how an unintended benefit has fallen on the nation from someone who, let’s face it, has often been mocked.

Technorati Tags: jade goody,pheasant,edelman

Filed under: pheasant   |  Leave a Comment

How to kill a pheasant in the digital age?

17Mar09

It seems that my long absence from the mighty social media world has come to an end. The change – a new motivation. A few of us at Edelman are creating ‘something’ under the banner of ‘how to kill a pheasant in the digital age’ – think of it as an almanac of thoughts from some of the wizards in my team. As to my take on what this weird (and wonderful title means, read on…

Surprisingly this is more difficult than it sounds – after all, “you can’t kill a pheasant too dead”. However, in the digital age, the answers are literally at the tips of your fingers.

Whereas historically, such a question might be left unanswered, today a quick search in Google and you’re sorted. Or are you?

There is a balancing act to play between ease of search and trust. Just because it is written – is it accurate, fair and representative? In the current environment, everyone can be a publisher – no longer the domain of the geeks, technology has enabled users to share their thoughts, experiences and opinions in a vast array of multimedia channels such as Facebook, Twitter, Flickr, YouTube etc.

In addition, newspapers, no longer the source of scoops, have become more of a ‘viewspaper’; Internet blogs in search of the latest meme are changing the rules about embargo whilst citizen journalism has given everyone the right to take part in the conversation.

Meanwhile, algorithms are utilised to identify tastes (such as Genius, LastFm and Amazon) and are used to recommend products and services we were previously unaware of. Surely this is progress?

The combination of ease of search together with the proliferation of information has made it incredibly simple to find what you believe you are looking for. After all, when Time, momentously called the person of the year – ‘you’, they believed that everyone’s contribution to worldly knowledge in a way previously unavailable would be life changing.

And yet, the question of trust still remains. I am far more likely to believe what I read from certain sources over others. These influencers are the crux of the digital age and are the raison d’être to my pay packet. Taking the pheasant analogy further, who would you trust for a first class recipe for pheasant soup: the blog that is listed at the top of a Google search, a Wikipedia entry or a Delia Smith recipe? Of course the answer is subjective but I would argue that a search result can be manipulated by SEO and clever key words, Wikipedia is notorious for its anonymous-editing abilities whereas Delia (and bless her let’s be having you prose) is someone who is trusted – I would opt for her.

Time is a limiting factor. Agencies simply do not have resources to have conversations with every twitterer and Joe Blog out there. We must prioritise our scarce time to focus on the people that matter, the people who are trusted, the people who are influential.

So even though it my easy to find to find a way to kill a pheasant using a quick search in Google, you’ll probably find me referring to Delia for ways to how to cook it.

Note – this article and all posts that reference pheasant killing are in now way promoting the hunting of birds, or any animal for that matter .
More important note – this post was originally published on Ning and may in turn creep up in other places too.
Final note – sill still be focussing on the AR world too

Technorati Tags: how to kill a pheasant,ning,edelman

Filed under: pheasant   |  Leave a Comment

Making the most out of Symposium

28Oct08

With Symposium just next week, people often attend without thinking ‘how can I make the most of this opportunity. Here are a few of my tips…

Gaining Analyst Mindshare

·         Conversations prior to the conference to influence the position of a vendor is vital to the outcome and discussion with their presentations to attendees. Inquiries, customer briefings and SAS days from June are critical to getting on their agenda. Also it might be worth a quick call to some of your analysts this week simply to touch-base.

·         Positive engagements on-site during the week will likely get reflected in the analyst’s presentation.  If it’s front of mind for them, they’re more likely to represent that when they’re up on stage.  Thus, meetings with them before their sessions and especially immediately before the session (and even sitting in the front of the room during the session) are high value influence opportunities.  

·         The key to effective competitive AR is to infiltrate the messaging of our competitive vendors.  Not only will you miss an opportunity to influence competitive positioning at the event when the analysts are presenting, you open up the opportunity for the competitive AR teams to influence your coverage.

 

Relationship Management

·         It really is one of the best times to build durable relationships.  The social and structured activities provide chances for engagement that really are unavailable at any other time.  

·         The show also provides a chance to build relationships with new and under utilized analysts and to continue to enhance relationships with key analysts. All the key Gartner analysts will be on hand for meetings and relationship building.

·         If you’re not there, the analysts will notice, especially the senior analysts most responsible for the event itself. They take pride in their event and your absence would send a message that you don’t really care.  I don’t want to be overly dramatic here, but the analysts will notice and they expect that the lead AR director should be there (as are your peers/competitors).

 

Sharpening Insights and Knowledge

·         One of the obvious benefits of the attending is to refine and acquire knowledge of not only competitive positioning, but on the industry itself through presentations and discussions.

·         You can gain competitive insights from the activities of the AR staff of your competitors.  It’s not just a matter of positioning ourselves favourably with the analysts. We should also be working to actively deposition the competition and understand their approach to the conference.

·         You can and continue to learn from your peers.  These are large gatherings of AR professionals and you can learn first-hand what issues and opportunities your colleagues perceive. I know several people who are going – and would be happy to introduce you to them in advance.

 

Mining Opportunities for the Future

·         Being there is essential to closing  the loop. We spend so much time and effort leading up to the event to influence the analysts so that they present favourably on you.  The event is not the end of the engagement.  Having helped to make the event successful for you, you need to make sure that you understand where we succeeded (and how to exploit those opportunities) and where we need improvement.  You can’t make an intelligent assessment of the outcomes and your companies overall performance if you’re not there. 

o    Customer insights. 

o    What’s the mood of the event. 

o    Are people optimistic? 

o    What sessions are well attended and what messages seem to resonate with them.

o    What’s going on the show floor? 

o    Where are customers spending their time? 

o    How does the HP booth support what we are trying to accomplish from an analyst messaging perspective.  The analysts look at the booth;  You need to know what they think of it and bring the insights and influence opportunities back to the company and turn the event into a catalyst for future influence and insights?

 

I hope this helps – and good luck next week.

Technorati Tags: gartner,gartner symposium,tips,ar,analyst relations,analyst

Filed under: analyst relations   |  Leave a Comment