Top analyst twitterers / analyst twitter index
Over the past three months the number of analysts that use Twitter has increased dramatically. When I first started ranking them only 49 analysts used this tool – this has now jumped dramatically to 122 (no doubt by the time I publish this, it will have increased again).
Amongst AR pros, there is still a considerable debate regarding just how useful Twitter is. My view is rather simple: as long as the analysts that are important to me take part in conversations on Twitter then so will I. If they move to another medium (such as LinkedIn, Jaiku etc) then I will move to.
The reason why I believe that ranking the analysts is important is based on the fact that I (like most people) have only limited time and resources and I want to ensure that whatever time I do put to one side to monitor these people, it is focused on those with the greatest impact.
My assumption is that influence can be measured (not by working out their popularity) but by how many people engage with them. It is someone’s choice to follow an analyst or to take part in a conversation with them. Similar to Digg, this user requirement to actively endorse someone has been given the highest rating in my calculations. (The full methodology is explained at the bottom of this post).
|4||Hurwitz & Assoc.||Robin Bloor||30||13||18||19||79|
|9||Jupiter Research||Michael Gartenberg||26||15||17||15||73|
|11||AMR Research||Jonathan Yarmis||25||15||16||13||68|
|14||AIIM Market Intel.||Dan Keldsen||24||14||10||18||65|
|15||Monash Research||Curt Monash||26||15||7||16||64|
|20||Freeform Dynamics||David Tebbutt||19||12||10||19||59|
|24||Jupiter Research||Nate Elliott||16||12||12||18||57|
|25||Freeform Dynamics||Jon Collins||18||14||13||11||56|
|26||Forrester Research||Steve Noble||18||11||13||14||56|
|27||Freeform Dynamics||Dale Vile||15||11||11||19||55|
|29||Analyst in Transit||IdaRose Sylvester||15||12||16||11||54|
|31||Jupiter Research||Ian Fogg||13||10||8||20||51|
|32||le CXP||Vincent Lieffroy||15||12||7||18||51|
|37||Elemental Links||Brenda Michelson||15||12||10||13||49|
|45||Burton Group||Mike Gotta||19||12||1||14||46|
|48||Grey Consulting||Maurene Caplan Grey||14||8||5||19||45|
|50||Emerging Media Dyn.||Cynthia Brumfield||15||8||5||16||44|
|51||AMR Research||Phil Fersht||17||9||2||15||43|
|55||Hurwitz & Assoc.||Judith Hurwitz||17||8||2||14||41|
|56||Patricia Seybold Group||Patty Seybold||14||8||1||18||40|
|57||Jupiter Research||David Schatsky||15||10||2||13||39|
|62||Freeform Dynamics||Martin Atherton||13||8||4||14||38|
|63||Enderle Group||Rob Enderle||11||6||11||10||37|
|73||Bathwick Group||Gary Barnett||13||7||0||13||33|
|74||Yankee Group||Yankee Group||13||4||1||14||32|
|83||Infostructure Assoc.||Wayne Kernochan||9||5||0||15||29|
|86||Jupiter Research||Nick Thomas||9||5||0||14||27|
|89||Jupiter Research||Barry Parr||14||5||0||8||27|
|95||Freeform Dynamics||Tony Lock||9||4||0||11||24|
|100||Entiva Group||Alex Fletcher||9||2||5||8||23|
|101||Tier1 Research||Jason Verge||10||4||0||9||23|
|102||Beagle Research Group||Denis Pombriant||10||5||0||8||22|
|104||Endpoint Technologies||Roger Kay||11||5||0||6||22|
|107||Gartner||David M. Smith||13||2||0||6||21|
|112||AMR Research||Chris Goodhue||10||1||0||6||17|
|114||AMR Research||AMR Research||10||0||0||6||16|
|116||Jupiter Research||Bobby Tulsiani||9||1||0||6||16|
|117||Ideas International||Tony Iams||8||2||0||6||16|
|121||AMR Research||Chris Fletcher||6||0||0||6||12|
Note: For simplicity I have only shown whole numbers – hence why analysts like Nate Elliot are shown with 57 points when it may appear they should have 58.
A few analysts deserve a call out:
Jeremiah Owyang for topping the table again – this analyst perhaps more than any other uses Twitter as a research tool (asking questions, delivering insight and evangelising it’s use). Looking at the high number of Forrester analysts on this list it is not surprising that they are viewed as experts in this space (pity though that such high profile people such as Charlene Li and Peter Kim have left then).
New entrant Robin Bloor. It seems like a long time ago that Robin Bloor said ‘real analysts don’t tweet’. If ever there was a case that analysts can change their minds then this example proves it.
The entire RedMonk crew of James Governor, Michael Coté, Stephen O’Grady and new (GreenMonk) Tom Raftery. An analyst firm that uses social media to complement their activity making their share of voice far higher than you would guess for a 4 person company.
Even though I included these quotes in my previous update, they are still valid and shows the mixed views about how important Twitter is amongst the analyst community:
It’s important for people to know that using Twitter actually helps me with my analysis, I’ve a direct connection with the marketplace that I cover (social computing) and I’m able to find out information at rapid speed, as well as deliver information.
I would guess I have over 100 clients who are on twitter, and we’re building relationships, sharing, and learning about each other.
I have to give points to The Guv’nor – a few months ago, I was showing Twitter to a client and he offered his services to them as an alternative.
I’ve found Twitter to be immensely valuable in understanding the state of the conversation in the space I am covering (social media technologies), getting to know people, finding inspiration, getting feedback, and highlighting (occasionally) some of my work.
As work life and personal life blend into one, more and more I’m finding twitter to be an effective means of communication. Clients also seem to appreciate being able to reach you easily through whichever connection medium they find easiest at the time, whether its text message, facebook, twitter, phone call, or email.
While I’m absolutely certain of the value of blogging as an analyst, I’m much less convinced by the Twitter proposition. Apart from a few of my clients in the wireless VoIP / Mobile Web 2.0 application area, I’m not aware that most of my contacts (primarily in the mobile industry) use or read microblogging in any form whatsoever. Also, nobody in my social circle has ever mentioned it at all, and I see no reason to play the evangelist.
Count me in–When I noticed that my clients were twittering to the world from our seminars, I wanted in! Now we can thought-provoke one another and keep track… It’s a mini-support network…and having access to the other analysts’ who are out there covering meetings, trade shows, and breaking news, makes it easy to track the pulse!
Followers (0 to 30) – Twitter lists the number of followers each user has. Like subscribing to a feed, this is a clear indication of importance 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 25) that was used as part of the algorithm.
Updates (0 to 30) – 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 25) that was used as part of the algorithm.
Conversation (0 to 40) – How many people engage in conversation with you. 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 30 day period between 1 April and 1 May 2008. The number of times this happens is calculated with each range was assigned a number (0 to 25) – again this was then used as part of the algorithm.
Technobabble Points (0 to 20) – As the only personal subjective measure in the algorithm, 0 to 25 opinion points were assigned to each blog. People who scored highest in this category had frequent, relevant and high-quality content (asking questions, posting links or commenting on discussions). Please note that I have not scored people low by not having exclusive analyst-focused content as the very nature of Twitter is to engage in off-topic discussions. I also am fully cognisant that some people use Twitter in different ways (such as posting links, asking questions etc) – this ranking recognises the value of each and scores people accordingly.
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 a blogs total score. For the table listed above the following weightings were used:
This ranking system is not meant to be a score based on someone’s ‘popularity’. I have taken careful consideration of the analysts participation into the community and the corresponding willingness of third parties to engage. As with my other posts, this league table is not an end in itself and I hope to gain valuable feedback to understand how I can make this more valid.
Filed under: analyst relations | 27 Comments