Agile Analyst Relations? You heard it here first

I would like to propose the following thesis.

For analyst relations to work optimally in the future, it needs to adopt a model of agile relations.

Why? Let’s first consider why technology industry analysts exist at all. Market analysts exist in most industries, but don’t have the clout that tech analysts have. The reasons are simple - deal sizes are huge, the landscape is complex and fast moving, and market inertia is debilitating. For vendors, industry analysts can reduce friction from change, and change means procurement. For end-user organisations, technology and market understanding have a strategic role for decision makers. Put the two together and we have a multi-billion win-win in a trillion dollar market.

Today we have a large rip in the hot air balloon of technology industry analysis. We know the reasons for this — information that was once paywalled is now either accessible or superseded. Gartner’s share price has plummeted 43% in three years, and other incumbents are also struggling. Newer companies continue to grow if they offer something the big guys don’t, but their longer-term success isn’t guaranteed. And yet, the tech analyst industry will persist for exactly the reasons stated above - the need for insights to support large-scale buying within a context of complexity and change.

It’s safe to assume that analyst firms will continue to exist, even if specific firms are subject to current Darwinian forces. The question of how to continue to offer high-value analyst services is being addressed and, I believe, largely answered. Meanwhile however, analyst relations must also evolve, for a simple reason: its existence is predicated on reducing friction with analyst firms, to maximise its impact against a number of defined metrics such as market visibility and procurement selection probability. With the caveat of the adage “Half the money I spend… is wasted; the trouble is I don’t know which half,” do things right and the metrics should go up, and if they don’t, that’s reason to act.

Analyst relations teams are often budget starved and misunderstood by their own companies, with the result that changing how things are done can be seen as an aspirational, if not an unattainable goal. I’ve spoken to several who see little bandwidth remaining, having dealt with information requests from the major analyst firms (and indeed, I’ve been advised that a really good moment to ask for information is immediately following such an information request). However, these requests are feeding the very reports that are being superseded by LLM queries.

This double challenge — how to find time to deliver more or to innovate, even as existing, inefficient processes are being maintained, is exactly the sort of challenge I have seen across nearly four decades of doing, then supporting, then consulting on software delivery. Across the years, numerous approaches and methodologies have been considered to release time and resources for new projects. And indeed, IDC’s “keep-the-lights-on” diagram (a pie chart showing 70% for that, and 30% for innovation) still reflects how difficult it can be to release resources whilst making space for the new.

Through the ideological waves have come a set of principles, which loosely group under the banner of ‘agile’, and which I believe can apply to analyst relations evolution in these times. First, a clear view of business stakeholders and results to be driven by any analyst relations activity; second, internal processes and external activities that deliver on these results, provably, every time; and third, budgets and strategy that recognise and accommodate constant change.

Pause: if you’re doing all of that already, well done. The drinks are on me. Otherwise, let’s look at these one by one.

So what do we mean by business results? A fundamental flaw in analyst relations is that it is seen as a marketing communications function, even while the primary goal of analysts is to enable buying decisions — which is a sales activity. I’ve written before about how it’s harder for analysts to function if there’s a disconnect between marketing and sales (and indeed, “sales enablement” is increasingly seen as a box analysts can fill). I’ve also had conversations about how sales attribution of analyst activity is really hard for a vendor.

So here’s my first request: put the internal customer first! Involve the chief revenue officer in analyst relations strategy. The rest will flow.

Then we have internal processes and external activities. There’s no end of physical events, webinars, zoom calls, emails and press releases that any analyst firm can be invited to, requested for, sent or pointed at. I can think of vendors that do this stuff well, and some who do it less well (happy to drill into that)… but much of it is predicated on a misunderstanding, that it will feed directly into procurement inquiries from enterprise buyers. The mapping between outbound analyst relations activity and such inquiries is tenuous at the best of times.

And so to my second request: understand and align the information flows. Ask how information is used at each analyst firm you engage with, and tailor activities accordingly.

If you think this request is too hard, that proves my thesis, and brings me to the third point: set budgets and strategy based on constant change. Analyst firms are already evolving (some faster and better than others), but how well are you keeping up with these adaptations and the new patterns that are emerging? Companies like KCG and Destrier can help steer; agencies like Spotlight AR and Starsight AR are thinking hard about this in support of their own clients; but nothing will change if money isn’t involved.

So, my third request: create both headspace and financial support for the future. Set at least 10% of budget to assessing and actioning new analyst relations models.

Above all, the goal is to get ahead of the curve by bringing agility into the equation — by being able to flex and move faster than the norm. Commentators have written about dinosaur vs mammal analyst firms, but an open question remains - is the AR function aligned more to historical norms than future flexibility? We need analyst relations functions that are constantly learning, and acting on their new knowledge. Out of this maelstrom will emerge new models, and teams that are able to evolve fastest, and engaged with forward-thinking analyst firms, will be the ones that gain the most traction for their organisations.

A last thought — about people. Industry analysts, analyst relations teams, marketing and sales leaders, CIOs and enterprise decision makers exist as a community of peers. Across my career as an analyst I’ve been a great believer in the win-win between vendor and enterprise, something I learned from my consulting days. Equally, there’s a win-win to be had between peers in the technology analysis space, those who want their story to be told, those who want to hear it, and those who enable it to happen. It takes a village, and only by all parties working together can we succeed.