Okay, time for me to eat some humble pie. Thanks for your email in reply to mine, and for James’ passionate call earlier today. I reacted wrongly, and can only apologise.

As Jon speculated, this is what can happen when we jump to conclusions. As the risk of reopening wounds, let me explain my comments. I was alarmed by the original post, especially after clients of mine assumed that this was a ranking of mine. The post also seemed to mistakenly attribute to me the notions that RedMonk matters to midmarket buyers, that midmarket buyers are less conservative, that the 13 firms on the chart are those more important than RedMonk and that the chart is mine. In particular, presenting HFN’s work unacknowledged seemed bad form, and presenting it as mine.was inaccurate. I called this ‘plagiarism by proxy’ in an email to James yesterday, in that HFN’s work was presented as mine. Of course I now see that my use of that word was incomprehensible and too harsh – especially since you have corrected that omission.

Before I take the time to clarify my views on analystequity.com, I wanted first to make a public apology and, by explaining myself, hope that you accept the apology I emailed to you.

Best,

Duncan.

I don’t believe we have had any contact before, but I am surprised that you should plagarise, and misrepresent, my blog article about this research as you have. You have selected only the elements that fit your story, and distored my views and the data in your favour. This is terrible form for any blogger, but quite exceptional for one who aspires to be an influential analyst.

The chart you have copied belongs to HFN. You have not sought their permission, or even acknowledged that the research is theirs. It is certainly not a quality or influence ranking of analyst firms. It shows only the web traffic hitting websites of a sample of firms. The list does not claim to be exhaustive. In no way can this chart, nor my comments on my blog [www.analystequity.com], be used to conclude that the 13 firms are the most important. I have not said, as you suggest I have, that the twelve firms you cite are those that are more important than your firm. Our research shows that there are very many firms more influential than yours.

Readership is quite different from influence. It is self-evident that Ovum is more influential than Aberdeen; and IDC more influential than Jupiter – despite web traffic scores that point in opposite directions. Our surveys of CIOs show, for example, that free research meets the needs of technology buyers much less well.

Seeing the way in which your post has distored the research discussed, I can start to appreciate why some buyers consider free research to worth exactly what it costs.

Duncan.

I haven’t figured out if it’s really that simplistic, or whether they attach some sort of reverse value to the indemnity clauses in contracts (slow down implemtnation, tax ongoing operations, but possibly win in a remote end game).

In the end, there is no replacement for being a critical thinker, and that investment pays its own dividends. I rely heavily on thinking from people like RedMonk, Brenda and other “free thinkers” (pun intended) to do my large-enterprise day job.

Glad to see you guys getting some props – you definitely have a large sphere of influence.

congrats on your ‘position of influence’… can’t wait to see you guys in the top 3! -brenda

Isn’t that just the four stages of post-trauma stress?

Jon