Comments on: Seeing the Forest for the Brand

By: Merv Adrian

Merv Adrian — Sun, 21 Feb 2010 19:57:37 +0000

Well reasoned and very balanced – nice work. It’s very encouraging to see Forrester’s Cliff Condon commenting here, and more so to see him say that

“The analysts are also being encouraged to comment and particpate on non-Forreter bliogs if it helps further their analysis and research. ”

In my own post on this topic last year at http://bit.ly/tOHjw I noted that participation in the dialogue (interacting on their own “open” as well as others’ blogs, instead of sitting inside the firewall waiting for clients [only] to have a conversation) was one of the areas that seemed to be lacking within the large firms, whose use of the social media seemed primarily broadcast-oriented. Cliff’s assertion is therefore very encouraging, and one hopes that those analysts who have always been participants will be joined by more of their colleagues.

By: Rich Sands

Rich Sands — Fri, 19 Feb 2010 19:10:43 +0000

I just saw this so sorry for the late comment – better catch up on my feed reader! The question to my mind is: should an analyst firm act like a syndicator of individual analysts’ product, or is the firm’s product more than the sum of its parts? As someone who has been responsible for buying a lot of analyst research, my experience is that a firm’s product is actually less than its parts. I greatly resented the cost of services in which a stable of analysts contributed to a “practice”, but only 1 or 2 of those analysts were truly original thinkers with critical insights worth purchasing. I would have been much happier buying analysis a-la carte, picking and choosing what I bought based on my own value assessments of analysts. But the firms that packaged analysis into practices ended up with a much bigger slice of my budget than the firms offering a more a-la carte approach. Less value to us at a higher cost. No different than a music album, except that now I can buy the individual tracks I like, and leave the filler behind. If only I could have done that when I was responsible for buying analysis!

Analyst stars need firms less and less. They can collaborate with their peers, publish their content themselves either for $ or as Redmonk does, as a concrete demonstration of the insight one can buy when engaging the analyst as a consultant. Firms face a similar problem to all the other syndicators of content out there: the value of distribution and aggregation is disappearing. It seems to me that Forrester has decided to circle the wagons with their decision. We know where that leads though. I think they’d be a lot better off making their firm a uniquely comfortable place for superstar analysts to hang their hats.

By: Cliff Condon

Cliff Condon — Fri, 12 Feb 2010 17:39:17 +0000

Thanks for the well thought out post. As part of the social team at Forrester, I can tell you that each analyst will have their own branded blog on the new platform. Their blog is a a place for them to have an individual voice and explore their topic areas. The analysts are also being encouraged to comment and particpate on non-Forreter bliogs if it helps further their analysis and research. Use of Twitter is also encouraged.

The star model has existed long before the emergence of social tools. And Forrester has a long history of building stars. We help our analysts secure major speaking gigs, promote them and their research through our own marketing efferts, and feature them at our events. We even help secure book deals like for Josh Bernoff. So by adding personally-branded blogs to Forrester, we are continuing the tradition of using the Forrester brand to help build analyst’s individual brand.

Cliff Condon

By: sogrady

sogrady — Thu, 11 Feb 2010 19:53:02 +0000

@Dale Vile: great minds, and so on

By: sogrady

sogrady — Thu, 11 Feb 2010 18:57:02 +0000

@Glen: indeed. personal brand is always going to be a factor, and artificially stifling that might benefit the firm in the short term at the expense of the long. firms that don’t make stars of their people will, inevitably, lack for stars. and that’s rarely a positive.

does that mean Forrester’s wrong? tough to say. if all the monks, for example, blogged at completely unrelated properties, that might be an issue. but you need to grant folks latitude to permit them to grow.

@William Vambenepe: indeed, and that’s a point i should have made above. thanks for remedying the omission.

we observed that at RedMonk. a single, corporate blog inspired James and myself very little. it was once we gained our own venues that things really took off. and it’s not clear that that lesson is fully understood in this case.

@David R: thanks, appreciate the kind words. glad you found it of interest.

By: Dale Vile

Dale Vile — Thu, 11 Feb 2010 18:56:32 +0000

Good analysis. Resonates well with our view at Freeform. Nothing to add.

By: David R

David R — Thu, 11 Feb 2010 18:26:54 +0000

Out of all the pieces that I’ve read on this subject, yours is by far and away the most considered and thoughtful. Thank you.

By: William Vambenepe

William Vambenepe — Thu, 11 Feb 2010 00:42:21 +0000

Part of why this isn’t a zero-sum game is that the analyst will work harder (e.g. late at night) on a personally-branded blog than they will on a company blog.

By: Glen

Glen — Wed, 10 Feb 2010 23:50:45 +0000

Interesting debate. I liken it to how some of my colleagues work to band themselves within the scope of their work. By enlarge the corporate policy is that, as long as it does not work contrary to one’s employment and a necessary disclaimer is present, blogs, and for those that choose, self branding is acceptable outside that corporate umbrella.