[I am an analyst.]
Chris Hoff is fun to read. Last week, he came out with a long diatribe about how analysts are essentially all subjective and biased and downright dirty. The irony, of course, is that he is doing exactly the same thing to analysts that he laments the analysts doing to vendors. In fact, Hoff performs the exact same function as analysts do with his blog today.
I have news for Chris – I don’t know an analyst out there (and I know a lot of analysts) who doesn’t work overtime looking for ways to disagree with other analysts. So this whole “quashes innovation” thing is a load of bull. I like innovation better than anything else in my job. In fact, I think the idea behind SCIT is really cool and not S.H.I.T. like one analyst put it in his attempt to quash innovation.
This notion that product categories are stifling both resonates with me but is also a necessity – reality is always a complex mix of shades of gray that must be simplified (the same way Chris simplified his analysis of analysts) to provide general advice that then can be translated into more specifics later on in a project.
It is not clear to me how a guy with as many strong opinions as the Hoff-man can go off on a bunch of other folks with strong opinions as well. To somehow suggest that there is some objective notion of predicting the future (which is what analysts, trade press, vendors, venture capitalists, systems integrators, and technical architects try to do every day) is simply ridiculous.
So, there is no such thing as an objective “truly differentiating and powerful” feature set. That is an opinion. Keep in mind that the analysts life is full of briefings from new companies with “truly differentiating and powerful” features, built from the ground up by folks with over 200 years of experience.
Crossing the Chasm is definitely still useful (and recommended reading) because the chasm IS Hoff’s dilemma — he is a technical innovator while the early and late majority think differently about things. In addition, the idea of the “whole product” would be useful to read up on, as that is what happens in a consolidating marketplace. (I hope this is changing and am really excited about the possibilities of Long Tail marketing, but it simply isn’t the case with today’s enterprises.)
All this said, there may be ways in the future to make things better – using quantitative methods and predictive markets, for example. But it isn’t likely to happen overnight because a huge majority of people (who don’t read blogs or the trade press) are perfectly fine with the existing model. It would be exciting to me to develop a model for the future, but if enough people don’t want it, then that “truly innovative” approach will die on the vine just like anything else. Go figure.
I am *not* an analyst, at least not by title or trade, so my perspective is a little different than yours.
The interesting thing about people’s responses to my post is that the majority (of analysts) rush to defend their honor where my intention was not to smear the individuals per se, but rather call into question the giant analyst COMPANY industrial complex.
The fact is (and it *is* a fact) that the buckets that products get sorted into do as much, if not more, bad as they do good.
They constrain products and innovation — also for bad and good.
In terms of your flimsy analog for quashing innovation by using my recent review of SCIT – I don’t take money in any form for my reviews, opinions or “research” and I don’t have the ability to cause a company to forcefully yield its strategy to the whim of a product category or risk going out of business.
The offline dialog from this post has been awesome. It’s fueled discussion, mostly from analysts.
Go figure.
@Chris -
The amount of support I am getting for my post is overwhelmingly positive. I am amazed how many people agree with me. It is truly heartening to know that the rest of the world agrees with me and that your view is a minority one with only a handful of people (mostly vendors with suspect ideas).
Yes, we are all playing our roles particularly well. Your role is the one where you say “of course you would say that because you are an analyst” every time someone points out clear irony and idiocy in what you are saying.
My point is that this is a human bias thing and even though it “sucks monkey balls” it happens everywhere for everything. That is too philosophical and esoteric for this blog.
It is also your role to suggest that taking money for advice is always bad, which must put you in a tough situation given that you take money for advice, even if your title doesn’t say analyst in it (hint: strategist, evangelist, architect, philosopher, etc.. are all the same).
The notion that money is the only thing that people believe has value is silly, of course. Influence and power are a craving of many, particularly when they feel compelled to try to unseat some Goliath company. You certainly are better off creating a new category for yourself other than “analyst” so I applaud your efforts.
To suggest that “product categories do more bad than good” is a fact is absolutely ridiculous.
To suggest that vendors must “forcibly yield its strategy to the whim of a product category” is equally ridiculous and points the blame in the wrong direction.
To be so vehement about this without explicitly stating the case(s) you are thinking of is a disservice to the entire community. If you truly believe a company is innovative and is getting a raw deal, then call it out so we can all evaluate your opinions as well.
Who watches the bloggers?
I’m sorry, what?
I didn’t say everyone agreed with me. In fact, I didn’t even say ANYONE agreed with me. I merely said the dialog has been awesome, including your response, up until your turrets outburst in this last comment.
Glad I hit a nerve.
I have no deep-seated need to be right, Pete.
Further, I never said anything remotely close to “of course you would say that because you are an analyst”
…but you keep on keeping on, bro, because the one bit you got spot-on is the fact that you’re absolutely playing your part…
I’m absolutely mesmerized by your penchant and refined ability to take everything and anything out of context.
It’s a thing of beauty. It must be the analyst in you.
G’night, Ethel.
/Hoff