What does next-gen analyst relations look like - and why should customers care?

Over the last decade+ at diginomica, I've seen firsthand how tech media has been disrupted - in both good and bad ways. But in recent years, another question has pre-occupied me:

Why hasn't analyst relations been disrupted also? 

As we rethink what customer success really means in our industry, isn't it time for analyst relations to change also? And does AI disrupt this further?

diginomica has always been something of a media/analyst hybrid; we crash attend events on both the media and analyst tracks. I've tried to turn that outlier view into something useful, advocating for new approaches to analyst event design. But the implications go deeper than rethinking events, so I integrated analyst/influencer relations into diginomica's B2B Informed Buyer framework. (see: two sample wireframes below). That was my first attempt to map how analyst relations fits into the B2B buyer mix. 

We can debate whether analyst relations should report to communications, marketing, or product (I think AR should report directly to a board-level person), but regardless of where it lands on the org chart, analyst relations should tie back to making projects better - and customers more successful. This issue came up when Martin Schneider put me on the proverbial hot seat during his podcast on analyst relations.  If we need to redefine the purpose of analyst relations, then so be it. As I said on the podcast:

I think we're not delivering enough successful projects in our industry, and we haven't  - ever. Our collective obligation, whether it's an analyst, what you do, what any of us do, should ultimately be about serving the customer to make their projects better. That's our job. And that's how we should be evaluated. And if we're not doing that, and we're not helping customers make their project better and increasing all the dialogue around that in ways that helps them, then we need to start rethinking what we're doing.

So that's what drives my obsessive research.  For this piece, I boiled it down to twelve points. 

The case for next-gen analyst relations - a 12 point framework for discussion

1. The "big three" analyst firms have their place, but buyers need a greater diversity of thinking (and input) to make sense of the speed of tech/business change. 

2. Boutique/specialist analyst firms are a valuable presence, but the need for change in analyst relations goes further and deeper (e.g. event formats are still stale). 

3. Product rankings/categorizations have diminishing usefulness when technology changes so quickly. End-to-end processes now trump point-solution-thinking. 

4. There is a need for analyst engagement beyond research and product rankings/categorization. The real magic happens in the unfiltered back and forth between analysts and executives (and even better when customers are pulled into that mix). 

5. This unfettered dialogue is not new - savvy analyst relations directors have facilitated candid conversations long before this post was conceived. But, alas, KPI culture, as in: "What is the value in this meeting?" threatens the dialogue that is analyst relations at its best. Therefore, KPIs need to change - to encompass these intangible/high value interactions.

6. The annual static report style of analyst relations is under duress from clients that are increasingly online 24/7. We need fluid ways to obtain discerning analysis - beyond the mediocre social streams that currently pass for discourse. (Note: AI can help here, in a couple of useful ways, but it's not a substitute for more networked connections between humans; nor can AI possibly dispense its own analyst-level advice the way it can (re)gurge out a mediocre blog post. However, AI could facilitate those connections. Properly deployed, gen AI can provide a useful front end to analyst research archives, and advisory moments). 

7. Next-gen analyst relations isn't going to displace the work on Waves, Quadrants, and Trapezoids. Nor will it displace lead gen exercises like webinars and white papers. Often, the best way for analyst relations to head down this next-gen path is to nurture more creative engagement strategies in parallel, expanding the scope as executives are won over by a more real-time/interactive approach to analyst engagement. 

8. To survive today's budgetary pressure cooker, AR directors will need to justify their work within KPI culture, not try to dodge it. Some AR directors have eluded KPI pressures based on board-level relationships - but founders move on, and reporting structures change. This means creating new KPIs - and documenting the value of informal-but-potent moments in AR as we go, not try to reconstitute them half a year later during budget review. (this may be where AI/automation can help analyst relations the most - even meeting summaries and action items are useful data fodder in this KPI pursuit).

9. The lines between analyst relations, media, and "influencer engagement" blurred a long time ago. Why is the relationship management of these groups so persistently siloed and static? 

10. Excessive use of NDA content in analyst relations deprives customers of crucial insights - insights which could otherwise be freely shared by increasingly media-savvy analysts. (Timing the release of NDA content and limiting its scope is part of the artful messaging game now). 

11. Vendors brandish "customer success" in their talking points, but fail to tie analyst relations into that customer success framework. Isn't that ultimately how such engagement should be judged? If we aren't making customers more successful, what are we doing exactly? Nobody hands out awards for the amount of slide decks reviewed with analysts in a calendar year. 

12. Analyst relations events cling to static formats, missing the chance to integrate creative on-the-ground formats with hybrid use of virtual briefings. Too many events still resemble one-way brain dumps, with executives competing for slide deck supremacy, thereby missing the best opportunity to build relationships and foster lasting dialogue. It comes down to: what are the goals of this event - and analyst relations in general? As I wrote in Lessons from the ups and downs of vendor analyst days: 

Deepen the relationships between analysts and vendor. Easier said than done - this goes directly against the 'brain dump' model of covering as many slides and product updates as possible. There is a limit to how much info you can cover. But strong relationships are containers that can hold plenty of information - now and in the future.

Relationship-building may slow information downloads in the short-term, but strong relationships result in much bigger containers of information in the long run. Yet that rarely seems to be the priority of analyst events. True, some analysts will balk at a dialogue-heavy format. But analysts are specialized - and how many deep dives can be covered in one day? The combination of dialogue-oriented events with topical virtual briefings is the winner. 

When AR directors take chances on new formats, they often succeed. From hybrid press/analyst Q/As to creative mixing of VIP customers and analysts, there are plenty of sensible and energizing envelopes to push. Traditional event structures don't have to be scrapped. New formats can be mixed in - and successes documented. There are few things more rewarding than AR directors calling me later to say, "I was nervous about trying this, but this sh@t works!". But hey, the status quo is always an option: How to screw up a vendor analyst day - in 12 simple steps. 

On the role of AI - and KPIs

Each of these twelve points could be expanded into a separate post, so I won't be able to detail them all here (if you want to pick up on one of them in the meantime, ping me). I've sprinkled in commentary on the role of AI. My AI deep dives have not persuaded me that AI can generate analyst-grade insights, but I do see a role for AI enabling a 24/7 type of engagement. 

On KPIs, however, my stance has shifted. I used to be in open revolt against KPI culture. Now, that is a luxury I can't afford. Measuring results (and obsessing over those measurements) is here to stay. My new goal? Reframe KPIs to quantify the rare/beautiful moments of corporate magic that used to be relegated to "intangible." As I wrote in B2B buyer engagement is a year-round endeavor: 

I remain concerned we are measuring the wrong things. But I've also changed my stance: we must attempt to measure the right things, rather than let the metrics be defined by volume-chasers who buy into reach, versus reaching the right people. KPI culture isn't going away. If you can't document the magic that occurs around content and community engagement, then you can expect the funding for that to wither, even while brands like Salesforce double down on community - powered by the buyer engagement metrics they've already proven out. Yes, opt-in data is part of how we win with differentiated content, but the results go far beyond that.

Analysts firms of all stripes were - and are - delivering value. But, there is a higher bar now. A different kind of value is needed, but it won't be enough to achieve it in fleeting moment of inspired engagement. We'll need to somehow document and measure it (e.g. analysts referring vendors to prospect leads or troubled customer projects). A forward-thinking approach to multi-touch attribution helps also by the way. If you're on this particular train with me, then how to quantify those moments is a top issue. AR software is an emerging category that could help - will we get it right? 

How we document that value is a question not fully answered, but I've seen progress on everything from AI-based sentiment analysis, to post-meeting documentation, not just of topics covered, but of insights that led to actions. One thing is certain: if the impact isn't documented quickly, it won't be possible to assess it six months later. Good solutions will emerge that involve smart data capture, and AI-enabled value scoring. Later, that can be tied to everything from lead generation to strategic planning.

My take - if customers don't care, then analysts are doing something wrong

It is obviously in my self-interest to poke a bit of fun at the "big three" analyst firms and argue that the analyst industry status quo is stale. But diginomica rarely competes with such entities for budget. I take my cue from buyers - and most buyers I know want to hear from a diverse group of expert voices. 

Some who call for industry change extol the virtues of independence. But 'independence' is hard to come by; only a handful of specialized end customer firms take no vendor money (ironically, some of the strongest analyst voices I know hail from the so-called big three, so I'm not sure what independence really means as an arbiter of analyst value). For transparency, I believe what matters is disclosure. Disclose where our money comes from when we take market positions, and let readers decide the merits of those positions. It's a discipline that's worked for diginomica; I just added disclosures to this post.

So, we get to the final punch line - the unresolved question. Why should customers care?

If customers don't care, then analysts are doing something wrong. Not everything connected to analyst relations can be tied back to customer results - but whenever possible, that should be our bar. Good analysts demystify market trends in ways customers can't always get from their peer group. Analysts can also help make some semblance of sense from vendor roadmaps (or point out the gaps). They can provide an outspoken take on the pros and cons of a vendor's AI strategy, or the rationalization of acquisitions. 

At their best, analysts provide unflinching feedback to software vendors; customers aren't always able to do that. At times, customers are unwilling to risk the friction that a full airing of their grievances might invoke, but they are often glad to relay those predicaments to analysts, who can either amplify the concerns, or take a problem-solving approach with the vendor. I've seen that unfold on the backchannel at analyst events many times. If acted upon by the vendor, tough feedback can turn into product gold. 

How a vendor responds to that kind of input is a revealing gut check on that vendor - and their leadership. It's a myth that vendors always need to have the top customer satisfaction score on planet earth. Give me a vendor that has acknowledged problems, and a transparent plan for working on them. I'll take that any day over a vendor looking to clog up peer review sites with whatever five-star reviews they can get in exchange for Starbucks cards or stuffed animals.

As I've written, enterprises can't get successful projects across the finish line on a diet of promotional content and vendor spin (Does the enterprise have a fake news problem - and will generative AI make it worse?). I doubt "next-gen analyst relations" will catch on as a buzzword. I honestly hope it doesn't; it's a cringe-level placeholder at best, a call for overdue change. But I do hope these kinds of discussions continue. KPI culture is here to stay, but if we do this right, we can still foster a dialogue that matters - and hit our numbers. Exactly how we do that will need further articles - and, likely, new ideas beyond what I've noted here.

Over on the LinkedIn thread for this article, Josh Greenbaum commented: 

It's a two-way street -- we need to justify our value in terms of customer success, and vendor AR teams need to tie customer success to our value. 

Indeed - a sentence I wish I'd written. Both sides, in a sense, have to change - another blurring of the lines perhaps (Greenbaum had a lot more to say on the state of Analyst Relations during a recent "Talking Headless" video appearance with host Paul Greenberg).

End note: countless individuals impacted my thinking on this topic over the years - too many to name here. But: special acknowledgment to Mike Prosceno and Stacey Fish, who built a brilliant blogger program that blurred the lines ahead of their time. In recent times, analyst Josh Greenbaum has been instrumental to this rethink, along with Ludovic Leforestier, who is passionate about getting the most out of analyst relations. I also recommend the video replays from SageCircle AR, many of which address quantifying analyst value. Of all the AR directors I've worked with, Sandra Lo of Zoho has pushed boundaries the most  - and, in the process, established proof points on the ground. 

Note on the following wireframes: I initially built these wireframes for diginomica clients, but I'm starting to release public versions of them. Over time, I'll remove more of the diginomica verbiage but, here is the slide on influencer engagement flow in our B2B Informed Buyer context: 

And here is the overall B2B buyer engagement and content strategy overview. These are from a series of eight related process flows, if you want to see them all, let me know: