Unexpectedly, the Analyst Value Survey has identified some new areas where the leading analyst firms seem to be failing. Yesterday’s preview webinar for participants in the Analyst Value Survey found a lot of continuity in the market.
Looking at the top 15 firms, we found that:
- Influence on buyers is fairly stable
- Gartner is the firm whose reputation for independence has eroded the most
- Firms’ influence is larger than its subscriber base; at least twice as large, but very often four or five times larger.
- Some topics are very well covered and some are very badly covered; meaning that for some research topics users are using just four or five firms, but for others it might be eight or nine firms.
- Generally speaking, analyst value is correlated with firm size on a curve that looks a little like the Gartner’s Hype Cycle: the mid-size firms are generally delivering below-average value for money; the next five are well above average; the big three firms are average.
- Firms on the supply side are generally pretty happy with value for money; firms on the demand side have more diverse experiences: end users are not happy with every firm.
- Experiences are also uneven regionally; analysts’ users in EMEA are generally happy, but in the rest of the world the experiences are more uneven.
The survey also gathered data on mid-sizes and smaller firms. The freemium model is working well for what we might call the upper-low end of the market: firms with five or fewer analysts don’t have the marketing resources needed to sell subscriptions but are still getting an audience.