BrandSavant

Gaining Insight From Social Media Data

Why Forrester Made The Right Call About Employee Blogs

by Tom Webster on February 9, 2010

Information wants to be free. Forrester wants to charge you for it. Even before the recent decision by Forrester to forbid its analysts from blogging about their coverage areas on personal blogs, these two facts were headed for a collision.

First, let’s be fair: Forrester isn’t stopping employees from blogging about things outside of their coverage areas on their personal sites, and they aren’t stopping them from blogging about their coverage areas period–they are simply requiring that content to be hosted at Forrester.

Still, there has been quite a kerfuffle over this move on the blogosphere. GigaOm takes the populist stance, declaring that like media, research needs to be social, too. Probably won’t get too many arguments from the chattering classes on Twitter there. Most of the comments against Forrester’s decision list a bunch of “personal branding” reasons, but a company has every right to insist on an employee’s full attention, just as it is every employee’s right to move on when their desire for a personal brand grows stronger than their desire to build someone else’s brand. Critics of Forrester’s move point to their loss of Charlene Li and Jeremiah Owyang, but those anecdotes are not representative of the analyst industry as a whole.

I’ve read a lot of posts excoriating Forrester for their decision, but I doubt few (if any) have been written by actual paying clients of Forrester. I’ve been one, so that has informed what will probably be a pretty unpopular post here on BrandSavant :)

I’ve been on both sides of the analyst paywall in my career. In a past life, I managed analyst relations for a company, and was in the position of writing those checks to Forrester, Gartner, et al. I can assure you that those checks were plenty big. I have enormous respect for Josh Bernoff and some of his colleagues at Forrester, but I wouldn’t have written checks of that size to “Josh Bernoff, LLC.” I wrote them to Forrester. I wrote them because Forrester granted me access to data–to information I could not get elsewhere–and the acquisition of that data comes at a high cost. Bernoff and other analysts add tremendous value to that data by helping their clients navigate through the interpretations and implications. But the competitive intelligence and primary research data collected by Forrester is at the heart of anything of value that they write.

In other words, the value of their analysis is inextricably tied to the value of the data they are analyzing, and that data is not only owned by Forrester, its very existence is dependent on the fact that Forrester can collect sensitive data from companies, sanitize it and synthesize to provide insight to its clients without exposing them. Take away that data, and the opinions of Forrester’s analysts are just that. And you know what they say about opinions–they’re like…uh…everyone has one.

Every time a Forrester analyst puts pen to paper on a given coverage area, they are doing so with the benefit of access to that information. Hosting those conversations at the Forrester blog is a tradeoff, but one that preserves the value of Forrester’s intellectual property (IP.) Forrester clients don’t pay Forrester to know stuff. They pay Forrester to know stuff before anyone else, or know stuff other people don’t know. They pay for a competitive advantage, and they pay a lot. If Forrester’s IP were spread all over the interwebs, the value of their analysis would naturally go down. This would make them more popular in social media circles, but less so in the writing-five-and-six-figure-checks-for-valuable-information circles, who would naturally start to question why they are paying Forrester when they can just aggregate the personal blogs of Forrester analysts.

As a personal example, I’d love to blog here about the work we do for the networks on the National Election Exit Polls, but anything I would write about would be dependent on access to that data, and that data is owned lock, stock and barrel by our clients, and they are the ones who will actually be sending little BrandSavant Jr to college. Can not do it. Similarly, analysts don’t own the information they are analyzing, so it becomes difficult to extricate Forrester IP from the blogger’s IP. Forrester has every right to dictate how its IP is used, when the scarcity of that IP is an existential question for the company.

Finally, much has been written about how this potentially tramples on the rights of the Forrester bloggers. Again, we’ll see if this really prompts a mass exodus of analysts, or a renaissance in Forrester-hosted blogging–which would actually be good for clients. But consider what can happen to the reputation of Forrester (and its clients) when coverage areas are discussed on personal blogs. Now THAT’S a real kerfuffle. A human mistake, yes–it was owned up to, and all involved have moved on (and it’s a testament to his character that these blog pages are still on his site.) But this could have (and maybe did) hurt Forrester right in the wallet. It’s not my intent to rehash that particular incident, but let’s all agree it was a significant black eye for the company and indeed the analyst industry as a whole. Forrester can afford to lose an analyst here and there–but they can’t afford incidents like this.

And, as always, your comments are welcome!

Be Sociable, Share!
  • http://blogs.forrester.com/groundswell Josh Bernoff

    Wow. Well reasoned and from a research expert, to boot. Thanks so much for this perspective, I’m pleased to see some balance in the discussion from an actual paying client.

  • Tom Webster

    Thanks, Josh. “Balance” is exactly the right word, because it is all too easy to see this from a populist perspective. Forrester made a tough call here–it isn’t black and white, by any means–but I don’t see that you had a choice, really.

  • http://twitter.com/fbaud fbaud

    Tom,

    Actually, I don’t think we pay to know things before others, we pay: 1) either to save our own time doing the investigations 2) more importantly perhabs, to get an external source on subjects that tend often to become political.

    In this particular case, I don’t think Forrester made the right decision for us, the customers. We want to have access to structured ideas and bright people. I think that the competitive advantage for the first part (the Content as Forrester says) is diminishing quickly because we have less and less time to read these reports because of all the time spent reading public blogs. For the second part (accessing top-analysts that can listen to our problems and offer quickly frameworks to structure our reflexion), we are definitely still in high demand for this kind of service – at a reasonable price of course.

  • Tom Webster

    I totally get the first bit–there is no question that Forrester’s business model was based on scarcity of information, and the Internet threw a monkey wrench in that! As for accessing top analysts, again to me it comes down to why you give that analyst credibility–much of their credibility is based upon how they built upon Forrester’s proprietary IP. It’s hard to separate personal brand from that. But it isn’t a black-and-white issue, by any means.

    Still, it’s a bit alarming to read all the tweets today that are short-handing this issue to “Forrester bans personal blogs!” There are plenty of smart things Forrester analysts can blog about on their own properties. The ones who are smart about their personal brands will do just that.

  • http://twitter.com/fbaud fbaud

    Actually, in my case, I will most probably attribute credibility to an analyst because of the posts I’ve read, or because I’m following them on Twitter. At this point in time, I’ll probably have to tell executives in my company that they are working at Forrester to give them instant credibility. But that won’t last and executives may accept in a not-too-distant future some sort of TrustMetrics created by some social media company.

    Which leads us to “why would we still need Forrester, if they are not valued for the screening in hiring their talents?”. I think that we would value Forrester to provide us with an easy access to these talents, avoiding haggling over fees, and assuring continuity on the relationship with a pool of bright experts.

  • http://website-in-a-weekend.net/ Dave Doolin

    Very cool that this is an issue, for many reasons:

    1. Analysts are very rightly concerned about their future post-Forrester. Branding themselves independently is just good business for themselves. I never did this. I regret it.

    2. It’s not that hard to write on your general topic area without going into any details at all. A good friend of mine works for an unnamed state, at an unnamed agency, doing unnamed work as a civil engineer. He blogs about civil engineering in the large. It’s bulletproof. He keeps his personal data (resume, etc.) locked down on LinkedIn.

    There really shouldn’t be an issue here, but it’s very good to see it discussed.

  • http://blogs.forrester.com/cio/2010/02/forresters-new-blog-policy-creates-quite-a-stir.html Nigel Fenwick

    Tom,
    I’d say your insight is spot-on. Thank you.
    Nigel
    (FYI – I posted my Forrester analyst take tonight – http://bit.ly/bzTlcL)

  • http://blogs.forrester.com/marketing/augie-ray/ Augie Ray

    I appreciate your unique views into this situation. As a new Forresterite AND an active blogger, I’ve been interested (but not surprised) at the reaction to the news of Forrester’s plans and policies. It’s good to see a smart assessment from the client side of our business. Thanks!

Previous post:

Next post: