Not sure if this has merit or not but its a pretty gutsy move – and if nothing else, burns the bridges once and for all with Gartner for ZL.
If nothing else, ZL’s case encapsulates the immense frustration so many have felt for so long with the entire MQ process. And, the smaller you are, the more heightened that frustration. Some interesting commentary here on the MQ process.
But I do think much of that frustration has to do with folks willingness to engage with Gartner and invest in AR. My view on the MQ has always been:
- your position reflects both your expertise in influencing and the data you are willing to present
- an open dialog and investment in that dialog works wonders. I’m not talking money here – I’m talking time and attention.
- most of the Gartner analysts are pretty smart people. Whether you disagree or agree, it’s in your interests to listen, replay what you heard and show a willingness to at least incorporate some of their feedback. They are human. They like to be stroked.
- it is less “pay-to-play” and more just “play”. Don’t make influencing Gartner be about a single briefing. You need a game-plan.
- Gartner own the market. Get over it. This is an opportunity.
Are there things I wish Gartner would do differently – sure. For instance, I do think they should have an independent ombudsman. This would only boost perceptions of their integrity and allow a better process for fixing wrongs. Nobody is perfect.