Trouble at IDC too
Further to recording the troubles at Ovum, it turns out that my other former analyst employer is also having issues. IDC is focus primarily on hitting its profit targets, and having failed has made 5 people redundant. The significance of this is that redunancies included sales staff which, in a sales orientated organisation, indicates a sharp drop in revenues.
IDC is desparately trying to move up the thought leader stack and change its image as a "data-monkey numbers factory" (and I'm not the originator of this phrase). It has two challenges. The first is its poor depth of good analysts in Europe. Some are excellent, but most lack insight and strong opinions.
Secondly, it continues to struggle to penetrate the end-user market. Its Insights business units were loss-making to June last year (when I left IDC) and I doubt whether they've made a substantial turnaround now. Financial Insights longs to advise banks on IT strategy, but more usually advises vendors on how to pentrate the banking sector - traditional supply-side IDC fodder. There are claims that IDC is increasing in influence but influence on whom? Not end-user decision makers. As always, the key question is, who are you trying to influence?
This is at the time when IDC management seem to be on a charm offensive, inviting AR professionals (Duncan Chapple at least) to its flagship IT Forum, and lately addressing the IIAR. I wonder if anyone asked them about projected profitability...
IDC is desparately trying to move up the thought leader stack and change its image as a "data-monkey numbers factory" (and I'm not the originator of this phrase). It has two challenges. The first is its poor depth of good analysts in Europe. Some are excellent, but most lack insight and strong opinions.
Secondly, it continues to struggle to penetrate the end-user market. Its Insights business units were loss-making to June last year (when I left IDC) and I doubt whether they've made a substantial turnaround now. Financial Insights longs to advise banks on IT strategy, but more usually advises vendors on how to pentrate the banking sector - traditional supply-side IDC fodder. There are claims that IDC is increasing in influence but influence on whom? Not end-user decision makers. As always, the key question is, who are you trying to influence?
This is at the time when IDC management seem to be on a charm offensive, inviting AR professionals (Duncan Chapple at least) to its flagship IT Forum, and lately addressing the IIAR. I wonder if anyone asked them about projected profitability...
Labels: IDC, influencers
posted by Duncan Brown at 12:17 pm
7 Comments:
Do you really think that IDC's influence on end-users is not growing? Even an informed observer would consider that unlikely even just considering the firm's growing end-user attendees at its events: now up to 45,000. Can one really claim that has no influence on the attendees? Since vendors subsidize these events heavily, don't you think they are able to influence their own sale pipeline through them?
Duncan,
You've got to the critical point straight away. Which is that most events have very little influence on end user decisions, because decision makers rarely attend events. I chaired over a dozen IDC events in the UK and Ireland between 2004 and 2006. They are fabulously managed and run, but in the UK they typically do not attract many decision makers. They attract information gatherers. So are the events influential on the people that matter? I think not.
In Ireland, probably because of the small and localised IT community in Dublin, there was a higher quota of decision makers.
I didn't say that IDC has no influence. But influence is relative, and vendors would be better off spending their marketing budgets with those people that carry the greater balance of influence.
Of course, there are always exceptions, and IDC runs very successful dinners (on a custom basis) that do attract CIOs and other senior decision makers. But the general rule is that vendors spend too much time and money on events that are not influential on decison makers.
You say that 45,000 people attend IDC events. IDC also interviews around 500,000 end users each year as part of its research programmes. These numbers are irrelevant when it comes to influence. Influence is not about numbers or popularity. It's about impact on decision makers.
And no, I don't think that sales pipelines are well served by events. Events are an example of the misalignment between sales and marketing. The payback from investment in sponsorring an event measured in incremental sales volume is tiny.
Hi Duncan,
Of course a *minority* of attendees at large IDC events are decision makers.
On that basis why you conclude: "So are the events influential on the people that matter? I think not." By why does that mean that these events do not influence that minority of buyers who do attend?
Of course a minority of attendees at large IT events are decision makers, whether organised by IDC or not. However, some decision-makers are there, and other stakeholders who significantly influence buying or even sign purchases off (I'll group these people together as 'buyers') also attend. I've met them and, honestly, on the basis of IDC guidance they change their purchasing.
If IDC's revenue from end-users in increasing, and the number of attendees at their events increases, along with the readership of its research -- and I think you'll agree that these are the case -- then why do you conclude its influence is falling?
I'm not saying, of course, that sponsoring events is the most effective way to spend money. That is a tactical choice. However, it's odd, and rather sweeping, to say that "Events are an example of the misalignment between sales and marketing. The payback from investment in sponsoring an event measured in incremental sales volume is tiny." For some suppliers, that is just not the case.
Duncan.
It's extraordinarily hard for an event to influence buyers. IDC events are probably amongst the best organised, at least in the UK. Some of the events I attend are shambolic by comparison. But conference organisation isn't a measure of influence. Ultimately the influence of an event is based on the quality of the speakers. IDC events feature sponsoring vendors in the main (with some case studies). Delegates know they are being pitched to by vendors – consistently the most influential speakers are case studies. So is doing the influencing – the case study or IDC? Clearly, it’s the influential speaker.
The majority of IDC research is supply-side focused. This is why it has little influence on buyers of any type. You mention guidance, yet IDC provides guidance predominantly (usually only) to the vendor side in its research. So I still can't see how IDC is influencing buyers.
There are no absolutes in the subject of influence, for sure, but in general events provide a poor return on marketing budget.
Why not join the IIAR Duncan? You'd be able to contribute to the discussions, and I am sure it would be interesing for you and the rest of us?
At IDC custom events there is usually always a question on the delegate evaluation form that asks, "Who do you turn to for advice on [insert subject up for debate]?" The choices are:
Analysts / peers / vendors / media / consultants / other.
We are about to compile the results of the answers to this question across all our 2006 and 2007 custom events in the UK so hopefully we will have some insight into how influential any or all/none of the above are when it comes to end user decision-making.
Hello Kathryn, I trust you're well and that IDC events are flourishing.
You raise an interesting point, which is that different influencers have input into a decision at different points. So an influencer may advise at the begining (eg information-gathering) or at the end (validation), or somewhere in between. In the book on Influencer Marketing, to be published late November, there's a mapping of influencer types to this spread of influence distribution. I'll post the "Wave" chart that illustrates it...
Send my regards to the rest at IDC.
Post a Comment
<< Home