3 ms·

I work in an industry where Gartner used to maintain a magic quadrant. (C/ETRM software) I worked closely with the marketing director to fill out the questionna

by S_A_P 13y ago

I work in an industry where Gartner used to maintain a magic quadrant. (C/ETRM software) I worked closely with the marketing director to fill out the questionnaire that Gartner sent. Iirc it was about 20 questions that asked about key functionality and product road maps. It literally was about 2 days (8 working hours) of back and forth between marketing, myself, product managers and c-level employees. They filled this sheet out, sent it off and forgot about it. From 20 pretty generic questions that ended up being answered with some pretty fluffy and marketing jargon laden bullshit, Gartner is able to tell if someone is a market leading software vendor or not. It's total bullshit. It turns out that it was just 1 guy doing this quadrant as when he left, Gartner stopped doing it(at least that is what I e been told) The company I worked at even sent 8 people to the Gartner conference in an effort to boost visibility and hopefully quadrant status. I can't believe anyone would take it seriously, let alone base a purchasing decision from it.

mathattack 13y ago
I view them like the ratings agencies. They exist because someone has to fill a void. For the ratings agencies, there is a void where people who don't have a lot of financial knowledge are placed on top of large sums of money. One could argue they shouldn't, but they're there, so they need someone to give them guidance on investments. Gartner exists similarly because there is a void in organizations and their knowledge of technology. In the absence of Gartner, the un-tech-savvy CIOs just buy from whoever they play golf with. We could argue that all CIOs should be hands on current in all the relevant technology, but that's not the world we live in. An interesting question would be, "What's the return on investment in getting into the right quadrant?" It truly is a marketing decision that should be compared alongside advertising, conference attendance and direct mail.

by S_A_P 13y ago

mathattack 13y ago

I view them like the ratings agencies. They exist because someone has to fill a void. For the ratings agencies, there is a void where people who don't have a lot of financial knowledge are placed on top of large sums of money. One could argue they shouldn't, but they're there, so they need someone to give them guidance on investments. Gartner exists similarly because there is a void in organizations and their knowledge of technology. In the absence of Gartner, the un-tech-savvy CIOs just buy from whoever they play golf with. We could argue that all CIOs should be hands on current in all the relevant technology, but that's not the world we live in. An interesting question would be, "What's the return on investment in getting into the right quadrant?" It truly is a marketing decision that should be compared alongside advertising, conference attendance and direct mail.