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

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.