The "last" Radicati exchange...
Category IBM/Lotus
Just when I thought a company was smart enough to know when to cry uncle... Just when I thought the pain of having shot oneself in the foot was too great... Just when I thought that rationality would prevail...
We now have this... Sara Radicati's response to Eric Mack.
This is just too rich/incredible/unreal/STUPID to let pass without comment. To bring any new readers up to date... Eric Mack posted a detailed, rational (or so I thought) open letter to Ms. Radicati asking her to respond to the current controversy over the Exchange/Domino report. He offered to post her response and give her an open forum in which to defend the company. Take a second to go read the link above. I'll wait.
Her four points in the initial response are fine. Analysts are paid (by whom is an issue, but we'll let that pass...) to observe and analyze. But the kicker is this closing gem:
Finally, I am not interested in blogging or discussing this topic much further since everyone's opinion is fairly well ingrained and polarized at this point. We have stated our opinion as it stands in the whitepaper and we will continue to stand by that position. I do, however, take a great deal of offense when people attack my company's integrity simply because they don't like our point of view. I think that is extremely sad for our industry and very underhanded.
You can make this entire email available to others if you wish but frankly that only encourages what I think is by now a fairly pointless discussion.
Somebody's missing the point here. Yes, people disagreed and discussed it publically. But that's not why people attacked the integrity of said company. It was the anonymous/aliased posts by her and/or analysts at her company defending the report and attacking the bloggers who were questioning it. *THAT* is the real issue that got everyone all riled up. And even though that's been pointed out time and again, there is absolutely no acknowledgement of that.
Ah, but wait... that last bullet aimed at her own remaining uninjured foot only managed to clip the toe. Here... let's try again. Follow-up on both sides. Eric puts forth the real issues again, and again Ms. Radicati responds...
Eric,
I think you have not understood a single thing I just wrote to you - again, everything I needed to say about this topic or our methodology, ethics,
processes, etc. is already posted on my web site.
I really don't have any more time for these endless discussions.
Oh, yeah... Nailed the foot that time!
No, Ms. Radicati... Everything you *needed* to say was and is *not* on your web site. What you needed to say was one or more analysts at your firm engaged in unethical and inexcusable behavior directed towards the online community in defense of your report. In the process, one or more analysts at your firm crossed a boundary that is completely unacceptable for a company in your position. You should acknowledge that behavior or refute the very real evidence that has been gathered to date that points to this scenario having occurred. And in response, you should hold the analyst(s) responsible for these actions accountable and apologize to the IT community.
Repeated attempts to ignore this issue in hopes it will just go away are ill-advised. This issue will repeatedly be used by IT professionals to discredit this and all future reports you issue. And I don't care if the next one does a 180 degree turn and predicts Domino will be the only email system left running in six months... :-)
Just when I thought a company was smart enough to know when to cry uncle... Just when I thought the pain of having shot oneself in the foot was too great... Just when I thought that rationality would prevail...
We now have this... Sara Radicati's response to Eric Mack.
This is just too rich/incredible/unreal/STUPID to let pass without comment. To bring any new readers up to date... Eric Mack posted a detailed, rational (or so I thought) open letter to Ms. Radicati asking her to respond to the current controversy over the Exchange/Domino report. He offered to post her response and give her an open forum in which to defend the company. Take a second to go read the link above. I'll wait.
Her four points in the initial response are fine. Analysts are paid (by whom is an issue, but we'll let that pass...) to observe and analyze. But the kicker is this closing gem:
Finally, I am not interested in blogging or discussing this topic much further since everyone's opinion is fairly well ingrained and polarized at this point. We have stated our opinion as it stands in the whitepaper and we will continue to stand by that position. I do, however, take a great deal of offense when people attack my company's integrity simply because they don't like our point of view. I think that is extremely sad for our industry and very underhanded.
You can make this entire email available to others if you wish but frankly that only encourages what I think is by now a fairly pointless discussion.
Somebody's missing the point here. Yes, people disagreed and discussed it publically. But that's not why people attacked the integrity of said company. It was the anonymous/aliased posts by her and/or analysts at her company defending the report and attacking the bloggers who were questioning it. *THAT* is the real issue that got everyone all riled up. And even though that's been pointed out time and again, there is absolutely no acknowledgement of that.
Ah, but wait... that last bullet aimed at her own remaining uninjured foot only managed to clip the toe. Here... let's try again. Follow-up on both sides. Eric puts forth the real issues again, and again Ms. Radicati responds...
Eric,
I think you have not understood a single thing I just wrote to you - again, everything I needed to say about this topic or our methodology, ethics,
processes, etc. is already posted on my web site.
I really don't have any more time for these endless discussions.
Oh, yeah... Nailed the foot that time!
No, Ms. Radicati... Everything you *needed* to say was and is *not* on your web site. What you needed to say was one or more analysts at your firm engaged in unethical and inexcusable behavior directed towards the online community in defense of your report. In the process, one or more analysts at your firm crossed a boundary that is completely unacceptable for a company in your position. You should acknowledge that behavior or refute the very real evidence that has been gathered to date that points to this scenario having occurred. And in response, you should hold the analyst(s) responsible for these actions accountable and apologize to the IT community.
Repeated attempts to ignore this issue in hopes it will just go away are ill-advised. This issue will repeatedly be used by IT professionals to discredit this and all future reports you issue. And I don't care if the next one does a 180 degree turn and predicts Domino will be the only email system left running in six months... :-)
| Permalink |
Comments
http://www.benpoole.com/weblog/200408060032
Posted by Ben Poole At 17:17:29 On 05/08/2004 | - Website - |
Posted by Christopher Byrne At 21:08:13 On 05/08/2004 | - Website - |
Posted by Duffbert At 17:24:09 On 05/08/2004 | - Website - |