Analyst Ethics - "I have nothing against those people"...
Category Everything Else
The latest Radicati "analysis" shows up in Messaging Pipeline: Radicati's State Of Messaging Software Market Is Optimistic
I'm not going to talk to the rather obvious attempt to hype MS and downplay IBM's impact in the market in this report. We've all gone over that before. You can read the actual report here at InternetNews.com. The quoted parts of that study in the article make me wonder what fantasy and convolutions the analyst at Radicati had to go through to make the facts fit his message.
No, what I want to deal with is this quote in the MP artice...
When asked to elaborate, Sara Radicati said that she sees IBM/Lotus Workplace as an end-of-life strategy for Notes/Domino. Confronted by strong evidence, including a survey by Messaging Pipeline, and even stronger feelings from the Lotus Notes/Domino community that the product has a long life ahead of it, she said, "I have nothing against those people, I wish them well. But they are wrong."
This, coming from the analyst firm that tried to astroturf negative comments about their analysis in the Domino blogging community. This, coming from the firm that tried to anonymously get one blogger fired and who demanded that IBM fire someone else who disagreed with them. This, coming from the head of the company who stonewalled any admission of guilt in their unethical behavior until the furor got too loud to ignore, and then brushed it over with one of those "it's an internal matter that we've resolved" statements. Check out Volker's wiki outlining the whole sordid affair.
We also have Radicati Ventures, with Sara's own personal involvement in each deal, offering due diligence, aid in raising venture capital, etc. for tech companies. Given today's corporate scrutiny and oversight, does anyone else see a problem with this? This quote at the end raises my eyebrows: "At completion of a successful transaction we will charge a 5% commission fee of the value of the deal minus the amount already paid in retainer fees. Half of the commission fee may be paid in stock options." Attempting to influence a market while having a vested stock/securities interest in the outcome of the market is... problematic. In some cases, I think the SEC has even called it illegal.
Sara does have something against "those people". She's proved it with the actions of her firm. She's accepted money from Microsoft to commission reports painting Microsoft as the winner in comparisons with dubious analysis techniques. She attempts to influence decision makers with her analysis based on these paid, commissioned reports. And then she attempts to offer finacial guidance to companies based on her expertise in the industry, based on these reports. Impartial financial guidance? That's a hard mental stretch for me to make... Sorry.
Oh, and John Dickinson? The guy who wrote the lead article in Messaging Pipeline? He's the one who wrote this Radicati puff piece Notes Users: Watch What IBM Does, Not What It Says back on February 3rd. While he at least semi-challenges her view ("confronted with strong evidence, including a survey by Messaging Pipeline"), he still apparently is content to have his IBM world view shaped by an analyst whose prescription lenses are due for a revision...
The latest Radicati "analysis" shows up in Messaging Pipeline: Radicati's State Of Messaging Software Market Is Optimistic
I'm not going to talk to the rather obvious attempt to hype MS and downplay IBM's impact in the market in this report. We've all gone over that before. You can read the actual report here at InternetNews.com. The quoted parts of that study in the article make me wonder what fantasy and convolutions the analyst at Radicati had to go through to make the facts fit his message.
No, what I want to deal with is this quote in the MP artice...
When asked to elaborate, Sara Radicati said that she sees IBM/Lotus Workplace as an end-of-life strategy for Notes/Domino. Confronted by strong evidence, including a survey by Messaging Pipeline, and even stronger feelings from the Lotus Notes/Domino community that the product has a long life ahead of it, she said, "I have nothing against those people, I wish them well. But they are wrong."
This, coming from the analyst firm that tried to astroturf negative comments about their analysis in the Domino blogging community. This, coming from the firm that tried to anonymously get one blogger fired and who demanded that IBM fire someone else who disagreed with them. This, coming from the head of the company who stonewalled any admission of guilt in their unethical behavior until the furor got too loud to ignore, and then brushed it over with one of those "it's an internal matter that we've resolved" statements. Check out Volker's wiki outlining the whole sordid affair.
We also have Radicati Ventures, with Sara's own personal involvement in each deal, offering due diligence, aid in raising venture capital, etc. for tech companies. Given today's corporate scrutiny and oversight, does anyone else see a problem with this? This quote at the end raises my eyebrows: "At completion of a successful transaction we will charge a 5% commission fee of the value of the deal minus the amount already paid in retainer fees. Half of the commission fee may be paid in stock options." Attempting to influence a market while having a vested stock/securities interest in the outcome of the market is... problematic. In some cases, I think the SEC has even called it illegal.
Sara does have something against "those people". She's proved it with the actions of her firm. She's accepted money from Microsoft to commission reports painting Microsoft as the winner in comparisons with dubious analysis techniques. She attempts to influence decision makers with her analysis based on these paid, commissioned reports. And then she attempts to offer finacial guidance to companies based on her expertise in the industry, based on these reports. Impartial financial guidance? That's a hard mental stretch for me to make... Sorry.
Oh, and John Dickinson? The guy who wrote the lead article in Messaging Pipeline? He's the one who wrote this Radicati puff piece Notes Users: Watch What IBM Does, Not What It Says back on February 3rd. While he at least semi-challenges her view ("confronted with strong evidence, including a survey by Messaging Pipeline"), he still apparently is content to have his IBM world view shaped by an analyst whose prescription lenses are due for a revision...
| Permalink |
Comments
Posted by anthony At 17:18:11 On 06/02/2009 | - Website - |