What Do Analysts Do?

IMO, analysts provide third party perspectives and insight into the key processes behind their targeted industries.

If I had to take a stab at it I would say that an analysts' job is to objectively look at a company or industry in relation to the overall market. Then provide their customers with research and insight as to how that company or industry will effect or be effected by current and future trends. How's that? :)

My second answer was going to be sit around and sound smart.

Here's my crack at it:

Analysts seek out information about industry developments and players, so that they can spot trends and opportunities to share with businesses and other organizations wanting to take advantage of these insights.

The business model is a fee-for-service, which can include sales of publications, paid educational seminars open to the general public, closed seminars for paying clients, and in-depth operational and executive consulting.

Research, study, watch, listen, report, advise and predict. Not necessarily in that order.

I believe the role of an analyst can be encapsulated by Albert Szent-Gyorgi, the Nobel Laurette in Medicine (1937). He wrote, "Research is to see what everybody else has seen, and think what nobody else has thought." An analyst is intimately linked to research activities, so the phrase fit nicely. Cheers! (twitter.com/limyh)

Most analysts take vast sums of money from vendors to tell them (mostly) what they already know. Pity they don't usually act in the interests of buyers. In the meantime, most are figuring out how to stay relevant. Usually by adding more sales people.

Note to Jeremiah - you just knew I'd say something like that (lol).

Dennis

If you didn't say something irreverent, I'd know you were feeling ill. Cheers you ol' curmudgeon.

In the past it has been your job to provide the aggregation of many discussions you get to have across a market space. Today I think it is more about promoting discussion around topics of interest. Given the power of social media I think analysts become more relevant if they are able to guide the discussion rather than summarize the discussion as they have in the past. Perhaps it is about doing what social media promotes....listening rather than shouting........

In the spirit of the internets, I'll let wikipedia speak for me (I agree with it and those above):

"Industry analysts deliver a combination of market research, competitive intelligence, and management consulting to their clients. Analyst firms offer independent advice and research to businesses that are weighing up potential purchases and deployment strategies, public sector organisations, and suppliers. They deliver both research and advisory through their publications, events, private meetings, and/or custom research/consulting projects."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Industry_analyst

Analysts....Ohhh analysts......

Great question.

Analysts get paid to do research. They get paid to visit technology and advertising blogs. They get paid for an opinion. They get paid to watch and to study industries and ultimately listen (most have a hard time since they are getting ready to deliver their opinion).

Most analysts think they know everything. They think because they are "book smart" or "web smart". Most of them (almost all of them) have no experience in running a business. They have no idea how to start a company. They have no idea what it means to "network" or get to know there customers. They have no idea how to launch a product.

They simply know how to state an opinion and then defend it. To some extent some analysts are those that wanted to be lawyers but could not cut get through law school.

In my opinion analysts are not needed in the new web 2.0 space. It is easy to find relevant companies in your space, relevant bloggers and other entrepreneurs that can give you opinions and fill you in on the space.

Sorry this is not what you want to hear - but as the web evolves - so will the access to relevant and more affordable "analysts".

You probably won't post this - you might not want anyone else to "research this topic".....

Jeremy Analyst

This is exactly what I wanted to hear, I'm open about feedback, good and bad. I publish all comments on my blog unless they are off-topic or not adding to the conversation. Respectful disagreement is always encouraged, it's how I learn.

Thanks for taking the stand.

In addition to what has already been posted above, I believe analysts can influence/set the direction or future of a company/industry.

I run an IT services company. Clients come to us to provide them a web strategy and then design it and develop it for them. As an analyst our job is to understand 'how we can bring success to our client'.

All our focus and goals are driven with this mission. When we know what it takes to make our client succeed our research, insights, advise etc are all aligned with that objective.

Jeremy - Great reply!

I appreciate the great feedback. I have a lot of respect for someone that wants to learn.

I just think that with the evolution of the web that many things are changing. Research and finding competitors and relevant competitors in your space is becoming much easier!

Thanks again.

Great analysis begins with three things: observations across a spectrum of situations, a concept of the changes the change being observed will engender, and a model for communicating same that is useful to the client.

All of this, in turn, is tested: by tweets and blogs, by peer review & research meeting defences, and by client feedback.

Finally, a great analyst will adapt the published positions to the client's situation. Without that, it's just forcing an opinion down on the market again and again.

Rather than the activity and business model, why not take a look at the role of analysts within the technology and business ecosystem? (Maybe this is what you had in mind?)

In this light, Ambrose Bierce might say analysts are hired to express the opinions that executives pay managers to provide them, but that managers can't afford to have for themselves.

Speaking only for the slice of the internet / IT landscape I've seen, but still in all seriousness, analysts and the opinions and insights they offer function primarily as tools in the myriad political battles that take place over big IT decisions [and that means both large decisions, and small decisions in large scale settings].

Regardless of the quality and diligence of much of the work done by good analysts (and there are many, doing a lot of good work), they directly influence few final outcomes. Most stakeholder perspectives and opinions are well-formed far in advance. When they come to the decision-making table, they bring a toolkit for advancing their respective agendas; analysts are simply one of the tools used.

In the essentially permanent state of variable intensity conflict common to many businesses - and especially to their IT cultures - it's much safer to borrow a point of view from an expendable outsider than risk having your own.

This organizational and power-distributing structure yields a predictable cycle wherein executives direct managers to make decisions, and then managers hire consultants who read and quote analysts in support of the opinions they've been hired to justify.

In this ecosystem, if you're a manager and your consultants don't agree with your opinions, then you go get new consultants, who will quote different analysts that match your perspective.

If you're an executive, you're likely trying to meet the expectations of either your superior(s), and / or the boardroom / investors / public markets. And none of those parties is likely to be interested in much more than a credibly defensible position in case of an adverse outcome. You're probably not too concerned with facts or the details of any single decision, and so you aren't looking at analysts or their products.

Oddly, the thing they shouldn't do is analyze. They really need to be able to synthesize to add value.

Joe, interesting take on the decision making process. I've been part of this internal political 'weigh in' sometimes feels like walking into an internal firefight that needed a ref.

In fact, some people ask me loaded questions in order to persuade --or prove someone else is wrong. I watch the eyeballs of the rest of the room to see who the question and answer is aimed at.

I see three different types of analysts:

1) Connectors - People who know everyone in the industry and promote the latest trends and hottest new companies

2) Visionaries - People who present and write about the future and technologies that create the what-ifs

3) Validators - People who test the ideas and products either directly or through customer research and tell what is real and what is hype

There are some good analysts, and some of they data they produce is useful. By and large, though, I have little use for the industry. The vast majority of analysts are not immune to falling prey to conventional wisdom, groupthink, political considerations, and producing material that is tailored to makes the paying customer look good.

And I also well remember writing business cases in 1999-2001 backed by some very expensive research reports from top-ranked firms that were utterly and completely full of crap.

It's a great question and most all of the comments here are very valid.

As with any industry or group of people, analysts run the gamut in terms of their value-add and ability. This IMHO is largely determined by their interests, knowledge-base, personality, connections/network, and style.

I like Yung-Hui Lim's comment quoting Albert Szent-Gyorgi very much. IMO the "holy grail" of analysts is the ability to extract useful and unique insight from observations and research they make and do.

Thanks for asking the question.

For me, analysts are people paid to know everything in a field. To read all the news, the articles, the blogs, the books, the papers and the speeches; merge that together with company reports and consumer research; and create a holistic overview of the market that can be used either as a complete overview, or specific to a client.

In terms of the business model, it relies on clients being too time poor to do it themselves. As aside from the primary research, all other data is readily available

Keep up to date with new research, doing interviews, participate in conferences, writing reports, blogging ;-). Actually - if I was an analyst, I think I would spend quite a lot of my time in the field - doing fieldstudies, interviews, qualitative and quantitative analysis.

Analysts are Experienced Consultants who look beyond a product/brand. Its not about finding a way to success or ROI for clients, its analyzing beyond them (thinking behind the box) and capitalizing them.

I am not experienced enough to provide my views on what Analysts do, but again my passion to this field and learning experience made me express above but again I have provided what I feel in a simpler terms and thanks to all who are contributing to this discussion, really helps you learn a lot!

Its interesting to see some negative opinions on the field which eventually makes you learn more.

Cheers!

You all seem to be at a different conference every week so I'd say travel, presentations and information gathering.

Different analyst firms have different business models, but at a high level, they act as information brokers among the constituents of the IT ecosystem: vendors, buyers and investors. They don't necessarily claim to be smarter than the clients they serve but the access and time available to them gives them a valuable 30,000-ft view of the industry.

(Never thought I'd see Albert Szent-Gyorgi and Ambrose Bierce in the same thread, but it's cool.)

An analysts breaks things down. Period.

A great analyst breaks apart the veil of entrenchment to reveal meaningful insights.

Last century: analysts broke-down data sets and showed you how to make more widgets faster and cheaper and told you who, when and where to market those widgets.

This century: analysts (should) point to the Long Tail and say "See that tiny spec? That's where where you are." And "See all these social media tools? Most of them are a waste of your time, but here are the ones that your business either needs to start using or build yourself...and this is why."

Last century: analysts helped big companies market small ideas.

This century: analysts help small companies market big ideas. (Or show the big companies why 13,000 tons ships don't go very far down the river of change.)

Things they are a...Long live Bob Dylan, perhaps the greatest analyst in history (next to you of course!).

I'm probably wrong in all this, but then again the world has flipped, and so have the rules of the game. What once was a funnel is now a bullhorn. If I'm wrong, please rip me into. Ciao!

I agree with most of the definitions written here so I won't pile on.

Where I see analysts falling short is they have no idea how to make their insights actionable, especially within the constraints many of us endure on a daily basis: time, budgets, legal, etc.

I would love to see more dialog between analysts, creatives and developers. Each group tends to find great comfort in their own echo chambers, but analysts could learn a lot by working on a team that has to actually concept, design and produce something consumers will actually interact with.

I was reading down the list with my fingers itching to provide a new perspective... then I see Joe Lamantia's answer and I'm scooped!

Research and analyst materials are frequently hand-picked to support opinions that internal staff have, but management doesn't trust them to know enough about.

They can also show a more objective opinion on matters and are a way to "cover your as*" when proposing changes that may upset the status quo.

Many other points are very valid, I like Yung-Hui Lim's quote too.

Answer #1: Not a whole lot. :)

Answer #2: It depends. In my 9+ years as an analyst, I've observed two types of analysts: Those that predominantly focus on providing value to vendors, and those predominantly focus on providing value to users (ie, those who the vendors sell to).

Type #1 is probably the most prevalent in the industry, and I think what they "do" is attempt to understand the trends (in terms of investment, implementation) and direction (what's in store down the line) for a technology "area", and help vendors sell better, and help users make smart technology investment decisions.

But there's also the Type #2 analyst who tends to be more consultant-oriented. With the prevalence of analyst firms to do primary consumer research, this type of analyst often follows consumer -- not technology -- trends, and glean insights into consumer behavior and trends. While they often can provide value to technology vendors, their focus tends to be more oriented toward the user side, working with marketing, not IT.

Tom Kasperski

You write:
"I would love to see more dialog between analysts, creatives and developers."

You're at the right place then, the discussion is here on my blog, moves to twitter, then friendfeed and back again.

I'm always open for conversation, let's learn together.

Honestly, it depends on the business model, but if I come at this literally and think about what analysts actually spend their time doing, rather than focussing on who they provide value to and how, I'd say analysts primarily listen and parse. Without doing those two things, it'd be impossible for them to do any of the things mentioned above - all of which are valid, e.g., interpret, synthesise, analyze, theorize, advize and postulate.

Hi J.O.,

Again, I'm going to chime in with a distinctly EU perspective here, and, that, from the former Bloc, to boot.

Social media analysts, like advertisers and PR-hacks, are generally viewed in my part of the world as providing a service that generally has minimal impact upon actual consumer/social networking behaviour on the part of their ultimate end-users/clients.

That's not to say analysts inputs are shunned or that they're disparaged...it's just that an analyst's value-add is not deemed to be on a par with the paper-reamed deliverables of one who toils in the "Old Economy" trenches -- someone who spent a significant amount of time studying law, economics, or something scientific, and who knows how to work well within the confines of the bureaucratic system. To be sure, this won't last for long and once the Czech Republic ascends to the EU Council Presidency, I see a due evolution in the value placed upon Social Media Analysts and their consulting services.

I'm not saying this is correct -- I'm merely saying that's the Czech (and Slovak) perception.

As for my own professional activities and services -- and the "bona fides" I attempt to convey for my savvy in Web2.0 stuff, more generally -- I'd not succeed in "selling" these nearly as well had I not the hardcore Old World-foundation upon which to persuade my interlocutors, and my track record of having operated in the space already for quite some time in the capital (Prague).

Should be:in today's world, help business people deal with market information overload by parsing out, analyzing, and answering clients (specific)questions on and around their industry, media, and competitive landscapes.

I've been in the industry for 10 years and still still have a hard time with it. Analysts analyze markets and situations, but I see most as quantitative or qualitative focused. They are seen as industry experts, but I've grown to see them more as a group giving perspective and guidance in unchartered waters. I see them as both thought leaders and followers....

Adam thanks for your perspective from your side of the world, these are the nuggets I like to see.

First thing that came to mind was that analysis is to break apart but after examining the parts, it's only worthwhile to someone if you can synthesize those into something meaningful. In other words I agree with Paula Thornton's comment and like how Yung-Hui Lim put it in his quote above.

I think an analyst should be capable of delving into the depths of a subject and a good enough thinker to make sense of what they understand in a context relevant to his/her audience.

"Web strategy", "social computing" - apparently part of the job is inventing or perpetuating useless buzzwords that only marketers bandy about. There are good reasons why marketing is the function that is the butt of most jokes about business people.

Understanding what is happening outside the firm and deciding what the firm should do is the job of management, especially executive and line management. Analysts tell the herd smart-sounding and sometimes smart things they can't easily find on their own that may (or may not) be helpful. If managers are too stupid to tell the difference, they deserve what's coming to them. Caveat emptor.

Neija

Thanks for this honest --yet brutal-- feedback, it's important to hear what your really think.

Jeremiah, sorry to be so cynical. I happen to like Forrester Research. Much of my criticism is more directed toward marketing and management (both of which I'm a part), especially when it comes to fads and useless buzzwords we use in tech. Analysts may come up with great pithy phrases to describe new trends, but over usage to the point of meaningless is our own fault - especially from us on the tech vendor side. We live in an over-marketed-to world. Why isn't 1:1 marketing fixing that?

Business model - most of value creation in the "information age" is based on knowledge - those with more knowledge or skills selling or applying them in selling goods or services. Nothing wrong with that. It's wonderful. Buyers (including myself) are willing to pay for good market research, trend analysis, analysis of vendors' positions, and other advice. I happen to like Forrester. Really. Thanks for all the honest dialog.

An analyst's role, from a vendor/solution provider's perspective is to convert market data into information and present it to a client so that the client feels (and sometimes does) that they save a bundle while making a decision - regarding anything. Of course, this convincing of the client is done for a hefty fee under the pretext of saving big bucks down the road. Probably a narrow answer but think it can be expanded depending on perspective of the analyst.

Neijia

I understand your point, part of the role is to figure out what's new, what it matters, and to help others to easily understand it so they can act on or against it. As a result, new technologies are often hard to explain so new terms come around.

A good analyst doesn't try to create a buzzword, but instead, a meaningful phrase to help the market. Most --myself included-- mess it up.

This is all a good dialog to have, thanks again for joining in.

Create never-ending problems, to solve, collect money for it, any perceived success is all credited (and broadcasted), any failure is a perfect opportunity to play the game again. Endless loops.

But really, human behavior is never rational, nor is it ever understandable, there is no perfect system, life is absurd, and even if something works once, that doesn't mean it will work again, anyone telling you they have the perfect system or sure-fire stock market plan, is lying. Everything works, and nothing works.

So cue up the witchdoctors, everything is always and ever a crisis, the world will end if you don't do this now, doom, gloom, you are stupid, you need us, we know the way out, save us all, the ship sinks, film at 11. Checks accepted here.

Coulter is back, good to see you, it's been a while. If you don't know Chris, we're former colleagues, he always tells it from his side, usually with a darker slant. Don't get rilled up friends, his online persona is akin to Triumph the Insult Comic Dog, although he's and extremely nice and sensitive guy in real life.

Analysts don't have to exclusively serve either vendors or users. BTW, what about the integrators and consultants who more often than not are the ones actually implementing the technology? We're all in this together.

I like Paula's addition to this discussion - analysis is clearly part of the job, but synthesizing is more important. Raw analysis can be done by machines. Synthesizing and interpreting, combined with a solid radar sweep, that's the trick.

A failing I see from time to time - although I sometimes envy analysts who are hyper-focused on an area, it worries me to see people who aren't able to pop up and out and look at larger systems.

That's why, for example, our current research topic is Findability, rather than just Enterprise Search, or, last quarter, we researched Enterprise 2.0 rather than just wikis.

I could talk/write for days just on "pure" search (or heck, even just relevancy, or taxonomy, or interface design, etc.), but it's not until you think of the entire system and what it's impact can and should be, that you begin to provide some useful and actionable insight into the world. Otherwise we're just serving to point people to tools in a void, and that's where tech investments become sinkholes. The tools themselves are useless, unless they are helping you to accomplish something.

Closing thought, and something I have to remind myself of from time to time, is what Jeremiah has been doing lately.

Our job is not to have all the answers, it's to ask the right questions. Right? ;)

BTW Dan, this resonates with me:

"In the past it has been your job to provide the aggregation of many discussions you get to have across a market space.

Today I think it is more about promoting discussion around topics of interest. Given the power of social media I think analysts become more relevant if they are able to guide the discussion rather than summarize the discussion as they have in the past. Perhaps it is about doing what social media promotes….listening rather than shouting…….."

Discussion leadership, perhaps a new job requirement?