I wouldn't make the case that we (as white paper authors) are objective; that isn't our role. We are essentially advocates for our clients who bring an outsider's perspective to the project. We help them craft and present their ideas in the most compelling way possible. We are more like speech writers than independent journalists.

However, I believe our product is an honest one. There is no question about who is behind it and what their agenda is. It is branded thought leadership by the seller that puts its logo on the piece. It strengthens a company's position in the market while providing insight to the prospect.

By contrast, white papers that bear the logos of an IDC or an Aberdeen are designed to create an illusion of objectivity. Because the prospect is thought to not know any better, it is believed that that these analyst "brands" lend credibility to the content. That may or may not be true. The reader may or may not make any distinctions between an objective Gartner piece and a paid-for IDC one. They may or may not help the original sponsor generate leads.

I'm merely saying that the "sponsored" pieces are deceptive. They seem to project an aura of independence that, in reality, does not exist.

While there may be a case for experimenting with these kinds of relationships (mostly because the paid-for analyst firms have mechanisms to help you generate leads), I would not rely on them. Companies should brand their own thought leadership. When they pay IDC or Aberdeen to write a white paper, they are giving away their best ideas and perspectives (to the analyst that will interview you) without building a thought leadership platform of their own. That's a strategic mistake. To build trust in the marketplace these days, one must become a thought leader.

Britton;

Thanks for your feedback on this.

In many regards, this could be further extended to white papers.

Those of us that are hired to write a white paper about a company or product, are we also objective?

Mike

There are important distinctions to be recognized among analyst firms. Some are happy to do "pay for play" work. IDC will write white papers for a sponsor. So will Aberdeen and a host of others. These pieces inherently lack credibility -- even though they may be somewhat informative.

However, a few companies -- including Gartner and Forrester -- get most of their revenue from technology buyers (instead of the sellers). These companies offer a far more credible and independent product. They are less likely to bend to the interests of a single vendor -- though a smart analyst relations program can help a vendor strengthen its own coverage.

No one is perfectly independent -- not even ComputerWorld (which derives a majority of its income from vendor ads). But it's worthwhile to recognize these distinctions and rate their credibility appropriately.

For more on this, see Analyzing the Analysts: http://www.brittonmanasco.com/...

P.S. I think IDC is generally still a very good source for quantitative (i.e. market share and market growth) information even if its "sponsored" white papers are suspect.