I just read an interesting article by Infoworld’s Bill Snyder, examining what he describes as an inherent lack of neutrality among technology analysts that hinges on “the common practice of selling research and consulting services to the very companies whose products it evaluates.”  Snyder argues that analyst firms should be required to reveal potential conflicts of interest by disclosing their list of clients and associated spending. (This would be akin to the new regulations imposed on financial ratings agencies.) 

In the column, Snyder interviews a small company, ZL Technologies, that recently filed a lawsuit against Gartner, claiming the research firm inflicted significant economic damage by bestowing upon it the kiss of death—the lowest ranking in the “Gartner Magic Quadrant”—allegedly based on nothing more than the company’s lack of financial clout and marketing muscle. (You can read the text of the entire lawsuit here.)  Though obviously biased, it’s a fascinating read and offers a blistering indictment of a business model that has raised the ire of both vendors and end-users alike ever since research analysts first appeared on the scene. (For a good chuckle, here’s my favorite excerpt:  “At the core of this action…an economic model championed by Defendants that elevates marketing puffery over serious technology.” Wish I could claim credit for that one!)

(more…)