Is Analyst Relations disrupted by AI? Well, if you take your cue from analyst firm stock prices, reorgs and layoffs, then obviously yes. 

But I'd twist that argument: AI added a big jolt to an analyst model that's needed a big ol' jolt for a while. But now that we have a definite nudge towards cliff, what do we do about it? 

In 2024, I made the case for what I called next-gen analyst relations. The impact of generative AI on research - for better and for worse - hadn't really hit yet.

From stale analyst events to fluid engagement

The gist of my argument: shouldn't analyst relations tie back to making projects better - and customers more successful? When Martin Fischer put me on the proverbial hot seat during his podcast on analyst relations, I blew off steam: 

I think we're not delivering enough successful projects in our industry, and we haven't  - ever. Our collective obligation, whether it's an analyst, what you do, what any of us do, should ultimately be about serving the customer to make their projects better. That's our job. And that's how we should be evaluated. And if we're not doing that, and we're not helping customers make their project better and increasing all the dialogue around that in ways that helps them, then we need to start rethinking what we're doing.

Orginally, I laid out twelve things about Analyst Relations that need to change. My top four bones of contention: 

• Analyst firm models are too stale; research isn't fluid enough - buyers are dynamic, and need guidance/data points/dialogue throughout the year.
• Next-gen analyst relations requires a different set of KPIs... We are measuring/overrating many of the wrong things, aka "vanity metrics." We are not tracking the true impact of engagements with analysts, executives and buyers.
• Analyst events are stale also, and need a major rethink - unless we are happy with slide deck festivals and brain dumps. But isn't the true goal of analyst events to deepen the relationships between execs, analysts, and VIP customers - connections which will surface actionable info throughout the year?
• Don't we need something closer to a fluid, year-round engagement, rather than an over-emphasis on elaborate/imperfect once-a-year events? 

We don't have better KPIs, but do we have better analyst events? 

Since my initial post, we've worked with some highly-motivated Analyst Relations (AR) professionals. Have things improved? 

On better KPIs, not so much: In my last missive, I unfurled my stump speech about why we now need to "measure the magic." No, you can't measure all the good things sparked by a dialogue between analysts, execs, and other stakeholders. 

But you can absolutely document more of the impactful moments as they happen - and you can include analyst digital signals in multi-touch attribution models (That's a fancy way of saying that buyers build up confidence over multiple interactions, on the way to the last touch we tend to obsess on). Last time I checked, AI is pretty helpful for that kind of thing. 

Aside from a wonderful debate on this topic at a CRM Konvos episode, as part of their semi-regular must-watch series on analyst relations, the conversation on metrics hasn't advanced as much as I hoped (I plan to dig into this further with AR Directors this year - let me know if you want in). 

On the sunnier side, I've noticed one welcome shift: in-person analyst relations events seem to have improved. Yes, these events still fall into many of the original pitfalls I made satirical hay with. But I'm seeing improvements - and a bit less slides-R-us.

Analyst events highs and lows - tarmac-tested analysts air it out

How accurate in this perception? To find out, I asked some of the sharpest analysts I know.

This was not a comprehensive survey; instead, I pinged a few analysts who have an exceptional 'hands-raised ratio.' What is the hands-raised ratio? These are the ones who ask the pesky questions. When they raise a hand, they are most likely to land the question that changes the discussion, or detoxes the buzzwords. So let's find out what these analysts like the best - and the least - about the current analyst event formats. 

Constellation's Liz Miller doesn't hold back. She's already won my prize for the best single enterprise AI line of the year: the distinction between AI output, which may nor may not be viable, and outcomes. In other words, even a good AI output is not an outcome - only durable output is. So, Liz Miller, what defines a standout analyst event? 

Access to customers — including customers that have had bumps in the road. Love hearing a real experience, not just an all-in-fan experience. 

Miller says yes: up the ante mixing analysts and customers. 

Being able to experience sessions WITH customers…I’m always fascinated AND tracking what THEY are excited about. And yes…I know the difference between cheers in keynotes that are started by the product teams, and cheers that are started by customers. 

Josh Greenbaum, who brings that independent charm to the proceedings, also puts the customer access first. But with less of the controlled vibe, e.g. the over-moderated customer panel: 

Customer meetings with no handlers in sight, and with customers that are interested in a two-way discussion about what works and what doesn’t work in regards to a vendor’s software and services. That's a welcome change from the overly-controlled customer interaction norm.

Tim Crawford of AVOA is another independent, who brings the CIO experience and sensibility to the proceedings. He argues for candid discussions, and less of the fluff: 

1. Limiting slides and marketing fluff while providing significant time for Q&A with executives. Allows analysts to dig into the ‘why’ and thinking around decisions that are being made.
2. Candid conversations with executives. We (us, them, customers) all know that they are not perfect and that is okay. I appreciate when vendors are candid about what they have worked out and what they don’t have worked out…and are open to candid feedback.

(The tensions between candid conversations and 'presentation mode' are real. Vendors are wary of open discussions derailing their time slots, which is a legit concern - but the over-correction can be stifling). Greenbaum's high points include that frank dialogue: 

Sessions with executives that are designed to elicit real and honest feedback, as opposed to subjecting us to 'shut up and take dictation' session mode. Twice in recent memory I went to events that were set up in advance for feedback and discussion. It was refreshing, honest, and helpful.

It's rare when an analyst event is dedicated only to dialogue, rather than a deluge of briefing updates. But it can be a refreshing change-up. A few months in advance of a major show, that open format can give executives a valuable messaging/roadmap gut check. In that case, says Greenbaum, the necessary NDA to achieve that open strategy talk is worth it: 

Go-to-market and commercial transparency: honest and open information about how a company wins and what it takes to win is great. Even under NDA, having this background helps with customer advisory services – usually in a positive way. Even if I can’t talk about a specific customer or pending feature, having the confidence to talk about what I can discuss, knowing that there’s a consistency in quality or vision or roadmap that is backing up my talking points, is very valuable.

So, Mr. Greenbaum, what do bad analyst events look like? Slide decks and brain dumps:

Too many events pile on sessions, particularly 'shut up and take dictation' sessions, one after another, ensuring that we will be overwhelmed and unable to truly process what we’ve been told. While I get it that there’s a lot of information to impart, just imparting it without considering of how to impart it such that it’s well absorbed is a common mistake that wastes a lot of analysts’ and executives’ time.

Greenbaum also calls out the over-moderation problem: 

Q&As, whether with customers or vendor execs, where the questions are asked by a moderator – usually softball-style – instead of by the analysts are a huge wasted opportunity to expand a vendor’s perspective on what’s relevant. The softball questions also give the impression that analysts aren’t to be trusted to ask hard but fair questions, and that instead we need to be controlled so keep us on-message. Grrrrr.

Crawford's two areas where these days go wrong? 

1. Analyst presentations that are largely just marketing fodder and doesn’t get into the thinking and depth. .
2. Lack of openness to candid conversations. Analysts provide a wealth of insights and often have direct conversations with customers that vendors don’t get to have.  [Author's note: see more on Crawford's views in my prior piece and companion podcast, Next-gen analyst relations revisited - what are vendors getting wrong, and why does it matter?].

Greenbaum had one more issue to air out... gender disparity:

The inability of vendors to offer choice speaking opportunities to women was a glaring omission at several events I attended this year. While this was the result in part of a lack of women in senior leadership in a number of cases, that wasn’t the case for others. There is a palpable desire among women attendees to have women’s voices heard (and seen), and most customer events have “women in leadership” or “women in tech” tracks, but the lack of women on keynote stagea gives the impression that including women is an afterthought at best.

My take - research, community and events need to converge

I took a detour from the viral posts on this topic that light up LinkedIn. I'm not a fan of publicly airing nits about analyst day logistics. Yes, travel friction is worse, and there are things vendors can do to reduce that, but the game is the game. 

The question I come back to is different: are we adapting as fast as today's buyer needs us to? Are we able to provide buyers with insights that break through their own token-maxxed questions about what's viable for their project, and what lies in the land of AI marketecture?

Can AI help buyers in this quest, by giving them 24/7 research access? That's a loaded question, deserving of a piece unto itself. Based on customers that set up useful (though imperfect) research agents, I'll give a cautious yes, but with this caveat: it doesn't render analyst research irrelevant. It just raises the bar we should have had all along. When diginomica issued our data research collaboration with Maureen Blandford of Serendipitus, we funded that independently of any vendor sponsor: diginomica independent research - the enterprise data health study. 

Our diginomica network research, by contrast, tends to be issued in regular "pulses," to give project leaders a continuous hub of filtered insights. I see boutique analyst firms moving in that direction, combining deeper annualized research with regular updates, though vendor funding will continue to influence research in ways we need to grapple with (and disclose).

But even with a steady flow of discerning data, we still need to hash it out together. We need gut checks on our own strategy, and market assumptions. That's where a fluid approach comes in (I'll paste in one of my wireframes below, where I visualize how this year-round model could look... see also: B2B buyer engagement is a year-round endeavor - and AI isn't going to solve it.)

When we concede everything to "AI First," we lose track that buyers still buy into communities. They buy into ecosystems where they can build (well governed) things. Whether they decide to build more agents and less apps doesn't change that. It's the blurring of lines between research, community, and events that puts analysts in a grounded spot - one that can't be shaken by tenuously-validated, AI-generated research on demand.

When vendors facilitate that mix of customers, analysts, and other stakeholders, we get those pure gold conversations. Hopefully, we can boil those insights down after the event fades - and perhaps even track the impact. 

Does that mean some product leads might not get all their slides covered? Does that mean some analysts don't get deep enough into the blueprint their quadrants and trapezoids require?  Yes - but that's what private virtual sessions are for. 

People always ask me "who does the best analyst events"? This piece was not meant to be a vendor roll call. In the end, events are hard; juggling expectations of execs and analysts is a moving target, and just about every event has highs and lows. 

I've had several vendors really shake up the format based on my mad scientist missives design mantras (and satirical rants). I really think it worked, but I also acknowledge: it all depends on your goal, how you measure it - and your degree of executive buy-in. As I see it, the ultimate AR goal is a deeper network around buyers, and those who influence them: 

There is always a limit to how much info you can cover. But strong relationships are containers that can hold plenty of information - now and in the future.

Judging from the ergonomic distress of having your backside stuck to a chair for eight hours, there is a "less is more" aspect of these events vendors are almost-universally struggling with. That's where the year-round network-building pays off - including virtual events. 

Speaking of virtual, there are proven ways to make virtual analyst events better: 

• Make them short, topical, and interactive (but linger to answer a few extra questions for those who want to linger). 
• Allow a free streaming chat (don't be offended when people chat up their questions while the speakers are presenting), 
• Have subject matter experts on hand to engage in the chat throughout the session. 
• Make replays freely available. 

So many vendors miss on regular/engaging virtual events as part of their rhythm. Since SAP excels at this far more than any other vendors I've interacted with this year, I'll break my no-vendors rule and give them a quick nod here... 

One of the biggest changes since my original pieces? I'm a bit more open about NDAs - if the NDA is tied to a very candid discussion, and/or lifts quickly (the issue with using NDAs is more about confusing what can be shared - and when - resulting in post-event silence rather than an amplification of discussions). 

It's great to have more customers mixing in at these events - a number of vendors do a great job of that; too many to name here. But why not ensure that at least one customer panel is on the record? It's not just for content amplification, it's for the credibility that comes with open/on the record stories. 

The analysts I queried all had their issues with various aspects of event logistics. I don't think our readers need to see that, but when you're on the road inhaling travel fumes, eliminating friction points does matter. I'll be compiling these in the coming week(s) for AR directors who want them... If that's you, find me on LinkedIn.

Liz Miller brings it home:

I TOTALLY appreciate how much thought and work AR teams put into events. And there are some that get over the top experiential…but be careful. There are vendors that go over the top and then BACK THAT UP with great content, great access and have a killer product with lots of things to dive into and discuss. Then there are those that are trying to keep up with the pack, are spending a ton, but don’t have the substance, content or engagement that analysts expect. Analyst events are the LAST place that the “lipstick on a pig” strategy will work.

Indeed - this post wouldn't even be possible without the talented AR professionals who inspired this, and want this dialogue as much as we do.

Lipstick on pigs was never attractive; now it's a spiral of defeat. If we shake up the Analyst Relations narrative, we end up exposing those problems. Where it goes next is why we (still) get on planes...

content and events strategy (all rights reserved)