I was contacted at my ibm.com e-mail address by the Radicati Group as a follow-up to Friday's weblog entry.
The e-mail was apparently an attempt to clarify some of the points of discussion.  I noted in my reply that I personally had actually not made any comments about the content of the report on edbrill.com (my perspective will be reflected in the official IBM response) -- it was the readers of this blog that they were attempting to respond to.  Thus, I was surprised that my offer to post the contents of the Radicati Group's e-mail to edbrill.com in their entirety was declined.  I think you all would have appreciated the additional insight.  
In turning down my offer, Radicati Group indicated that they were uninterested in being "mixed in" with my weblog or similar discussion, which seemed to be in contrast to their apparent glee at the amount of visibility given to the paper by the initial blog entry.  Either way, it is an opportunity missed -- most surprising given that the question that permeated the e-mail was about how the blog entry affected the credibility of the two parties involved.  (It also raises a question about how the weblog community is viewed by this analyst -- as opposed to so many other analysts who actually blog, including analysts at Gartner, Burton, Jupiter, Nucleus, and many other analyst firms).
My view is that I'll risk my own credibility to shine a spotlight where needed -- in this case, I believe the exposure of this document to a wide audience actually serves me much more than it does my competition.  For those of you reading it directly, you can form your own opinion of the report.  For those you will need to influence, including management that might never read the full report, you are now prepared to discuss and easily rebut the report thoughtfully (even moreso when IBM's response is published).  How does that hurt my credibility?

Post a Comment