Fascinating. I assume that’s lemonade in the IDC mug.
IDC and Reports by Schubmehl
July 25, 2014
I wanted to nail down a handful of facts.
First, IDC published without a contract four reports in 2012. These reports were disseminated via the IDC Web site, various communications, and via Amazon’s eCommerce site. These reports were:
- Attivio 236514
- Elasticsearch 237410
- Lucid Imagination / Works 236086
- Polyspot 236511
Each report was $3,500. One report about Attivio was sold on Amazon until July 17, 2014.
The “authors” of these IDC reports included:
- Susan Feldman, a former IDC professional positioned as a “search expert”. Only Attivio.
- David Schubmehl, a former OpenText and Janya (no longer in business) “professional” and heir to Ms Feldman as IDC’s search expert who has jumped from my Attivio information into a consulting relationship with that company founded by former Fast Search & Transfer executives. See this link. Dave Schubmehl’s name appears on each of the four published reports using information from my team and me.
- Constance Ard, MLS, who was at this time the coordinator of my research projects
- Dr. Tyra Oldham, one of the 2012 members of my research team
- Stephen E Arnold, me. I have pointed to a biography on my Web site set up to promote the deal I had with IDC to publish an open source search monograph containing profiles of more than a dozen companies in 2012.
So what’s the big deal? Let me highlight the reason I will be taking a look at some of the IDC expertise in the future.
First, Ms. Feldman and I worked on projects that originated at Manning & Napier, then an investment services company. I was happy to cooperate with her when she joined IDC as the head of the IDC search practice. However, under circumstances I don’t understand, Ms. Feldman left IDC and the area of her responsibility was snagged by David Schubmehl. Without Ms. Feldman at IDC, I made numerous efforts to get a contract, get information about sales, find out where the 13 profiles provided by me and my team were at IDC, and, of course, get paid. Ms. Feldman made administrative procedures work. Mr. Schubmehl took a different approach from where I sat.
Second, Mr. Schubmehl made certain his name appeared on the reports published and sold by IDC without written permission from me to use my material or to stake a claim on the work. Furthermore, the source material we provided contained certain information that was in 2012 not widely known. Significant information about the companies we analyzed were not included in the IDC reports. As a result, the IDC reports using my material were not in line with my thinking. One example of Mr. Schubmehl’s thinking is this tweet:
According to LinkedIn, IDC’s analyst profile, and various biographies charting his work career, he is an expert in Enterprise Search, Text Analytics, Customer Relations, Consultancy, Document Management, Enterprise Content Management, Business Intelligence, Information Management, Intellectual Property, Litigation Support, Enterprise Software, SaaS, Product Management, Cloud Computing, Analytics, Go-to-market Strategy, Knowledge Management, Software Development, and Enterprise Architecture. This impressive list begs one simple question: “If one is so expert, why is it necessary to use without permission and payment the work of others?”
Third, my attorney sought information about sales and finally pressed IDC to stop selling reports with my name and David Schubmehl’s on them. One fix was for IDC to roll Lucid information into a separate report. IDC stopped selling the four reports identified above in early 2014. IDC continued to sell the Attivio report on Amazon until July 17, 2014. IDC is no longer selling reports with my name on them. This is a modest victory, but it leaves the question hanging, “What motivates a large and presumably well regarded consulting firm to trample over basic business procedures?” I don’t have an answer. I do believe IDC is perhaps not quite so confident of its “experts’” expertise, particularly with regard to search and content processing.
Net net: IDC used my name without my permission. IDC published my research material without issuing a contract for work for hire. IDC took possession of detailed, high value information and permitted that information to “inform” David Schubmehl to further his impact as a sales person and “expert” at IDC like Mr. Schubmehl, a “long suffering Buffalo Bills fan and reformed youth soccer referee.”
The next time you read an IDC report, please, consider these questions:
- Who is the “expert”? The contributors or the IDC person who piggybacks on the names of others with particular expertise?
- Is $3,500 for a rehash of other people’s work a wise use of scarce resources?
- Why does a large company fail to follow standard business practices such as issuing contracts, observing contracts, providing sales reports, and compensating those who actually performed original work?
Stephen E Arnold, July 25, 2014
Old Pals Chatting: IDC Expert Chums Up Cognitive Marketing
May 4, 2016
I recall a fellow named Dave Schubmehl. You may recall that name. He was the IDC wizard who ingested my research about open source outfits and then marketed it via Amazon without my permission. Since that go round with my information used without a written agreement with me, I have taken a skeptical view of IDC and its “experts.” I won’t comment on its business practices, administrative acumen, and general ineptitude with regard to publishing a bit of my research as an eight page, $3,500 “analysis.” Yikes. Eight pages at $3,500 for work pumped out on Amazon, the WalMart of the digital world.
I read, therefore, with considerable skepticism “Interview with Rich Vancil: Group VP, Executive Advisory of IDC.” I was not disappointed. Perhaps I should say, my already low expectations were just about met.
The interviewer, according to the interview text, has been an acquaintance of the IDC wizard for decades. Furthermore, the interviewer (obviously an objective type of person) will “meet up to catch up on life outside business.” The article is “old pals chatting.”
What a chat?
I learned that:
The IDC 3rd Platform is a broad term for our present IT industry and economy. It is where 100% of WW IT revenue growth is coming from and it includes the product categories of Mobile; Social; Cloud, and Big Data. The 3rd Platform is eclipsing the 2nd Platform – described broadly as the “last 30 years” of IT, and this has been mainly enterprise computing: Lan / Internet; Client / Server; and premised based infrastructure such as servers, storage, and licensed software.
A third platform. “Platform” is an interesting word. I get the idea of a Palantir platform. I suppose I can get in sync with the Windows 10 platform. But an IDC platform? Well, that’s an idea which would never have floated from the pond filled with mine drainage here in Harrod’s Creek.
A consulting firm is in the business of selling information. A platform exists at outfits like Booz, Allen, McKinsey, and Bain. But the notion that a mid tier outfit has had three platforms intrigues me. When I looked at some of the 1917-1918 reports at Booz, Allen when Ellen Shedlarz ran the information center, the format, the tone, the approach, and the word choice was incorporated in the charm school into which new hires were herded. I could, in a moment of weakness, call Booz, Allen’s systems and methods a platform. But are the words “systems” and “methods” more appropriate?
The other interesting point in the write up was a nifty new diagram which purports to make clear the third platform confection. I know you won’t be able to read the diagram. Buy the report which hopefully is less than the $3,500 slapped on eight pages of my research.
Source: IDC 2016 at this link. If you find the link dead, just buzz up IDC and order document 01517018. The reports based on my research were 236511, 236514, 236086, and 237410. Buy them all for a mere $14,000.
Notice the blobs. Like another mid tier outfit, blobs are better than numbers. The reason fuzziness is a convenient graphic device is that addled geese like me ask questions; for example:
- What data are behind the blobs
- What was the sample size
- Where did the categories come from like “cognitive marketing”?
I have a supposition about the “cognitive” thing. The IDC wizard Dave Schubmehl pumped out lots of tweets about IBM cognitive computing. One IDC executive, prior to seeking a future elsewhere, wrote a book about “cognitive” processes. Both of these IDC experts guzzled the IBM Watson lattes somewhere along the cafeteria line.
Back to the interview among two friends. I learned:
MarTech is a big deal. IDC is doing a very careful accounting of this area and we now account for 78 separate product / service categories and literally thousands of vendors. Like any other emerging and fast growth IT category, consolidation will be inevitable. But in the meantime, it makes for a daunting set of choices for the CMO and team.
I like the word daunting. There is nothing like a list of items which are not grouped in a useful manner to set IDC neural pathways abuzz. But the IDC mavens have cracked the problem. The company has produced a remarkable 2015 technology map. Check this out:
Source: Expert Interview, 2016
I moved forward in the write up. The daunting problem has contributed to what the interviewer describes as “an awesome conference.” I like that “awesome” thing. How does the write up conclude? There is a reference to golf, the IDC professional’s medical history, and this statement:
The best analysts can simplify, simplify. Analysts who try to impress by using big words and complex frameworks…end up confusing their audience and so they become ineffective.
Remarkable content marketing.
Stephen E Arnold, May 4, 2016
Who Will Be the IDC Cognitive Guru?
September 10, 2015
You remember Dave Schubmehl. He is the IDC “search” expert who recycled some of my content. He then sold a report based on my work via Amazon. My meek attorney was able to get the document removed. Not even a legal eagle could fathom how eight pages of analysis could command $3,500. Mr. Bezos knows that $9.99 is a sweet spot. I suppose the masters of management at IDC thought that $3,500 report would sell like hot cakes to the consumers of romance novels, streaming video, and household commodities.
I noted a tweet (show below) that suggests his unit at IDC is going like gang busters. New staff with undergraduate degrees are needed. Uber drivers, are you paying attention?
When a consulting firm adds headcount, that’s news. I hope that the Renaissance men and women at IDC can make sense of “cognitive computing.” Google pushes “deep learning.” I suppose there will be more buzzwords as the “experts” in enterprise search flail for purchase on the slopes of Mount Make a Sale.
Most of the experts have answers to the most difficult problems in business. The only hitch in the git along occurs when the “experts” do not have certain knowledge. Oh, another modest problem is recycling another’s information without taking the time to issue a contract.
I am confident that the customers of Amazon really did want to buy that $3,500 report. Mid tier consulting firms are the cat’s pajamas. I wonder if that comes from asking IBM Watson questions.
Stephen E Arnold, September 10, 2015
IDC: Knowledge Managemment and Knowledge Quotients
June 2, 2015
IDC tried to sell some of my work on Amazon without my permission. Much lawyering ensued, and IDC removed the $3,500 eight page heavily edited report about Attivio. I suppose that is a form of my knowledge management expertise: But $3,500 for eight pages without my caveats about Attivio? Goodness gracious. $3,500 for eight pages on Amazon, a company I describe as a digital WalMart..
I then wrote a humorous (to me) analysis of an IDC report about something called a knowledge quotient. You can read that Swiftian write up at this link: http://arnoldit.com/wordpress/honk/ . I write a column about knowledge management, and I found the notion of the KQ intellectually one of the lighter, almost diaphonous, IDC information molecules.
An I too harsh? No because now there is more evidence for my tough love approach to IDC and its KQ content marketing jingoism.
Navigate to “Where to for Knowledge Management in 2015: IDM Reader Survey.” The survey may or may not be spot on. Some of the data undermine the IDC KQ argument and raise important questions about those who would “manage knowledge.” Also, I had to read the title a couple of times to figure out what IDC’s expert was trying to communicate. The where to for is particularly clumsy to me.
I noted this passage:
“The challenge is for staff being able to find the time to contribute and leverage the knowledge/information repositories and having technology systems that are intuitive putting the right information that their fingertips, instead of having to wade through the sea of information spam.”
Ah, ha. KM is about search.
Wait. Not so fast. I highlighted this statement:
Technology is making it easier to integrate systems and connect across traditional boundaries, and social media has boosted people’s expectations for interaction and feedback. The result is that collaboration across the extended value chain is becoming the new normal.
Yikes. A revelation. KM is about social collaboration.
No, no. Another speed bump. I marked this insight too:
“There is also a fair gap between knowledge of the theoretical and knowledge of how things actually work. It is easy to say we should assign metadata to information to increase its discovery but if that metadata should really be more of a folksonomy, some systems and approaches are far too restrictive to enable this. Semantics is also a big issue.”
Finally. KM is about indexing and semantics. Yes, the info I needed.
Wrong again. I circled this brilliant gem:
“Knowledge management has probably lost it momentum as the so-called measurement tools are really measuring best practice which in turn is an average. Perhaps the approach should be along the lines of “Communities of Process” where there is a common objective but various degrees and level of participation but collectively provide a knowledge pool,” he [survey participant]observed.
The write continues along this rocky road of generalizations and buzzwords.
The survey data make three things clear to me:
- The knowledge quotient jargon is essentially a scoop of sales Jello, Jack Benny’s long suffering sponsor
- Knowledge is so broad IDC’s attempt to clarify gave me the giggles
- Workers know that knowledge has value, so workers protect it with silos.
I assume that experts cooked up the knowledge quotient notion. The pros running the survey reported data which suggests that knowledge management is a bit of a challenge.
Perhaps IDC experts will coordinate their messaging in the future? In my opinion, two slabs of spam do not transmogrify into prime rib.
Little wonder IDC contracts is unable to function, one of its officers (Dave Schubmehl) resells my research on Amazon without my permission at $3,500 per eight pages edited to remove the considerations Attivio warranted from my team. Then an IDC research unit provides data which strike me as turning the silly KQ thing into search engine optimization corn husks.
Is IDC able to manage its own knowledge processes using its own theories and data? Perhaps IDC should drop down a level and focus on basic business processes? Yet IDC’s silos appear before me, gentle reader. and the silos are built from hefty portions of a mystery substance. Could it be consulting spam, to use IDC’s own terminology?
Stephen E Arnold, June 2, 2015
IDC and Forrester: New Partnership, New Confusion among Mid-Tier Consultants?
March 17, 2015
I received this interesting email this morning (March 16, 2015).
Notice the logo. The email is from IDG Connect based in Staines, Middlesex, UK. Now look at this headline:
Acquia Identified as a “Strong Performer” in The Forrester Wave™: Web Content Management Systems, Q1 2015
When I clicked on the hyperlink in the title of the email, look what I found:
This is a list of the promotions IDC seems to have done for its competitors. I thought that “real” consultants did not cross over into the pastures of other consulting firms. Obviously I am incorrect in this assumption.
That leaves me with the hypothesis that IDC is promoting Forrester’s “wave”—the me-too to Gartner’s Magic Boston Consulting Group Variant Quadrant without the Analytics—for content management.
Whoa, Nellie. I thought that IDC was one outfit, happily placed in Boston, America’s first city. Emerson, witch burning, Route 128, and the Big Dig. The marketing arm of IDG for this email comes from merrie old England. Is this content marketing and information shaping at a fairly interlocking level? What else do these mid tier consulting firms share? Client lists? Client problems? Content used without the permission of people like me who write stuff and then have it repurposed under a so-called expert’s name. (Yep, Dave Schubmehl again.)
Here’s what the email to me said:
We are pleased to announce that Acquia is a “Strong Performer” in The Forrester Wave™: Web Content Management Systems, Q1 2015. “Acquia’s standout features include the cloud strategy, solid content management and delivery functionality, and a strong developer community and component ecosystem.” Like Forrester, we believe that digital experience delivery is the strategic technology investment for every brand. Ready to see the results? Download your complimentary copy today.
As you may know, IDC’s Dave Schubmehl (remember him, the search wizard) sold my content on Amazon. Now it appears that I can get a free report via the IDC email for the ordinarily “real money” research from Forrester. Confused yet?
When I clicked on the Click Here button I received a copy of Ted Schadler’s “The Forrester Wave: Web Content Management Systems, Q1 2015 report. Here’s the link. Give it a while, but not promises: http://www.idgconnect-resources.com/rt.asp?I=5E892X4874X6&L=1627905
Who’s Forrester’s Ted Schadler? I have his photo.
A quick check online reveals that Ted Schadler has a Forrester blog called “Ted Schadler’s Blog.” He covers quite a few topics; for example, broadband, Web content management, Internet regulation, free Web publishing systems, and experience gaps. He is a bit of a Leonardo it seems, and he has some marketing in his DNA too.
Intrigued, I ran a query for his name and IDG/IDC. Mr. Schadler has been a speaker at IDG’s tony CIO conference. Mr. Schadler’s topic was described this way:
Collaboration across the C-suite and the challenge of transitioning to a digital enterprise will have a special focus at this year’s event, which also features opening keynotes by Tom Davenport, author of “big data @ work,” and Forrester Research’s Ted Schadler, author of “The Mobile Mind Shift.” The symposium concludes with an awards ceremony recognizing the 2014 CIO 100 winners.
I will try to keep track of what mid tier (what I call an azure chip) consulting firm is promoting other of the same ilk.
If I were paying for one consulting firm, would I check to make sure my firm’s private information does not leak? I sure would.
Stephen E Arnold, March 17, 2015
IDC and BA Insight: Cartoons and Keyword Search
January 31, 2015
I kid you not. I received a spam mail from an outfit called BA Insight. The spam was a newsletter published every three months. You know that regular flows of news are what ring Google’s PageRank chimes, right?
Here’s the missive:
The lead item is an invitation to:
Unstructured content – email, video, instant messages, documents and other formats accounts for 90% of all digital information.
View the IDC Infographic:
Unlock the Hidden Value of Information.
With my fully protected computer, I boldly clicked on the link. I don’t worry too much about keyword search vendors’ malware, but prudence is a habit my now deceased grandma drummed into me.
Here’s what greeted me:
Yep, a giant infographic cartoon stuffed with assertions and a meaningless chunk of jargon: knowledge quotient. Give me cyber OSINT any day.
The concept presented in this fascinating marketing play is that unstructured content has value waiting to be delivered. I learned:
This content is locked in variety locations [sic] and applications made up of separate repositories that don’t talk to each other—e.g., EMC Documentum, Salesforce.com, Google Drive, SharePoint, et al.
Now it looks to me as if the word “of” has been omitted between “variety locations”. I also think that EMC Documentum has a new name. Oh, well. Let’s move on.
The key point in the cartoon is that “some organizations can and do unlock information’s hidden value. Organizations with a high knowledge quotient.”
I thought I addressed this silly phrase in this write up.
Let me be clear. IDC is the outfit that sold my information on Amazon without my permission. More embarrassing to me was the fact that the work was attributed to a fellow named Dave Schubmehl, who is one of the, if not the premier, IDC search expert. Scary I believe. Frightful.
What’s the point?
The world of information access has leapfrogged outfits like BA Insight and “experts” like IDC’s pride of pontificators.
The future of information access is automated collection, analysis, and reporting. You can learn about this new world in CyberOSINT: Next Generation Information Access. No cartoons but plenty of screenshots that show what the outputs of NGIA systems deliver to users who need to reduce risk and make decisions of considerable importance and time sensitivity.,
In the meantime, if you want cartoons, flip through the New Yorker. More intelligent fare I would suggest.
How do you become a knowledge quotient leader? In my opinion, not by licensing a keyword search system or buying information from an outfit that surfs on my research. Just a thought.
Stephen E Arnold, January 31, 2015
IDC PCWorld Sees Lemonade in Google Glass
January 18, 2015
I am not sure what the folks in Massachusetts are thinking. I read “Google Glass: Down but Not Out.” Reading the story was an interesting exercise in filling a small tumbler with not-so-hot lemonade.
Here’s the passage I noted:
True, Glass has struggled to find its place in the mainstream.
Now that’s a statement that puts Brin and X Labs in some context.
“Struggled.”
Then I highlighted in yellow:
But make no mistake: Glass isn’t going away—not without more of a fight. While it’s struggled to find support among consumers, some businesses have been highly receptive to the electronic eyewear, and the next iterations of Glass might suit them even better.
Chuck full of quotes, the write up points out some of the issues; for example, backlash, the economics, and wonderful phrase “glasshole.”
But what was not said may be more important. The big thinker on this project was the multi-named Babak Amir Parviz. Then there was the alleged interaction between one of Google’s founders and an employee. There was some discord, which is a pretty nice way of summing up some fast dancing in the interpersonal relationships department. Finally there has been the two step in reorganizing the Glass house.
What we have is a write up that ignores the impact of business and personal decisions on a product that warranted a business school type of analysis. That means looking at the company, the professionals involved, the market reaction, and the social implications of hard-to-detect Glass functions.
Like much of IDC’s work, including Dave Schubmehl’s sale of my research under his name on Amazon, the issue of covering a topic is almost more interesting than the high school lab experiments themselves. But who cares? In an age of content marketing and zoom-zoom analysis, there just isn’t time between Oscar antics, analysis, and making sales, is there?
A photo of a Glass fashion show featuring Mr. Brin and Ms. Rosenberg would have helped put the write up in a fashion context. Remarkable that Vanity Fair would have more substance than an IDC publication. Fascinating.
Stephen E Arnold, January 18, 2015
If an IDC Tweet Enters the Social Stream, Does Anyone Care? I Do Not.
December 31, 2014
This is a good question. The Twitter messages output by Beyond Search are automated. We know that most of these produce nothing substantive. But what about Tweets by an IDC search expert like Dave Schubmehl. You may recognize the name because he sold a report with my name on it for $3,500 on Amazon without my permission. Nifty. I don’t think of myself as a brand or fame surf board, but it appears that he does.
My Overflight system noted that since September 22, 2014, Mr. Schubmehl or an IDC software script generated 198 tweets if I counted correctly. There were quite a few tweets about BA Insight, a search vendor anchored in Microsoft SharePoint. I ask, “Is BA Insight paying for IDC to promote the brand?” I know that there may have been some brushes with IDC in the past. Whether for free or for fee, Mr. Schubmehl mentions BA Insight a half dozen times.
But Mr. Schubmehl is fascinated with IBM. He generated tweets about Watson, IBM “insights”, and IBM training 149 times. Perhaps IDC and Mr. Schubmehl should apply to be listed in the TopSEOs’ list?
Do McKinsey, Bain, and BCG consultants hammer out tweets about Watson? I suppose if the client pays. Is IDC and search expert Mr. Schubmehl in the pay-to-play business? If not, he has considerable affection for the IBM and its Watson system, which is supposed to be a $10 billion business in four or five years. I wonder how that will work out in a company that is playing poker with its financial guidance for the next fiscal year.
Stephen E Arnold, December 31, 2014
More IDC Cleverness: Innovation Is Alive and Well
December 10, 2014
Short honk: Navigate to this link on the Attivio Web site. I verified this on December 9, 2014. Here’s the link:
http://go.attivio.com/l/5752/2012-12-13/l9m2w/5752/96006/idc_attivio_uia_profile_2012_1_.pdf
What do you see? I see this:
IDC published this information based loosely on my team’s research. There was no written permission take this action. My attorney requested that IDC pay for the rights to use my information, including its resale on Amazon without my permission. As I understand my legal eagle, IDC was to stop selling documents with my name and the name of an IDC expert: Dave Schubmehl.
Well, here we go. After months of fiddling, a report with my name is attached to Attivio.
The only hitch in the git along is that the Attivio described in the IDC report does not match up with the Attivio with which I described in my research reports.
Attivio, instead of struggling to generate sufficient revenue to repay its stakeholders, morphs into a different company.
I care because misrepresenting who wrote what, using another’s work for personal aggrandizement and economic benefit, and trampling over the professionalism of a 70 year old strikes me as uncomfortable.
My suggestion? Think about the source of the information. Figure out who is the expert. Ask yourself, “Do I want to be treated in the IDC manner?”
My answer is, “I want experts to be experts. I want high value information to be fairly presented, not massaged. I want basic business practices observed.”
What’s your answer? We know Mr. Schubmehl’s and IDC’s answer.
Stephen E Arnold, December 10, 2014
IDC Tweets, IBM, and Content Marketing
September 29, 2014
Some Backstory
In 2012 and 2013, IDC sold my content with my name and Dave Schubmehl’s. These were nifty IDC “official” reports. The only hitch in the git along is that IDC did not trouble itself to issue a contract, get my permission, or tell me what they were doing with research my team prepared. The deal was witnessed by a law librarian, and I have a stack of emails about my research into such open source companies as Attivio, ElasticSearch (one of the disruptors of the enterprise search market), IBM (the subject of the IDC twit storm), Lucid Imagination (now Lucid Works which I write when I feel playful as Lucid works, really?), and eight other companies.
Hit by a twit storm. Rough seas ahead. Image from www.qsl.net.
In 2012, I had the open source research. IDC wanted the open source content to use in a monograph. So in front of a law librarian, IDC’s search “expert” thought the exchange of my information for open source intelligence, money, and stuff to sell was a great idea. (I have a file of email from IDC to me about what IDC wanted, but I never got a contract. But IDC had my research. Ah, those administrative delays.) IDC, however, was organized enough to additions to my company research like an open source industry overview.
In an odd approach to copyright, IDC did not produce a contract but it produced reports about four open source companies. Mr. Schubmehl and IDC just went about producing what were recycled company reports and trying to sell them at $3,500 a whack. Is that value or an example of the culture of narcissism? It may come as a surprise to you, gentle reader, but I sell research for money. I have a business model and it has worked for about 40 years. When an outfit uses the research without issuing a contract, I have to start thinking about such issues as fairness, integrity, copyright, and name surfing. Call me idiosyncratic, but when my name is used without my permission, I wonder how a big and allegedly respected organization can operate like a BearStearns-type senior executive.
Then, the straw that broke the proverbial camel’s back, a librarian told me that IDC was selling a report with my name and Mr. Schubmehl’s on Amazon. Wow, Amazon, the Wal-Mart for the digital age. The reports, now removed from Amazon’s blue light special shelf cost $3,500. Not bad for eight pages of information based on my year long research investment into the wild and volatile world of open source search and content processing. Surf’s up for Mr. Schubmehl.
Well, IDC after some prodding by my very gentle legal gerbil stopped selling my work. We received a proposal that offered me a pittance for a guarantee that I would not talk or write about this name surfing, unauthorized resale of my information on Amazon, and the flubs of Mr. Schubmehl.
My legal gerbil rejected IDC’s lawyer crafted “deal,” and I am now converting my IDC misadventure into a metaphor for some of the deeper issues associated with “experts” and certain professional services firms. My legal gerbil suggested a significantly higher fee, but, like many of that ilk, the gerbil broke my heart.
Hence, IDC and Mr. Schubmehl’s tweets and twit storm are on my fragile ship’s radar. Let’s review the IBM IDC Schubmehl twit storm on just one day in September 2014. Trigger warning: Do not emulate the IDC Schubmehl method for your content marketing program. One day of tweets only generates a lot of twit.
Now to the Twit Storm Unleashed on September 16, 2014
Using my Overflight system, I monitor IDC tweets. Quite an interesting series of tweets appears on September 16, 2014. Mr. Schubmehl posted 25 tweets about IBM Watson.
Here are three examples of the Watson content content to which his name was attached::
- September 16, 2014.
#WatsonAnalytics uses Watson cognitive technologies to ingest structured data and find relationships – Robin Grosset & Dan Wolfson - September 16, 2014 Combo of cognitive with cloud analytics improves process, analysis and decision making – cognitive will change all mkts
#WatsonAnalytics - September 16, 2014
#WatsonAnalytics will be using a freemium model….first time for IBM…
Obviously there is nothing wrong with a tweet about an IBM product. What’s one more twit emission in a flow of several hundred thousand 144 character text outputs.
There is nothing illegal with two dozen tweets about IBM. What two dozen tweets do is make me laugh and see this content marketing effort as fodder for corporate weirdness.
Also, this IBM twit storm is not on the Miley Cyrus or Lady Gaga scale, but it is notable because it is a one day twit storm quite unlike the Jeopardy journey. Quite a marketing innovation: getting an alleged “expert” to craft 16 “original” tweets in one day and issue seven retweets of tweets from others who are fans of Big Blue. A few Schubmehl tweets on the 16th illustrated diversity; for example, “The FBI’s Facial Recognition System Is Here.” Hmm. The FBI and facial recognition. I wonder why one is interested in this development.
The terms mentioned in these IBM centric tweets on September 16, 2014, reveal the marketing jargon that IBM is using to generate revenue from the game show winning technology. My list of buzzwords from the tweets read like a who’s who of blogosphere and venture oriented yak:
- Automated data cleansing
- Analytics (cloud based)
- Big Data
- Cognitive (system and capabilities)
- Data explorer
- Democratizing
- Freemium
- Natural Language Computing
- Natural Language Query.
From this list of buzzwords my favorites are “cognitive,” “Big Data,” and the number one silly word “Freemium.” Imagine. Freemium from IBM. Imagine.
My Interpretation of the Twit Storm
Let me capture several preliminary observations:
First, the Schubmehl Twitter activity on September 16, 2014 focuses mostly on IBM’s challenged Watson business development effort. The cluster of tweets on the 16th suggest a somewhat ungainly and down-market content marketing play.
Did Mr. Schubmehl wake up on the 16th of September and decide to crank out Watson centric tweets? Did IBM pay IDC and Mr. Schubmehl to do some content marketing like thousands of PR firms do each day? We even have these outfits in Harrod’s Creek, Kentucky to flog auto sales, bourbon, and cheesy festivals in Middletown, Kentucky.
Here’s a question: “How many tweets does a McKinsey or Bain type of consulting firm issue on a single day for a single product that seems to be struggling for revenue?” If you know, please, use the comments section of this blog to provide some factoids.
Second, the tweets provide the reader with a list of what seem to be IBM Watson aficionados or employees who have the job of making the shotgun marriage of open source code, legacy Almaden technology, and proprietary scripts into a billion dollar revenue producer soon, very soon, gentle reader. The individuals mentioned in the September 16, 2014, tweets include:
- Steve Gold, Baylor University
- Robin Grosset, Distinguished engineer Watson Analytics.
- Dan Wolfson, IBM Distinguished Engineer
- Bob Picciano, Senior vice president, IBM information and analytics group.
Perhaps Mr. Gold is objective? I ask, “Do the other three IBM wizards looking at the world through IBM tinted spectacles when reading their business objectives for the current fiscal year?” I asked myself, “Should I trust these individuals who presumably are also “experts” in all things related to Watson?” My preliminary answer is, “Not for an objective view of the game show winning Watson.”
Third, what’s the payoff of this twit storm for IBM? Did IBM expect me to focus on the Schubmehl twit storm and convert the information into my idea of a 10 minute stand up comedy routine to deliver at the upcoming intelligence and law enforcement conference in nine days? Is it possible that “doing social media” looks good on a weekly report when an executive does not have juicy revenue numbers to present? The value of the effort strikes me as modest. In fact, viewed as a group, the tweets could be interpreted as a indicator of IBM’s slide into desperation marketing?
What about consulting firms and their ability to pump out high margin revenue?
Outfits like Gerson Lehrman Group have put the squeeze on mid tier consulting firms. The bottom feeders with its middle school teacher and poet contingent are not likely to sell to the IBMs of the world. GLG types companies are also nipping at the low end business of the blue chip outfits like Bain, Boston Consulting, and even McKinsey.
Put GLG can deliver to a client retired professionals from blue chip firms and on point experts. As a result, GLG has made life very, very tough for the mid tier outfits. Why pay $50,000 for an unproven “expert” when you can buy a person with a pedigree for an hour and pay a few hundred bucks when you need a factoid or an opinion? I consider IDC’s move to content marketing indicative of a fundamental shift in the character of a consulting firm’s business. The shift to low level PR work seems out of character for a professionals services with a commitment to intellectual rigor.
Every few days I learn that something called TopSEOs.com generates a list of content marketing leaders. Will IDC appear on this list?
For those who depend on lower- or mid tier consulting firms for professional counsel, how would you answer these questions:
- What is the intellectual substance behind pronouncements? Is there original research underpinning pronouncements and projections, or are the data culled from secondary sources and discussions with paying customers?
- What is the actual relationship between a mid tier consulting firm and the companies discussed in “authoritative” reports? Are these reports and projects inclusions (a fancy word for ads) or are they objective discussions of companies?
- Are the experts presented as “experts” actually experts or are they individuals who want to hit revenue goals while keeping costs as low as possible?
I don’t have definitive answers to these questions. Perhaps one day I can use a natural language query to tap into Big Data and rely on cognitive methods to provide answers.
For now, a one day twit storm is a wonderful example of how not to close deals, build reputations, and stimulate demand for advanced technology offered via a “Freemium” model. What the heck does that mean anyway?
Stephen E Arnold, September 29, 2014
-
- Subscribe to Beyond Search
Feature archive
News archive
-
