Talk:Industry analyst/Archives/2013

Spam
I believe this article has some spam in it (lots actually). I am reluctant to delete what I consider spam because I am a direct participant in this industry and have a bias. Someone with sufficient knowledge but without a direct interest in the business should make the changes.

The same applies for the following statement which I feel is open to much interpretation: Notable examples of analyst firms creating models based on social media and "open research and analysis" include RedMonk, Macehiter Ward-Dutton, and Freeform Dynamics, all based in or having offices in the United Kingdom... I have added a reference to Wikibon as a US-based example which I feel better reflects an example of so-called "open research" however I am involved in Wikibon and would ask that someone without involvement clean up this section. I did not include a link to Wikibon but you can google it and decide for yourself whether or not it fits the description of 'open' and deserves to be in the article.

I'd ask editors to please consider the following: Open means not only free of charge but freedom to use in any commercial or non-commercial way. The Web sites of the examples cited as "open research and analysis" all have fairly onerous copyright notices or terms of service on their Web sites which seem to violate the spirit of open. --Twostardav 18:54, 9 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Twostardav: The companies listed as examples of "open" each publish some portion of their research/analysis under standard creative commons licenses, and/or discuss their research and analysis in an open format and with a high degree of transparency. I attempted to correlate open research in keeping with the wikipedia description of open-source software.  Please help me understand what else might require additional work by specifying the other content that adds up to "lots" o' spam.FrenchB 06:01, 11 April 2007 (UTC)


 * FrenchB - I think the changes you made are excellent and clean up this article very nicely, including the changes you made to the wikibon reference-- thanks for that. I don't understand how the firms mentioned as 'open' correlate to the wikipedia description of open-source software. They seem to deviate in many respects, specifically that either (1) the research is not available to be used in a commercial manner (which open-source software typically is) and (2) the research is not widely available and accessible. I think a benchmark of 'some portion of their research/analysis under standard creative common licenses' is a very low bar to be considered open source. Nonetheless, I'm happy to let the market decide what is truly 'open' and appreciate your good work. Twostardav

Use of company names & links as examples
Over the last several months, the inclusion of company names and links in this article has become increasingly redundant to the article listing industry analyst companies and, increasingly, lacks 3rd party factual references. I propose deleting all references to specific companies and, if necessary due to lack of factual attribution, any portions of text directly dependent on the commercial examples. Comments? Other ideas? FrenchB (talk) 17:26, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

AdrianRivers (talk) 13:31, 6 June 2008 (UTC) I understand the difficulties involved in naming sample companies, however I actually found it helpful as it allowed me to look at the examples and have a greater understanding of the topic.

Thanks for that insight. I'll obtain and revise with a representative sampling from an authoritative 3rd party source, rather than eliminating examples altogether. As always, other ideas and edits are welcome. FrenchB (talk) 17:01, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Technology Focus - Why?
Why is it assumed, for example in the bulleted list under "Roles and deliverables", that Industry Analysts are focused on the Technology Sector - surely there are Analysts companies that are generic (eg Datamonitor) or specific to non-technology sectors?AdrianRivers (talk) 13:36, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Good point. This article began with a focus on the high tech industry analysts, and broadened out to encompass analysts offering expertise in other industries. Few industries have the equivalent of the tech industry analysts; instead, most have high profile financial analyst, market research and competitive intelligence professions. This is a good point to include in the article. Also, the companies focused beyond tech should be called out in the examples/links. FrenchB (talk) 17:20, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Re-classificatiion of this page under "Public Relations"
There's no logic in classifying "industry analyst" as "public relations". While that makes perfect sense for "analyst relations", it is a limited view of the role of industry analysts. Read the article -- it defines the industry analyst function. Why was change made? Shall we change it back to its original classification, under "analyst"? FrenchB (talk) 23:45, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

The article has been reclassified as "Market Research" which makes lots of sense. Thanks to the Wikipedia editor who did this.FrenchB (talk) 01:34, 18 October 2009 (UTC)