There is a story in the WSJ about Aberdeen Group (thanks Michael) and their approach to vendor funded research that is less than positive to say the least. 

I’ve worked with Aberdeen in the past (although not currently) as well as their peers over the course of my career.  There are two sides to the equation here (i.e., follow the money) – vendors pay these analysts for advice/insight with the aspiration that access will drive coverage and end-customers pay for advice with the hope of the inside scoop on the best decision to make around IT investments.  A couple of years ago InformationWeek did a story on this topic.

How should these firms address this apparent conflict?  Transparency.  Just as equity research analysts must now disclose their relationships with companies, I believe that these firms should do the same.  Sponsoring research is a standard part of the marketing toolkit and it should be seen for what it is – an interested party trying to elevate an issue or pain for their own benefit.  Just check the research from the National Association of Realtors on how strong the housing market is (5th highest home sales in ’07!)

It is far from perfect and ALL of these firms offer some variation of vendor sponsored research.  I spend my analyst dollars for advice and insight.  A great analyst is a huge asset as you work through positioning, product plans, and even customer references.  Invest in it…but invest wisely.