Every AR team needs to manage their analyst list(s) to ensure they are focused on providing the right attention to the right analysts. SageCircle stands on the “analyst list management” soapbox a lot because it such an important aspect of an effective and efficient AR program. Creating a ranked list based on impact and then tiering based on available resources is the way to manage your service levels for analysts and ultimately manage your stress. There are many data points that go into an analyst ranking frameworks like visibility, research coverage, reputation, firm, geography and so on. This post is the opener for a discussion on whether risk should be added to the ranking criteria.
In this context, the risk being discussed is the potential damage to sales deals, market perception, internal politics, and such that can be caused by an analyst with a negative opinion. How much effort should you put into negative analysts?
So, should risk be incorporated into the analyst ranking framework as either a primary or secondary criterion? For instance, two analysts that are pretty much equal in all other criteria could see a negative analyst getting ranked higher than a positive analyst because there is more risk associated with the negative analyst and AR wants to invest more time to move that analyst’s opinion. If the two analysts are on the border between Tier 1 and Tier 2 (see Note below) then the negative analyst could bubble up the analyst list landing in Tier 1 and maybe pushing the positive analyst down into Tier 2.
In theory, incorporating risk into the analyst list ranking framework should not increase analyst relations’ (AR) workload because AR should know the opinion of its most relevant analysts. Thus, this idea would only enhance AR’s decision making process, giving the team members another tool for fine tuning their priorities and adjusting their planned service levels.
What do you think?
Note: SageCircle’s methodology for analyst list management has two distinct elements: identifying and ranking analysts based on relevance to the vendor’s and AR’s objectives and then tiering the analyst list based on AR’s resources. Analysts should be ranked individually based on the criteria and not be given automatic Tier 1 status because they work at one of the largest firms.
Bottom Line: There has never been a time when the demands for AR resources have been greater. As a consequence, AR needs to be ruthless in prioritizing its activities. A better understanding of risk could be a valuable tool for AR to ensure that the team and its stakeholders know which analysts should receive the most attention.
Question: AR – Do you have a formal analyst list management process? How do you take into account analyst opinion when deciding team priorities?
SageCircle clients have already received a SageInsight with additional detail about this idea, implications, and recommendations. In addition, Advisory clients were encouraged to schedule inquiries to discuss the ideas in the SageInsight. To learn more about how SageCircle strategists can help you take your AR program to the next level of effectiveness and efficiency, please contact us at +44 7493 772981 or “info [at] sagecircle [dot] com”.