How Clickability manipulated the analysts
When Clickability published their white paper, I have no doubt they wanted to make as much noise as possible as any marketing action intends to but I think they where quite surprised (in a positive way) how brilliantly successful it was.
The art of lie, the value of fame
Some will argue this made them a very bad brand image but you have to be so naive to believe this can really matter. Lies, deception are easily forgiven by the mob (Mrs. Berlusconi / W. Bush / Blair – and so many others, have all been re-elected despite their famous and clear lying behaviour),. What matters is how famous you are and your skills at using this reputation.
So several famous and – unchallenged – analysts or blogger (Kas Thomas – Irina Guseva – Jon Marks) flamed the Clickability paper for excellent reasons and deserved once again their reputation of integrity, fairness, professionalism and technical skills. If their goal was to promote these values - their values - they just did the opposite. I don’t think they needed to point out their values, nobody will doubt about them. They don't need fame either, they are already famous, and their reputation has been done since months if not years (an eternity for this business). So I believe they have just been manipulated. Despite themselves they promoted those with subversive behaviour. By defending their values, they promoted the opposite. The only thing a vendor needs in 2009, is to be famous. They gave Clickability a lots of fame, maybe for a few days only, right, but for the cost of the white paper, that a great ROI.
“The only thing worse than being talked about, is not being talked about." – Wouahou, Oscar Wilde anticipated the web 2.0!
Web 2.0 is going to be a nice place for Swimming with Sharks, online
When you have some strong ethic, it is very annoying to be manipulated as - per definition- you don't manipulate. When you get used to, you try preventimg being manipulated, not always successfully. Then you learn to strike back. Everybody knows that. And that what the analysts did.
But when you are swimming with sharks, you just learn to strike back in the way which serves yourself and your (hidden of course) agenda and nothing else matters. Then, at the summit of this art, the only thing which matters it to be famous for having this skilll:
"Hidden talent counts for nothing." and “I don't care if they hate me, I just need they fear me" - Nero
After this short moment of history of the Roman Empire, let's come back to the web 2.0 and the content management software industry:
Before the web 2.0 era, the main thing which matters was to get a WCM product as well noted as possible by analysts. No "twitter", no “intense debate”, not so many forums to promote your brand, just your web site and the analysts. Now what matters is to be known by the community and ... to be the as famous as possible not for your product but for your "web 2.0 show". Welcome to a world of show business, deception, lies and superficiality.
Analysts are often saying “we never advice vendors on what their product strategy should be”, so as a vendor myself, I will certainly not “advice analysts on their web 2.0 communication" but I can’t prevent my readers reading again this fantastic essay written long before the web started:
