Here is the policy update in a nutshell: If you want to reference the Gartner brand or intellectual property on a corporate platform such as a corporate blog, you need Gartner’s approval in advance. If you want to reference this material on a personal blog or micro-blog, you do not need to seek approval. We differentiate in this way for the simple reason that a corporate blog represents a company’s overall point of view, and a personal blog represents an individual’s personal opinion. That said, Gartner will pursue any gross misrepresentation of Gartner research even in personal blogs and micro-blogs.

Read the full policy update on gartner.com and let me know what you think.

Vendor events are a great opportunity for analysts, vendors and end users to get together in an informal setting, but we need to ensure analyst participation does not compromise Gartner objectivity. In other words, there can be no potential perception of vendors “wining and dining” analysts or trying to influence their opinions. Before accepting any invitations, analysts look to confirm the requests are not:

• For a pricey venue or exclusive event,
• Purely social in nature, or
• Only vendor representatives and Gartner analysts attending

Again, while we encourage informal interactions, we want to make sure they don’t cross the objectivity line. If you have a request of this sort, please send it to the analyst in advance so that he/she can work with Research Management (and Ombudsman, if needed) to determine if participation is appropriate.

Here’s a case in point with an issue that just crossed my desk: A vendor was having a 1.5-day analyst event, where multiple analyst firms were invited. The agenda was filled with content; the evening activity, while including a few executives speaking, featured a “5-star dinner” at an expensive restaurant. Could the analysts attend? The answer: If the analysts found research value in the 1.5-day event they could go, but the dinner was over the line so they couldn’t attend that. This is why we always encourage events of this type to be truly focused on the content – so our analysts don’t have to, sometimes awkwardly, say they can only partake in part of the experience.

Yesterday, the judge granted Gartner’s motion to dismiss the case for failing to state a legal claim. While the plaintiff has a limited right to amend and re-file a complaint, we’re pleased with this result and continue to stand behind the research findings that were the subject of the technology provider’s complaint. While the technology provider is clearly dissatisfied with its placement in the Magic Quadrant, we will not compromise our research or be unduly influenced by threats of legal action.

As I have said on this blog many times, we take the independence and objectivity of our research very seriously. Without it, we wouldn’t have a business. Gartner is not “pay for play.” Influence over research content or the amount of research coverage focused on any vendor, sector or topic is not, and has never been, for sale by Gartner. Period.

We have rigorous research methodologies that ensure our clients can trust the insight and advice we provide. Each piece of Gartner research is subject to a peer-review process by members of the worldwide analyst community, and review by research management is required prior to publication. This process is designed to surface any inconsistencies in research methodology, data collection and conclusions, as well as to fully use Gartner collective expertise on any research topic. Anyone can review our research methodologies in more detail here.

I always welcome feedback on how we can improve our research process, what we can do better and, of course, address any issues or concerns from anyone about what we do and how we do it. Here is how to get in touch with me.

Also included in the process document is an FAQ that answers questions you may have about whether an escalation can damage a relationship, when it’s appropriate to introduce new facts, and why it’s important to leave your emotion at home.

I’m going to be talking about this updated process today at the Gartner Quarterly Analyst Relations Webinar at 10:30 AM EDT. That webinar will also focus on Symposium content and a new Research construct called the “Evidence Sidebar.” If you haven’t registered, send an email to arcommunity@gartner.com. They’ll hook you up.

And we made a couple of changes to the Copyright & Quote policy around Hype Cycles:

1. Clients that want to display a hype cycle graphic externally (that is, not within their own organizations) now need to provide a link to a reprint of the entire research report. The reason for this change is that the graphic by itself lacks all the explanatory content, including market term definitions and even what labels like “trough of disillusionment” mean. It could therefore be misinterpreted if presented without context. So just as with the Magic Quadrant, Vendor Rating and MarketScope, we now require this reprint link.
2. Clients that want to share externally that they were listed in the report as “sample vendors” of a particular technology may now do this, as long as they comply with the Copyright policy. We didn’t used to allow this, but as we looked at this rule we realized it wasn’t necessary.

Just as always, if you’d like to quote a Hype Cycle, just contact the Quote Request team and they’ll process your request. They all know these updates.

So what?  We’re always looking for ways to improve Gartner’s external-use policies – wherever possible making it easier for clients to quote us. We got some interesting feedback and suggestions from the Analyst Relations survey earlier this year (where we asked AR professionals what they thought about Gartner’s external-use policies), and we be sharing that with you shortly.

A draft is just what that word implies — not ready for publication. It may change dramatically before it’s published: the opinions may change, even the backup data may change. Indeed, that’s why we ask vendors to review documents that include information about them: to make sure we’ve got all the facts right. And if you’ve read enough of these drafts you know they’re not copy-edited before we send them. So even if the content doesn’t change when they’re published, the wording and even structure might.

So what? You can probably tell we’re really sensitive to ownership of our IP — I’ve blogged about it, and we have a department of folks who work hard to ensure the rules are followed. But distributing drafts is worse than just breaking our external-use rules because the content isn’t even ready for the “external” world yet. So please, even if sorely tempted, resist the temptation to share until it’s been published… then follow these rules: http://tinyurl.com/lnubxs!