Toby Bell

“The true course of every human journey that is set by money instead of by stars or better counsel is to inevitably meander toward misery.”

This might be a real quote, albeit by a relatively wordy poor person. It’s more likely that it is a logline – perhaps one from a Greek tragedy written centuries ago. Maybe I’d be more willing to spend my drachmas as a theatergoer if the description weren’t so complex… thus the emergence of pithy taglines: “Hero finds gold – pays with death.” And, thus too the emergence of today’s theme: “The clearer the information, the better the outcome.” Hmmm…. Must work on pithy.

Idiocracy, by the way, is a 2006 movie about a future imagined by our present focus on celebrities as culture and money as our only motivating force. Here’s its logline: “Private Joe Bauers, the definition of “average American”, is selected by the Pentagon to be the guinea pig for a top-secret hibernation program. Forgotten, he awakes 500 years in the future. He discovers a society so incredibly dumbed-down that he’s easily the most intelligent person alive.” Here are its taglines: “The Future is a No Brainer;” and, “In the Future, Intelligence is Extinct.” Really, the concept was more political: a future government of the idiots, by the idiots, for the idiots (see Gettysburg Address) emerged with a suspiciously southern drawl. Or maybe Texan. Maybe the movie had too much fodder for too few cows. The movie wasn’t a huge hit, though it does speak to some urgent issues demanding enterprise attention. I’ll note one or more here, I promise.

So, prompting this whole new outburst was a cursory inspection of what little remains of my daily newspaper. You remember newspapers, don’t you? They were the sometimes inspired result of a marriage of rhetoric, politics, and advertising that meandered toward misery over centuries. And, to my doorstep yesterday, bringing in it a section optimistically entitled “TV Listings.” This relic from a distant past haunts me now because I see how it could make even my future less meaningful. Here’s how… <insert sounds of static and tuning-in here> … oh, wait. I can actually insert that here.

Again… here’s how: having recently been bothered by the movie industry’s use of box office receipts to hype their product – thus “The Hangover” is now touted as having surpassed “Beverly Hills Cop” to become the “Most Successful R-Rated Comedy in History” – by measure of Money. By Accountants. Of the Studio. With an interest in Selling the Movies.  So, in the future I will no longer remember Beverly Hills Cop (BHC) as having two fine actors at the peak of their careers – one of whom went on to become my favorite Halloween costume of 2002. I will remember instead that it was not as popular as The Hangover (TH) and therefore will tend to prefer the more recently hyped movie. This despite the fact that BHC actually delivered more money in real (1984) dollars as well as a higher overall score from reviewers. (Rotten Tomatoes, by the way, routinely delivers value with a reputation scoring system worthy of 100 on the Tomatometer itself… and of being studied by every other Web community seeking a standard that works as well as RT in its media milieu).

So that’s what I’d remember If my memory serves – which it won’t. So, I’ll have to follow hyperlinks. Which are the trail marks of agile, instructive minds trying to develop a meaningful bridge from a discordant, Dewey decimal’d, paper-bound past to an elegant, persistently-connected idea-rich future where if one link fails, reliable redundancy among certified sources will sustain information’s value by bridging any gaps. The truth as we will come to know it retains currency and gathers even more over time. Memory becomes positively institutionalized unless wretched commerce intervenes in utopia.

So, scanning for movies in the TV listings in the newspaper I realized it wasn’t intended to benefit future civilizations. Or at least the one I want to occupy – where one version of the truth gets built from reliable sources. Entertainment Weekly has already embedded a video player in the print versions of its magazine in certain markets. This means something. Mostly it means that longer-form video (and less often film) will get snippetized and become source material for delivery to people with short spans of attention across a huge span of modalities. Like ringtones from songs got monetized without the need to expend any further creative effort. It also means that the relative cost and quality of the source (and its measurable popularity) will become the first pass criteria for its selection and insertion in whatever content it is I consume. Thus, I am more likely to see “Neil Patrick Harris” and less likely to see “Mary Elizabeth Mastrantonio”. More “Dancing with the Stars” and less “Dances With Wolves”.

In sum, more is less. Setting the stage for this media-rich void are the present descriptions and ratings assigned as part of the source databases for movies shown on television. If you were surprised to hear that NASA had lost the original video footage from the live TV broadcast of Neil Armstrong stepping onto the lunar surface, you’d be flabbergasted by what else will fail to traverse the void from film or TV to Internet. Let’s broadly call it “metadata”. The stuff we partly use to describe content containers. Hence the taglines and stars associated with critical reviews constitute – along with titles and dates – common descriptors in these listings. The problem? It’s bad and getting worse. We don’t know the source of either the original review or the taglines. We can’t help but suspect, though, that linkage to either Rotten Tomatoes or IMDb is missing… and a cheaper source is mined. The “Faux-lex” of such data. Looks like the real thing but is constructed poorly and will not last. Maybe the next billionaire in tech will be a broker of cheap media context.

Here’s the listing for “My Cousin Vinny” – no year listed, no stars, tagline is “Brooklyn Lawyer.” (I’m sold…) “Saving Silverman” – (2001), two stars, tagline is “Wrong Woman.” (Wait… now I’m torn). “Sixteen Candles” – (1984), two and a half stars, tagline is “Girl’s 16th Birthday Gets Overlooked.” “Scream” – no date, three stars, tagline is “Teens Murdered.” And so on…. insufficient, incomplete, incompetent. By the time Gasblechistan gets cable, their program guides will be polluted by such mediocre metadata. By linking out from paper to reliable sources – as I’ve done in this posting – we set more reasonable expectations about what these movies are. And what they’re worth.

Enterprises should consider this example, too. Open any file and review the Properties to see all the missed opportunities to better describe content for present – and future – reuse. Though I have failed to follow my own prescription (see example below), I advise Gartner’s clients to do better. As content begins to traverse enterprise repositories and then migrates in whole or part to Cloud-based hosts or mobile devices and otherwise reconstitutes itself for various users and means, you’ll want to keep this in mind: The farther your content will ultimately have to travel, the more ways you’ll want to have to recommend it, protect it, and call it home.

All the Money is in Metadata. It’s the Plastics of the semantic Web.

Your comments as always are welcomed.

Actual Properties

No – it’s not the name of a law firm. It’s a business model. The concept behind this is that seatholders represent the lasting value toward enterprise software vendor stability – that gathering and then holding onto as many of those end-users as possible will keep one vendor afloat on a stable sea of maintenance while others in the same market flounder and drown. And, it works given no other changes to the environment. So, in the enterprise content management market (ECM) for example, we’ve seen growth, consolidation, and maturity… but no decline as of yet. At least for many vendors. But there are exceptions. Like Vignette.

With yesterday’s announcement of its intention to acquire Vignette, Open Text has reminded us that standards and practices in typical software M&A don’t always have to apply. You don’t have to intend to leverage the actual technology or brand or channel or partner ecosystem. You just need to leverage seatholders. Fact is that Open Text’s acquisition algorithm is fairly successful. Another fact is that many of the assets under management within OTEX’s portfolio haven’t gone completely away, they’ve been layered under a brand management hierarchy that positions those assets toward new buyers and markets. The only question for which no fact has yet emerged: “After maintenance from product inventory shrinks to a specific level, can it upsell or cross-sell effectively?” In other words, can it farm as well as it hunts?

Generating loyalty in enterprise software markets can be tricky. Generating ’sticky’ is not quite as hard. Vignette’s products are often tied to long-running processes for mission-critical applications – whether Web channel or imaging-based. Open Text seems to have wisely waited until the falloff of potentially more fickle customers and prospects had been completed. The business core thus revealed, it swooped in with the right offer at the right time. VIGN’s value to Open Text is not the technology, it’s the seats. The very plushy ones of large enterprises with global potential to look at one of its own (now) incumbent suppliers to provision other user needs. And, Open Text has options for those enterprises in spades.

Now it remains to be seen if – having won and wrung value from many other vendors’ customers – it can wean them off last year’s (or even last decade’s) models and move them toward an interesting ECM future. Open Text has been playing its cards right if revenue growth and seat share are the only measures of success. But I think it’s betting on other hands we can’t yet see. With combinations of Portal, Content, Collaboration, Process, Social Software, and Digital Asset Management technology, it isn’t hard to imagine that Open Text has all the table stakes necessary to buy into the big game with other new media titans as much as hold ‘em in the $4B ECM world.

Am I seeing the same things you are? Comments are welcomed… As are attendees at the Gartner Portals, Content, and Collaboration Summits in Orlando, 8-10 June and in London, 16-17 September. We’ll discuss the turmoil in ECM during a Magic Quadrant Megasession in both locations.

Doctors don’t want to be rated by users of Angie’s List and I
don’t blame them. Hear me out, as I’m sure it appears at first
blush that I’m much more sympathetic to doctors than I really am.
Of course, maybe it’s because I still have lingering pain in the
backs of my knees and I may need a specialist someday. I’m
generally fearful of inviting retribution. Maybe generally,
therefore, blogging isn’t such a good idea. Too late to stop now, I
suppose. I digress.

Scoring mechanisms for Internet reputation management are in
their infancy. In an earlier post, I suggested that typical “5
Star” systems fail to cast effective light on quality of goods,
services, companies, or even people. Sharp readers contacted me
indirectly and called out Gartner’s Magic Quadrants, Marketscopes,
and Vendor Ratings as examples where scoring is fundamental to the
overall reputation of technology providers. “Why,” they wondered,
“do you think average people can’t effectively rate technology as
well as analysts do?” And, perhaps adopting the same tone of voice
as any doctor, I might reply “because we’re experts in our field”,
or better still, “because I said so.”

Actually, scoring for our branded documents like Magic Quadrants
is transparent, comprehensive, dynamic, appropriately triangulated,
and effective. The merits of the vendors and products are compared
and then clearly articulated. It’s a beautiful thing. Especially
when conducted by me personally at events like Gartner Portals,
Content & Collaboration Summit June 8 – 10 2009 in Orlando,
FL at JW Marriott Grande Lakes. But we have yet to invite public
participation in Magic Quadrant scoring – though that day may come
soon enough.

This is because Reality TV and the Internet have stimulated
belief that just about anything could soon be turned into a talent
contest. Rather than hearing “This is… American (or Bolivian or
Armenian) Idol!”, expect someday to hear instead the annoying
introduction of yet another episode of “Crazy Brain Surgeons” or
“The Fastest Colonoscopy in Canada” or “Hand Surgery on Roller
Coasters”. The key point being that comparisons make the most sense
when they’re apples-to-apples rather than… um… apples to
orifices. Sorry for that.

So, Angie’s List is the first major Web player to effectively
pit plumbers against heart surgeons with public judging of
reputation on a single scale. Is an ‘A’ for one the same as an ‘A’
for the other?

Uh… no. Out of a scoring alphabet of 26 letters, Angie’s List
has chosen only three to represent the spectrum of difference
between every professional (and every layperson): Price, Quality,
Responsiveness, Punctuality, and Professionalism. Fact is, the only
things that doctors and plumbers have in common is that they get
dirty, fix leaky things, take pride in their technical competency,
and have an apprentice program that involves a serious investment
of time. They don’t like to have to explain every detail of what
they’re doing. They routinely deliver bad news. They respond in
emergencies. But doctors and plumbers (and technology industry
analysts on occasion) might all agree that Price or Punctuality may
not be the best basis for comparison.

Ideally, there would be a scoring mechanism unique to each
profession that fairly provides evidence of qualifications and
experience and references without bias. Sure, doctors could still
score doctors, but so could the medical media, membership
organizations, patients, and even ex-spouses. Oh. That’s the point
I was searching for: the Internet isn’t meaningful as pieces/parts,
but more as a collective with various scores tied to roles, rules,
and identity. But as a professional, it is unfair to opt-out just
as the world begins to tune in.

Some physicians are asking their patients to sign waivers
indicating they won’t provide their feedback on sites like Angie’s
List. Think about it: when was the last time you were asked to fill
out a survey about your experience – at any point – while a patient
in the US healthcare system? According to doctors I interviewed,
the only people qualified to evaluate any doctor are other doctors.
I wonder what basis they would use to score each other? I seriously
doubt they’d emphasize “bedside manner” and “relating to family
members in the waiting room with sincere empathy”. I suspect it
would have something to do with accurate diagnoses, high recovery
rates, teaching, advanced education, etc. I should have asked the
doctors these and other questions but I didn’t have “interview
insurance” and they were called away on “emergencies”. But what
would you expect to see after searching on Angie’s List for a heart
surgeon?

Okay… I figure I could save a little by using a doctor with
mostly ‘B’s. Maybe a Chevy instead of a Mercedes cardiac surgeon.
And, maybe since most doctors I know seem to have common goals in
dealing with patients generally, these attributes could be the
basis for a new approach to scoring:

I don’t want to appear to be overly critical considering I am
very likely to get sick in the future and wouldn’t want to be
tended to by my plumber. But the simple fact is that scoring
everything on the Internet depends on simple rules: 1) the sum of
the business or individual reputation should include more than one
source; 2) the less anonymity in scoring mechanisms the better -
with visibility comes responsibility; and 3) scoring mechanisms
have to evolve to more fairly reflect qualified perspectives of
both the supply and demand sides of any goods or services.
Understanding how doctors would score themselves – as colleagues of
each other as much as in the role of patients – could serve us
better in dealing with them.

I also think I might finally give my personal physician an ‘A’
for trying hard to keep me from needing to score a more urgent care
provider. Maybe one factor is how well a doctor focuses us on
resiliency rather than recovery – terms already familiar to many of
my colleagues in technology. So, it’s clear the way we score may
have to take into account bias, experience, ability, and other
factors that qualify us to qualify others. I don’t propose to
certify doctors – but I would certainly be more interested in the
opinions of those qualified to do so. There are dozens of such
scoring mechanisms already in place for medical practitioners.
Learning to use all the resources to effectively judge reputation
is at present more art than science. And, can be a very interesting
topic for further research. Watch for more here. Or add some as
comments.

I still read newspapers, though I have alternatives. My local source, unfortunately, has recently fallen prey to “pastiche syndrome” – it’s now composed primarily of clippings culled from international services rather than being a reliable purveyor of local items of interest. I used to like the fact that editorial bias was once apparent in every place I’ve lived – and that we could begin the day enthralled by how far “lefter” or “righter” the apparent slant was compared to other places. I also liked discovering degrees of difference in language – regional colloquialisms that express the character of a place. I’d usually find them in Obits, Police Blotter, or Sports sections. The smaller the town, the richer its vocabulary, and the weirder by comparison to big news outfits like CNN.

I’ve lived in places where the editor in chief’s peculiarities and peccadillos were not only local legend – but also clearly chronicled on a daily basis by insertion or expungement. But now the long downward spiral of local print news media has ended with a thud – actually, more of a piffle (if by piffle I also mean “a smallish noise” related to the arrival of a tissue-thin insignificant object on my porch). The fancy mastheads remain but even the memories of meatiness are fading. Modern morning paper disillusionment in small towns in 2009 is akin to opening a leather-bound novel apparently by Faulkner or even L’Amour and discovering a Reader’s Digest Condensed Version inside – heavily edited for extreme consumability but lacking the full flavor of the original and overwhelmed by the locality-indifferent national advertisements from bland chain stores of all stripes.

So why, I wonder, did the editors of my Citizen-Times select one particular Associated Press article for its Nation & World page – one surrounded by headlines like “Finance officials pledge action”, and “What next for stock market?”. This item – entitled “Robin Hood: Good guy or petty thug?” (in the extended more titillating print version at least) – was clearly intended to draw my attention, given my interest in Reputation Management and coverage of same on Gartner.com. Two things came to mind as I read further: 1) the research of academic Julian Luxford elevates ‘Marginalia’ to a gasp-worthy height; and, 2) the local newspaper might actually continue to thrive if it can target specific news and advertising to specific readers.

Maybe a just-in-time Toby Gazette-Herald-Bee that I can download and print based on a solid profile I complete upon subscription that’s updated continuously by other inference algorithms that can detect what I’d like to read about but don’t presently list on my profile. More like this, less like that. Cats and Dogs NOT rain. NOT “Lindsay Lohan”, “Rush Limbaugh”, or “AIG executives” UNLESS a cruise ship on which they ALL are coincidentally booked – WITH entertainment headliner “Rod Stewart” aboard as well – mysteriously vanishes for a long while WITHOUT further coverage of ANY kind. I know I could write a series of such “UNLESS” search strings. I’m sure you could, too. I hope the bulk of neither of our queries for such exceptions become the essence of our rule sets. That would be sad. Certainly, it would the basis of a good blog entry. Another day….

I’m back to Reputation Management and the issue of “re-appearing ghosts from the Marginalia of past lives.” Maybe a shorter title for the issue would be better. The gist of the article is that a monk wrote 23 words in a book margin some 549 years ago that has surfaced only recently to cause a legendary hero some reputational harm. Here are the 23 words as quoted from the AP: “Around this time, according to popular opinion, a certain outlaw named Robin Hood, with his accomplices, infested Sherwood and other law-abiding areas of England with continuous robberies.” This, for reasons we’ll examine, has become inside-the-front-page-news in 2009.

By all accounts, Robin Hood meant well. Was a hero of the common folks. Had some skill as an orator and archer. Wore a rakish hat – and footwear that elves, jesters, and jongleurs would envy even centuries later. Served as a colorful reminder of the dynamic tension between royalty and commoner – “fairness is rarely doctrine” and “might makes right”. And, perhaps most importantly, later gave Errol Flynn a legitimate outlet for his urges. My bias has been built up during the course of years and has been sustained by input across several sources. And Yet. Here comes an academic and his 23 words to skewer my mindset. Will I let him? Do the tart words of Snidely Whiplash in a monk’s getup (obviously more sympathetic to the monarchy than to Tuck) writ centuries ago bear reliable witness to the larger opinion of the age?

I dare say not, sir. Two points best support my argument: 1) History is Not Written in Margins – it is the published sum of interpretation of an age by experts. Moreover, it is a matter of fact that when personal expressions of petty ill will are written in the margins of history books, any further credence is suspended. This fact to remain in force at least until such time that I recover the boxes of textbooks remaining in storage units in Illinois. I will revisit this in the future. 2) We live in an age where three things are happening simultaneously: the thirst for information is unslakable; the amount of information and its persistence is almost unimaginable – more is making its way daily toward digital from analog; and, the numbers of amateur opinions expressed without any appropriate scoring of qualifications and experience (and the potential effect of this din) continue to overwhelm reason, trust, even sanity. Well – perhaps I am using hyperbole to make a point. Maybe this is thematic.

But in an earlier post I contended that “there’s a reputation corollary to Moore’s Law which states that ‘the sheer numbers of opinions will soon exceed any reasonable attempt to analyze them’; and that Reputation algorithms will have to constantly adjust to ultimately score the perception of corporate, individual, or product character versus attributes that contribute to actual character. Simply put, hype beats out reality. Moreover, the speed at which a reputation can be concretely made or ruined by means of Internet promotion will become calculable (and therefore monetized) by 2010.” And I believe this to be true. It will become even more true unless we develop scoring algorithms that match opinions to their authors and both to the events or individuals they describe and qualify the whole thing for credibility, accuracy, merit, and vitality. I’m sure there are others, but as an amateur blogger I’m in a hurry and don’t have time to delve too deeply.

I won’t cover the first two (accuracy, merit) in this posting – I intend to write about them later when I explore Reputation Scoring on the Internet – Why 5 Stars Don’t Cast Any Light. A starting point will be how doctors are asking patients to sign waivers indicating they won’t post reviews on sites like Angie’s List, and why they’re likely to drive scoring algorithms forward even as they resist them. But I digress. The Vitality test as applied to the AP headline – and ignoring the ‘luridness’ factor I didn’t even mention until now – would score the content low, as a single margin note from even an educated monk does not equal numerous worthier citations. It loses by a landslide. So much so that the headline became the only news – the AP was willing to spin an academic finding of “footnote value” into a headline. Despite claims of responsible journalism, it would be impossible to take the 23 words that quote “popular opinion” of a day and extrapolate a much larger indictment of a historic figure. Or at least I would hope it would be impossible. And Yet.

I cut my finger attempting to change a watch battery prior to flying from Asheville to Beijing a couple of weeks ago. Some may wonder how such a thing is possible. Yet among the jittery inhabitants of Planet Caffeine (PC) – where coffee is synonymous with oxygen – each of us can completely relate to the inherent dangers we face while performing simple household tasks. In this particular case, the injury was a routine one and therefore only partly life-threatening, and I tried to put a brave face on things by only whining for an hour or two and failing to put away any of the wrappers from the dozens of Band-Aids I diligently (another synonym: for “haphazardly” on PC) applied.

Apart from doing ourselves fairly frequent harm, we find others willing to contribute, too. We tend to complain and people tend to hit us. If you can imagine the potential irritation endured by the roommate of Jar Jar Binks during his “addicted to Pixie Stix” phase, you can sympathize with those who might suddenly make the quite literal leap from friend to foe. With that risk remaining but my wound bound, I headed with my wife to the airport confident that the incident would soon be forgotten – replaced soon enough by another distracting calamity. This is not foreshadowing. This is experience talking – of course, it’s talking very quickly thanks to an added shot of espresso. And that’s the real point of this posting… how time shifts even in communications as the world gets smaller and smaller. Or maybe other themes will emerge and displace that one. Like there’s a plan for the Universe or for blogs.

Anyway, I have had a number of universal truths made clear to me as I’ve traveled. Some are rooted in history, others tied to peculiar moments of a particular time. For example, I’m sure ancient Sumerian airline ticket agents would not recoil in horror at the sight of a spot of blood. (Wikipedia entry on Sumerians: “Tears, lament, anguish, and depression are within me. Suffering overwhelms me. Evil fate holds me and carries off my life. Malignant sickness bathes me.”) Sadly, though (or, perhaps more generally happily except for this specific context) times have changed and I am a Pariah for the spot on the bandage on my finger. One truth that hasn’t changed one iota in eons: you’ll know when you have become a Pariah, even if you don’t fully understand the term itself and won’t do research. Advice to travelers – keep all your blood on the inside, please. It’s the civil thing to do.

Americans are often accused of cultural insensitivity. At least I’ve heard this (of other Americans, not me) from all my friends overseas. We apparently export the worst of our habits – like fast food – as well as routinely under-appreciate the unique aspects – art, architecture, and haggis – of countries we visit. But, most significantly, we do not even understand English spoken by English people, much less French or Italian or German or other languages spoken in countries like Luxemburg (the native language which I will not hazard to name, thereby sparing myself embarrassment… oh, wait. Too late).

Our expectation as visitors to anywhere is that a sizable local element will have undertaken the study of English whilst we remain oblivious to our role as global citizens and study nothing more taxing than an onscreen TV guide. And, even as we begin a new century of stupifyingly simple-minded provincialism (again, these terms are collected as comments from foreigners) Americans presume that the influence of technology will further diminish the need to actually study another language. And, technology answers that presumption in a number of ways which I will cover over a few postings.

Today’s translation technology is the handheld Lingo 40 and the test environment is Asia Pacific. What an average end-user expects: I type in a phrase – either in English or another language – and can either listen to the translation via earpiece and then repeat it aloud or have the unit speak directly on my behalf to someone else. In theory, this is very valuable. I have, in the past, used a simple ‘Point It’ passport-sized photo album dedicated to disambiguation via visual elements (see Point It on Amazon.com) whereas once I might have pantomimed. How many times have we all taken off a shirt in a hotel lobby, mimed spraying starch on the collar, and then spread it over an imaginary surface and ironed it? Now, I show the front desk clerk a picture of an iron and ironing board and voila… in mere hours I am waiting in my room for one that never gets sent!

There are eight simple rules to remember when traveling overseas:

1. A translation device should be replaced as quickly as possible by a local person willing and able to communicate your wishes more effectively. Hotel concierges, business associates, consular employees, and sympathetic prison guards are among those representing likely resources.
2. Translating even “simplified Chinese” phrases can be troublesome, given there are 7,000 individual characters for “dangerous things” alone (this may qualify as exaggeration) that are virtually indistinguishable to bleary-eyed tourists. Granted, I might have been able to avoid future gastric distress had I been able to execute entry of characters more successfully as I contemplated a food vendor’s sign on a side street.
   It turns out that “不正派的手人的被不烧的贝站立” can be loosely translated to mean “Unclean Hands Man’s Uncooked Shellfish Stand” which generally one would be wise to avoid.
3. Much as smokers used to light up between appetizers and entrees because it appeared to hasten delivery of the next phase of their meals, so too is it true that I’d get into any random cab and then begin entering the address of the next location only to have the exasperated driver ask “where to, Bub?” in decent English. This was found to have been the case more than four times during my travels, thus qualifying as a Universal Truth in my research. Fact-based research, by the way, is less of an imperative when jet-lagged. Universal Truths are 99% more likely to get qualified as such under duress.
4. The amount of time it takes to write appropriate phrases for translation is directly proportional to the pressure you’re under to make your meaning clear. Thus, at a routine traffic stop of your rented motorcycle in Bangkok, factor in some “adrenaline time” to communicate effectively with the police officers. There can be a “long tail effect” to any early failures to establish understanding.
5. Do not clear a phrase from the screen until it has been clearly heard and understood by its recipient. Learning to repeat a phrase via a single button versus re-entering it should have been identified as a crucial item in the product quick start guide. As should be a willingness to ignore the extreme irritation of passersby and onlookers when you’ve got the volume turned all the way up to 11 in a temple and need to know what the policy is for exposed sockless ankle skin. Another crucial item should be “never try to translate certain phrases aloud in public places.”
6. Invariably, those to whom you’ll play your phrases will want to use the device to respond. This requires fumbling through sets of keyboard overlays and lots and lots of pantomime that will not deliver any understanding. If you cannot master the use of the device, the small child who has worked his way to the front of the crowd can. Later, of course. In the privacy of his lair. Drat.
7. Learning the basics of polite social interactions – whether ‘Hello’ or ‘Thanks’ or ‘I love you’ or ‘That’s not what I meant to say’ or ‘How was I supposed to know the gun was loaded!’ or ‘What do you mean it’s a sacred animal/place/deity/candle/towel?’ – from your new portable translation device can take some time. Plan to spend at least 15 minutes per language and try to have some scenarios in mind for the phrases you’re learning. Most important: expect to have an accent that sounds somewhat ‘tinny’ to any listener.  One phrase worth learning is “Danger, Will Robinson.”
8. Lastly, if you have cut your finger changing a watch battery and it continues to bleed across several continents, it’s wise to “think like a listener”: The man behind the counter in the pharmacy in Beijing or a policeman or even a maid will know what a rubber glove is… but ask for a butterfly Band-Aid and you’ll get nothing. Well, at least nothing my machine could understand. That would be the upgraded model, I guess. The one that would record his response and translate to English: “Are you crazy? Are you saying a butterfly sliced open your finger? Are you saying you are trying to bandage a butterfly? Do you even know what you’re saying? Get out of my store…”

Next posting will cover the evolution of machine translation… this|close to perfection. If, by perfection, we mean we’re willing to cut it a lot of slack.

There’s a discreet neon sign in a window that you’ve driven or walked past recently if you live in a town of any size. “Fortunes”, it offers. And few of us dare go inside. Maybe we fear the image itself of the wizened gypsy woman we imagine waits inside. Maybe we fear being seen entering and thus diminishing ourselves somehow. Maybe we don’t want to believe that something as precious as our future can be foreseen. Maybe we fear the truth. If there’s a bigger plan for this universe that somehow requires me to suffer, I’d prefer not to know… even if my contribution of personal suffering winds up being noble in some grander context. Yet I wonder. If I were to meet a fortune teller, what would I be told? Would I act on this? Would it matter if I did?

Mostly, though, we still think we’ve got a better handle on what’s inside us (magnificent potential) than any outsider could see. Really… how much life experience and sensitivity could this person have? She lives under a dry cleaner, surrounded by cats and furniture made from trees long extinct obviously carved by woodsmiths high on a Transylvanian peyote equivalent. It smells like a leaky basement filled with wet boxes of leather-bound books, kitty litter, and an unwrapped bar of Irish Spring soap in the corner near the boiler. And, time suspends itself there. I worry that she’s not eating very much. She wears no rings and her fingernails are polished (but not red). She has photos of her son and his kids on the mantel. Her breath smells like Tic Tacs. She offers me one and I take it. I want her to like me. I promise not to tell the rest. But I believe every word she says. She knows.

So, though most of us reject fortune telling every day in a formal sense, we become participants in it casually. The human mouth has, by some accounts, more toxins potentially deadly to other species than science can catalogue. Partly we don’t know the particulars because “biting kittens seems somehow wrong”. Even science knows where to draw some lines. Despite having no formal training in the discipline, human mouths generally do much more damage to other humans than to kittens, I’d suggest with confidence. The killer toxins are transmitted via air directly to another human ear. But imagine the damage mouths do when they bite off the words that otherwise might spare victims of ignorance. Maybe unspoken truth is a greater risk to us than the possible damage done by lies. Imagine any wedding party and the thought bubbles we can draw over the heads of the guests as if we’re there:

He’s going to beat her like he did me….

She’s lost too much weight….

His father’s a worthless drunk….

They’re too young….

She’s probably pregnant….

He’s about to lose his job and doesn’t know….

She’s already cheating on him….

Is it harder to think that the thoughts might be positive and not negative? And, can you as quickly put together a list of positive thought bubbles for the imaginary wedding guests?

Their kids will be beautiful….

Uncle Harry looks much better these days….

She looks so pretty dancing with her father….

What a perfect day….

We’re all so lucky to be gathered here….

I’m going to offer him a job….

I’d better get going before traffic gets too busy….

Sorry for that last one. So, what’s the difference between truth, gossip, and slander? It’s intention, I’d aver. In the case of a wedding party, some of the thoughts would, if expressed, likely end the celebration altogether. We might actually foresee that the relationship is doomed because elements of the character of the couple has been revealed to some of the guests and exposed in the thought bubbles. But rarely aloud to the bride or groom. Love isn’t all you need… but love is an anti-venom. Love can offset gossip and slander, but won’t ultimately affect the truth. Love is a delaying tactic against the truth – one that perhaps allows us to deliver a better version of ourselves over time than our past otherwise predicted.

This is why I suggest to my daughter that she spend her life gathering a council. Find wise, experienced, expressive, and committed advisors of all ages willing and able to guide her when she faces choices and consequences larger than her own inventory of ideas and strengths and education and intellect and experience alone will suffice (or even those of her father by extension) for solving problems. Willing to tell her the truth as they see it; and willing to not withhold evidence that – though unsavory – might spare her longer-term suffering if presented immediately. I have tried to do the same in my life. And, I try to do the same for my clients as a Gartner analyst.

So today we have a new couple – Autonomy and Interwoven. And they have chosen to merge and become a new combined entity. And I know them both reasonably well. What Autonomy brings to the union is intelligence and governance. What Interwoven brings to the union is a Web channel for that intelligence as well as a dowry of millions in revenues generated from relationships with blue-chip customers and law firms. There are thousands upon thousands of interested and affected individuals and enterprises invited to the party. Let the champagne flow and the thought bubbles blow!

What Gartner thinks of the prospects of this union will be made apparent in forthcoming research. What I think can be exposed right now. Web channel technologies are critical to the success of nearly every business that matters. Media management is an imperative because what we think of as ‘information’ will undergo radical transformation in the next few years. My colleague Whit Andrews has posited that something like 50% of the information you receive in 2012 will be composed on the fly when you request it. It won’t exist in any particular format – whether words or audio or video or the likely combination of all – until it composes itself on your behalf.

Because you’re mobile. Because you’re a CIO. Because you need a little. Because you want it all. Because you’re rich. Because you’re smart. Because you want to be. And you’ll experience it via Web channel technology – where Interwoven is a dominant vendor. And you’ll experience it because something can successfully predict what the many ‘becauses’ of your interests, abilities, roles, etc. are – and Autonomy is a dominant vendor in intelligent analytics that can understand the meaning of information and relate it to users prescriptively on behalf of its customers. The Web is becoming a council in its own way, thanks to social media. “Thought bubble harvesting” is what Autonomy does. Some may call this correlative analytics. I see a bubble machine and hear Lawrence Welk and add a dash of action and dialogue from Jack Bauer on TV’s 24… and that’s what Autonomy and Interwoven might do in combination. Or maybe not.

My other thought bubble tells another truth. Here’s what people want (uncheck the box that omits adult terms if you’re alone):

Dogpile SearchSpy

Autonomy says it wants to help prescribe what they need. Two truths… two possible outcomes. But if Autonomy is willing to express this and Interwoven is willing to commit as well, I will raise a glass today and toast along with the rest. If you want to know what I’m thinking about the merger next week, you’ll have to be a Gartner client.

Here. Have a Tic Tac. Toby Bell’s Recent Gartner Research

Think about the implications to reputation of an online world where more and more people and businesses spend a predominant amount of time interacting. A place where opinion, influence, anonymity, persistent data, ad-based search engines, few regulators, and criminal interests coexist and intersect at an unimaginable scale.

Is this person safe to date?

Will this surgeon heal me?

Is it OK to give my credit card number to this Web site?

Can we trust this outsourced manufacturer not to exploit our trade secrets?

Should I believe this scientist’s warnings about global warming?

Is this published content an opinion or the truth or a lie?

What’s the best software for my enterprise content management needs?

There’s a reputation corollary to Moore’s Law which states that ‘the sheer numbers of opinions will soon exceed any reasonable attempt to analyze them’; and that Reputation algorithms will have to constantly adjust to ultimately score the perception of corporate, individual, or product character versus attributes that contribute to actual character. Simply put, hype beats out reality. Moreover, the speed at which a reputation can be concretely made or ruined by means of Internet promotion will become calculable (and therefore monetized) by 2010.

It is a truism that even professional people who need to use it really begin to relate to technology only when it relates to their personal interests. And so is it the case with me. I became interested in reputation management technology not after discovering and helping to manage the risks faced by my clients, but instead after the Internet taught the kid next door how to steal my bike in 2004. Prior to that moment, I gave little thought to how quickly the seemingly ineducable truant might become a threat in any way. But, as Mark Twain suggested even in the day when the capacity of information delivery technology was agonizingly limited: “A lie can get halfway around the world before the truth can even get its boots on.”

The fact is that the truth got its boots on in 1992 when the first stories about how to pick a Kryptonite bike lock with a Bic pen broke on BBC-TV. Then the truth failed to depart – like a Phileas Fogg of its day – for its visit overseas to the very doorstep of my then-five-year-old neighbor. It would take another 12 years before the single truth registered there, and all the lies that I’d succumbed to about the lock’s impregnability became apparent. Until that point, had any search engine – Google or Yahoo or AOL – been queried about “bicycle locks and security”, the results would have been overwhelming and favorable regarding Krytonite bike locks. Now, the many opinions and reviews and stories shared for decades unraveled compellingly quickly to reveal a new truth… these locks could not protect themselves, much less an expensive bicycle. Moreover, YouTube posts gave instruction in how to pick or break the lock using a variety of tools – just in case a cheap pen wasn’t handy at the moment. Perhaps you’ve got a potato chip? How about a kazoo? And so I knew, too, that my cherished Schwinn might be taken from its place in my garage and sold to some little thug across town for a few dollars.

Granted, the company offered a buyback program as well as a reengineered product in response to the clamor, but I suspect the costs were huge in dollars and trust. I now carry twenty feet of chain weighing forty pounds and secure my bike with a lock more resembling an anchor or anvil and still feel unsettled when leaving the whole mess on some lamppost. I suppose this qualifies as emotional damage and I might be able to sue either Kryptonite or the Kid. But I have other causes for concern and little time to invest on my own behalf any longer because one of my clients now faces business losses stemming from technology that far exceed what I’d thought possible. The truth is now again in its boots and the number is somewhere near $10 Billion dollars, according to the value of its reputation expressed by a recent client.

Now, imagine this moment: I am engaged to provide an executive briefing to the CIO and his colleague at a major multinational enterprise. Though the initial invitation seemed more focused on some secret technology investments, it becomes clear that something else is bothering the two executives as the meeting progresses. Their combined demeanor is close enough to panic that I can’t ignore it even given my limited capacity for empathy. Did I mention that this particular company has global business interests and huge dividends that have accrued over decades owing to the ruthless power-mongering of a small cadre of leaders seemingly intent on unimaginable personal wealth gained partly by leveraging the lowest possible wages and most limited opportunities for advancement of its workforce – not to mention the questionable quality and safety of its products and services?  At least that’s what the Web message boards are saying. I know… could be anyone these days. Even some countries match this profile. Perhaps more detail, then.

We are sitting in the office of the head of risk management. Not the typical technology executive’s digs. This one is more scholarly/lawyer-ey but not without a few of the explorer-type trophies won by the big game hunters of the distant past. In his case, they were lucite-encased contracts and other documents signifying his legal acumen and forecasting ability. Both the CIO and the lawyer seem eager to get past my initial presentation. No comments or questions, just the ‘hurry up’ faces of people with limited interest and time. I wonder why I’d bothered to wear a clean shirt and tie my shoes correctly. I had initially hoped my old-school blazer and tie would tell them that I understood their clubby culture and could therefore relate to their technology interests. But it becomes immediately clear to me that we aren’t at all part of the same collegial business tribe after I ask, “I know you’ve got something else on your minds. Would you like me to stop now so we can talk about it?”  And they nod.

If you’ve ever looked into the bright eyes of a child with a fever – unable to adequately express his discomfort and begging for relief – you might think I would have been more sympathetic than I was. But if that same child was able to then speak the words, “To what extent have we secured you? Are we under a non-disclosure agreement? Would you be willing to sign one now?” you might react as I do. With a cringe and suddenly aware that time passes slowly for the cornered animal. I indicate that we are covered by a general confidentiality policy between my company and its clients and that all I hear would remain secret. At least until now.

I’ve summarized the findings in a number of research notes and encourage enterprises and individuals to review the emerging best practices in enterprise Internet reputation management I’ve posted to Gartner.com: http://tiny.cc/Toby

I have often been accused (quite unfairly, I might add) of simply ‘making stuff up’ for my own amusement and perhaps of others. And-an even larger slight-I have also been held in contempt for using Gartner’s blog purely for the purpose of self-indulgence and not even mindful of the fact that these musings should have marginal relationships with technology in some way. Thus, when passing my colleagues in the hallway, I may hear a quick snatch of ill will expressed in bitter, breathy undertones: “Nice blog entry… I’m sure your insights about in-flight meals will (blah blah blah)….”

In response to nattering nabobs of negativism, I hereby offer this as “Exhibit A” in defense of my contention that everything relates to technology in some way or other. It’s just a matter of perspective. In this case, mine.Lately, I have been thinking about the Internet, and more specifically the quality of information dispersed so widely without benefit of review or approval. Upon meeting several university students preparing for a presentation entitled “Digital Natives Speak About The Web 2.0 World” at a recent Gartner event, it became clear to me that an urgent issue demanding global attention should be the focus of my blog entry at the very least.

IF:

• Every student I talked to admitted to using Google as their primary research tool
• AND Google makes 98% of its revenues from advertising
• AND given influence of search engine optimization as well as sponsored links, algorithms effectively drive the first results page
• AND few students go beyond the first results page

THEN: it stands to reason that much of what they read and recount in their research may not qualify as the complete truth. How persistent does one have to be to get a complete global view of a topic or company or person? Likely more than a single page, I’d warrant. The planned government bailout of the financial industry took three pages to detail, for example. What else could be synthesized from a single page of links? Sounds like a basis for further research…if I had any time to really delve deeper, that is. It isn’t hard to imagine, though, how skewed a Gartner deliverable like a Magic Quadrant might become if limited to first page query results and links. I’m just saying that an “I’m Feeling Lucky” button may not be as rich a resource for some use cases as others. But if I were to solely self-educate based on such a button, what could possibly go wrong given the rise of social media as well as amateur opinion contributed anonymously and persisting indefinitely?

Here’s an idea: let’s use a familiar format to highlight the problem. There’s a game show popular on US television called where contestants vie for cash prizes by responding to Answers with appropriate Questions. This requires substantial general knowledge as well as quick reflexes to ‘buzz in’ ahead of the other trivia buffs. Through the series of examples below-Questions follow the Answers in italics-it becomes apparent that, while materially correct at the highest level, the supporting details may be spurious at best and perhaps scandalous at worse. As a public service offering, I hereby remind you that any information which is gathered from Web-based resources should be closely examined to ensure both fresh and factual content. By limiting yourself to the first page, you are in effect buying into false confidence as the ideas and information are being prescribed by sometimes questionable agents. And, now, by me.

Heimdall, a son of this great Norse god, could blow his horn so loudly it could be heard throughout the universe.

Correct Question: Who was Odin? (Wotan is acceptable)

Heimdall, unlike sons of other gods we could name, was fairly popular-but not with his father. Instead of learning a proper trade and following in Odin’s footsteps, Heimdall played the trombone in a nearby pub with a local jazz quartet and drank mead noon-to-dawn. The fact that he was ‘loud’ as opposed to ‘good’ was not lost on his father, either. But Heimdall eventually made a name for himself after all.

One evening-I think it was Besokdee (obviously, no calendar had been invented in Norway at that time, but the tray Brunhilde carried around was loaded with reindeer shots (Ladie), which were the special on Besokdee-or ‘Ladie’s Night’ as we now call it) -Heimdall was ‘rapping’ with a female fan by the bar and eating pickled eggs and, while laughing at his own joke, aspirated a big hunk of yolk.

Heimdall put his hands to his throat-the international signal for “I’m Choking”-which caused most people in the bar to collapse to the floors in fits of mirth (which, by the way, means ’silent grinning’ in Norse) because they’d never have to listen to Heimdall’s thunderous racket again. Just then, Thor walked into the tavern, saw Heimdall turning blue and staggering, and clapped him square on the back with his mighty hammer.

Needless to say, Heimdall was blown to bits upon impact, showering the appreciative onlookers with a fine mist. Thor, meanwhile, went over to the music stand on which Heimdall’s trombone-and residue-rested. He lifted the horn to his lips, blew one petering e-flat, then dropped the horn to the floor and crushed its slide with his mighty left foot.

The crushing of a trombone’s slide with one’s left foot was called the ‘Heimdall Maneuver’ until 1938, when brass instruments were replaced by the modern synthesizer.

Andrea del Verrocchio, one of this city’s finest sculptors, may have been a pupil of Donatello.

Correct Question: What is Florence?

Donatello was one of the original four Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles (Michelangelo, Raphael, and Leonardo are commonly mistaken as the remainder, but in fact Leonardo was a late addition replacing the once popular but fallen ‘Brad’) and was known chiefly for his ability to consume Tootsie-Pops in three bites (a talent he later came to regret) as well as his proficiency with the Bo.

The Bo is a martial arts instrument frequently associated with the Chinese form of Aiki-Do (loosely translated as ‘bloody hole’) which was practiced by soldiers of the Lo Mein Dynasty of the 1200’s. The Bo-a long wooden stick weighing no more than 58 ounces by regulation-is most often spun like a propeller to mesmerize foes, and then quickly thrust through their midsection. The resulting sound – a combination of surprise and exhaled breath – is how the Bo got its name.

In the history of Reptiles, only five turtles have intentionally been honored by a pawprints footprint ceremony at Grauman’s Chinese Theatre in Hollywood. Donatello’s early years as part of the TMNT led to later fame and fortune evidenced by his longstanding role as spokesman for various over-the-counter remedies for baldness and erectile dysfunction.

Tragically, his further pursuit of work led to his death when he accidentally wandered under the cover of a steam heater and was trapped during a rehearsal in the New York apartment of Jerry Stiller and Ann Meara (with whom he was slated to work on a cartoon version of a variety show starring a Mary Tyler Moore sockpuppet). Neither human was willing to take hold of his withered and slimy hindquarters and pull him to safety despite his predicament, though perhaps remarkably their son Ben survives to this day.

Florence is a city in Italy with some fountains and other noteworthy stuff, I’ve heard.

Upton Sinclair’s “The Jungle” is a grim account of this city’s stockyards.

Correct Question:What is Chicago?

From the Encyclopedia Finlandia (I’ve highlighted the more obvious references):

“Vuonna 1920 “Chicago” oli vakiinnuttanut asemansa Yhdysvaltojen toiseksi suurimpana kaupunkina. Asukkaita oli jo yli 2 miljoonaa. “City of Wind”.

Samana vuonna astui voimaan kieltolaki. Se osoittautui “Mike Jordan” ske “Da Bears” onnettomaksi yritykseksi hillitä alkoholin aiheuttamia haittoja. Kansalaiset eivät lakia hyväksyneet, vaan rikkoivat sitä yleisesti. Vallitsevan kansalaistottelemattomuuden ilmapiirissä järjestäytynyt rikollisuus sai muhevan kasvualustan. Juuri kieltolain ansiosta etenkin Chicagossa “Gangsters”rikastuivat.

Viinan salakauppa kukoisti ja markkinaosuuksista taisteltiin verisesti. “Lake Ontario” eli cheesecake konepistooli papatti gangsterisotien pahimpina aikoina monotonista melodiaansa keskellä kirkasta päivääkin. Väkivallan lisäksi valtaa hankittiin riihikuivalla rahalla. Chicagossa korruptio oli räikeimmillään. “Alphonse Capone” otteessa olivat monet poliitikot ja poliisit rat-a-tat-tat.

Rahalla hänen onnistui saada myös kadunmiesten sympatiat puolelleen. Pula-ajan ankeissa slummeissa eläville tuhansille työttömille “Wisconsin Dells” oli suorastaan jonkinlainen sankari. Häneltä nimittäin riitti puutteessa eläville duunareille sekä työtä että ruoka-avustuksia.

20-luvun Chicagoa sanottiin syystäkin “World’s Fifth Tallest”kaupungiksi. Sädekehä “Brats and Suds” yltä karisi oikeastaan vasta ystävänpäivänä vuonna 1929, kun hänen poliisiksi naamioituneet tappajansa ampuivat kilpailevan “Mister T” joukkion hengiltä eräässä chicagolaisessa autotallissa.

Teon röyhkeys ja raakuus olivat kaupunkilaisille liikaa. Viranomaisten oli lopulta pakko palauttaa järjestys kaupunkiin. Kolmen vuoden kuluttua “Backward River” tuomittiinkin 11 vuodeksi vankeuteen veronkierrosta. Vuonna 1983 vapautettu “Ferris Bueller” kuoli hoitamattomaan kuppaan vuonna 1983. Kaupunki ei ole kuitenkaan unohtanut “suurta poikaansa”. Kovaotteisen gangsterin elämästä kertova show pyörii vuodesta toiseen Downtownissa ja “Blue Eye Shadow” nimellä varustettuja T-paitoja myydään menestyksellä muun Terkel-krääsän ohella.”

This group’s first recordings, cut in Germany, in 1961, featured drummer Pete Best.

Correct Question:Who were The Beatles?

Interestingly, ‘Pete Best’ wasn’t his real name, and considering all the biographies written about the Fab Four it may come as a surprise that I alone am familiar with the details surrounding his life and death. In fact, ‘Pete Best’ was never seen in public and was given the recording credit to support the story dreamed up by Beatles publicist Niles Gearing about a switch to the more charismatic Ringo Starr in 1962.

And Starr was really only one of several drummers who-like other members of the band-rotated in and out of the lineup based on availability. As a matter of fact, during one memorable week in 1963 four concerts featuring ‘The Beatles’ took place in four separate locations simultaneously… a feat unequalled even by the Spice Girls (whose approach to casting, recording, and touring was based entirely on the early model established by The Beatles.) Amazing that British fans weren’t wise sooner to the ruse.

It can now be revealed that the very early Beatle tapes were recorded by an all-star group of studio musicians, led by the energetic but ultimately charmless Gerry Fisterer-who, with his band the Pacemakers, achieved moderate success with the single ‘Ferry ‘Cross The Mersey’ (a rough-hewn tribute to the lure of single-malt whisky and opiates, as I think I recall.) None of the journeymen drummers amounted to anything meaningful, though several attempted in the ’70s to sue Apple Records for a meager share of the profits.

Rumor has it that one drummer actually changed his name to ‘Pete Best’ hoping to more cleverly stake his claim and gain sympathy from the jury, but in an exciting courtroom manuever, Ringo tore off the imposter’s shirt to reveal a full-chest four-color tattoo proving that he was not Best after all, but an ex-merchant marine named, simply, ‘Otto’.

Gartner has published Cool Vendor reports across various technology markets for years. We’ve recently delivered presentations about Cool Vendors in the High Performance Workplace and Content Management at a number of PCC (Portals, Content, Collaboration) Summit events. While the content was interesting, the format was decidely less so.

In the spirit of better engaging our audiences by leveraging social media, I contacted all of our most recent Cool Vendor designees with the following message:

“We are giving a main stage presentation about Cool Vendors in September’s PCC Summit in Los Angeles, CA and you are invited to participate.

Here’s Why: In the past, we hosted a breakfast session at our Portal, Collaboration, and Content Summit events during which several analysts described their Cool Vendor nominees and then linked to the relevant Web site or shared some screen captures. Despite the often static nature of the material presented as well as varying degrees of analyst enthusiasm and ability, a relatively high degree of audience satisfaction was nonetheless achieved. It would be nice if we could package and present a better show – as well as a better showcase for your product.

Here’s How: You may already have plans to attend the Gartner PCC Summit, but I won’t suggest you join us on stage. That could represent a conflict of interest if our audience feels we are directly promoting some (but not all) vendors. Instead, I am suggesting that we leverage a social media tactic that virtually everyone is familiar with – YouTube. Ideally, you would upload a 2-5 minute product presentation directly there (and deal with comments from public and competitors). But that may not suit everyone, so instead I’ll also allow a media file to be created and delivered via CD or through file transfer or by other means.

A simple guideline is to provide a mixed business/technology audience a summary of your company and product features, advantages, and benefits (FAB). Showcase the essential information (“and, what’s more, our car runs on tap water alone”) in a format much like an infomercial… but perhaps slightly less annoying. You can use spokesmodels, celebrity/customer endorsements, world-class production values, and puffery. No direct competitor comparisons, please. Our audience will get a chance to vote on which product (not video) seems most likely to stimulate their buying interest in the next 12 months. I reserve the right on behalf of Gartner to reject submissions that violate the spirit of the presentation, exceed the time constraint, unfairly position the product, or any number of other possible objections which I hope not to have to detail in some fine print somewhere. This is meant to be fun.”

The response was significant. Of the nine vendors contacted, seven were able to quickly compile a well-conceived and well-delivered media file that covered the key value proposition, stayed above the deeply technical, and engaged the audience effectively. And, within a 2-3 minute timeframe. This is very good news for analysts, buyers, and other interested parties who otherwise often find themselves subjected to several hour-long segments of technobabble and marketspeak from competitive vendors only then to have to consider relative verisimilitude.

We’re going to challenge all vendors to consider posting a 2-3 minute YouTube presentation. Within a couple of years, the short form product pitch should become a standard in the marketing arsenal. And the dialogue surrounding Cool Vendors and their value will affect our research much more substantially. Moreover, we’ll enlarge our radar screen to see a bigger vendor landscape than before.

Here’s a link to a couple of Cool Vendor presentations on YouTube:

Visible Technologies: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4uf_rq1Q6Gg

Spigit: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X0vfSghBYAc

Toby Bell’s Recent Gartner Research