Time for some Hanky Panky & The Unbearable Lightness of The Recent Gartner Commerce MQ
Issue No. 15 - We dive into the world of fernet, add it to a historic cocktail, and examine why MQs and Waves are essentially meaningless (mic drop) + a special bonus announcement
In today’s issue we dive into the world of fernet and pair it with gin and vermouth in the delicious, historic Hanky Panky cocktail while we dig into why MQs and Waves are essentially bullshit - useful to only the analyst firms and the vendors they include in these reports. I am sure many of you will have an opinion about that - some will love it and some may hate it. I look forward to your comments and thoughts. Also, don’t miss the announcement about the next chapter in my professional journey below - and how this newsletter is a key component of that.
Thanks for reading and I hope you enjoy! Cheers!
This Week’s Cocktail: The Hanky Panky
The Hanky Panky is so well regarded as a cocktail that it appears in nearly all my favorite cocktail books - despite the fact that most drinkers have never had one. The reasons you find this cocktail in so many places in the cocktailing bibliography are many. Most of my favorite cocktail books lean towards amari and bitters, and the Hanky Panky features one of the most famous and widely found amari in the world - Fernet-Branca. It is also delicious, like a sweet martini with an herbal, bitter kick that is enhanced with orange oil expressed from a twist.
But beyond those very valid reasons, the Hanky Panky also happens to be the first canonical cocktail attributed to a female bartender. It was created by Ada “Coley” Coleman when she was the head bartender at the American Bar at the Savoy Hotel in London in the 1920’s - a seminal bar known to have the likes of Charlie Chaplin, Marlene Dietrich, and Mark Twain as frequent patrons. Colman was one of the most renowned bartenders in the world at that point, and most certainly the most famous female bartender.
There are multiple stories from London newspapers in 1925 and 1926 about the invention of the Hanky Panky. The stories differ somewhat, but seem to converge on the actor Sir Charles Hawtrey - a regular customer and a mentor to Noël Coward - coming into her bar feeling rather fatigued from his heavy work schedule and failing health. Hawtrey was both producing and starring in the well received Ambrose Applejohn’s Adventure in London and was working himself into the ground. He needed some help. Coleman went to work to come up with something new to help him.
After tasting the drink, Hawtrey either spontaneously said, “By Jove! That is the real hanky-panky!,” on the spot or - depending on the story you believe - came in the next day asking for, “some more of that hanky-panky.” Today we think of the term hanky-panky as relating to sexual shenanigans or fraud, but back then it was more akin to what we might call hocus-pocus or magic. So, in a way, Hawtrey may have been saying something akin to, ‘This made me feel so much better, it is like magic. I’ll have another!’
The name was no accident of Hawtrey’s. Before producing and starring in Ambrose Applejohn’s Adventure he had starred in the London farce Hanky Panky John, whose title character is called… “Hanky Panky”. The character was called Hanky Panky because in the story he had invented a cocktail called a… Hanky Panky! (This is so meta!)
The Hanky Panky is the only known cocktail of Coleman’s to survive, but many speculate that the seminal Savoy Cocktail Book actually includes many of her creations which were not attributed properly to her. The American Bar was taken over by Harry Craddock in 1926, after apparently pushing her out. He went on to write the highly influential Savoy Cocktail Book, and many believe that many of the cocktails in the book were actually Coleman’s. (Unfortunately that sounds a bit too familiar, doesn’t it gals?)
The fact that Coleman reached for Fernet-Branca to include in her reviving cocktail for Sir Hawtrey actually may have some merit to it. As I have written about before, amari and vermouths and many early liqueurs were originally created to macerate medicinal herbs that could then be digested. Originally concocted to cure cholera, fernets were sold in Italian pharmacies well into the twentieth-century. It also explains why Fernet-Branca managed its way around prohibition laws in the United States in the 1920’s - as a small change to the formula lowered the alcohol level to the point of just low enough to be considered medicine. Fernet-Branca became widely popular and available in the United States as a result, especially in port cities with large Italian populations like New York and San Francisco - which dominates U.S. fernet consumption every year (and it is probably not the vagrants in the Tenderloin drinking that). Fernet-Branca also is the key ingredient in Argentina’s national drink - the Fernet con coca (Fernet & Coke), which is simply that - an ounce or two of Fernet-Branca in a highball with Coca-Cola.
Bernardino Branca, founder of the Fratelli Branca company behind Fernet-Branca claimed that the recipe was a gift from a Swedish doctor named Dr. Fernet, a volunteer in Italy during the First Italian War of Independence against the Austrians. In 1848, following the Battle of Novara, Fernet found refuge with the Branca family and decided to repay them with the recipe of his elixir. Dr. Fernet (or maybe the more Swedish ‘Vernet’) had apparently found a “recipe for longevity” which is still the formula for this amaro. Dr. Fernet claimed it was why his father lived until 110 years of age, while his mother lived until 107. Dr. Fernet himself did not die of old age, but rather died after falling from his horse at the venerable old age of 104. (So drink your Fernet-Branca!)
Fernet-Branca is often just referred to as just “fernet”, but it is important to know that it is just one of many brands of amari that would classify themselves as a fernet - Fernet-Branca just happens to the be the most widely known and distributed and may have in some ways set the standard in the mid-nineteenth century when they started making it in Milan.
Fernet overall is an ill-defined category, though they are associated with saffron, aloe, quinine, and white agaric and are quite strong and bitter in flavor. In fact, seventy-five percent of the world’s saffron harvest is used in the making of Fernet -Branca every year (crazy!). Known for their strong flavors, fernets typically are made with a grape spirit base and are not sweetened - which accounts for their strong bitterness. In recent years though fernet has made a rebound into the world of mixology, and is even known as the bartender’s handshake - part hazing and part rejuvenating herbal hit before the next shift.
Fernets are a wild and crazy world of herbaceous boldness, and worth exploring here in this great, historic cocktail. And it turns out it may actually be the secret to long life!
Cheers to some hanky panky!
Hanky Panky Cocktail spec, serves one:
1.5 oz (~ 45 ml) - Sweet vermouth (Carpano Antica or Vermouth di Torino recommended)
1.5 oz (~ 45 ml) - Dry gin (Botanist, Aviation, Beefeater, or equivalent dry gin recommended)
2 dashes (~3 ml) - Fernet-Branca (but see note, I like more Fernet-Branca in mine)
Garnish - orange twist
The process:
Combine all ingredients in a cocktail mixing glass, add ice. Stir until well chilled. Strain into a cold rocks glass, over ice. Squeeze orange twist over the glass, expressing the oils, then gently wipe on the rim before placing in the glass.
Preparation time: 5-7 min.
Notes:
There are credible sources that say a dash is an “over and a bounce” of a bitter bottle, which makes sense. But after some testing I found I like my Hanky-Panky extra bouncy so I upped it and went for ¼ oz.. Mind blowing, use protection.
Analysis: The Unbearable Lightness of Gartner MQs and Forrester Waves - and what to make of the recent Gartner Magic Quadrant for Commerce Platforms
Speaking of hanky-panky, let's have a look at the recently released Magic Quadrant (MQ) for Digital Commerce that Gartner put out last week. I no longer have a subscription - since running a free newsletter is not exactly a way to bring in boatloads of cash I want to splash around on a Gartner subscription - but it was forwarded to me by multiple ‘industry friends’. The graphic has also shown up multiple times on LinkedIn, so I think it is fine I use it here and I am sure all who really give a shit about it have already seen it anyhow. (And honestly, if Gartner decides to sue me for unauthorized distribution I may just enjoy writing about the saga here anyway - with a big fuck you of an ginormous Aperol Spritz paired with it… fuck Aperol.)
But let’s begin with the problems with these evaluative reports in general - MQ’s and Wave’s
Many of you know I am a former industry analyst, having led the commerce tech research at Forrester Research from 2008-2012. During that time, I loved doing Wave’s and I loved working on the process of them as well. Apparently, I was even responsible for adding “scenarios” to the process - after adding them to the labs I would take vendors through. (OK, you old Foresterites, if you remember it differently, ask Stephen Powers. And if he remembers it differently than I do, he is probably right.)
I took these reports very seriously, and I have no doubt that other analysts do as well. But after doing these for a while - across a few categories - I came to realize that a huge problem with these reports is that they fit into a very specific one-size fits all product framework and methodology. Analysts have little or no power to deviate from the framework to tailor the evaluation to the nuances of the specific category they are looking to cover. They may want to even split out a market segment, define a new category, or stop doing one because it is obsolete and not be allowed to.
The problem with these “products” is not the analysts, it is the methodology, the framework, and the business model that underlies these reports.
Let’s be real, these reports are essentially worthless for those they are purportedly for - the end client organization, or in this case businesses looking to buy a commerce platform. Instead, these reports are really for the vendors participating - and the analysts themselves.
First, let’s understand the so-called methodology here.
When vendors are invited to participate in one of these they submit information similar in some ways to what they would submit in an RFP a client prospect issues. For the analyst, it can be near impossible to validate much of what they see returned, and of course that response also determines if they are let in at all. And of course inclusion and results will be based on customer counts, recent sales results, and revenue. Do we really think all the vendors are being honest here? Human nature suggests there may be some fudging going on.
These reports would be much better if the vendors were required to share the same quality of audited information they would need to share with a banker in a data room when they are trying to raise venture capital, be bought, or go public - but maybe that is just a dream.
And of course, there is a huge loop-hole. Most public companies do not allow any financial or sales data to be shared on specific businesses and product lines - such as Commerce Cloud at SAP, Salesforce, etc. - instead reporting only company or much larger business unit results - obfuscating how these products are performing. They will only report what is available in their public reporting. That leaves an analyst guessing, and tilts the playing field toward the large suite players as a result. Really, the rule should be that if you don't share your product revenues, sales results, and other key metrics, you don't get to play. It’s also worth stating that this also can make things difficult for single product private or public companies in comparison to larger public software companies.
But honestly, the biggest problem from a methodology standpoint for these types of reports is visibility into and weighting of meaningful success metrics. How many new clients did a vendor sign in the past twelve months? How many of those went live? What is the average implementation time frame? How many customers parked this as shelfware or never went live? How many customers churned in the past twelve, eighteen, and twenty-four months?
The reality is that venture capitalists and private equity firms have better visibility into how these vendors are doing than the industry analysts do - and that is down to the lack of data available to them.
But let’s realize that no one actually reads these reports - except the vendors.
Despite these reports being among the most downloaded reports that Gartner or Forrester put out, the reality is that not many end-user clients actually read them - instead, they look at them. If they crack these open at all, most clients simply look at the graphic and pick the top vendors for their RFP or RFI - which is of course meaningful only for the vendors at the top.
These reports are a huge part of the value prop and sales process as clients are pitched by these industry analyst firms - and signed up. All the other research that analysts work hard on - to explain and analyze the markets they focus on - pale in comparison. Instead of looking at the report as a whole, or heaven-forbid actually reading the report, clients simply look at the MQ or Wave graphic and pick the top-three or top-five and stop there.
Unlike Gartner, in Forrester’s case there is even a spreadsheet that accompanies the Wave that clients can tweak on their own, weighting their own criteria to see what solutions bubble to the top based on what is important to them. Sounds good, but no one ever does that either. When I would get on the phone with an end-user client and bring it up, they were always surprised it existed at all - and were often not all that interested in any actual nuances - they just wanted an answer. Even better if that answer validated what they already wanted to do anyhow.
I remember clients calling me to ask questions on the phone (pre-Zoom!) that I had addressed in the body of the report. Sometimes I would even ask, “Did you read the report or just see the graphic?” Sheepishly, the client would often admit they never read it, and indeed only focused on what the graphic - which of course lacks any context or nuance that may be important for them to understand.
But you want to know who reads these reports obsessively? Yup, the vendors.
In the pre-release preview phase there would often be all kinds of back and forth as vendors sought to debate or tweak the verbiage. Both firms have really tightened up that phase of the process in recent years - validating and debating with the vendors can be time consuming and even full of drama. In my case, I actually liked that phase of the process - letting the vendors try to present evidence and an explanation of why my judgment call was wrong. Often this back and forth was on different detailed scores and especially what I had written about them. Naturally, like most analysts, I resisted making changes without clear proof - a provable, factual flaw they could back up. But honestly, it did not matter what ended up changing unless it “moved the dot” - since that was what really mattered in the end.
I did not believe it at the time I was working on Forrester Waves back in the day, but I now realize that these reports were not really for who I thought I was writing them for - they were really for the vendors.
For the firms these reports are key to the business model, and thus revenue.
These reports are typically the most widely read. They are the basis of the value prop when courting end-user clients and upselling seats - which is a terrible model since it means much of the research being produced never gets to its target reader (a damn shame!). Frankly, the seat model should have died years ago. Instead every employee in a client organization should have access to the research, with some kind of consumption-based revenue model - driven by the utility and value of the research.
Of course, these reports are especially core to the value prop of the software and services-firms being courted as clients as well - as having reports like this on a given market means those vendors covered will be much more likely to subscribe and be upsold into advisory credits and other products. Sure, there is a lot of insight and value in the vast research these firms are publishing - and the analyst can be a valuable resource - but that all pales in comparison.
And for the vendors who do well in these reports? They buy reprint rights and distribute these reports via downloads, marketing campaigns, and hand-hand from salesperson to client. These reports are big bucks, the steroids that juice the cash cow. (Keep ‘em rolling baby!)
In fact, for these firms, selling reprint rights are more lucrative than selling end-user seats for the sales reps inside these firms - this is how they make quota. More than one rep has been known to call an analyst and lobby for their vendor-client to end up higher-up to the right - and thus better - knowing their client will not buy reprint rights if they do not do well. Of course, I also know of no analyst who actually did that.
But don’t be lazy and claim these are ‘pay to play’, that is bullshit.
I have heard for years - and I bet some of you have said it - that these reports are pay-to-play. That by spending big bucks on the research firms, that it favors the larger incumbents and “suite players” like an SAP, a Salesforce, or an Oracle. That is frankly just lazy thinking, and as a former analyst it bugs the shit out of me every time I hear it.
As critical as I can be about these reports, I am offended every time I hear someone claim they are pay-to-play, and I’m quick to tell them how I feel. When I was at Forrester I made many calls that put the larger software providers low on an evaluation. The point I made on reprint rights is valid, but if a rep is thinking about a specific vendor-client and crosses a line, so be it. But I never heard a peep from any research director ever pushing me to advance a large client - in fact they were quick to have my back if they could see the research was sound. I imagine that is as true today as it was then - at both Forrester and Gartner. (And while there are some minor niche ‘pay-to-play’ players out there, I don’t really want to get into that. Most of you already know who they are anyhow - and it is an entirely different topic.)
And why are the MQ’s especially awful?
At least with the Forrester Wave you get to see how the vendors stack up across a set of criteria. And as a client -you get to crack open that spreadsheet and see how a vendor was scored relative to peers in at least some detail. As a result, there is at least some transparency of how the analysts saw the respective vendors stacking up in their research, and as a result there is even something actionable.
With the MQ there is none of that. The end client and the participating vendors just get to see some graphical output and some narrative (that again, only the vendors really read). I have heard many people claim that MQ’s are like looking at a dartboard after a bunch of drunks attempt to play darts (Leader! Challenger! Niche player!). I think the analogy is solid, and there is no way to understand why so-and-so ended up where they did relative to others. And thus, an MQ is completely un-auditable, and thus bullshit.
And why are these reports good for analysts, exactly?
Basically, for an analyst - and their firms - these are good for business. Analysts writing about vibrant, competitive markets can expect the vendors included (or not) to be clamoring for their time - to brief them and to influence them. That can fill an advisory bucket fast, as well as a few fun boondoggles to speak at events and get wined and dined. (Yes, the firms have explicit criteria to ensure no undo favor or graft is occurring, and I sincerely believe that all analysts working abide by the rules.)
And of course, an MQ or Wave is also great fodder to fill up the client inquiry queue. That - plus readership - is how most analysts are going to be evaluated, so juicing the inquiry queue is great for an analyst’s KPIs. Perhaps rightly, Forrester shifted its model and no longer allows analysts to do - or to over-perform - on vendor advisory. That helps ensure there is not a backdoor for a vendor to influence, but it also means there is a lower ceiling for earnings as an analyst, making it a less attractive role and all that comes from that. Perhaps ironically, but in my opinion by restricting advisory it means the analysts working today are less knowledgeable about the vendors in their market as they are spending far less time with them.
If these are such bullshit, should the vendor community actually participate?
Oh boy, this is a big question. Kind of damned if you do and damned if you don’t. Let’s examine some of the considerations:
Do your target customers really read these? If your ideal customer (ICP) is a business below $250 million in total revenue there is a decent chance they don’t even have a subscription to one of these key research firms at all. And if they do have one, it is probably only one - not both. And as I mentioned above, firms as a whole do not hold seats don't have seats - individuals do - so much of the research never gets read as someone working inside a firm may not be aware there is access somewhere, held by someone. But even though the client may not read these via their subscription, they very likely will see it from another vendor. The vendors who do well - or well enough - will buy reprint rights and downright market them. Google one of there reports and you will be presented with sponsored ads from vendors who have reprint rights who will be happy to quickly usher you to register for a download (BDR heaven!). And of course these same “re-print vendors” will be happy to stuff them in every inbox they can find, and every sales deck they deliver.
It is definitely worth it if you can get into the top-3, otherwise probably not. The results of these reports matter little unless you end up in the top-3. Those prospects you wish would find you because you are in there somewhere? Nope, probably not. But the vendors who “win” will see to it that these reports are force-fed to prospects - helping justify why the prospect should indeed buy their product. More often than not these are used by the prospects to secure support for their decision they want to make from other stakeholders than actually being useful. But no doubt these can influence a junior or inexperienced buyer who will just feel more comfortable buying a solution in the top-3. Anything outside of that can feel risky to someone early in their career. If you are confident you will end up in the top-3, go for it baby! If you are right you turn the tables on the above and go to town!
By participating you are on the map. For a vendor who does not expect to do well in one of these reports it can sometimes still be important to participate. Certainly venture capitalists and investors will care that a company they are invested in is at least perceived as being in a market, even if they are down the leaderboard - hopefully poised to move up. I mean, who the fuck knows who THG Inginuity is? Thanks to this report I looked them up. They are on the map, and proudly hovering just above the relegation zone (yes, in fact, American’s are comfortable with soccer analogies). This matters to some folks a lot, so it is worth thinking about that if you are on the fence, but realize that it takes on-average ten years for a vendor to get from the bottom left to the top right - and that's for the ones that make it. And it is also true that more than one acquisition decision has been made based on who was near the top-right - for better or worse. Anything else is still viewed as a risk.
These are a lot of effort, so choose wisely. It may not seem like it is going to be a big deal, but it can be really hard to execute on these for a small to medium size organization. These are not a typical RFP, each of these are unique and dig into areas that most RFPs do not - asking organizations to commit to an articulation of the company strategy, roadmap, and current metrics. Often the strategy may not be very clear or compelling in this context and will need work. And even if you have full-time, good analyst relations people, responding to one of these will consume time from your product marketers, product people, finance, the demo team, and pre-sales/sales engineering. The CMO may want to be involved (they should). Often it can be hard to get those needed resources to focus on something - that despite urgent deadlines and disruptive to their day-job when it's typically not in their objectives or impact how they are measured (not pointing fingers but that is usually product. And the fix for that - put in in their objectives and have it be decently weighted in how they are overall measured and rewarded.)
Be ready to respond - either way it turns out. Your team needs to be ready to respond immediately to when the report comes out - no matter the result. Your media relations people should be ready with a press release if the results are good enough or great, but your product marketing team needs to be ready with a response if the results are poor - getting the explanation and rebuttal in the hands of salespeople as soon as possible after the report drops. You probably need to put that same explanation and rebuttal in the hands of your customer account managers and support people to - because customers may bring it up - right away or in the future.
Internal morale may take a hit. We all know it is a beauty contest, but it sure feels better to win. Obviously it is natural to think about how the results of these will play out externally, but it is important to realize also that the results can have an impact on morale inside your organization. A great result can be a great boost. Suddenly sales people are high-fiving the marketing team for the first time ever. But a bad result can have the opposite effect - demoralizing people (further, or you would not be worried about it) and even kicking off a negative feedback loop. Be ready in either case. If it is a positive result, make sure your salespeople know it is all on them now to execute (that can sober them up). If the results are bad, go into damage control quickly to control the narrative.
If you have actually read up to this point you are probably just about ready to declare this whole newsletter bullshit too! I advertised a review of the recent Gartner Magic Quadrant for Digital Commerce Platforms! Where the f*** is it?!?
OK… OK…. here:
Now let’s talk about this specific MQ, the Gartner Magic Quadrant for Digital Commerce.
There are a lot of nit-picks I could get into, but let’s focus the critique on a few overarching problems, starting with comparing the MQ with its companion report. These days, Gartner pushes out with the MQs a report called a Critical Capability Report (which is also a nice way for them to double their money, BTW). In the case of this report, the Critical Capabilities for Digital Commerce, the analysts focus on very broad market spaces they term “use-cases” such as B2C, B2B, B2C and B2B on the same platform, composable commerce, and complex business models. (Calling these ‘use-cases’ is absurd, but then I would be nit-picking.)
In a Critical Capability Report, each of the participating vendors in the MQ is then scored across these separate, different areas - and as a bonus they are actually stack ranked with actual numbers attached to each versus the opaque scoring that apparently goes into the MQ. Though even in a Critical Capability Report we still do not know any results of any specific criteria (which as a vendor, again drove me crazy since there is literally nothing you can do with that). The idea is decent, that clients can look at these reports for a more specific look at their “use-cases” but there is only one problem - no one reads them. Actually, now that I think of it, while that is a problem it is not the real problem.
There are many problems.
Problem #1 - Some things simply do not add up.
This is a just a nearly random sample of the nineteen vendors covered by the Magic Quadrant and the Critical Capabilities report - comparing the relative position on the MQ with a “Composite Critical Capabilities” average for comparison and illustration purposes only:
[Editors note - OK, it is Brian here - I have gotten a few questions sent to me about the above graphic. What I attempted to do was rank the results in the CC and use that versus the actual scores so I could compare the results. I may have taken a bit of a shortcut on the graphic before I jump on a plane, so apologies if it is confusing. Note the take-away here is the relative scores across the reports and the disconnect between them.]
While everyone is focused on the MQ graphic and Commertools’ good result, the fact that they came in approximately seventh in an aggregation of all the critical capabilities scores will be forgotten in the dustbin of history (along with countless languages, cultures, and battles - but we digress). And if in the MQ the one place they excel is really that important, the ability to support why did VTEX get the shaft? I imagine Spryker would feel the same way, while BigCommerce may be a bit relieved.
And how exactly can Shopify just opt out of this Critical Capabilities report exactly? For years Shopify has refused to participate in Wave’s and MQ’s . So their placement here is most certainly a judgment call. While a public company, the fact that much of their business is payments and other services gives them a leg up here as well as in much more important ways such as cash flow, margin, and carry. I think it is probably clear that it is not exactly fair that they are very likely the only vendor allowed the privilege - since they are the only ones not in the Critical Capabilities report. Meanwhile Salesforce gets to be evaluated against three separate, un-integrated products - hmm (one reason I did not include them above).
It is not even important to debate the scores and you can know that something does not add up here. In my mind, a close reading of these two reports reveals that at least one of them has it wrong - even though it is all the same analysts on each report, just in a different order (which yes, I actually had to carefully check). Does that offer some plausible deniability if I am one of these analysts, yes, but I will never tell.
Problem #2 - Total disconnect from the realities of the market.
I have written about the slowing down of commerce platform replacement cycles before, but just because a market is running a bit cool does not mean it is stagnant. But this report seems to be looking backwards - disconnected from the realities of the market today. It is true for most MQs and Waves actually, these are not forward looking enough. In a market with selection processes that can last many months - then implementation cycles are often another six months to a year - it is not uncommon that from the beginning of the process to the actual go live to be in the neighborhood of one to three years. So the reports need to be predictive - who will be the market leader in the future, not who is the install-base leader today.
SAP & HCL are both old platforms who’s salesmotion today is focused on holding on to customers and migrating them to the cloud. As a business model, it is not necessarily bad if you can reap software support, cloud utilization, and lots of professional services from products that are getting fumes for investment. Each of them are gaining near zero net-new customers every year, yet are #4 and #7 on the MQ? And what about Kibo, pretty much industry knowledge that they have been stagnant and shrinking their install base for years now.
And while there is a chance that customers may be missing something an analyst spots. My guess is that the sales leaders of these respective products swallowed big when they saw these results. If they are that good, why is business so bad?
In other words, these MQ and CC reports are a look backward in the rearview mirror and are not looking forward to what Gartner clients (and everyone else who will see this) needs to think about for the future. If that is the case, where the fuck is Intershop and Sitecore, by-the-way?
Problem #3 - There are some key, important vendors missing
There are at least a half a dozen commerce platforms missing from each of these reports I came up with without even trying. It is a mix of very established players with long standing, stable install bases and emerging and technically very contemporary solutions that fit the micro-services, API-first, composability so needed, in the future for certain. And of course these reports try to be global, but lack any nuance of geographic strengths and weaknesses. Certain products here are especially strong in their home markets - such as VTEX in Latin America or Shopware in DACH - but that is impossible to illuminate properly. Again, the methodology and product framework are the real culprit here, not the analysts.
I understand that there are inclusion criteria for these reports, but those are much more important solutions in the market than those in the relegation zone in both of these reports, so something is flawed in the curation. Some of those solutions did not even make the “honorable mentions” in the report, which by the way you will have to be willing to really read the whole report to find (and we have already established that only the vendors really do that).
Problem #4 - This MQ - like most of them - tries to cover too much
It may well be that the analysts involved in this MQ would rather split things up by “use-case” (in Gartner’s parlance), and were overruled by a research director. We already established above that the MQ is somehow “magically” (their word, not mine) aggregating the scores across a host of capability areas to give an overall accurate view (this is where you cough into your fist and say, “bullshit”.)
Simply put, this MQ tries to cover too much, if you will. It is a mix of old and new delivery paradigms and models - blending them together in a way that makes interpreting the results in any meaningful way is more or less futile. At the very least there should be separate B2C and B2B MQs - as Forrester has done with their Waves - but that may not be enough.
This market has been undergoing a complete flip that began approximately five years ago (give or take), and this report blends all these capability areas together with this evolutionary change in a way that makes it largely unusable to the end users they are meant to serve, which leads to the fact that…
In the end, this MQ - like all MQs and Waves - are really for the vendors
I already made the argument above in a general way, but I hope my breakdown of this one proves the point. It is Gartner and the vendors who really benefit from these reports.
So should end-users really care about these?
If you are an end-user client, the answer is simply that you can use these as back up for the decision you really want to make. Some may claim that picking the top solution in one of these reports is a way to ensure job security, but I am not sure that is really true. But what is true is that some in your management may not fully trust the team making important software decisions. These can add a dose of credibility for your management who may feel better. But of course, be prepared for the opposite to be true as well, especially if a competing platform in your cycle attempts an end-around and uses the MQ as a tool (and in case you are wondering, I may be familiar with situations like this.)
So, where do we go from here?
For end-users in search of help in selecting the vendors, there are a few sources I would encourage, though none in isolation. I would focus on:
Analyst inquiry - if you are a client of one of these research firms, reach out and talk to the lead analyst on these reports. Describe your goals and high-level requirements and ask for a recommendation on the three to five vendors the analyst thinks you should include in your process. As critical as I am about these reports, the lead analysts in particular are students of the market and will have some good input for you to consider.
Use peer reviews - Gartner actually has a very useful product in this regard, Gartner Peer Insights. It is a solid process to collect actual user experience and ratings of enterprise software solutions and the support they receive. G2 Crowd is also good, though more focused on SMB and mid-market.
Agency/Implementation partners - Even if the software you are looking at does not require a large project to implement, talk to the agency you work with and get their input. But realize if it is a significant decision, seek the input from multiple agencies and validate. And if you like working with them and have a good business process and communication with them, you may want to consider following their lead. Have them make the case, and check with others to get second and third opinions too. These are important decisions.
Network - It probably goes without saying, but tap into your network. You probably know others in your market who may have a similar business model and requirements. What is working and not working for them? Ask.
And duh, references - Ask each of the vendors you have shortlisted - after down selecting from the RFI/RFP - to each provide at least 3 references. The key here is to get references that have recently implemented the solution and are on the latest version. Ask real questions, and talk about pain points, and most importantly talk about the support and executive access these others have received when inevitably something goes off-course - because let’s be honest, often that happens. Great solutions providers handle it, poor ones struggle to. Know of course that you are unlikely to get referenced from the vendors that are not ones the vendors want you to talk to, but often these are still pretty revealing.
And for vendors? If you decide to participate, do it right.
And for vendors? Take all the above into account as you think about participating and the results you may have if you do. And if you are going to participate, do it right. Think about engaging an Analyst Relations Services firm, such as Spotlight, and ensure everyone in the organization who needs to support it knows it is a priority - and fix their goals, OKRs or KPIs if you need to ensure they do.
One last point… a tip of the hat to all the hard working analysts out there.
I loved being an analyst and have a lot of respect for those practicing today. I count many former and current analysts as industry friends. What I have a problem with here is the “product” format and purpose, not the valuable insights analyst can bring to us out here in the marketplace.
I know this may be a controversial article for some, but I hope you feel I made a strong argument - and that this is not a critique of specific analysts, but rather the methodology and process.
Announcing StrategyēM
Strategic advisory. Infused and redefined.
After teasing this in my last newsletter and also on social media, I am now excited to share what is next for me on my professional journey. Together with a close friend, I am launching what I am describing as a boutique strategic advisory and content business - one focused on commerce and marketing technology ecosystem - across the software and services providers.
I am launching StrategyēM with my close friend, former colleague, and mixology co-conspirator Bill Friend. I have known Bill for somewhere around fifteen years, meeting way back when Bill worked at Endeca and I was at Forrester. We then became colleagues when I went to hybris to lead strategy - eventually taking on marketing, channel, and corp dev as well - while Bill ran sales across much of North America. We became close, with many Friday afternoon calls about the business leading into what we planned to mix over the weekend. Bill has taught me a lot - about enterprise sales and mixology. Bill’s cocktail, the fabulous Tainted Love cocktail was featured in edition No.3 of Cocktails & Commerce. Bill has been supporting me with his cocktail insights and ideas I have included in this newsletter since I started it.
As I mentioned, our focus will be on supporting the commerce and marketing technology and services providers with strategic advisory services focused on category creation; go-to-market strategy - sales, channel, and pricing models; marketing strategy - incl. messaging and positioning; product strategy; and corporate development and exit strategy. We are blessed to have already begun work with clients before announcing ourselves, and look forward to more. (If you are interested in exploring how we may help you, and our commitment to absolute confidentiality, ping us at advisory@strategyem.com)
This newsletter will be folding into StrategyēM, and we will build on it.
I can’t tell you enough how much I have enjoyed bringing this newsletter to you. It has been so much fun to pair an exploration of mixology, great drinks, and bar culture with industry analysis and content that is hopefully entertaining, informative, and provocative - aimed at making you both a better drinker and guest, as well as make you a better leader in the commerce and marketing technology ecosystem. If you are a regular reader, thank you. Thank you for reading, for liking, for commenting, and for sharing - and if you are new here, welcome!
While the newsletter will fold under StrategyēM, it will operate in much the same way it has thus far - with a focus on both cocktails and market analysis and insights. The newsletter is not meant to be a veiled lead-gen tool for StrategyēM, but rather as a product itself . In fact, I expect we will rarely bring StrategyēM up here or any other Cocktails & Commerce content or event - partly becuase the work we do at StrategyēM is highly confidential. We have big plans to add premium content and more free content as we expand Cocktails & Commerce. We also intend to support industry events - or host our own little get-togethers alongside others. (If you are interested in working with us on that, ping us at events@strategyem.com.) I hope you stay tuned as we roll out more fun, engaging, and hopefully informative content in the coming months and years.
We also have a vision for how StrategyēM can help make the commerce and marketing technology ecosystem more diverse. Look for more to come on that in the coming months as well as we develop our plan and prepare to implement that too.
So with that, raise a glass to StrategyēM will you?
Cheers!
Recent Podcasts:
There is a ton of great on-demand content from Bloomreach’s Edge Summit held August 24-45. It was a pleasure to participate as co-host for the very successful digital live stream and to connect with so many great folks in person as well. Much of the content from the event will be released as a part of the Commerce Experience podcast soon as well, which I will continue to support as a contributor for the foreseeable future.
If you are looking for me online, you can find me here, here, and here.
Be well, be safe, and here is to good business! Cheers! - Brian and Bill!
Cocktails & Commerce is a wholly owned subsidiary of StrategyēM, LLC.
Thanks Brian for taking the time to write and share that. Gives us insight into the game. We ended up bottom left. We think we understand the reasons and the reasons don’t seem fair or justified. I laughed out loud when I was at Salesforce and Oracle commerce appeared top right only 3 years ago despite being largely discredited since Oracle ran ATG into the ground
Fascinating (long :) ) read, Brian and validated all my assumptions from over the years (except, yes I was one of the guys who felt it was 'pay to play'... now convinced otherwise). Pretty sure I wrote something about the Wave some time ago along a similar vein but in a much less thorough way!