The Truth About Industry Analysts: Fiction, Perception, and the Crisis of Credibility in Analyst Research
In a world oversaturated with rankings, quadrants, waves, grids, and so-called “expert” opinions, the role of the industry analyst has never been more critical — or more misunderstood. It should be a role grounded in investigation and informed judgment. Yet, in many ways, the profession has been hijacked by commercial interests, lazy methodologies, and echo chambers of perception masquerading as truth.
We often define an analyst as someone who studies something in detail to understand it and predict outcomes. But in practice today, this term has blurred, muddied by agendas, absence of direct experience, and a growing detachment from the realities of the marketplace.
A World of Untruth in the Pursuit of Truth
While watching Bono’s Stories of Surrender, one line struck a deep chord:
“Something you should know about performers, in pursuit of truth we are capable of more untruth than most.”
That line doesn’t just apply to artists. It is a piercing observation of many industry analysts. In the pursuit of crafting a compelling market narrative, some are willing to bend facts or gloss over contradictions to construct a neatly packaged report — one that often says more about market perception than market reality.
I have been rereading Wizard’s First Rule . . . in this book, Terry Goodkind’s wizard Zedd pronounces:
“Reality isn’t relevant. Perception is everything.”
This is the core tension at the heart of the analyst dilemma. The problem is not merely bias — it is fiction parading as fact, perception replacing analysis, and methodology sacrificed for marketability.
When Analyst Research Goes Wrong
Let’s be clear: not all analyst research is bad. But much of what is published today, particularly in GRC — from large analyst firms to boutique boutiques and peer review platforms — raises questions:
- Rankings without Rigor. Too often, I encounter reports comparing vendors in a quadrant, wave, or magic shape — where the underlying logic is murky or absent. One vendor is “a leader” in one report, and in another, the same vendor is a “challenger” or “niche.” Both reports contradict each other but claim objectivity.
- Ghost Reviews and Fake Peer Sites. Many peer review sites are riddled with manipulated entries. Solution providers incentivize clients (or consultants) to fill out the reviews on their behalf. Some go so far as to pre-write the responses, feeding them back to the reviewers. The result is a fictional echo chamber of “satisfaction” and “value” with no bearing on reality.
- No Firsthand Experience. I am astounded by how many analysts issue assessments of platforms they haven’t seen in years — or ever. I know of boutique firms publishing scores and rankings without current demos or conversations. It’s dangerous, misleading, and frankly, negligent.
- Detached from the Field. Analysts who won’t engage in live demos or customer calls, who prefer pre-recorded videos and automated surveys, are doing a disservice to the profession. Insight comes from interaction, not from passive consumption. Surveys tell you what someone thinks. Conversations uncover why.
Neutral ≠ Agnostic: The Myth of False Objectivity
When I call out poor performance — say, the growing wave of complaints I’ve heard about ServiceNow for GRC — I’m sometimes met with accusations that I’m no longer “neutral.” But neutrality is not the same as agnosticism.
Neutrality, in the analyst profession, means being guided by evidence and objectivity — not refraining from opinion. If an analyst cannot speak truthfully about what is broken, then they are not neutral — they are complicit. Objectivity requires critique when it is warranted.
As one LinkedIn commenter said in response to my post:
“Openly communicating this sort of feedback is literally the job of an analyst. Ignoring it and sweeping it under the rug because of a misguided sense of neutrality and objectivity is a dereliction of duty.”
Well said.
What Should an Analyst Do? A Return to First Principles
At its core, good industry analysis is about understanding. Not promoting. Not appeasing. Not posturing. An analyst must be an investigator, a translator, and a guide.
This means:
Have Conversations, Not Just Surveys
Real insights come from probing questions and human interaction—not checkboxes. Analysts should talk to customers, implementers, end-users, and executives to understand how solutions actually perform.
Demand Demonstrations
If you are going to rank, score, or analyze a platform, then you need to see it. Not a slide deck. Not a script. A live environment. Too many analysts avoid live demos in favor of canned videos. That’s not research—it’s theater.
Engage the Ecosystem
You’re not an island. Analysts should build trusted relationships with practitioners, partners, and providers. That’s how you stay current, learn, and validate assumptions.
Attend and Stay at Events
It’s one thing to show up, do your talk, and leave. But staying—engaging in sessions, conversations, hallway chats—this is where the real market signals live. Analysts should be present, not just performative.
Acknowledge You’re Not the Expert in Everything
A good analyst knows when to consult others. Nobody is an expert in every corner of a complex market. Build a network of specialists and listen to them.
The Analyst Crisis: We Have a Problem
Today’s analyst landscape is plagued by:
- Commercialized rankings that serve marketing more than truth
- Armchair analysts who haven’t spoken to customers in months
- Overpriced advisory sessions that offer generic, out-of-touch advice
- A culture that rewards appearance over substance
This is dangerous in fields like GRC, where organizations rely on analyst guidance to make real-world, high-impact decisions around risk, compliance, and governance. If perception trumps truth, we aren’t helping—we’re harming.
Closing Thoughts: In Search of the Truth
The modern industry analyst stands at a crossroads. One path leads to genuine value: grounded, transparent, and impactful research that helps organizations make better decisions. The other path is perception-driven fiction, where charts are currency and reality is optional.
As someone who has been part of this profession for over 30 years—who helped define the GRC space in 2002 and continues to work closely with practitioners, vendors, and regulators—I believe we must reclaim the purpose of this role.
Truth matters. And the job of an analyst is to pursue it, speak it, and help others see it clearly. Because in the end, that is the analyst’s sacred duty.
If you’re navigating the GRC space and need clarity—whether you’re a buyer, a provider, or a practitioner—GRC 20/20 is here to help. We provide insight, not illusion. We ask hard questions. We listen. We engage. And we tell the truth.