Storage Monkeys

I hope the transparency will be embraced sooner than Dec 1 especially by those who pen columns/articles outside of their blog....

Thank God for no more NetApp / VMware blogs... After Dec 1, I might actually read one...

We are all employed by vendors [of some product or service] and we're all consumers [of products and services] so let's cut the crap. At the end of the day this is not about analysts, vendors, consumers or bloggers, Tim, this is about people, trust, accountability and responsibility - and it applies equally to all of us.

If your intent is to be genuinely fair and transparent you must require that ALL participants (those who post as well as those who comment) disclose affiliations where appropriate. And while it may add to your workload, you must block the posts AND the comments that do not comply. Obviously,disclosure is unnecessary for a post or comment not directed at a specific company, person, product or service. Unless, of course, you also wish for participants to disclose personal preferences, biases and beliefs.

Your thoughts?

Thank you, Tim. That's a good start.

Like so many things in life, disclosure is a slippery slope and one must ask when it is reasonable to say enough is enough. However, with true disclosure, enough is never quite enough.

Allow me to illustrate using language derived from typical sweepstakes rules:

Disclosure should apply to "Employees of ACME and its competitors, and their immediate family members (spouses, domestic partners, parents, grandparents, siblings, children and grandchildren), affiliates, advisors, advertising and promotional agencies, subsidiaries, shareholders, contractors, customers and any person working on or with their products, projects and services.

Technically, all of the above have a stake, directly or indirectly, do they not?

Would you not want to know that a product review was written by the CEO's granddaughter? Or an employee for the company's competitor's advertising agency? Or the husband of a competitor's employee? Or one of their investors?

So you see, it's a bit more complicated than the language you may have had in mind.

We have to ask ourselves why the emphasis on disclosure? What are we hoping to prove or uncover? A conspiracy perhaps? Clearly the motivation is distrust and the arguments, deeply circumstantial ad hominem.

What angers me is that some people seek to capitalize on distrust and fabricate controversy based almost entirely on circumstantial ad hominem arguments. These parasites - wolves in sheep's clothing - making a handsome living off of fueling buyer's fears. Their goal is not to fairly evaluate and validate claims [independent of their sources] but to attempt to discredit or cheapen claims out-of-hand by simply pointing to their sources. Sadly, the wool-clad wolves attract quite a flock.

To their flocks I say, beware of vacuous unsubstantiated comments (regardless the source) and focus on determining the validity of the claims, not the sources.Otherwise, you've accomplished absolutely nothing at all.

Tim--I applaud this effort and look forward to seeing what policies you put into place. Social media should be about transparency. A lot of us do it fairly instinctively--I usually talk about whether I'm speaking just for myself or for a client, even on Twitter. At the same time, I do worry about shutting down the kinds of lively discussions that have been starting to come up on Storage Monkeys. This isn't a forum for customers--it's for those inside the industry. And among those people, how many of us have no industry affiliations? Very few indeed! Anyhow, this is just to say that I support what you're saying and hope that you'll come up with rules that have the effect of encouraging more people to jump in and make use of this platform, rather than one that (unintentionally) alienates people.

Thanks for the correction. I really didn't know that this site was focused on end users--though it makes sense now that you say it. Is the idea that end users read it but don't necessarily join? Or...? Would love to hear more about this. I agree about the spammy stuff--this is a problem everywhere these days. And while slamming a product seems silly and immature (and obviously biased, quite often), as I said I like the spirit of debate that goes on here, and in fact it's a lot of what keeps me coming back. The recent blog post by Bas Raayman on storage provisioning for example--he spoke from his experience from where he stands, and I think it was completely legit. That's the kind of post that I'd be upset if it were somehow deemed unacceptable because the author happens to work at a certain company.

What is it that I need to get, Tim? Please elaborate. If I have learned anything in my lifetime, it is that the people who believe others "don't get it" all too often have trouble understanding "it" themselves. We fail to see the hypocrisy in our own words.The logic of your response is precisely the type that irritates me.
++++++++++++++++++
Joe asks X
In Tim's unsubstantiated out of hand opinion, Joe doesn't get "it"
Therefore X isn't a legitimate question
++++++++++++++++++

That, Tim, is a tragedy of epic proportions considering the comment to which you replied and its relationship to my previous two comments.

For the moment I'll set aside the fact that you completely ignored my second comment and the disclosure language I had suggested. I would not have gone through the trouble to make the suggestion if I disagreed with the spirit of disclosure. My third comment simply peers behind the curtain to understand the behavioral "why?" and what we hope to accomplish by it. Questionable motives and the logical fallacy of guilt by association do not, by themselves, render an individual's statements untrue or invalid. So while disclosure helps the credibility of an individual it does not address the credibility of the argument. And if you do not understand that, then I submit that it is you who does not "Get it".

Now, regarding your last comment...

Don't be naive Tim, or at least don't play naive with the rest of us. An uncountable number of businesses and individuals make a living off of FUD, whether true or unfounded. This is true in all areas of social interaction from politics and entertainment to nutrition and technology. Some use it to drive interest and traffic to their sites for fame, notoriety or, perhaps, to eventually monetize their efforts. Others use it to hawk their own products and services. And others still do it because it is in their nature to do it.

You asked the question "why the emphasis on disclosure" and you go on to say that the real problem are people who do ad hominem attacks attacking people rather than the message. What your message says to me is that you don't understand the problem that the FTC is trying to address. So IOW you don't get it. Note I'm not saying that the other problem you suggest doesn't exist; I just think it's a much more minor one compared to the one we're discussing. Now let me go on to state two areas where this is a problem in our industry.

When a user considering a product reads a positive review by a blogger or a review on a site like Amazon, there are very much swayed by that opinion. When a blogger writes a blog that basically says that product A can do no wrong, a reader might be swayed very much. But if they knew that the blogger had been paid to write that review, the sway would be much smaller. This is why companies have been paying bloggers to blog -- they get more bang for their buck. The worst example of this is bloggers who CLAIM to be blogging independently and many of us KNOW that they're being paid to blog. If you're reading this, and you know I'm talking about you, you've got til Dec 1 to change your ways.

Solution: bloggers who have a financial relationship with the company should be required to disclose that relationship in a very conspicuous manner.

The second problem here is analyst companies. You and I know that all their revenue comes from the companies that they're "analyzing." In the financial industry this would be considered conflict of interest, but for some reason in this industry it's the norm. And END USERS DON'T SEEM TO KNOW THIS. The result is that when they download the latest ESG/DMG/TG/whatever whitepaper and they read nothing but good about that company's product, a similar thing to the blogging thing happens.

Solution: Analyst companies should have to disclose in a very conspicuous way who is paying their bills. And if a client is the subject of a blog post or white paper, then they should have to say that in that post. And, according to the FTC, it needs to be obvious -- not hidden in the fine print.

As a person who has tried very hard to help end users make sense of all the "advertising" they get inundated with (which comes in various forms, including blogs, white papers, podcasts, etc.), I can't tell you the number of times I've told customers (large ones!) something like "you do know they got paid by vendor ABC to WRITE that white paper, right?" Followed by them saying "What?"

This must change.

Now as to someone who "makes a lot of money fueling customers fears," I'm not sure what to say. Someone who only uses ad hominem attacks doesn't get much street cred with most folks I know.

You're right, Tim, it was specific to analysts. Frankly, that was one of the irritants (singling out analysts) that prompted my first comment. I explained very effectively why disclosure is about everyone in the conversation, not just those in a specific occupation. Consequently, you agreed that the rules would have to encompass everyone who offers an opinion. I then went on to illustrate for your readers the broad reach of a "material connection" not in the context of the FTC's original ruling, but as a matter of policy development and fairness here on your website.

Curtis,

I'm glad that you joined the conversation. As a realist and contrarian, I love a great debate. We can agree simply to disagree, but I don't believe we completely disagree.

I have a few things I need to wrap up this evening, but I plan to address your comments tonight or tomorrow, because you've touched upon subjects near and dear to my heart.

Tim,

Interesting and timely post/thread, thanks for getting it going.

Disclosure: Realizing that this post and thread is about analysts, let’s be clear that the theme of the FTC guidelines (see link below) apply to equally to vendors (e.g. brands), vars, consultants, reporters/journalist, free-lance writers, bloggers, twitterers, test labs along with other portals, venues or mediums among others.

Disclosure: I’m still an Analyst having not yet joined the un-analyst or jumping on the “I’m not an analyst bandwagon” movement . However I’m also a consultant and may have stayed at a holiday inn express recently if that helps.

Now, let’s get back to the theme of the thread.

Having been researching the FTC guidelines, (so should others, see following links to get you started) there are many questions that are still to be answered including in the area of what and when to disclose, after all, the who is pretty well spelled out.

Here is a couple or links to get you started:
http://www.blogher.com/new-ftc-guidelines-and-what-they-mean-you
http://www.ftc.gov/opa/2009/10/endortest.shtm

It also appears that while individuals may see enforcement by goverenment or perhaps via industry peer groups (storage monkeys?), there is specific verbiage around brands.

Brands should be read as the sponsor or vendor, and that the focus could be against the source vs. the messenger.

However the messenger could come under scrutiny as well. I don’t think I need to spell this out, it’s similar to going after the Columbian cartels along with some pressure on the smalltime dealers, and hopefully you get the picture.

Some questions and there are others:

Should reporters or journalist ask sources (e.g. consultants, analysts, testers, vars, customers) what their relationship is with respect to whom they are providing commentary? I get asked this question by some of the traditional mainstream media when doing interviews however seldom within the industry.

What venues besides blogs, twitter, facebook? How about YouTube, websites, articles, videos, webcasts, podcasts, white papers, test reports/results or columns?

Do broad examples (e.g. a spray) need disclosing, for example, if I say RAID is an technology offered by many vendors to enable performance and/or availability with examples of some vendors being Dell, EMC, Fujitsu, HDS, HP, IBM, NEC, NetApp, SGI and SUN among others.

There are some thoughts that disclosure would be needed unless there are enough competitors presented to show balance. Likewise, there is thinking that if the example narrow it would require disclosure, for example RAID is best deployed by NEC or HP ( disclosure, neither of which are or have been clients ).

Ok, so what am I doing?

Disclosing when/where applicable in blogs or other mediums including white papers, look for phrases or statements such as sponsored by, compliments of, or courtesy of among others.

Closing thoughts for now:

If you have a medium or venue of which to convey information, you have a responsibility for that material. While in some ways the FTC guidelines can be seen as a crackdown on bloggers and yes analysts, reporters, testers and others, there is another theme here which I see. That theme is that Social media including webs, blogs, tweets, face book and others are now mainstream and thus need to take on some responsibilities for their content and actions, as have other mediums in the past.

Some may see these guidelines as imposing on their free speech or freedom to earn a living, others may see this as a taming of the Wild West frontier and that now the mediums are viable for broader use. As to which is right or wrong, I will leave that to you the reader to weigh in on.

Bottom line, Disclosures are good, so to is a focus on the content, the substance of what is being presented, along with editorial control and a representation of the brand (e.g. sponsor or agent) along with the messenger, thus a bit of both needs to be addressed.

Nuff said, at least for now…

Cheers -gs

Curtis,
.
First I should clarify the comment to which you responded. I'm going to assume that you had not yet read my follow-on comment which appeared just before yours in the thread. Perhaps you were still writing your response when I submitted it.
.
My comments about the "emphasis on disclosure" were not directed at the FTC's ruling. I sought to address human distrust and what we hope to achieve through disclosure. Years of observation and experience have proven that our distrust is plagued by circumstantial ad hominem reasoning. The FTC's ruling is, to me, the tip of an iceberg.
.
I went on to write that some people make a living actively capitalizing on the human tendency to distrust others. I never wrote or suggested that this was "the real problem" as you have written. I simply wrote that their existence and behavior angers me, and that readers must focus on the "validity of the claims, not the sources". Please do not put words in my mouth.
.
The problem you describe isn't just a "problem in our industry" it is a "problem with our species" and further, a problem with educational systems that emphasize memorization and regurgitation over critical thinking. And I agree, it is a much bigger problem. Simply put, many people lack critical thinking skills (I am inclined to say most do). They rely upon input from others to do their thinking for them without any - or much - further investigation or analysis. And from what I have observed, it is only getting worse.
.
A lack of critical thinking, combined with our tendency to judge a book by its cover or by its author, is something that disclosure will not remedy. I will repeat an earlier comment because it bears repeating, "Questionable motives and the logical fallacy of guilt by association do not, by themselves, render an individual's statements untrue or invalid. So while disclosure helps the credibility of an individual it does not address the credibility of the argument." That statement is irrefutable. And while I support disclosure, I see it for what it is - an intellectual pacifier.
.
Your generalizations about analyst companies are ignorant, and I'm being polite. They are the very definition of circumstantial ad hominem reasoning. While making such generalizations may be soothing for your clients this kind of thinking has no place in objective discussions and consulting. Yes, some analysts and analyst firms derive some or all of their revenue from the "sell side" of companies. What of it? What is your claim? That we are an industry filled with paid liars? I should not have to point out to you the errors in your reasoning. And, I find it very difficult to believe that most end users are not aware of the nature of analyst relationships considering the sheer number of articles that have been written over the past 5 years demonizing the industry based on a few examples from a few firms.
.
Before you begin crafting your response I strongly suggest that you visit my blog, The Saltworks, and tell me what you read. The absence of company and product discussions may surprise you. As for DMG, since it was founded in 2002 any so-called "sponsored research" has always carried a disclaimer "Research sponsored by X" in a section titled "Copyright and Truth in Reporting Statement" in boldface on the first or last page depending on the year and template used at that time - and the reports were always clearly published as whitepapers. I have uploaded an example whitepaper from 2004 should you not believe me: http://www.datamobilitygroup.com/2004HPRISS.pdf Any other content that we publish is not sponsored nor do we accept "donations" from "sponsors", "patrons", "supporters" or the like. Some companies do choose to purchase research that we have already written and published. When it comes to disclaimers, we are several years ahead of the industry.
.
I do not doubt the sincerity of your efforts to help your client's employees wrestle with a technological minefield. The role you fill is an important one. Though we may differ with our approach, we aspire to the same goals of education and awareness.
.
With regard to your closing comment, the wolves may not earn vast fortunes but they clearly have street cred. Perhaps you are knocking on doors in the wrong neighborhoods.
.
I will close with a summary of my opinion for those reading this thread. Disclosure is a good thing. However, don’t expect disclosure to amount to diddly-squat if the claims are not backed by solid analysis and evidence. Opaque advisers with an agenda appear to be as plentiful as transparent dimwits. And always, always, always do your homework, seek multiple sources and draw your own conclusions about the claims that you read. Never take someone else’s word for it. It’s not your adviser's job on the line, it’s yours.
.
My job here is done.

I wish someone would blog something else so this banter eventually goes to the second page and essentially lost forever. I almost wish I could read some more NetApp-VMware spam blogs!

You' are very welcome, Tim, and I thank both you and Curtis for your perspectives as well.
.
I will share a few bits of information that you may find interesting and relevant. For the past 2+ years I have invested a great deal of my time, personal and professional, studying the human mind, behaviors and systems of belief in a quest to better understand why we act as we do, believe what we believe, and value what we value - and I have done so at great expense. It has, in fact, consumed more of my time than the sum of my work with DMG over the same period. And, frankly, the more I study, discuss and strive to understand, the more questions I seem to have about such things as humanity, morality, truth, fairness, and value.
.
My journey began with one seemingly simple question, "What is the value of information?". Less than one year ago I wrote about what I called the "outcome-based value" of information: http://www.datamobilitygroup.c...archives/6 Early next year I hope to take that discussion to the next level and provide additional - and more practical - insight.
.
By now you may have asked yourself where I am going with this...an excellent question.
.
You had mentioned the "complete picture", and "the pros and cons", but I respectfully suggest that you think more deeply about what you wrote. Your statement unintentionally implies that a researcher's perspective may be skewed or incomplete. However, what you believe to be true and relevant - the pros and cons - based on your own standards may not be a view shared by others, objectively, subjectively or otherwise. Clearly this is observable in debates about everything from operating systems to spirituality.
.
Pick any product. If I see no cons based on my knowledge and experience, and you believe that some exist, which of us is "correct"? Am I wrong for failing to identify what you believe to be cons? If I believe one of your pros to be a con, or one of your cons to be a pro, which of us is right? That is for each individual observer to decide based on their own knowledge, experience, and standards for truth.
.
A great deal of the standards by which we qualify claims as "truths", I believe, are relative. That, Tim, is the context. Neither you nor I can select a research report and objectively prove that its authors intentionally omitted or biased the information contained in it. The best we can do is explain our own points of view, our "truths" and agree that the authors do not necessarily share our beliefs.
.
For anyone interested in exploring further, the following six books are worth reading:
.
The Accidental Mind, by David Linden
Moral Minds, by Marc Hauser.
On Bullsh!t, Harry Frankfurt
On Truth, also by Harry Frankfurt
Bullsh!t and Philosophy, edited by Hardcastle and Reisch
Predictably Irrational by Dan Ariely
.
And, Mr. Bruklis, while this thread may not be exciting or even remotely interesting to you, it is nonetheless an important topic in my opinion. Fortunately, not everyone shares your belief.

I never said anyone was a liar. What I say is that analysts in our industry are an extension of the vendor's marketing department. Analysts' funds come out of the advertising budget. They are advertising -- no matter how ethical the analyst. And they should be viewed as advertising and subject to the same rules as advertising, which is the essence of the FTC guidelines.

I have tried to be an "ethical analyst." I've written many white papers for hire. I did this while consulting with end users. I found the two jobs incompatible for two reasons.

First, if the vendor is paying the bill, they uiltimately get to say what's in the white paper. And if [the proverbial] you say their product sucks they're not going to pay you any more. So you don't do that. You try to write a paper about what is good about their product, while staying away from what's bad about their product. The result is a perfectly truthful white paper that doesn't tell the whole truth. I asked an analyst company that does testing what they do if the test completely fails. They said they write it up as they see it, and the vendor decides what to do with the paper. They, of course, do not publish it. Again, the papers they publish are totally true, but they're not telling the whole truth. I personally got tired of telling truthful data that wasn't the whole truth.

The other reason why i found it incompatible is what happens when you're consulting with a customer and you know that vendor A's product is garbage, and vendor A is a "partner," or a vendor that is paying you for analyst services. Tell that customer what you really think of Vendor A's product and see how long you keep your job. I have had CEOs calling my former employer's CEO telling them that their "partner" just cost them a $$$ sale. I know the consequences well.

Jesus said it first and best: "No one can serve two masters. Either he will hate the one and love the other, or he will be devoted to the one and despise the other." You cannot serve both Vendors and End Users and do full justice to both. That's my story and I'm sticking to it.

@Rbruklis

The tone of your post is such that you feel that debating the merits of this issue has no value. If that's truly how you feel, then might I suggest you go read another blog entry. AND if that's truly how you feel, then I'd have to say I completely disagree. I see this issue as a core prevention to full disclosure and truth in this industry that is fraught with FUD and misinformation. (No, Joe, I'm not talking about analysts. Back down.)

I took a look at your white paper. You disclaimer is there, but it's in fine print as the last paragraph in the paper -- AFTER the disclaimer about your company. Perhaps you're not trying to hide the disclaimer, but that's exactly what fine print is for. The font is smaller and it's at the very end. In the only paper that I wrote that a vendor paid me to republish -- after I left my recent employer -- I put it right in the text of the body of the article right up front. I explained how they paid me to republish and did not pay for the review, and the fact of that should be obvious from the frankness of the review.

I applaud your honesty. I wish others would be so honest. I know of a person who calls themselves an analyst, only blogs about companies if they pay him, and he says nothing about that anywhere on his site or his articles. And, yes, his bias towards his vendors is completely obvious and you can attack it on merit and I do.

@josephmartins

I'm talking about relevant, non-subjective things that no one would debate. For example, if I reviewed a VTL and told you it could back up and recover at 100s of MBs, but neglected to mention that it can only do that on 2 hours a day -- knowing that anyone in the target market would use it more than two hours a day -- then I have not told the whole truth. If I tell you that the product works great, but neglect to mention that fact that you need to reboot it 10 times a day, I have not told the truth.

I get that not everyone wants the same things. When I review a product, I say EVERYTHING that's good or bad about that product, and let the reader decide what's important. If I know something bad about a product -- even if it only seems bad to me -- and I don't mention that in my review, then I didn't do my job as a reviewer. And if I filter the results of a test and leave out things that look bad because the vendor who's paying for the test says that they're not important, well I think you see where I'm going.

Curtis, love that last post (the one immediately preceding this one) . I could not agree more. No worries, I have your back on that one.
.
Paradoxically, I prefer not to do business (for compensation) with the buy-side of companies (i.e. what we all refer to as the "end user") unless it is unavoidable. I do not mind having extensive conversations with them to talk about their needs and how they might meet them, and we always treat them as clients, but they can keep their money and spend it on implementation. Most get our services for free.
.
I am sure you would agree that objectivity cuts both ways: sell-side and buy-side. I find that the only way one can be completely objective with a technology buyer is to have no stake in getting paid by them. Too many consultants tell clients what they want to hear, not what they need to hear. After all, we speculate that hired consultants prefer not to bite the hands that feeds them. I would never claim that this applies to you, but I am sure you can agree that some consultants simply to do not wish to rock their client's boat.
.
The first line of text on the main page of our website reads, "If you need a friend, buy a dog." for good reason. We're not here to be technology buyers' and sellers' agreeable buddies, best friends or "trusted advisers" (whatever the heck that is supposed to mean). I feel that we're here to reveal the cold hard reality about what they're trying to accomplish, and to help each side understand the goals and limitations of the other. There is no "us" versus "them". We're all in it together. We captured that perspective quite well in the diagram on our main page.

Clients may not always like what we have to say, and they may not always agree with it, but that's ok. More often than not it needs to be said, and for many, listening is free. We're just a bunch of experienced analysts and practitioners who take pride in what we do.

Ooops, the page didn't refresh properly for me so I referenced the wrong response from you Curtis. It was originally intended for your response to @Rbruklis.

Thank you btw, I appreciate the kind words. Yes, we toyed over the years with the placement of a disclaimer in our research and I'm still not quite completely satisfied. Partly this is my fault in that I often treat form over function when it comes to page layout. Great insight though, and I'll have to revisit it when we refresh the appearance of our templates for 2010.

I do agree with you that there exists more objective information that fewer people would debate. But I also submit that we often take the extent our own skills and expertise for granted. Not every analyst or technology blogger will see things [even that which we feel is clearly undeniable] the way we might within our own areas of expertise. That is why I am always hesitant to jump to the conclusion that they've knowingly "left something out". Rather, I assume it was perhaps an oversight and I present them with my point of view and wait to see if and how they respond. The devil is usually in the details of the response.

I hope you and all of the other StorageMonkeys readers have a wonderful weekend.