Comments on: Briefing 2.0 = Podcast http://www.redmonk.com/jgovernor/2006/11/17/briefing-20-podcast/ An industry analyst blog looking at software ecosystems and convergence Sat, 22 Nov 2008 12:41:56 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.6.3 By: James http://www.redmonk.com/jgovernor/2006/11/17/briefing-20-podcast/#comment-2016 James Sat, 18 Nov 2006 08:47:44 +0000 http://www.redmonk.com/jgovernor/wp/?p=789#comment-2016 For your comment, blogs force corporations to rethink... is on the money. Most EA teams can't tell you their line. I can say emphatically that we not only know where the line is but the EA team itself determines it. You will see even more sharing coming out of us in 2007... For your comment, blogs force corporations to rethink… is on the money. Most EA teams can’t tell you their line. I can say emphatically that we not only know where the line is but the EA team itself determines it. You will see even more sharing coming out of us in 2007…

]]> By: James http://www.redmonk.com/jgovernor/2006/11/17/briefing-20-podcast/#comment-2015 James Sat, 18 Nov 2006 08:40:20 +0000 http://www.redmonk.com/jgovernor/wp/?p=789#comment-2015 There is still a place in web 2.0 for traditionally published analyst documents... There is still a place in web 2.0 for traditionally published analyst documents…

]]> By: Dana Gardner http://www.redmonk.com/jgovernor/2006/11/17/briefing-20-podcast/#comment-2014 Dana Gardner Sat, 18 Nov 2006 02:52:28 +0000 http://www.redmonk.com/jgovernor/wp/?p=789#comment-2014 How to define Briefings 2.0 is an intriguing subject that I have given quite a bit of thought to. I agree with James wholeheartedly: Keep your NDAs, observe consulting dialogue as different from a briefing, but recognize the value of a lively briefing soars with the size of those exposed to it -- and stretches the boundaries of education and understanding. Analyst-only briefings sans an audience are of far less value in terms of market education. And these exposed briefings are powerful at self-qualification of eager communities. The content tends to be geeky enough to engage those closest to the issues, like buyers, but too geeky for those tangental to the meaning. No need to water down the benefits to suit a wide audience, or general reporters. So my sense of the proper balance on this is to as an IT analyst do a vendor briefing, gather my notes and invite the subject-givers back for a second recorded version, which they sponsor and the listener knows that up-front. As we deliver this podcast/transcript out to the blogosphere and to IT media partners, the educational boundaries grow, communities are defined, the analyst moderates as a trusted truth-seeker, and the vendor gets the pertinent details into the public domain while an engaged and selective audience adds real meat to their bones of needed interest -- at no cost. Expose the tagged transcript and blog on it, and viola -- true communications via search, link, comment, and actively involved communities of reaction and validation (or not). Listen or read, search or RSS. By keeping it all on the level of a briefing, it is by definition informational and not slippery. Incidentally, I recently moderated a panel before the Publicity Club of New England on these issues, and the consensus was that within IT media and communities that one-third of the content would soon be user-generated (blogs and comments), one-third would be vendor-generated (white-papers, sponsored podcasts, webinars, webcasts, etc.), and one-third would be traditional reporter-generated content (news stories, reviews, columns). Openly available analyst briefings aid and abet all three. How to define Briefings 2.0 is an intriguing subject that I have given quite a bit of thought to. I agree with James wholeheartedly: Keep your NDAs, observe consulting dialogue as different from a briefing, but recognize the value of a lively briefing soars with the size of those exposed to it — and stretches the boundaries of education and understanding. Analyst-only briefings sans an audience are of far less value in terms of market education.

And these exposed briefings are powerful at self-qualification of eager communities. The content tends to be geeky enough to engage those closest to the issues, like buyers, but too geeky for those tangental to the meaning. No need to water down the benefits to suit a wide audience, or general reporters. So my sense of the proper balance on this is to as an IT analyst do a vendor briefing, gather my notes and invite the subject-givers back for a second recorded version, which they sponsor and the listener knows that up-front.

As we deliver this podcast/transcript out to the blogosphere and to IT media partners, the educational boundaries grow, communities are defined, the analyst moderates as a trusted truth-seeker, and the vendor gets the pertinent details into the public domain while an engaged and selective audience adds real meat to their bones of needed interest — at no cost. Expose the tagged transcript and blog on it, and viola — true communications via search, link, comment, and actively involved communities of reaction and validation (or not). Listen or read, search or RSS. By keeping it all on the level of a briefing, it is by definition informational and not slippery.

Incidentally, I recently moderated a panel before the Publicity Club of New England on these issues, and the consensus was that within IT media and communities that one-third of the content would soon be user-generated (blogs and comments), one-third would be vendor-generated (white-papers, sponsored podcasts, webinars, webcasts, etc.), and one-third would be traditional reporter-generated content (news stories, reviews, columns). Openly available analyst briefings aid and abet all three.

]]> By: ARonaut http://www.redmonk.com/jgovernor/2006/11/17/briefing-20-podcast/#comment-2013 ARonaut Sat, 18 Nov 2006 00:43:08 +0000 http://www.redmonk.com/jgovernor/wp/?p=789#comment-2013 James, Thanks for your response. You pose the question in interesting term: secrecy vs. participation. The analysts have long valued secrecy: they used to hold their "power" from "knowledge". Where that model is going in the Web 2.0 era is a good question. However, participation should not mean immediacy and should not be antagonistic from in depth analysis. There's a lot of noise out there... James,

Thanks for your response. You pose the question in interesting term: secrecy vs. participation.

The analysts have long valued secrecy: they used to hold their “power” from “knowledge”. Where that model is going in the Web 2.0 era is a good question.

However, participation should not mean immediacy and should not be antagonistic from in depth analysis. There’s a lot of noise out there…

]]>