So Forrester had it right.

I do quite like the way Forrester rate sites. But the fact that the wave is based entirely on 2 *self-volunteered* projects is a bit odd.

As I have already said on Twitter, nice post and thank you for the mention.

You’ve asked how we feel about being on the report, in the position we find ourselves – would it be better not to be included?

This is consistent with feedback I have had, but when contrasted with the comments in the report like “This product remains a top-class WCM product and its impressive…etc etc”- that appear inconsistent with the bottom left position – we have to say that engagement with Gartner is valuable – providing folks take the time to read the report and glance beyond the headlines.

In the interest of balance, the poor showing in the quadrant is apparently down to what they consider to be poor US visibility and the negative comments about strategy. These comments owe much to the lag to get the report published from the briefing and how much we were able to share at the time. Incidentally subsequent conversations where we have eased open the kimono (I believe that’s the custom – otherwise I looked pretty foolish) have been received very positively.

On the MarketScope comment that was made last year, I feel the need to point out that ‘cautious’ came around the time of the Alterian acquisition and reflected what they considered to be risk to us as a standalone vendor.

Anyway, super post and great debate – love the fact you attracted the attention of the “Gartner Ombudsman” – (isn’t it great there jobs out there called that?)- and hope I have gone some way to answer your question!

Cheers,

Ian

There is always the risk of being ranked low. Luckily at Day, we are quite pleased You take the risk because even if you fare poorly in the overall quadrant, the fact that you are included at all is an important statement. It is better to be in the quadrant than not.

Now, some have blogged about some of the criteria Gartner uses. And that’s why we luckily all look at different types of sources and perspectives. But as a specific source, Gartner’s – like CMS Watch and others – is not based on who paid to be included.

That’s just a vendors perspective. You fret about whether or not you’ll be included, then you fret about where you place. It’s only fun after the fact. And so for that reason, hats off to everyone in the report. Of course, do take a close look at that Day dot …

I agree with you that it’s a pity the Open Source vendors don’t qualify for inclusion. I understand the reasoning but I still wish they’d be included.

That said, I also agree 100% with Eric Barroca’s discussion of Commercial Open Source which, I think, might not gel with your business model. I’d love your thoughts on his recent post:
http://blogs.nuxeo.com/ebarroca/2009/08/commercial-open-source-or-just-a-free-demo.html

I can’t tell you how much I appreciate the clarification straight from the horses mouth. My skepticism stems from ignorance of a process which, to the uninitiated, seems rather opaque. Combined with the fact that the “sponsorships” seem to be in place before the report is launched to the public causes doubt.

That said, the process you describe seems completely legit to me. And, as Darren from SiteCore pointed out, the company for which I work proudly cites our rankings on various waves and quadrants. A case of “Physician, heal thyself” and all that.

So, in summary, is the process something like this: Vendor pays Gartner X to be included in the research, but have no idea how they will be ranked. Then, once the evaluation is complete, there is some way they can pay Y to freely distribute the research? Finally, do you get any backlash from the vendors that pay to be included, and don’t do as well as they’d hoped?

Thanks again for shedding light on a process that someone like me didn’t understand.

Gartner does not accept sponsorship of research or produce vendor-sponsored white papers. The analysts determine which vendors are included in these reports by setting clearly defined inclusion criteria explained in the document.

I hope this clears up any confusion.

Each web project’s needs should be carefully evaluated and prioritized to aid in a CMS selection process. In Ektron and Oracle’s defense, a website’s core functional requirements carry more weight than lumping an organization’s needs into those of a large corporation vs. those of a SMB. In some cases Ektron may be a fit for large org’s, but less so for Oracle strictly from a cost perspective.

Full Disclosure: I am an employee of Ektron, but my thoughts are of an objective nature and do not represent statements of the firm.

Microsoft came 5th in this but still sponsored it:
http://mediaproducts.gartner.com/reprints/microsoft/vol6/article3/article3.html

Oracle came tie 3rd in this:
http://mediaproducts.gartner.com/reprints/oracle/article31/article31.html

Can anyone shed any more light on how the process works? I know vendors participate without knowing where they’ll end up on the curve. Do they fight over prime sponsorship after the results come out?

SiteCore seem to be the one shouting about their position the loudest in the Twittersphere.

But then again, I’m not very corporate so I might be missing something.

Follow up to my observation above would be “Does these reports actually matter and do they have an impact?”. Can you “on the floor” feel the wind changing when a report like this is publicised?

Great post. Formulating some thoughts to add. Need more coffee first.

-Pie

I think Gartners report should also illustrate which kind of companies the software is designed for. For example, Ektron and some of the other companies is best suitable for small/medium organizations, while vendors such as Open Text/SDL/Sitecore is for medium/large organizations and Oracle only for large organizations.

If I was about to select software for my large corporation and would be using the Gartner Quardrant to support my decision, – I would be very unhappy to shortlist Ektron.

In the other hand, was I a smaller company, shortlisting Oracle would be a waste of time as well.

Also, every buyer should have some chance to define if he wants rabbits or pigeons flying out of his system before the quadrant is generated…