<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
	xmlns:itunes="http://www.itunes.com/dtds/podcast-1.0.dtd"
xmlns:rawvoice="http://www.rawvoice.com/rawvoiceRssModule/"
	>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Pay to play does cut it?</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.accmanpro.com/2009/11/15/pay-to-play-does-cut-it/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.accmanpro.com/2009/11/15/pay-to-play-does-cut-it/</link>
	<description></description>
	<lastBuildDate>Thu, 09 Feb 2012 10:01:51 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.2.1</generator>
	<item>
		<title>By: Louis Vuitton handbags</title>
		<link>http://www.accmanpro.com/2009/11/15/pay-to-play-does-cut-it/comment-page-1/#comment-7293</link>
		<dc:creator>Louis Vuitton handbags</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 14 Dec 2009 12:42:43 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.accmanpro.com/?p=5948#comment-7293</guid>
		<description>I find this broader discussion of our industry&#039;s model and evolution interesting and obviously very important to me but I also think the broader discussion is grossly incomplete. I&#039;m not pointing to this post, which actually is among the most thoughtful of the whole, long thread. Missing from the discussion is customer needs (an issue I address in the above-mentioned discussion with Gideon (which you can view here:</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I find this broader discussion of our industry&#39;s model and evolution interesting and obviously very important to me but I also think the broader discussion is grossly incomplete. I&#39;m not pointing to this post, which actually is among the most thoughtful of the whole, long thread. Missing from the discussion is customer needs (an issue I address in the above-mentioned discussion with Gideon (which you can view here:</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Louis Vuitton handba</title>
		<link>http://www.accmanpro.com/2009/11/15/pay-to-play-does-cut-it/comment-page-1/#comment-7292</link>
		<dc:creator>Louis Vuitton handba</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 14 Dec 2009 07:42:43 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.accmanpro.com/?p=5948#comment-7292</guid>
		<description>I find this broader discussion of our industry&#039;s model and evolution interesting and obviously very important to me but I also think the broader discussion is grossly incomplete. I&#039;m not pointing to this post, which actually is among the most thoughtful of the whole, long thread. Missing from the discussion is customer needs (an issue I address in the above-mentioned discussion with Gideon (which you can view here:</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I find this broader discussion of our industry&#039;s model and evolution interesting and obviously very important to me but I also think the broader discussion is grossly incomplete. I&#039;m not pointing to this post, which actually is among the most thoughtful of the whole, long thread. Missing from the discussion is customer needs (an issue I address in the above-mentioned discussion with Gideon (which you can view here:</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Louis Vuitton handbags</title>
		<link>http://www.accmanpro.com/2009/11/15/pay-to-play-does-cut-it/comment-page-1/#comment-9593</link>
		<dc:creator>Louis Vuitton handbags</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 14 Dec 2009 07:42:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.accmanpro.com/?p=5948#comment-9593</guid>
		<description>I find this broader discussion of our industry&#039;s model and evolution interesting and obviously very important to me but I also think the broader discussion is grossly incomplete. I&#039;m not pointing to this post, which actually is among the most thoughtful of the whole, long thread. Missing from the discussion is customer needs (an issue I address in the above-mentioned discussion with Gideon (which you can view here: </description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I find this broader discussion of our industry&#8217;s model and evolution interesting and obviously very important to me but I also think the broader discussion is grossly incomplete. I&#8217;m not pointing to this post, which actually is among the most thoughtful of the whole, long thread. Missing from the discussion is customer needs (an issue I address in the above-mentioned discussion with Gideon (which you can view here:</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: dahowlett</title>
		<link>http://www.accmanpro.com/2009/11/15/pay-to-play-does-cut-it/comment-page-1/#comment-7295</link>
		<dc:creator>dahowlett</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sat, 05 Dec 2009 03:25:30 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.accmanpro.com/?p=5948#comment-7295</guid>
		<description>Hi Jonathan and thanks for that. I think that Enterprise Advocates is attempting to do something like what&#039;s described in the two videos. I draw comfort from that but also comfort from other things I know are going on that seem similar to what Gideon describes.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Hi Jonathan and thanks for that. I think that Enterprise Advocates is attempting to do something like what&#39;s described in the two videos. I draw comfort from that but also comfort from other things I know are going on that seem similar to what Gideon describes.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Jonathan L. Yarmis</title>
		<link>http://www.accmanpro.com/2009/11/15/pay-to-play-does-cut-it/comment-page-1/#comment-7294</link>
		<dc:creator>Jonathan L. Yarmis</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sat, 05 Dec 2009 02:45:16 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.accmanpro.com/?p=5948#comment-7294</guid>
		<description>I find this broader discussion of our industry&#039;s model and evolution interesting and obviously very important to me but I also think the broader discussion is grossly incomplete.  I&#039;m not pointing to this post, which actually is among the most thoughtful of the whole, long thread.  Missing from the discussion is customer needs (an issue I address in the above-mentioned discussion with Gideon (which you can view here:  &lt;a href=&quot;http://iiar.wordpress.com/2009/12/04/world-exclusive-gideon-gartner-on-the-iiar-blog/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;http://iiar.wordpress.com/2009/12/04/world-excl...&lt;/a&gt; ).&lt;br&gt;&lt;br&gt;I take a simple view of things.  If we&#039;re meeting customer needs, we&#039;ll likely find a way of extracting economic value, be we large firm or small, new or traditional.  What&#039;s important in my mind, therefore, is my belief that customer needs *have* changed.  No longer is tech advice relevant.  Much as we&#039;ve stopped talking about eBusiness because it&#039;s now just one component of business, so too can we no longer talk about technology without talking about business, or business without talking about technology.  That&#039;s where the current model is broken.  We&#039;re selling technology insights to technologists.  Is it any wonder why the average tenure of a CIO is so brief?  Only once we&#039;ve agreed on what the unmet customer needs are can we begin to address the issue of the right approach to satisfy those needs.&lt;br&gt;&lt;br&gt;Of course it&#039;s hugely self-serving of me to say this -- this is Datamonitor and Ovum&#039;s value proposition, after all -- but I dare anyone to say this isn&#039;t the unmet need.  It&#039;s clearly open for debate whether we can do it or what the right approach to meeting that need is, and I certainly acknowledge our challenges in that regard.  But if we continue to have this discussion about the analyst industry without turning into a discussion about the customer needs, we won&#039;t serve the needs of our customers and potential customers and after all, isn&#039;t that the kind of discussion we want to have with them?</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I find this broader discussion of our industry&#39;s model and evolution interesting and obviously very important to me but I also think the broader discussion is grossly incomplete.  I&#39;m not pointing to this post, which actually is among the most thoughtful of the whole, long thread.  Missing from the discussion is customer needs (an issue I address in the above-mentioned discussion with Gideon (which you can view here:  <a href="http://iiar.wordpress.com/2009/12/04/world-exclusive-gideon-gartner-on-the-iiar-blog/" rel="nofollow">http://iiar.wordpress.com/2009/12/04/world-excl&#8230;</a> ).</p>
<p>I take a simple view of things.  If we&#39;re meeting customer needs, we&#39;ll likely find a way of extracting economic value, be we large firm or small, new or traditional.  What&#39;s important in my mind, therefore, is my belief that customer needs *have* changed.  No longer is tech advice relevant.  Much as we&#39;ve stopped talking about eBusiness because it&#39;s now just one component of business, so too can we no longer talk about technology without talking about business, or business without talking about technology.  That&#39;s where the current model is broken.  We&#39;re selling technology insights to technologists.  Is it any wonder why the average tenure of a CIO is so brief?  Only once we&#39;ve agreed on what the unmet customer needs are can we begin to address the issue of the right approach to satisfy those needs.</p>
<p>Of course it&#39;s hugely self-serving of me to say this &#8212; this is Datamonitor and Ovum&#39;s value proposition, after all &#8212; but I dare anyone to say this isn&#39;t the unmet need.  It&#39;s clearly open for debate whether we can do it or what the right approach to meeting that need is, and I certainly acknowledge our challenges in that regard.  But if we continue to have this discussion about the analyst industry without turning into a discussion about the customer needs, we won&#39;t serve the needs of our customers and potential customers and after all, isn&#39;t that the kind of discussion we want to have with them?</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: dahowlett</title>
		<link>http://www.accmanpro.com/2009/11/15/pay-to-play-does-cut-it/comment-page-1/#comment-7291</link>
		<dc:creator>dahowlett</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 04 Dec 2009 22:25:30 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.accmanpro.com/?p=5948#comment-7291</guid>
		<description>Hi Jonathan and thanks for that. I think that Enterprise Advocates is attempting to do something like what&#039;s described in the two videos. I draw comfort from that but also comfort from other things I know are going on that seem similar to what Gideon describes.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Hi Jonathan and thanks for that. I think that Enterprise Advocates is attempting to do something like what&#039;s described in the two videos. I draw comfort from that but also comfort from other things I know are going on that seem similar to what Gideon describes.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: dahowlett</title>
		<link>http://www.accmanpro.com/2009/11/15/pay-to-play-does-cut-it/comment-page-1/#comment-9568</link>
		<dc:creator>dahowlett</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 04 Dec 2009 22:25:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.accmanpro.com/?p=5948#comment-9568</guid>
		<description>Hi Jonathan and thanks for that. I think that Enterprise Advocates is attempting to do something like what&#039;s described in the two videos. I draw comfort from that but also comfort from other things I know are going on that seem similar to what Gideon describes.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Hi Jonathan and thanks for that. I think that Enterprise Advocates is attempting to do something like what&#8217;s described in the two videos. I draw comfort from that but also comfort from other things I know are going on that seem similar to what Gideon describes.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Jonathan L. Yarmis</title>
		<link>http://www.accmanpro.com/2009/11/15/pay-to-play-does-cut-it/comment-page-1/#comment-7290</link>
		<dc:creator>Jonathan L. Yarmis</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 04 Dec 2009 21:45:16 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.accmanpro.com/?p=5948#comment-7290</guid>
		<description>I find this broader discussion of our industry&#039;s model and evolution interesting and obviously very important to me but I also think the broader discussion is grossly incomplete.  I&#039;m not pointing to this post, which actually is among the most thoughtful of the whole, long thread.  Missing from the discussion is customer needs (an issue I address in the above-mentioned discussion with Gideon (which you can view here:  &lt;a href=&quot;http://iiar.wordpress.com/2009/12/04/world-exclusive-gideon-gartner-on-the-iiar-blog/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;http://iiar.wordpress.com/2009/12/04/world-excl.....&lt;/a&gt; ).I take a simple view of things.  If we&#039;re meeting customer needs, we&#039;ll likely find a way of extracting economic value, be we large firm or small, new or traditional.  What&#039;s important in my mind, therefore, is my belief that customer needs *have* changed.  No longer is tech advice relevant.  Much as we&#039;ve stopped talking about eBusiness because it&#039;s now just one component of business, so too can we no longer talk about technology without talking about business, or business without talking about technology.  That&#039;s where the current model is broken.  We&#039;re selling technology insights to technologists.  Is it any wonder why the average tenure of a CIO is so brief?  Only once we&#039;ve agreed on what the unmet customer needs are can we begin to address the issue of the right approach to satisfy those needs.Of course it&#039;s hugely self-serving of me to say this -- this is Datamonitor and Ovum&#039;s value proposition, after all -- but I dare anyone to say this isn&#039;t the unmet need.  It&#039;s clearly open for debate whether we can do it or what the right approach to meeting that need is, and I certainly acknowledge our challenges in that regard.  But if we continue to have this discussion about the analyst industry without turning into a discussion about the customer needs, we won&#039;t serve the needs of our customers and potential customers and after all, isn&#039;t that the kind of discussion we want to have with them?</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I find this broader discussion of our industry&#039;s model and evolution interesting and obviously very important to me but I also think the broader discussion is grossly incomplete.  I&#039;m not pointing to this post, which actually is among the most thoughtful of the whole, long thread.  Missing from the discussion is customer needs (an issue I address in the above-mentioned discussion with Gideon (which you can view here:  <a href="http://iiar.wordpress.com/2009/12/04/world-exclusive-gideon-gartner-on-the-iiar-blog/" rel="nofollow">http://iiar.wordpress.com/2009/12/04/world-excl&#8230;..</a> ).I take a simple view of things.  If we&#039;re meeting customer needs, we&#039;ll likely find a way of extracting economic value, be we large firm or small, new or traditional.  What&#039;s important in my mind, therefore, is my belief that customer needs *have* changed.  No longer is tech advice relevant.  Much as we&#039;ve stopped talking about eBusiness because it&#039;s now just one component of business, so too can we no longer talk about technology without talking about business, or business without talking about technology.  That&#039;s where the current model is broken.  We&#039;re selling technology insights to technologists.  Is it any wonder why the average tenure of a CIO is so brief?  Only once we&#039;ve agreed on what the unmet customer needs are can we begin to address the issue of the right approach to satisfy those needs.Of course it&#039;s hugely self-serving of me to say this &#8212; this is Datamonitor and Ovum&#039;s value proposition, after all &#8212; but I dare anyone to say this isn&#039;t the unmet need.  It&#039;s clearly open for debate whether we can do it or what the right approach to meeting that need is, and I certainly acknowledge our challenges in that regard.  But if we continue to have this discussion about the analyst industry without turning into a discussion about the customer needs, we won&#039;t serve the needs of our customers and potential customers and after all, isn&#039;t that the kind of discussion we want to have with them?</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Jonathan L. Yarmis</title>
		<link>http://www.accmanpro.com/2009/11/15/pay-to-play-does-cut-it/comment-page-1/#comment-9566</link>
		<dc:creator>Jonathan L. Yarmis</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 04 Dec 2009 21:45:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.accmanpro.com/?p=5948#comment-9566</guid>
		<description>I find this broader discussion of our industry&#039;s model and evolution interesting and obviously very important to me but I also think the broader discussion is grossly incomplete.  I&#039;m not pointing to this post, which actually is among the most thoughtful of the whole, long thread.  Missing from the discussion is customer needs (an issue I address in the above-mentioned discussion with Gideon (which you can view here:  http://iiar.wordpress.com/2009/12/04/world-exclusive-gideon-gartner-on-the-iiar-blog/ ).

I take a simple view of things.  If we&#039;re meeting customer needs, we&#039;ll likely find a way of extracting economic value, be we large firm or small, new or traditional.  What&#039;s important in my mind, therefore, is my belief that customer needs *have* changed.  No longer is tech advice relevant.  Much as we&#039;ve stopped talking about eBusiness because it&#039;s now just one component of business, so too can we no longer talk about technology without talking about business, or business without talking about technology.  That&#039;s where the current model is broken.  We&#039;re selling technology insights to technologists.  Is it any wonder why the average tenure of a CIO is so brief?  Only once we&#039;ve agreed on what the unmet customer needs are can we begin to address the issue of the right approach to satisfy those needs.

Of course it&#039;s hugely self-serving of me to say this -- this is Datamonitor and Ovum&#039;s value proposition, after all -- but I dare anyone to say this isn&#039;t the unmet need.  It&#039;s clearly open for debate whether we can do it or what the right approach to meeting that need is, and I certainly acknowledge our challenges in that regard.  But if we continue to have this discussion about the analyst industry without turning into a discussion about the customer needs, we won&#039;t serve the needs of our customers and potential customers and after all, isn&#039;t that the kind of discussion we want to have with them?</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I find this broader discussion of our industry&#8217;s model and evolution interesting and obviously very important to me but I also think the broader discussion is grossly incomplete.  I&#8217;m not pointing to this post, which actually is among the most thoughtful of the whole, long thread.  Missing from the discussion is customer needs (an issue I address in the above-mentioned discussion with Gideon (which you can view here:  <a href="http://iiar.wordpress.com/2009/12/04/world-exclusive-gideon-gartner-on-the-iiar-blog/" rel="nofollow">http://iiar.wordpress.com/2009/12/04/world-exclusive-gideon-gartner-on-the-iiar-blog/</a> ).</p>
<p>I take a simple view of things.  If we&#8217;re meeting customer needs, we&#8217;ll likely find a way of extracting economic value, be we large firm or small, new or traditional.  What&#8217;s important in my mind, therefore, is my belief that customer needs *have* changed.  No longer is tech advice relevant.  Much as we&#8217;ve stopped talking about eBusiness because it&#8217;s now just one component of business, so too can we no longer talk about technology without talking about business, or business without talking about technology.  That&#8217;s where the current model is broken.  We&#8217;re selling technology insights to technologists.  Is it any wonder why the average tenure of a CIO is so brief?  Only once we&#8217;ve agreed on what the unmet customer needs are can we begin to address the issue of the right approach to satisfy those needs.</p>
<p>Of course it&#8217;s hugely self-serving of me to say this &#8212; this is Datamonitor and Ovum&#8217;s value proposition, after all &#8212; but I dare anyone to say this isn&#8217;t the unmet need.  It&#8217;s clearly open for debate whether we can do it or what the right approach to meeting that need is, and I certainly acknowledge our challenges in that regard.  But if we continue to have this discussion about the analyst industry without turning into a discussion about the customer needs, we won&#8217;t serve the needs of our customers and potential customers and after all, isn&#8217;t that the kind of discussion we want to have with them?</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Don&#8217;t sweat the short stuff &#171; Authentic Voice</title>
		<link>http://www.accmanpro.com/2009/11/15/pay-to-play-does-cut-it/comment-page-1/#comment-7289</link>
		<dc:creator>Don&#8217;t sweat the short stuff &#171; Authentic Voice</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 16 Nov 2009 22:50:34 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.accmanpro.com/?p=5948#comment-7289</guid>
		<description>[...] Pay to play does cut it? (accmanpro.com) [...]</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>[...] Pay to play does cut it? (accmanpro.com) [...]</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>

