“whose best interest does the procurement industry press serve . . . the solution providers or the procurement professional? You cannot serve both.”Or here’s another way to look at the dynamics of such relationships:
“whose best interests do procurement professionals serve . . . the suppliers who serve our business customers, or our business customers whom we serve?”
The above comment from one reader confirmed why we need more voices in the procurement world, if for no other reason than to expand the horizons of both our individual and collective perceptions.
Personally I like the reader’s comment, as it introduces a new way of looking at the question regarding the influence that service providers have on how the media covers our industry.
So, now that the idea presented above has been tabled, what are my thoughts?
In terms of drawing a parallel with the relationship between solution providers and procurement professionals, I would equate business customers with the service providers, and the suppliers with the procurement pros.
While the interests of suppliers are very important, when push comes to shove, they have traditionally taken a back seat to the interests of the business customers.
Think about procurement’s attitude towards suppliers over the years. Specifically, the adversarial nature of negotiating to win. Achieving the lowest price – even if it was at the expense of the supplier, was the mindset with which most purchasing people had (and in many cases still do) approach their job.
I remember sitting in on a presentation by Kate Vitasek, who talked about her years at Microsoft. During the presentation, Kate indicated that her performance and financial remuneration was based on her ability to continually drive down the pricing she received from suppliers.
All of this of course was to serve the better interests of the customer . . . the ones who ultimately generated revenue for the company.
When it comes to the media and the procurement industry, who pays the bills?
For example, how much revenue does a blog such as a Spend Matters generate from non-service provider clients? Or to put it another way, if they lost all of their revenue from service providers, would they be able to sustain their business model? This same question goes for any blog.
Considering this question from the standpoint of analyst firms such as Gartner is a little more complex, given the breakdown of their revenue streams.
It is safe to say that there is little if any doubt that the empirical perception that these firms are highly influenced by service providers has, at least to a certain degree, diminished the value of their insights in the eyes of some. However, and based upon a discussion stream in Quora which asked How much influence do Forrester and Gartner reports have on purchasing decisions?, it is also reasonable to assume that others rely heavily on what the analyst firms have to say.
Personally – and yes empirically speaking, I have always believed that within the procurement sector, service providers have a good deal of influence over analyst firm coverage.
Generally speaking, I am not alone in this belief. The response to my January 7th, 2011 post Madison Avenue ooops . . . make that Gartner, names Oracle as a leader in supply chain planning, provides testimony to that fact.
This being said, I think it is time for me to do an investigative report on the state of the analyst business – including inviting representatives from Gartner and Forrester on my radio show. I will keep you posted.
Coming back to what prompted today’s post, at the end of the day I do believe that you have to follow the money in terms of filtering the information you receive.
What do you think?
30
Procurement Insights 
Buyers Meeting Point (@BuyersMeetPoint)
May 9, 2016
What is the difference between procurement practitioners, solution providers, and media sites? I would argue that the differences are minimal. I’ve spent time in all three roles without significant changes to my skills, interests, and motivations.
Each group is really trying to get their job done:
Practitioners are working as hard and as fast as they can in a complex environment that isn’t always friendly. There is VERY little time for reading and other non-essential activities. Their attention and face time is the ‘ungettable get’ – the one thing that providers and practitioners are all fighting to get and hold. I don’t know this for sure, but I’m guessing many of them would probably love it if those of us trying to entice them with clever/entertaining/insightful content would invest the same amount of time and effort actually helping them do their work so they could go home 15 minutes sooner rather than giving them the privilege to attend another webinar…
Providers need to get their solution/brand/team in front of interested practitioners if they are ever going to close a deal. And how do they do that? Through media and group visibility opportunities such as conferences and webinars. If the best way to reach procurement decision makers was to run blood drives or host buffet breakfasts, trust me, they would be doing that instead. Do they really want to sponsor whitepapers? Probably not. But if you don’t sponsor a whitepaper/report/webinar/etc. no one will send out an email blast reminding practitioners that they are still open for business.
The procurement media… now there is an interesting group. More of an art than a science, we’re trying to take our knowledge of the space and make content – and our perspective in general – available in an appealing way. Some of us actually like writing and others do it for a paycheck. In some ways, we’re competing with solution providers for practitioner attention, ironically enough so that we can convince providers of how many followers/readers we have… so they will work through us to get to the same practitioners we were competing with them over.
None of this means that there aren’t people – IN ALL OF THESE GROUPS – who wouldn’t gladly sell Grandma to the circus if it meant better performance. What is different is that while providers and the media make their intentions and outlook clear through the content they share and the stories they cover (or don’t), the practitioners are the silent majority. There is no trail other than their traffic or membership numbers, and since they listen far more often than they share, we can only follow their patterns to figure out what they think and want to hear more about.
And I think that, too, is the answer to whether the procurement media can serve two masters – providers and practitioners. If practitioners make the determination that a site’s content is a bunch of sponsored hooey that serves no other purpose than to market to them, they should vote with their traffic and get their news elsewhere. There are costs associated with running any business, and just like good practitioners should want their suppliers to make a reasonable profit margin, they must understand that the media needs to pay the bills and have some take home pay too. The challenge is striking a balance that harnesses the power of capitalism without selling out or tricking readers in order to do it.
p.s. If someone convinces providers to start hosting those buffet breakfasts in order to build market share, I will gladly switch back to the practitioner side of procurement.
piblogger
May 10, 2016
As usual Kelly, a thoughtfully balanced commentary that emphasizes both the importance and need for these kinds of discussions.
Your buffet point – and who doesn’t like a good buffet – is interesting on many levels, because it indicates that providers will take whatever route is the shortest to the greatest practinioner audience. The real question is simply this . . . to what degree and in what form should media i.e. blogs and analyst firms take part in that quest?
I think that the Theranos story represents a good example of how familiarity can potentially undermine the objectivity of the media. As such, should blogs for example accept sponsorship dollars from providers? Can analyst firms provide an unbiased assessment of the market when, as countless suppliers who are not paying customers, are left off the Magic Quadrant, even though they may very well be more deserving of such acknowledgement?
Hector Vega
May 10, 2016
Thank you, Kelly for giving us your notable insights.
Ian Heptinstall
May 15, 2016
Where do the so-called Professional Institutions fit into this Jon?
I used to think they were there for the benefit of the profession and the membership. But with growing commercialisation, I am not convinced that a sales or margin target has not become more important.
If good ideas were correlated with providers’ marketing budgets, there would be no problem. But if you are a small-fry, or you just don’t want to spend to buy a speaking slot at a conference, then it is very difficult to get a platform. I wonder whether many in the media (and institutions) have the understanding, or motivation, to assess ideas on their merits.
I would love to hear thought leaders on a big stage telling the audience not to waste their money on technology if they haven’t got the fundamentals in place. But then that might upset sponsors, even though it is exactly what is often needed. Don’t get me wrong, tech is necessary, but it is far from being sufficient.
piblogger
May 15, 2016
You raise a number of interesting points Ian.
What is the best way to address this . . . not only in our industry, but in others as well?