Here is an excerpt from my previous post, which was the spark for this one.
“Mainstream analyst firms like Gartner and Forrester, along with consultants, often miss or under-recognize smaller or innovative solution providers due to a combination of structural, financial, and methodological factors. The attached poll image—from a August 15, 2025, Procurement Insights blog post—illustrates this disparity vividly: while 100% of respondents recognize Capgemini/WNS (a major consulting and business process outsourcing entity), 0% have heard of innovative providers like Vultr (a cloud infrastructure platform), Vellum (an AI development platform), and PhysicsX (an AI-driven engineering simulation company). This isn’t unique to procurement or AI sectors; it’s a systemic issue across tech landscapes, where coverage skews toward established giants.”
Mainstream analyst firms like Gartner and Forrester, along with consultants, often miss or under-recognize smaller or innovative solution providers due to a combination of structural, financial, and methodological factors. The attached poll image—from a August 15, 2025, Procurement Insights blog post—illustrates this disparity vividly: while 100% of respondents recognize Capgemini/WNS (a major consulting and business process outsourcing entity), 0% have heard of innovative providers like Vultr (a cloud infrastructure platform), Vellum (an AI development platform), and PhysicsX (an AI-driven engineering simulation company). This isn’t unique to procurement or AI sectors; it’s a systemic issue across tech landscapes, where coverage skews toward established giants. Below, I’ll outline the key reasons, drawing from industry critiques and analyses.
1. Financial Incentives and “Pay-to-Play” Perceptions
Analyst firms generate revenue through subscriptions, advisory services, and vendor-funded research, which can create a perception—and sometimes reality—of favoring larger vendors who can afford to pay for access, reprints, or extensive briefings. Smaller providers often lack the budgets for these engagements, limiting their visibility. While firms deny direct “pay-to-play” (e.g., claiming evaluations are methodology-based and unbiased), increased interaction from paying clients leads to better analyst understanding, potentially boosting rankings. This has sparked lawsuits (e.g., from vendors like NetScout) alleging bias, and smaller innovators like Vellum or PhysicsX may not even get briefings, as seen in Gartner’s lack of coverage for them.
2. Methodological Biases Favoring Established Players
Analyst methodologies, such as Gartner’s Magic Quadrant or Forrester’s Wave, emphasize criteria like financial stability, market share, staffing, and “ability to execute,” which inherently disadvantage smaller or non-US companies with limited resources or scale. These frameworks rely on quantitative data (e.g., surveys, customer references) that big vendors can more easily provide, while subjective elements like “completeness of vision” may overlook niche innovations from startups. For instance, in fragmented markets like CRM or AI, analysts focus on dominant players (e.g., top vendors holding over 50% market share), sidelining smaller ones like Vultr, which competes in cloud but lacks the enterprise footprint of AWS. This enterprise-centric approach prioritizes broad trends over disruptive, early-stage solutions.
3. Resource Constraints and Limited Bandwidth
Analyst firms have finite resources and can’t cover every provider—Gartner tracks hundreds of vendors but prioritizes those with significant market impact or client interest. Smaller companies often fall outside this scope due to lower visibility, fewer case studies, or detachment from innovation hubs like startup communities. Consultants, similarly, cater to large enterprise clients who prefer vetted, low-risk options, reinforcing a cycle where niche providers like PhysicsX (focused on AI for engineering) get overlooked in favor of comprehensive suites from giants like Capgemini.
4. Lack of Engagement and Visibility from Smaller Providers
Smaller vendors frequently lack dedicated analyst relations (AR) teams or strategies, making it harder to build mindshare through regular briefings or strong customer references. Media and analysts gravitate toward “exciting” stories from big players, leaving others with “loss of market visibility.” Non-US or mid-market firms feel particularly unheard, as methodologies may not account for regional nuances. Boutique firms or independent voices (e.g., Procurement Insights) offer alternatives by focusing on narrative-driven, practitioner insights that highlight overlooked innovators.
Ultimately, this creates a feedback loop: big vendors get more coverage, attracting more clients, while smaller ones struggle for recognition. Emerging models, like independent blogs or boutique analysts, are starting to bridge the gap by emphasizing real-world utility over hype.
30
BONUS COVERAGE – A SHARED EXPERIENCE
For context, here is an excerpt from my June 17th, 2024, post titled Is This True?!?
Before I sold my company in 2001, an analyst firm called Meta, eventually purchased by Gartner, approached me because of our tech and the successful results from our first big implementation.
During the meeting with my executive team, they said that we were definitely on the leading edge, and they wanted to “cover” us. I told them that sounded great.
Then, the shoe dropped – the Meta rep said terrific, let’s get started right away. Fantastic, I said, brimming with even more confidence than I already had; what’s the next step?
We will get you to sign a contract and then invoice you for $20,000, which is more than $36,000 in 2024 dollars.
How many other companies who had great tech didn’t make it to “Carnegie.”
Why am I resharing this story with you? Besides the fact that at 66 one tends to repeat stories – just ask my kids, there is a far more compelling reason. My above experience is not the exception but the rule.
Here is an amalgam of recent cases that collectively paint a similar picture for up and coming innovative ProcureTech solution providers:
We found it in our budget to pay between $20,000 and $40,000 to get minimal coverage from a large analyst firm. In one instance this covered either a one or two-part assessment that was only available behind the Paywall or a lost logo placement on an overcrowded solution map.
In a couple of instances, the large analyst firm introduced us to one of their large clients indicating that we had a solution that would meet a critical part of the larger solution providers existing customer base. Post collaboration, we either didn’t get paid, or, they used our expertise as a development guide for them to expand the capabilities of their own solution.
When faced with making what they consider to be the safe bet by going with a large solution provider, even though smaller and more innovative solutions are available through smaller providers, procurement practitioners generally default to the former, rather than the latter. Some call it institutional inertia, as a small provider it is the old “nobody ever got fired for buying IBM” mindset.
So here is a question for practitioners: Would you go against a big analyst firm recommendation even if the product being offered by the bigger player was inferior to the one available through a smaller firm?
Procurement Insights
The Angry Poll!
Posted on August 23, 2025
0
Here is an excerpt from my previous post, which was the spark for this one.
“Mainstream analyst firms like Gartner and Forrester, along with consultants, often miss or under-recognize smaller or innovative solution providers due to a combination of structural, financial, and methodological factors. The attached poll image—from a August 15, 2025, Procurement Insights blog post—illustrates this disparity vividly: while 100% of respondents recognize Capgemini/WNS (a major consulting and business process outsourcing entity), 0% have heard of innovative providers like Vultr (a cloud infrastructure platform), Vellum (an AI development platform), and PhysicsX (an AI-driven engineering simulation company). This isn’t unique to procurement or AI sectors; it’s a systemic issue across tech landscapes, where coverage skews toward established giants.”
Mainstream analyst firms like Gartner and Forrester, along with consultants, often miss or under-recognize smaller or innovative solution providers due to a combination of structural, financial, and methodological factors. The attached poll image—from a August 15, 2025, Procurement Insights blog post—illustrates this disparity vividly: while 100% of respondents recognize Capgemini/WNS (a major consulting and business process outsourcing entity), 0% have heard of innovative providers like Vultr (a cloud infrastructure platform), Vellum (an AI development platform), and PhysicsX (an AI-driven engineering simulation company). This isn’t unique to procurement or AI sectors; it’s a systemic issue across tech landscapes, where coverage skews toward established giants. Below, I’ll outline the key reasons, drawing from industry critiques and analyses.
1. Financial Incentives and “Pay-to-Play” Perceptions
Analyst firms generate revenue through subscriptions, advisory services, and vendor-funded research, which can create a perception—and sometimes reality—of favoring larger vendors who can afford to pay for access, reprints, or extensive briefings. Smaller providers often lack the budgets for these engagements, limiting their visibility. While firms deny direct “pay-to-play” (e.g., claiming evaluations are methodology-based and unbiased), increased interaction from paying clients leads to better analyst understanding, potentially boosting rankings. This has sparked lawsuits (e.g., from vendors like NetScout) alleging bias, and smaller innovators like Vellum or PhysicsX may not even get briefings, as seen in Gartner’s lack of coverage for them.
2. Methodological Biases Favoring Established Players
Analyst methodologies, such as Gartner’s Magic Quadrant or Forrester’s Wave, emphasize criteria like financial stability, market share, staffing, and “ability to execute,” which inherently disadvantage smaller or non-US companies with limited resources or scale. These frameworks rely on quantitative data (e.g., surveys, customer references) that big vendors can more easily provide, while subjective elements like “completeness of vision” may overlook niche innovations from startups. For instance, in fragmented markets like CRM or AI, analysts focus on dominant players (e.g., top vendors holding over 50% market share), sidelining smaller ones like Vultr, which competes in cloud but lacks the enterprise footprint of AWS. This enterprise-centric approach prioritizes broad trends over disruptive, early-stage solutions.
3. Resource Constraints and Limited Bandwidth
Analyst firms have finite resources and can’t cover every provider—Gartner tracks hundreds of vendors but prioritizes those with significant market impact or client interest. Smaller companies often fall outside this scope due to lower visibility, fewer case studies, or detachment from innovation hubs like startup communities. Consultants, similarly, cater to large enterprise clients who prefer vetted, low-risk options, reinforcing a cycle where niche providers like PhysicsX (focused on AI for engineering) get overlooked in favor of comprehensive suites from giants like Capgemini.
4. Lack of Engagement and Visibility from Smaller Providers
Smaller vendors frequently lack dedicated analyst relations (AR) teams or strategies, making it harder to build mindshare through regular briefings or strong customer references. Media and analysts gravitate toward “exciting” stories from big players, leaving others with “loss of market visibility.” Non-US or mid-market firms feel particularly unheard, as methodologies may not account for regional nuances. Boutique firms or independent voices (e.g., Procurement Insights) offer alternatives by focusing on narrative-driven, practitioner insights that highlight overlooked innovators.
Ultimately, this creates a feedback loop: big vendors get more coverage, attracting more clients, while smaller ones struggle for recognition. Emerging models, like independent blogs or boutique analysts, are starting to bridge the gap by emphasizing real-world utility over hype.
30
BONUS COVERAGE – A SHARED EXPERIENCE
For context, here is an excerpt from my June 17th, 2024, post titled Is This True?!?
Before I sold my company in 2001, an analyst firm called Meta, eventually purchased by Gartner, approached me because of our tech and the successful results from our first big implementation.
During the meeting with my executive team, they said that we were definitely on the leading edge, and they wanted to “cover” us. I told them that sounded great.
Then, the shoe dropped – the Meta rep said terrific, let’s get started right away. Fantastic, I said, brimming with even more confidence than I already had; what’s the next step?
We will get you to sign a contract and then invoice you for $20,000, which is more than $36,000 in 2024 dollars.
How many other companies who had great tech didn’t make it to “Carnegie.”
Why am I resharing this story with you? Besides the fact that at 66 one tends to repeat stories – just ask my kids, there is a far more compelling reason. My above experience is not the exception but the rule.
Here is an amalgam of recent cases that collectively paint a similar picture for up and coming innovative ProcureTech solution providers:
So here is a question for practitioners: Would you go against a big analyst firm recommendation even if the product being offered by the bigger player was inferior to the one available through a smaller firm?
That is where I will leave it for today.
30
Share this:
Related