I was reading one of Gavin Heaton’s recent blog posts where he shared links to Forrester’s recent decision to not allow personally-branded blogs where analysts write about or comment on the research areas that they cover while under the employment of Forrester. Josh Bernoff offers reasoning that I think is spot on and respectable: 

"What people need to understand is that Forrester is an intellectual property company, and the opinions of our analysts are our product. Blogging is an extension of the other work we do -- doing research, writing reports, working with clients, and giving speeches, for example. As Sting said, 'Poets, priests and politicians/Have words to thank for their positions.' Analysts, too."

Josh and Cliff Condon, Forrester's VP of Social Media were very clear to point out that Forrester analysts will be able to blog on the Forrester blog and can still have their own personal blogs and Twitter accounts. They just can’t blog or tweet about analysis that they are being paid by Forrester to work on for paying clients. Based on feedback from their “time-starved” clients, merging all analysts under one blog roof helps to give them one “go to” location. Sounds fair to me. 

While some folks vehemently disagree, I am in total agreement. As a former Forrester client, I agree with their decision. Here’s why: 

Value.

Clients pay Forrester A LOT of money to access their research, pragmatic advice and thought leadership. The value lies in that you cannot access this information elsewhere—that is why businesses are willing to pay a premium. If I could access Forrester analysts and their opinions, thought leadership, etc. elsewhere, for free, why would I bother paying? Or, if I was paying Forrester in the tens of thousands of dollars and then realized I could have accessed the information (in some format) for free, I’d be ticked off.  Why would Forrester reduce the value of what they offer by allowing analysts to cover it at no charge? 

Social Media Isn’t Free.

People have some odd notion that social media is free and that organizations should give away their thought leadership for free too. Wrong. There needs to a cap because at a certain point once people have had their fill, demand will diminish. Or, in another term people readily understand: Why buy the cow when you can get the milk for free. This point goes back to value. 

Personal Brand Parity.

As most folks know, I am not a proponent of personal branding. Why? Because I think if people truly understood branding and what goes into managing a brand, they would run far and fast away from it. It’s not work for the marketing weak or weary. The one thing that people aren’t talking about is personal brand parity. And it’s already happening. Everyone is an expert in marketing, social media, communications, PR, etc... When everyone is saying the same thing there is nothing different from the viewpoint of a potential hiring company, client, etc. Why would Forrester allow their analysts to be diluted by parity? 

Intangibility.

Services don’t exist until they are consumed. As a result most service-oriented businesses can’t offer a sample of the specific service they offer. With their blog, Forrester can. It makes smart marketing sense then to have all of their different analysts offer a “sample” of what clients can expect when they select Forrester as their analyst service. Again, why spread that around where it might get diluted and devalued?

Your thoughts? Agree, disagree?