It leaves out the very obvious alternative that those people might be either deluded or misinformed. Specifically, it is a logical fallacy of “argument by number.” If a lot of people believe something to be accurate, it must, therefore, be true. This argument is so well known to be false that it is categorized as a logical fallacy. If political parties were corrupt, no one would vote for them.Volkswagen would not have been able to sell its “clean diesel” to so many customers if their cleaning technology were a fraud.Many people with money would not have invested their money with Bernie Madoff if there was anything unusual going on.If McDonald’s did not offer healthy food, they would not get any people buying meals from them.
Let’s see how some other companies could use this same logic.
Because Gartner is popular, it must have no bias. Gartner has no bias because it is popular. The argument used by Gartner is circular. Because students chose the University of Phoenix, it must be good. Secondly, Hall’s argument is the same as the University of Phoenix, which is used to defend itself against charges of poor outcomes for its students. The Problem with the Argument Based On Popularity The only policy that Gartner has in place is its ombudsman, which is covered in the article How to Understand the Gartner Ombudsman Best. None of those policies are verifiable or auditable. And Gartner analysts aren’t allowed to own stock in the companies they cover. The ombudsman office reports to Gartner’s general counsel to ensure it’s free from pressure from other parts of the company. Gartner has policies in place meant to ensure objectivity. “We wouldn’t have a dollar of revenue from the user community if our objectivity and independence weren’t held in high regard,” he says. The following quotation is a very typical example of this.īias is a nonissue at the company, CEO Hall insists. Gartner often proposes that it has no bias. Unlike nearly every other article you will find from Google on this topic, it has had no input from any company's marketing or sales department. Second, no one paid for this article to be written, and it is not pretending to inform you while being rigged to sell you software or consulting services as a vendor or consulting firm that shares their ranking in some Gartner report. First, it is published by a research entity. The IT industry is petrified of Gartner and only publishes complementary information about them. Lack of Financial Bias Notice:The vast majority of content available on the Internet about Gartner is marketing fiddle-faddle published by vendors who republish reports they paid Gartner to publish, or Magic Quadrants they paid Gartner to score well. If you want to see our references for this article and other related Brightwork articles, see this link. 
Join us as we analyze the claims from IT analysts regarding their objectivity. However, this topic goes to the heart of the profit-maximizing and non-research business model of all of the well-known IT analyst firms. This point is rarely discussed when a new Magic Quadrant or Forrester Wave is published or republished by vendors. In this article, IW brought up an excellent point about IT analysis. In 2006, InformationWeek wrote an article titled The Credibility of Analysts. Text Introduction (Skip if You Watched the Video)
0 kommentar(er)
