Analyst says vendors offer pretend reference customers Gartner senior research analyst Jarod Greene has alleged vendors sometimes suggest he call reference customers that may not exist. In a blog post, Greene offers the following three examples of odd things that happen when he asks for customer references: ”I’ve been sent emails from Analyst Relations people that brag about …
This is far from new, but let me ask. Would you give out references to the ones you have shorted? I'm not defending company X, but you have to be honest. Also, I'm not sure where Gartner finds such analysts, but Jarod Greene clearly needs to brought up to speed on business practices of the last 6000 years.
It is designed as an archetype of a major company that uses Microsoft technologies, a hypothetical example. Everyone who knows anything about IT knows this.
To suggest that it is a fictitious company that Microsoft refers to, like the other companies that are referred to in this article, can only be an attempt to slur Microsoft. Readers of this article should understand the motivations (or ignorance) of the author.
> "To suggest that it is a fictitious company that Microsoft refers to, like the other companies that are referred to in this article, can only be an attempt to slur Microsoft."
I'm assuming you didn't RTFA: "Fake customers aren't entirely new OR ENTIRELY SUSPICIOUS: Microsoft famously uses a fictitious company, “Contoso”, AS THE SETTING FOR NUMEROUS DEMOS. "
How can that possibly be a "slur" against MS?
The problem is the use of perjorative and misleading words in the quote.
To say "Fake customers aren't entirely new ..." implies that Microsoft claimed them as a customer, and the use of the word fake implies an attempt to mislead or cause confusion at least. Had the reporter wished to be neutral they would have used a phrase like "Invented companies aren't entirely new ...".
This is a professional writer so we have to assume that the implications in their copy are intentional.
To say "Fake customers aren't entirely new ..." implies that Microsoft claimed them as a customer
I'd call that a resistant reading of the article. I didn't infer any such meaning, and clearly neither did most of the people responding on this thread.
............you take as your motto "think before you post". The subheading on the front page was "Microsoft's 'Contoso' may be more real than some users" and the article did make clear that Contoso is a known "model". This was in fact the author's point - that some of the "customers" given by vendors as references are less real the Redmond's "fake". The difference being that MS are using Contoso as a model as in "Everyone who knows anything about IT knows this" and are not attempting thereby to fool anyone, whereas some unscrupulous vendors are most certainly trying to pull the wool over peoples eyes.
(Not so) strangely, there was a Misty Shock at Microsoft for awhile, perhaps when they were developing the documentation that happens to mention misty@contoso.com ?
"Misty Shock grew up in Port Orchard and developed a lifelong devotion to Kitsap County, before coming to the big city of Seattle to attend the University of Washington. After school, she worked at Microsoft as a Technical Editor."
If outfit Y runs a big expensive consultancy around product YY, the implementation manager could be using the references as a way to get a consultancy role, even if he knew it wasn't right for his employer. Which is better, the $2m product or the $1m product that requires $1m to "customise"/"integrate"?
Whatever the source of a customer reference, Greene advises those relying on them do so with great care, as “there is usually an incentive for the vendor-provided reference to say good things about the product they use.”
Our heroic analyst says he's surprised that vendors find it hard to give references. Why? Does he not realise that people have actual work to do, rather than talk about how they implemented one of their systems. And then warns that there's usually an incentive for the reference company to be nice. Well of course there bloody is you idiot! If the vendor didn't give them some sweeties, then they wouldn't agree to be referees!
I believe the operative phrase is, "does the Pope shit in the woods?"
Gartner may well have astroturfed this whole article. When do they do any real research? They just get companies to pay to talk about them and give them awards. Their value add is being able to get the direct ear of clueless sociopath CSuite idiots in other companies without the BS being filtered by lower downs with some knowledge of the subject.
The Register 
Biting the hand that feeds IT
Copyright. All rights reserved © 1998–2024
