Since my post on Friday about the Radicati paper on Microsoft Exchange and Lotus Workplace, Ed Brill has uncovered a variety of acts of further unprofessionalism. But how about this as perhaps the ultimate in unprofessional business practices: naming a customer who purchased a report (and probably didn't give permission to be named) and trying to twist it for publicity benefits ... see right hand column.
So why do I care? (a) Marc Luescher is a friend of mine from Ferris Research, and this is not right. (b) Marc runs his own independent consulting company in Switzerland, and the report may have been acquired outside of his Ferris responsibilities.
UPDATE: Radicati has taken down the offending text. Must have had a change of heart.
Posted by: Michael Sampson | July 29, 2004 at 03:54 PM
Definitely very petty move there. But perhaps it was in retaliation to an upcoming Ferris Webinar (I received the mailing ) on Email Archiving hosted by this same Mr. Luescher. Mr Luescher is also apparently writing an upcoming Email Archiving report for Ferris Research. As far as I know (and please correct me if I am mistaken), Ferris has not published any solid reports/research on this market, and this might hint at some mild form of "industrial espionage" with so many conflicts of interest. Just an observation, given all this blog drama, I really have no intention to start an online "war". :-)
Posted by: Dennis O'Hare | July 29, 2004 at 04:31 PM
Dennis, your comment made me investigate the Ferris publication record. Firstly, the webinar is on "Customer Requirements for Email Archiving" (http://www.ferris.com/tc/20040729/index.html), not market sizing per the Radicati report. There's a Nov03 report on Email Archiving Trends (http://www.ferris.com/rep/200311401/SM.html), a Jun03 one on Email Archiving and Regulations (http://www.ferris.com/rep/200306387/SM.html), and a Jul02 one on market sizing (http://www.ferris.com/rep/200207/SM.html). I think the Ferris publication record is fine.
Posted by: Michael Sampson | July 29, 2004 at 04:54 PM
With all the recent event, I doubt very much that any analyst will take a radicati report as a base for their upcoming work.
Posted by: Gaston | July 30, 2004 at 12:05 AM
Gaston, yes, agreed. I personally haven't read other Radicati reports, but this one was poorly done. As with all analyst reports, the reader must exercise caution when making decisions based on the paper.
Posted by: Michael Sampson | July 30, 2004 at 05:43 AM