I just read in Network World about a law suit by ZL Technologies against Gartner, concerning ZL’s placement by Gartner as niche player in an MQ report. The law suit was dismissed by the judge on all accounts, but he gave ZL 30 days to come up with more arguments – an opportunity which, they announced, they were going to take advantage of.
I asked myself what might be the motivation for a company, of which I have so far never heard of, to engage in a legal battle that it has very probably no chance of winning? And on the ground that they objectively rate a better positioning in the report? Why go through the cost and hassle? Unless, the exposure obtained via this method of communication is much more cost effective than other exposure alternatives…
Indeed, I doubt that they would have gotten this kind of exposure in NetworkWorld and Google as a result of their mere Gartner MQ presence. And what if they would invest in sponsoring one of Gartner’s relevant events? I did that a few times at great expense, but did not rate a Google alert and NetworkWorld coverage. What if this law suit costs significantly less than alternative ways of achieving Gartner related visibility? In such a case it would pay further dividends to go for another round in the court and get another round of media attention.
Even though the business climate remains challenging, I sincerely hope that this phenomenon remains an exception and that companies focus on bringing more added value with their offerings rather than try to gain advantage by picking upon distortions and weak spots in our system.