Get the real story via our monthly newsletter

Search

    2
    0

rss

Send to a colleague

Home > Commentary > Trends Archive > Vendor criticism of CMS Watch

Browse TrendWatch Blog

Recent Blog Entries

The Complete Archive

Trends by Vendor


TrendWatch by Channel

Web Content Management Trends

Enterprise Portals Trends

ECM Trends

Web Analytics Trends

Enterprise Search Trends

SharePoint Trends

Digital & Media Asset Management Trends

XML & Component Content Management Trends

E-mail Archiving & Management Trends


Report Excerpt

The Digital & Media Asset Management Report 2008 looks at... The MAM pairing of IBM's FileNet & Ancept Media Server

"FileNet was (and is) rightly renowned for its document-imaging, distribution, and process automation prowess. It has a well-proven ability to scale and its object-oriented content model is essentially agnostic as to content type, making it an appealing platform for DAM. Somehow, FileNet Corporation never saw fit to try to exploit the DAM market. IBM has other plans, it seems."

(p. 179)

More about The Digital & Media Asset Management Report 2008

 

TrendWatch Blog

Vendor criticism of CMS Watch

16-May-2008

As you know at CMS Watch we write critical product evaluations to help you avoid expensive procurement and deployment mistakes. We write reports that detail both the warts and merits of big vendors like EMC, Oracle, Xerox and IBM -- through to smaller specialist vendors like Hyland, Autonomy and Nuxeo. Readers of our reports often ask me "what did vendor x say when they read that!" The assumption, sometimes correct, is that vendors freak out on reading such criticism.

In an industry whereby most of the "independent analysts" are heavily dependent on revenues from the very firms they claim to be "independent" of, it's unusual to see truly critical research get published. So it becomes a surprise to both buyers and sellers when they read such criticism. In our reports we widely distribute the compliments and brickbats -- if something is truly terrible we will tell you.

But most of the time it is not a case of bad technology versus good technology. Rather it is a case of good fit versus bad fit: a product that could become an outstanding performer in a larger legal firm may make a terrible fit in a mid-sized manufacturing and ERP-centric environment. Hence we urge you the reader to study all the alternatives and balance them out, rather than look at one preferred vendor in isolation.

Speaking of isolation, the marketing groups of some vendors seem to operate in in a kind of vacuum. I guess it's part of the job for them to drink their own Kool Aid, but some of them seem to think it's part of their job to attack and stop any criticism of their product or company. At CMS Watch we're often on the receiving end of that wrath; that stinks sometimes, but so be it. Just as it is the vendor's job to wax lyrical about the joys of their product, so too is it ours to unearth the reality. If you want to get an insight into this particular dynamic, whether you're a curious end user or a vendor AR (Analyst Relations) person, check out the article I published today.

- Submitted by: Alan Pelz-Sharpe, Analyst

All DAM Channel Trends

Join the conversation

Digg This! Search Technorati Tag it on Del.icio.us



Get a Free Sample

Wondering about CMS Watch research? Sign up to receive free samples of any of our products.




What we do

CMS Watch™ evaluates content-oriented technologies, publishing head-to-head comparative reviews of leading solutions. What makes us special?

  • Our critical analysis exposes product weaknesses as well as strengths
  • We deliver unrivaled technical depth and comprehensive project advice
  • Our research is led by international topic experts
  • We only work for buyers -- never for vendors

Contact us

CMS Watch

info@cmswatch.com

18113 Town Center Drive, Ste 217

Olney, MD USA 20832

1 800 325 6190 (customer service)

+1 617 763 5336 (int'l customer service)

Fax: +1 214 242 3048