DCIG appreciates the attention given to its recently released DCIG 2015-16 All-Flash Array Buyer’s Guide. This type of dialog and feedback is absolutely critical in helping DCIG, the industry as a whole, and most importantly, the buyers and the organizations for which they work to make informed buying decisions about all-flash arrays.
However, in reviewing some of the recent commentary, DCIG thought it prudent to weigh in on a couple of fronts. First, to let the industry know that DCIG does plan to update some information in its published Guide. Second, DCIG clearly needs to take some time to educate the individuals who cover DCIG Buyer’s Guide about DCIG’s process and why some of the accusations made are unfounded and potentially even libelous.
In reviewing some of the criticism about the DCIG 2015-16 All-flash Array Buyer’s Guide, it appears to break down into two major areas of focus:
- To come out on top in a Buyer’s Guide a vendor has to pay DCIG up-front (prior to research being done) to get the desired results
- The product data in the Buyer’s Guide was inaccurate
Competitive Pay-for-Say Published Research with Predetermined Outcomes Based upon Rigged Data is a Civil Crime in the US
The allegations that DCIG Buyer’s Guides are “pay-to-say” and that vendors pay DCIG ahead of time to get the desired results, are nothing new and have been leveled at DCIG multiple times in the past. In this respect, DCIG has responded to these allegations in prior blog entries and does its best to disclose its methodologies and practices in the “Disclosures” section of every Buyer’s Guide as well as in previously posted blog entries. I will not bother to rehash these points other than to ask individuals to either read the Buyer’s Guide itself or refer them to these three blog entries that DCIG has previously posted that provide clarifying comments:
- The DCIG Buyer’s Guide FAQ
- A Deeper Explanation of the Methodology Used in Developing the DCIG Buyer’s Guides
- Four Key Product Research Questions Answered by a DCIG Buyer’s Guide
But let me be direct: to do competitive, pay-for-say research that has predetermined outcomes and relies upon rigging data, as some allege that DCIG does, is more than unethical; it violates United States civil law. As such, DCIG cannot and does not have any part in performing this type of research when preparing its Buyer’s Guide nor does it condone this type of activity.
DCIG is quite confident that the individuals making these irresponsible claims have no defensible grounds on which to base them. Anyone accusing DCIG of conducting its research for its Buyer’s Guide in this manner may be guilty of breaking these same U.S. civil laws and committing the same acts that they allege DCIG violated.
DCIG created and subsequently refined its internal Buyer’s Guide processes over the last few years to ensure each product it covers is fairly reviewed and represented within the constraints of creating a timely snapshot of a given market place. Further, DCIG has worked and continues to work with its attorneys to ensure all of DCIG’s research and publications follow US Civil Law so that the data contained in each and every one of its Buyer’s Guides is appropriate for publication.
In regards to allegations that DCIG knowingly predetermines Buyer’s Guide winners to get a certain result, one only needs to look at two Buyer’s Guides that DCIG has produced in the last year.
One is the DCIG 2014-15 Under $100K Deduplicating Backup Appliance Buyer’s Guide in which EMC came out on top but which EMC did not license. Yet another is the recent DCIG 2015-16 Overall Hybrid Storage Array Buyer’s Guide which came out just last month. Again, the winning company did not license that Guide. Both Guides are available at no charge to subscribers of the DCIG Analysis Portal (end-users and buyers may receive complimentary access.) The publication and availability of these two Guides help to illustrate DCIG’s position as well as refute the irresponsible nature of some of the claims made.
That said, vendors do pay to license Guides that they have already won or that have previously been published.
Part two of this blog series will delve into DCIG’s research as included in the DCIG 2015-16 All-flash Array Buyer’s Guide.
Note: this blog entry was updated at 9:40 am CT on 10/12/2015; 7:20 am CT on 10/13/2015 to clarify some language; and again on 10/29/2015 at noon to clarify some language and correct some grammar.