Pxxx Sxxx is an Analyst with Forrester Research.
As directly quoted from the Forrester web-site in the About Us section: "Forrester Research, Inc.
(Nasdaq: FORR) is an independent technology and market research company that provides pragmatic and forward-thinking advice to global leaders in business and technology."Aside from being somewhat Dilbert-esque, nothing wrong thereâ€¦right? Let's take a closer look at the email message: a 30 minute webcast hosted by Pxxx from Forrester Research on the benefits of managed security services.
Hey, wait a second, the email also identifies the sponsor as a firm that specializes in offering solutions for managed security service (Secureworks).Hmmm, we thought that Pxxx is an analyst for Forrester, an INDEPENDENT research firm.
Let's ponder this for a moment.What would happen to Pxxx
presented predominantly negative opionons and concepts regarding managed security services during this webcast?
Since it is sponsored by a managed security service provider, is Pxxx going to be truly able to speak frankly regarding the subject?Because we are firm believers that every topic offers both pros and cons.How is Pxxx
going to address, in an independent, unbiased manner the inevitable question: "Pxxx, that sure sounds sounds great, but what aspects of Managed Security Services Suck?"
Honestly, how free is Pxxx
to present objective information or opinions under these circumstances?We must admit that, deep down inside, it would be great comedy to watch Pxxx bashing managed security services during this presentation *evil grin* while the executive team from Secureworks
watched in horror.That would be truly awesome, and might make for a great television episode of "The Office".However, we all know that Pxxx
is not going to do this.He'll play nice (as he
should), and will be restricted in his
comments and information through nothing else other than courtesy and professionalism to his
sponsor.But who is served in this situation?