What We Need in Business Analysis: Better ‘Journalism’

Several years ago, I had a frustrating conversation with a respected colleague. I was strongly advocating we get more “journalism” into our business analysis.

To him, we were having precisely the wrong conversation. It had become too easy to find information on the Web or by networking. Our business clients were asking for hard data, and validation of their strategic path. A focus on “journalism” (or investigative reporting) suggested low value, commodity-like information they wouldn’t pay very much for.

But here’s the problem: in a new industry segment, there usually isn’t a lot of consumer data/usage data/sales data/investment data. What data there is can easily be misinterpreted or flat out wrong. To paraphrase Steve Jobs: When confronted with new concepts, people really don’t know what they want.

In these situations, old fashioned, journalistic shoe-leather often begins to move the needle, and ultimately, leads to deeper analyst knowledge rather than today’s standard of a mile wide and an inch deep.

Here are some of the journalistic best practices I think about:

1. Talk to everybody: Industry analysts cut too many corners and rely on just a few sources, if that. A dozen or more sources provide a richer, more complete picture. And one source will lead to three more.

2. Build Files/Create a Program: We often have a one dimensional view of a company or industry segment. Creating a file with standardized information about companies helps track an industry’s development and status. Start with “about us.” Read their blog, video and news releases. Cross check the information on a search engine and in discussions.

3. Cut the hype: Most of the data that is gathered in a new segment is spin geared towards investors. Here’s a challenge: rewrite a press release, double check the validating “data,” toss the noise, and see if you can save more than 3 or 4 sentences.

4. Write the Lede: What does it all mean? Can it be summarized in two or three sentences? A lot of analysts fail this test, relying on an obfuscating infograph or a series of broad PPT bullets.

The difference between a journalist and an analyst, of course, is fairly subtle. But unlike journalists, analysts don’t have to be interesting. They presumably take the time to gather and weigh all the information they get; reject the chaff; reach conclusions; and sometimes make recommendations. That’s what we’re ultimately shooting for.

One thought on “What We Need in Business Analysis: Better ‘Journalism’

  1. Couldn’t agree more. Journalistic discipline breeds analysts that know their stuff inside out, and differentiates a given firm as such.

    In my observation, journalistic analysts run circles around the majority of the analyst corps who are analysts in name only. They like the title, exposure, and stroked ego… but don’t do the work to really be the experts they claim to be. I’m talking 12 hours days of grinding analysis, talking to execs, reading up on industry news, and producing content.

    This:
    1. Creates the content that puts a given analyst firm on the map as a known quantity, builds credibility and drives client engagement (sales).

    2. Builds/maintains analyst knowledge so that those client engagements involve real insights and substance (retention).

    To pull it off requires smart time management and discipline. For that, I subscribe to Paul Graham’s “makers schedule” – http://paulgraham.com/makersschedule.html

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *