Well, it was bound to happen…I had my first “compliance chat” with a client today. As an AE at Microsoft, I got really talented at the compliance discussion — how we leverage the honor system in licensing, but we expect you to account for everything you have used and pay up at the end of the contract.
Gartner is a little different: generally, people receive value in two ways. (1) by speaking to analysts and consultants, and (2) reading Gartner research on our portal or application. Methods to violate the system are manifold: sitting in on analyst calls (most often delivered by WebEx) is easy as long as you don’t speak and the camera is on. Many Gartner clients are liberal with giving out their logins so coworkers can read and download research.
But what’s the documented value of ideas, when they’re not patented? How do you assign a license key to a discussion between individuals? And how do you police the process in a way that doesn’t shut down sincere partnership and discussion?
Unlike Microsoft, I find it’s not so easy to be a law enforcer at Gartner. Our relationships are as intangible as our intellectual property. While it’s possible to engage the lawyers and enforcers, it’s not always smart to take the direct path early in a relationship with a new account.
So I was forced to soft shoe the issue. Explain our concerns and the reasons that the current situation created harm to my company. Demonstrate understanding of my customer’s interests and needs. And then suggest we both think about what’s a fair solution, and discuss it in our next connection point in two weeks. Seeking fairness and balance isn’t always possible in the first discussion, after all…and perhaps we both needed time to pause and reflect.
Today I was reminded that shooting from the hip isn’t always the best approach, especially when you’re a firm that makes your money off of strategy and reputation.
150 Words 