V1.3

1. Put buyer decision quality first

Vendors and analyst firms share one overarching purpose: to help buyers make well-informed decisions about technology and services.

When processes, methodologies, commercial incentives or institutional habits appear to conflict with that purpose, both parties should challenge them.

2. Evidence over assertion

Both parties should base claims, judgments, and published opinions on verifiable evidence and be clear about what is known, believed or not yet substantiated.

  • Vendors provide honest, current and verifiable customer evidence.
  • Analyst firms provide an explanation, at an appropriate level, regarding how they weigh evidence and form judgments.
  • Neither party fills evidence gaps with assumptions presented as fact.

3. Use proportionate, consistent processes

Methods, timelines and information requests should be justified by buyer value and be proportionate to the evaluation or engagement they support.

  • Demo, RFI and customer reference timelines should allow for accurate, thoughtful responses. Vendors should be allowed a minimum of three weeks to submit materials. Timelines should take into consideration major global holidays and vacation/holiday seasons.
  • Requests should align with defined evaluation criteria.
  • Comparable participants should receive comparable treatment. For example, if one vendor is granted an extension, then all other vendors should get the same extension.

4. Respect professional roles and keep channels clear

Engagement should follow defined, professional channels that respect the roles of AR, analysts, product, sales, marketing and executives.

  • Analysts and analyst sales teams recognize Analyst Relations teams as their professional partners and do not treat them as gatekeepers.
  • AR teams facilitate genuine, well-prepared engagement and maintain access for effectiveness, not internal politics.
  • Direct executive relationships with analysts should complement AR engagement but not bypass Analyst Relations.
  • Both vendors and analysts/analyst firms should maintain accurate records and clear escalation procedures.

5. Earn and evidence value

Analyst relationships should be grounded in demonstrated relevance and impact, not assumed entitlement.

  • Analyst firms should be prepared to demonstrate buyer reach, deal influence and market relevance.
  • Vendors should evaluate their analyst relationships against a consistent, transparent set of criteria rather than relying on legacy assumptions or reputation. These criteria include:
    • Coverage: the degree to which an analyst or firm actively covers the vendor’s markets, technologies and competitive set.
    • Reach: the size and quality of the audience the analyst genuinely influences, across buyers, boards and the wider market.
    • Buyer influence: demonstrable impact on real purchasing decisions, shortlists and RFI outcomes, rather than assumed sway.
    • Relevance: alignment between the analyst’s focus and the vendor’s strategic priorities, target segments and growth areas.
    • Outcomes: the tangible results of engagement, from improved positioning in evaluative research to measurable pipeline and competitive influence.
    Applying these criteria consistently means assessing relationships on current, observable performance rather than historical standing or inherited belief. An analyst who mattered three years ago may no longer command the same influence, and a rising voice may be undervalued simply because the relationship is newer. A shared evaluation standard lets vendors direct attention and budget toward the relationships that genuinely move the market today.
  • Vendors and analyst firms should commit to sharing enough information about the expected investment and anticipated value of an engagement to allow each party to make informed decisions and allocate resources sensibly. In practice, this means:
    • From analyst firms: clarity on what a given engagement, subscription tier or advisory relationship includes, what access and influence it realistically offers and how it maps to the vendor’s evaluation priorities. This includes visibility of upcoming research that the investment supports, so vendors can weigh the opportunity properly.
    • From vendors: openness about their objectives, the outcomes they are seeking and the level of commitment they are prepared to make, so firms can shape engagement that delivers genuine value rather than generic coverage.
    Shared transparency turns the commercial relationship into a planned, two-way investment decision. Each side understands what it is putting in and what it can reasonably expect in return, which reduces the mismatch between spend and outcome that frustrates both parties today.
  • Vendors should participate in evaluations and programs only when they can provide the evidence, product readiness, and communications support needed to inform buyers.

Our collective commitment

These principles have force only when the AR community upholds them collectively. By endorsing them, we commit to:

  • Raise concerns about material processes and methodologies consistently and collectively.
  • Share practical knowledge about escalation, qualification, and engagement models.
  • Refer to these principles when issues arise, rather than treating each interaction as an isolated negotiation.
  • Invite other senior AR leaders to adopt them.

This is professional standards-setting, not commercial coordination or a refusal to engage. All collaboration remains subject to applicable competition and antitrust laws, and each vendor retains its independent commercial judgment.

Founding signatories

Names to be confirmed.

September 2026