Are G2 Crowd Digital Asset Management Software Reviews An Authoritative Source?
April 10, 2017 By Ralph Windsor in Vendors
Last month, G2 Crowd launched some press about their revised rankings of the ‘Best Enterprise Digital Asset Management Software’, based totally on their consumer critiques:
“G2 Crowd, the world’s main business software program evaluation platform, today released the Spring 2017 Enterprise Digital Asset Management Software Grid report to assist groups make the pleasant digital asset control era shopping for selection.” [Read More]
G2 Crowd and their opinions had been mentioned at a few duration at the DAM News LinkedIn group before. The consensus from that conversation seemed to be that they were not absolutely honest, either because unscrupulous providers ought to control them or due to the opaque nature of the ‘G2 Score’ and their methods of devising these quadrants, which analysts are keen on (and which are arguably of dubious benefit additionally, in my view). I actually have spent a while looking over G2 Crowd and I find it to be missing in authority, not least because G2 use a few aggressive practices to attain opinions which have to be taken into account via prospective clients of products reviewed on their website online.
Before I cope with that facet, permit’s remember a few semantics about their use of the outline, ‘Best Enterprise Digital Asset Management Software’. The idea that you have ‘exceptional of’ some thing for Digital Asset Management is defective. DAM is a huge-ranging discipline and a product which is enormously suitable for one institution of users might be vain for every other. It might be argued that that is based on consumer opinions as a measure of ‘exceptional’, but then this depends on who the users are doing the evaluations. Do they paintings in the equal area as you, is their role comparable, are the characteristics of their organisation the same, how lengthy have they been the usage of the product before the review become issued? All those elements (and lots of others) can skew the effects.
The 2nd is their description of all of the firms indexed as ‘Enterprise Digital Asset Management’. At one time, ‘Enterprise’ (when carried out to software) used to intend ‘huge’, as in person volumes and value, with a entire implementation being a minimum six parent mission. Lots of companies, consequently aspire to be ‘Enterprise’, due to the fact they decide on rich clients to much less well-off ones. For the majority of those listed on G2, but, these are unfulfilled aspirations (and are probable to stay so). There are a few names who sincerely do have those credentials, but in addition they don’t have very many opinions – in fact some of the companies who have a tendency to service the high-priced end of the market have no opinions in any respect. As such, there may be a ability argument for answer providers who need to be known as employer DAM companies to invite to be removed from the G2 website online to avoid being deemed not sufficiently ‘organization’ enough.
Moving directly to the evaluations, this looks like quite an doubtful state of affairs too. Some are nearly absolutely valid and the those who wrote them exhibit an awesome expertise of DAM which suggests they truely use the goods they are discussing, but, in the mix there are others wherein the use of similar terms across some of entries indicates a few gaming has long past on by using bold providers. For instance, at least one company has a really perfect pride score of five/5 from every respondent and in answer to the query ‘what do you dislike’ there are terms like ‘not anything, the product is perfect’, ‘there may be not anything to dislike’ and many others. There are different opinions where the vendor has been given a five/5 ‘ideal’ score, but the reviewer has long past on to list missing features or obstacles (such as extra charges in a few instances). I don’t recognise what number of other humans share my view on this challenge, however in my view, one hundred% ought to imply actually best and is almost not possible to obtain. The excellent software will never get developed, to paraphrase the pronouncing about books. I have seen a fair share of the products indexed in-movement (whether thru demos or as consumer implementations) and no longer one deserves a hundred%. As mentioned earlier, my assessment might also depend on the usage context so the score attained might be lower or higher depending on what someone wanted to absolutely use the DAM for.
Using uncooked numerical methods, specifically a blunt instrument like a five point scoring machine is an extremely terrible manner to evaluate complicated merchandise that encourages reviewers to contradict themselves totally to make it less difficult for the writer (G2) to implement their own rating criteria. When customers endorse procurement scoring structures for deciding on products, I recommend in opposition to it (and virtually every other knowledgeable DAM representative I have met or study articles with the aid of has the same view). The cause is that what nearly inevitably happens is that the ratings will get fudged or simply not noted if they don’t trust what the consensus view of the buying authority happens to be and you just can’t reduce sentiment approximately product to a simple quantitative evaluation very easily.
Where the scenario with G2 modifications from being merely over-simplistic to relatively lacking in consider are their strategies for gathering evaluations. In the LinkedIn discussion approximately G2, I cited a reaction to a question on Quora.Com, How do websites like TrustRadius, IT Central, and G2 crowd plan to monetize their corporations? The answers appear reasonable to me; essentially, G2 are seeking to create a facts warehouse which they are able to leverage through spin-off services and products like marketing and facts reports and many others. The model is a properly-worn one now, purchase the content material cheap, re-package and then sell it for extra than you paid for it. This approach they need reviewers because the replica they write is the uncooked-fabric required to allow the monetisation manner. To that give up, G2 offer an Amazon gift card for every body who submits a evaluation. Although that creates an incentive, it’s no longer a big one if the assessment is freely given. The trouble is that it isn’t constantly, G2 actively and aggressively solicit opinions via contacting customers of companies featured on their web site. Not all of the software companies they cowl like this component:
“Let me make this crystal clear, G2 Crowd. It isn’t always suitable with a view to electronic mail my customers, mean we have a working dating, after which bribe them for product evaluations for your very own benefit. It’s irresponsible, irrelevant, and albeit, quite gross.” [Read More]
Some humans in receipt of the present card have a extra nice view, however and take to affiliate advertising web sites to encourage others to take part:
“Do you use any software as part of your process? Tell G2 Crowd what commercial enterprise software program merchandise that you currently use at paintings and some of them you can evaluate for $five to $15 consistent with organization. LinkedIn profile is needed in order to validate you figure at a business enterprise! I signed up for the $5 Starbucks offer some months back but I’ve been reviewing software and earned the maximum of $50 already on Amazon, I have purchased a salad spinner with this Amazon cash so I can consume more greens too. TMI? Maybe, too much loose money? Never.” [Read More]
These rates spotlight the key issue with G2, specially with a marketplace like DAM. Using questionable processes to encourage people to jot down critiques and aggressively spamming customers to harvest low-cost content makes everything look cheap. If you integrate that with the flawed strategies employed for scoring suppliers and sprinkle in some fake opinions authored by the ones carriers who are keen on recreation-gambling then you definately get a concoction that can leave a alternatively ugly after-flavor.
G2 are not by myself in the usage of those form of ‘review mill’ techniques to obtain vital mass, nor are they the handiest ones who employ mechanical methods to derive supplier scores. The DAM vendor who advised me approximately the French faux DAM assessment website remaining yr also talked about that Capterra use a ‘social reach’ scoring techniques as one in all their standards to evaluate carriers. They additionally tested to me how these can be without problems gamed by buying fake twitter followers, so doubtful practices are rife on those type of websites in one shape or any other.
I have to emphasise that no longer anybody who posted a review for a given product is doing so for the wrong purpose, it probably is only a minority. Just due to the fact they appear on G2 Crowd and were given given a 15 dollar voucher for his or her problem, doesn’t invalidate what they are saying, but the fact that G2 have resorted to these techniques has muddied the waters due to the fact you may’t effortlessly inform who’s actual and who’s just doing it due to the fact they want a reasonably-priced salad spinner (or due to the fact they set up an account to review the product advanced through the DAM vendor they paintings for).
A few years ago, Tim Strehle wrote a blog article about the complications of getting reviews of DAM products and he quoted from a remark I made on a dialogue thread where I determined which you don’t examine many bad reviews about DAM answers, in part because the users worry making them as they’ll must cope with representative of their gadget dealer for potentially a long time afterwards. This is a factor to maintain in thoughts approximately critiques of greater high priced software. The other issue is that if you ask most of the people of users what they think of their DAM much less than six months after it has been first deployed, they may have a tendency to have a advantageous opinion, partially that is alleviation at having made it through the disturbing system that DAM implementations can now and again turn into. To avoid those results, reviews need to be solicited is a 12 months or extra after the initial rollout and preferably while some new humans are introduced who were no longer a part of the group who chose the seller. This period of mirrored image provides a few opportunity for a greater balanced perspective.
Sites like G2 Crowd, Capterra and so on aren’t useless as they do at least list some options for potential DAM users to reflect onconsideration on, however the authority of them isn’t something you should rely on, in particular for the reason that DAM answers are exceptionally costly purchases (even at the decrease fee cease of the marketplace). This is partly the reason why we’ve caught to a simple listing for our personal listing of DAM companies rather than offering it as a reviewing facility.
Like some of other issues in DAM presently, the state of affairs with having access to unbiased, in-depth critiques of DAM products remains some distance greater hard than it should be. While there are some targeted analyst reports available, these are not cheap and they is probably cost-prohibitive for a fair proportion of potential DAM users. The identical grievance may be levelled as using the services of a representative too in an effort to prepare a few custom reviews in place of a file of pre-written ones. This is some thing I were speakme to some of different humans about and I hope to make an declaration approximately it later this year, however there may be nothing forthcoming. At this juncture, therefore, the fine recommendation I can give is for customers to train themselves and attempt to talk to a few actual users – that you would possibly need to do offline in an environment where critiques can be extra freely given. Even if you are capable of have enough money the services of a consultant and/or purchase an analyst document, you could by no means realize sufficient approximately DAM. An investment of time spent educating your self approximately it’ll pay a reliable circulate of dividends in the shape of advanced expertise and expertise.
Share this Article:
Twitter LinkedIn Email
No DAM is an Island – Why DAM Vendors Need Neutral Content Digital Asset Hubs
What Is The Reason Behind The Current Trend For Revolving Door DAM Implementations?
Is The DAM Vendor Consolidation Trend Really Just DAM Vendor Competitor Deletion?
Why Do All Cloud DAMs Not Have This Capability?
FotoWare Acquired By Viking Ventures
LEAVE A REPLY
Your e mail address will no longer be published. Required fields are marked *
To seek, type and hit enter …
DAM Federation Member
Log in or register to get admission to subscription content material
DAM Open Specification
DAM News Interviews
DAM News LinkedIn Group
Follow us on Twitter
Selected DAM News Posts
DAM Guru Blog Archive
Sign Up to our Newsletter
Big Data & AI World – Wednesday March 8th, 2023
SXSW 2023 – Friday March tenth, 2023
Structured lacking statistics: Grand demanding situations in studying from multi-modal information at scale – Tuesday March 14th, 2023
…more from the Events Calendar
Digital Asset Specialist – Remote, USA
Bilingual Assistant Manager – Brand Asset & Content Management – Markham, Ontario, Canada
Manager, Content Management Systems (CMS) – Toronto, ON, Canada
…greater from Jobs
Archival and Storage (eight)
Artificial Intelligence (6)
Big Data (2)
Brand Asset Management (2)
Cloud Computing (30)
Copyright And IPR (18)
DAM Education (27)
DAM For IT (2)
DAM For Librarians (5)
DAM For Marketing (eleven)
DAM Guru Blog Archive (232)
DAM Interoperability (10)
DAM Jobs (120)
DAM Kit (3)
DAM Skills (9)
Data Management (5)
Digital Asset Management (fifty six)
Digital Asset Management Books (21)
Digital Asset Management Definitions (five)
Digital Asset Management Value Chains (23)
Digital Assets (1)
Document Management (10)
Emerging DAM Technologies (31)
Enterprise Content Management (32)
Enterprise Search (14)
Industry Events (272)
Industry News (349)
Industry Standards (31)
Open Source (40)
Print On Demand (3)
ROI And Business Cases For DAM (22)
Semantic Web (38)
Social Media and DAM (eleven)
Special Features (18)
Taxonomy And Metadata (115)
Video Asset Management (39)
Okay, thank you