Measuring up to Forrester’s big 3 for search?
February 9, 2009 – 10:33 am by Hugo GuzmanA colleague of mine recently passed along a PDF copy of Forrester’s latest report on U.S. search agencies. In it, Forrester asserts that three agencies have set themselves apart from the rest of the pack; iProspect, iCrossing, and 360i (ironic that all three have the letter i as a foundation for the brand, huh).

Reading through the report, I started to come away with the distinct impression that my agency, and likely many others, aren’t as far off the pace as Forrester is suggesting. Mind you, I have a wealth of respect for this organization and their body of research. That said, if you consider the variables used to come up with their assertion, it becomes apparent that there are likely a plethora of other providers that were not included in this report but can also measure up in the enterprise space.
Forrester evaluated just seven agencies (the first signal that a lot of babies were thrown out with the bath water) against 72 specific criteria, which resided in three major buckets; current offering, strategy, and market presence.
I won’t recap the entire report, but I will recap a few of specific variables that seemed to be key performance indicators:
1) Percent of clients using vendor for both paid search and SEO: The big three were all at around 40%.
2) Focus on enterprise-level companies ($1 Billion+ in annual revenue): The big three all play in that space.
3)Automated tools and platforms: All three rely heavily on automated process to help streamline search efforts and efficiency. The big three leverage technology heavily in order to improve their search offerings.
So what’s my main takeaway after reading through this report? A flashback to one of my favorite all-time movies; Groundhog Day.
There’s a particular scene in which Bill Murray asks his love interest to list the things she looks for in a man. Murray then proceeds to say “me” after every quality that his love interest provides.
Zeta has its fair share of clients that engage in both paid search and SEO.
Zeta has its fair share of Fortune 500 clients.
Zeta has its fair share of technology, extending across paid search, SEO, social media, email, and analytics.
Or as Bill Murray would have said, “Me, Me, Me!”
If you’re reading this piece, ask yourself if you measure up in these categories. And if so, please leave a comment letting everyone know that your firm can also “bring it” when it comes to a true enterprise-level search offering.


![Reblog this post [with Zemanta]](http://img.zemanta.com/reblog_e.png?x-id=56a37174-adda-4a5c-9239-c274bd73cb52)

7 Responses to “Measuring up to Forrester’s big 3 for search?”
Clever way to spin this story to your advantage and I mean it in a good way
Does Forrester provide “big 3″ listing for search firms that focus on less than $1Billion annual revenue?
By Aneta Hall on Feb 9, 2009
Thanks for chiming in, Aneta! Nope, I don’t think that they do. I was actually speaking about this with a researcher at Forrester earlier today. Forrester focuses on the largest subset of marketers ($1 Billion+) so their research on agencies takes on the same focus.
I believe that the threshold for this particular report was $10 million/year in search-related revenue, so Zeta fell just short.
By Hugo Guzman on Feb 9, 2009
It’s funny that Forrester used 2007 revenue and in many cases estimates of 2007 revenue. I wonder how the list of contenders would change if they looked at 2008 estimates instead…
By Marios Alexandrou on Feb 10, 2009
Interesting point, Marios. I suppose that it would be very tough to gather 2008 that quickly though (in time for a February release).
By Hugo Guzman on Feb 10, 2009
I don’t think it’s significant to evaluate 7 agencies and then say that 3 set themselves apart. It would be more significant if 3 set themselves apart from 70.
Also I think there might be a mistake on your link “improve their search offerings” in the article.
By Salt Websites Valencia on Feb 11, 2009
Thanks for the heads up on the broken link!
As for your point about evaluating 7 and then saying 3 set themselves apart, I definitely agree. However, in fairness to the hard-working folks at Forrester, you have to keep the scope manageable for studies such as this one. Getting data, feedback, evaluation on 70+ agencies would take a long long time.
By Hugo Guzman on Feb 11, 2009
Yeah i think the 2008 numbers might be a little scary to look at. What is really going to set these companies apart is the foundation they all sit on. Will they make it through 2009 with the least amount of economic wounds?
By Nick Stamoulis on Feb 13, 2009