There’s an old saying in baseball that a great scout can watch a player take ten swings in batting practice and know things about him that the box score will never reveal. The mechanics of the swing, the way he adjusts after a bad pitch, whether he shortens up when the count goes against him. Good scouts build an instinct for separating signal from noise before either shows up as a statistic. The thing is, baseball scouts eventually get a scoreboard. Their reads either pan out or they don’t. That accountability loop is what keeps the craft honest
Technology analysts have developed something similar over decades — a trained intuition for reading markets, watching vendor behavior, triangulating customer signals. But the scoreboard in enterprise technology research has always been blurry at best. Analysts call a market early, a vendor surges or flops two years later, and nobody goes back to reconcile the prediction with the outcome. Reputations accumulate, but accountability is loose. That’s not a knock on analysts — it’s the nature of a market where the cycles are long and the variables are endless. It’s just worth acknowledging before you understand why what The Futurum Group just did with ETR is more interesting than a typical acquisition.
Most technology practitioners reading this have never heard of ETR, which is Enterprise Technology Research. That’s not surprising. ETR was never really built for them, even though they are the engine that makes it run. ETR is a research firm that runs large-scale, continuous surveys of enterprise technology decision-makers — the IT leaders, architects, and buyers actually making purchasing calls at real companies. It compiles those responses into datasets that track spending intentions, vendor momentum, and technology adoption trends across thousands of accounts. Wall Street has known about ETR for years. Institutional investors and hedge funds use its data to front-run earnings surprises, validate thesis positions, and track enterprise software spending cycles before they show up in quarterly filings. If you want to know whether a major cloud vendor’s growth is real or about to hit a wall, ETR’s survey data is one of the cleaner ways to check
The practitioners filling out those surveys are not thinking about hedge fund thesis validation when they answer questions about their storage refresh plans or their multi-cloud strategy. They’re just answering questions about what they’re actually doing. ETR aggregates those answers into something that moves money at a scale most of those respondents would find remarkable
When I started talking with Futurum CEO Daniel Newman about the ETR acquisition, I expected the conversation to be about data. It was, but only up to a point. The more Daniel and I talked about ETR, the more I realized the acquisition is also a question about what the analyst business actually is, and what it needs to become as technology cycles compress. What struck me during these conversations was how quickly we’d pivot from talking about survey methodology to talking about the gap between what analysts say and what customers are actually doing. Those two things have always existed in parallel. They just haven’t often lived in the same house
The traditional analyst model runs on expertise and reputation. A firm builds credibility over time, develops relationships with vendors and buyers, and translates that accumulated judgment into research and advisory products. The model has worked well for decades, and the top-tier firms have genuine value. But reputation is a lagging indicator. It reflects what an analyst has gotten right in the past, not necessarily what they’re seeing clearly right now. The faster technology moves, the more that lag matters. Enterprise buyers are making infrastructure decisions in shorter cycles than they were ten years ago. AI is collapsing some of those windows further. The gap between what a vendor is claiming in a briefing and what customers are actually deploying is wider and harder to close through traditional analyst channels than it used to be.
What ETR offers is a different kind of input. It doesn’t replace analyst judgment — it challenges it, or validates it, with direct evidence from the field. When an analyst tells you that a particular platform is gaining enterprise adoption, ETR’s survey data can tell you whether that matches what thousands of IT buyers are actually reporting about their spending plans. Sometimes it confirms the thesis. Sometimes it complicates it. Either way, it produces a tighter feedback loop than most analyst research ever has.
We would start talking about ETR and end up talking about what happens when the people building the analysis are sitting next to the people running the surveys, not across town from them. The integration question isn’t just operational — it’s conceptual. Analyst firms and research firms have historically been different kinds of businesses, built on different relationships and different epistemologies. One earns trust through interpretation. The other earns trust through rigor and sample design. Combining them doesn’t automatically produce something better than either alone. It produces a more complicated animal that has to figure out its own identity.
The people whose responses actually generate ETR’s value are the same practitioners who read Techstrong properties, attend Techstrong events, and watch Techstrong TV. They make real purchasing decisions at real companies. They know which vendor pitches are landing and which ones are vaporware, because they’re the ones being pitched. The research has always been worth something because those practitioners told the truth about what they were doing. The question Daniel is really asking — the one underneath the acquisition — is whether that truth can become part of a more integrated intelligence picture that serves those same practitioners in return, not just the institutional investors who have been the primary beneficiaries of it until now.
I don’t know if this model works. Combining editorial, advisory, and survey-based research into something coherent is harder than it sounds, and the market will ultimately deliver its own verdict on whether the combination produces something practitioners and vendors find genuinely valuable. But I think Daniel is asking the right question. The analyst business has been due for structural pressure for a while. Technology is moving fast enough that the old model of expertise-plus-reputation as the primary product is starting to show its age. Whether tighter integration between what analysts know and what customers are actually doing produces something better is the experiment Futurum is now running. The scoreboard is coming.
If you would like to apply to be part of the great ETR community, you can do so by filling out this short form at: https://etr.ai/join-the-
