Sven Litke’s path through the technology industry reads like a masterclass in understanding analyst relations. After running his own information technology (IT) value chain in Germany during the 1990s, Sven joined Gartner, where he witnessed a clear divide: Vendors who believed subscriptions alone would earn them Magic Quadrant placement versus those who understood that information, not money, was the real currency. Sven’s subsequent role as head of marketing at a venture-backed startup revealed the challenge firsthand, competing against enterprises with 20-person analyst relations teams while juggling multiple responsibilities.

This progression led Sven to identify a critical market gap and to found one of the largest analyst relations consultancies. His mission: To enable startups and scale-ups between $1 million and $100 million in revenue to compete effectively in a landscape where analysts influence 50 percent of enterprise technology purchases. His core message challenges conventional wisdom about perfection and timing. While founders wait for the ideal product release or additional reference customers, competitors who started with imperfect messaging are already building the 12-to-24-month track record that analysts require before making recommendations.

Subscriptions alone won’t earn attention

During his tenure at Gartner, Sven observed a fundamental misconception that shaped his entire approach to analyst relations. “A lot of times, vendors signing up with Gartner subscribed to the Gartner service with the expectation that just spending money will get you into a Magic Quadrant and will immediately improve your position and get the analyst to write about you,” he said.

The vendors who succeeded took a radically different approach. They leveraged conversations with analysts, remained open about their value propositions and understood that building relationships mattered more than writing checks. These companies grasped what Sven would later crystallize as a core principle.

“Investing time and focusing on information as a currency when dealing with the analyst community, rather than assuming that just spending money, will get you to the right places,” he said. “It’s really about long-term relationship building.” 

When Sven moved to the vendor side as head of marketing at a venture-funded startup, the challenge became personal. “Doing analyst relations properly requires a lot of time and effort, especially when you have other roles in the company,” he said. The struggle to maintain meaningful analyst engagement while managing day-to-day responsibilities revealed why so many startups fail at analyst relations: They lack both the resources and the understanding of what analysts need.

This experience exposed a critical market gap. Companies between $1 million and $100 million in revenue face an impossible equation: They need analyst coverage to compete, but hiring full-time analyst relations professionals, training them and acquiring necessary tools and subscriptions drains resources they can’t spare. Meanwhile, their competitors, including the mega-vendors with teams of five, 10, or even 20 analyst relations professionals, dominate analyst mindshare through sheer presence and systematic engagement.

The compound cost of waiting for perfect

According to Sven, founders consistently let perfect stand in the way of very good analyst relations efforts. “I’ve seen companies waiting 2 or 3 years, just because there was always one reason not to start at this point in time,” he said. “The next release is coming up in 3 months. Let’s wait until the new release is out. Maybe we need another reference customer. We just want to relaunch our website.”

This perpetual delay creates a compound disadvantage. Building analyst trust requires a 12- to 24-month track record of consistent interactions. Every month spent waiting for ideal conditions means competitors gain another month of relationship-building advantage. The mathematics are unforgiving: Start imperfectly today, or find yourself 2 years behind companies that began with flawed messaging. Analysts understand the startup reality better than founders assume. 

“The analysts are also aware that you’re not perfect right from the start,” Sven said. “As a startup, you have a chance to make mistakes, and the analysts won’t hold it against you. They are aware that your product is going to change, that you might pivot in messaging, content and even technology to some extent.” 

The tactical approach varies by analyst firm type. Boutique firms prove particularly receptive to early-stage companies, being what Sven described as “more daring to write about new startups.” These smaller firms react faster to emerging market trends and often welcome the opportunity to identify rising players before larger firms take notice. 

For initial coverage, founders should target reports explicitly designed for emerging vendors: Cool vendor reports, on-the-radar analyses and innovator spotlights. These formats have lower revenue thresholds and customer count requirements than Magic Quadrants or Waves, providing achievable early wins while building toward major evaluations.

Regardless of analyst firm type or format, Sven’s advice was simple: “Understand the analyst landscape, understand where you fit in, understand what information needs the analyst have, and if you believe in your product and are excited about what you’re doing, then it’s never too early to start talking to the analyst.”

Category creation vs. immediate pipeline

The tension between creating a new category and fitting into existing ones defines the strategic challenge of analyst relations. Sven learned this firsthand through his work with companies like UiPath, which pioneered the robotic process automation (RPA) category when no meaningful coverage existed.

“In those days, educating the analysts and spending time not really targeted at direct sales or lead generation, but helping the analysts understand the value of the technology and where it fits in and which problems can be addressed by the technology,” Sven said. “That’s more about brand building in parallel with category building.” This approach requires patience – typically 1 to 3 years before the category gains recognition.

Yet being the sole vendor in a category creates its own problems. Major evaluations like Magic Quadrants and Waves require multiple players for comparison. Without competition, coverage remains limited to market guides or landscape reports rather than the influential vendor comparisons that drive purchasing decisions.

Sven advocates an opportunistic dual strategy. While investing in long-term category creation, founders should identify existing categories where their solution addresses specific problems. “There might not be 100 percent fit for your technology, and you might have to adjust to fit into existing categories,” he said. “But it’s worth spending time on both fronts.”

This parallel approach enables immediate pipeline generation through existing category coverage while building toward a future where your category becomes recognized. Customer proof points ultimately validate category creation. When clients achieve previously impossible outcomes, when they voluntarily become references, when they bring other potential customers — these signals confirm that a new category deserves recognition beyond forcing a fit into existing frameworks.

Tracking influence from first touch to closed deals

While the return on investment (ROI) question haunts every analyst relations discussion, Sven argues the answer lies in systematic measurement, rather than vague attribution. 

“As with everything that is impacting brand and market awareness, it’s sometimes quite difficult to measure,” he said. “If you’re willing to put in some effort, you can tie analyst relations activities to direct ROI.” The key involves sales team participation. 

“You need to involve your salespeople and ask them where analysts were involved. Allocating percentages, how much impact the sales activities and marketing activities and the analyst activity had is something that you need to figure out as well,” he said.

This first-touch attribution creates a clear line from analyst engagement to pipeline generation. Some vendors even assign percentage weights to analyst influence versus other marketing and sales activities, building sophisticated models for investment decisions.

Report mentions offer more tangible metrics. “For example, when you post about being included in a Magic Quadrant or a Wave or a market scape, then do a social media campaign around it, you can measure click rates and attention you get via those posts if you license reports, and put it behind a registration wall,” Sven said. “You can also measure the number of downloads and so on.”

Sales enablement represents another measurable dimension. Teams need education on both positive coverage to leverage and negative mentions to counter. “If there are some critical opinions about your company in analyst reports, you need to prepare sales to counter those aspects,” Sven said. The nuance matters. Even within the same analyst firm, different analysts may hold opposing views. Identifying champion analysts versus critics enables sales to guide prospects toward favorable voices.

Perception shifts require patience and persistence. Sven estimates a minimum of 6 months and three to four meaningful interactions before analysts adjust their positions. This timeline assumes consistent engagement across multiple touchpoints: Briefings, customer references and product demonstrations. Each interaction builds toward the credibility threshold where analysts feel comfortable making recommendations.

Proprietary data keeps analysts relevant in the AI age

The rise of artificial intelligence (AI) and large language models (LLMs) creates both challenges and opportunities for analyst relations. While some predict AI will replace traditional analyst research, Sven sees a more nuanced reality.

“There’s a big discussion going on right now about how AI might impact research and the way that companies educate themselves,” he said. The limitation of LLMs lies in their data sources, as they can only process publicly available information. “A lot of information that the analysts are using for their evaluation is proprietary, which can’t be ingested by LLMs and therefore is missing.”

This proprietary access to vendor roadmaps, financial details, customer feedback and strategic plans gives analysts an enduring advantage. They provide forward-looking perspectives and weighted criteria that AI cannot replicate through public data scraping.

The analyst ecosystem itself has evolved significantly since Sven’s Gartner days. “Ten, 15 years ago, a lot of the analysts were clustered in the U.S., some in the U.K. maybe,” he said. “But now we’ve got a broader footprint and we also have more localized analyst firms.” This geographic expansion creates new opportunities for regional vendors to gain traction with analysts who understand local markets and customer needs.

Vertical specialization has intensified as well. Industry-specific analysts require different proof points than technology analysts, including deep process understanding, regulatory compliance certifications, and partnership ecosystems matter more than pure technical capabilities. 

“Specific verticals and reference customers play a big role in terms of getting traction,” Sven said. “Showcase that you’ve done some work in a specific industry, had success and that you’ve got a deep understanding of the processes, the technologies and the systems used in those verticals.” Healthcare vendors need HIPAA compliance discussions; financial services require security architecture deep-dives.

Crisis management through analyst relations demands radical transparency, too. “Trying to hide that something is wrong or that there are issues in the company is probably not a good idea,” Sven said. “Showcase what you changed and how it impacted and that you are heading in the right direction.”

By addressing challenges openly, outlining remediation plans and providing regular progress updates, founders build credibility for future challenges, prove the company can acknowledge problems, and execute solutions.

Analyst influence is too significant to ignore, and waiting for perfect conditions is not an option. Every quarter you delay leaves competitors another step ahead in building trust with the people shaping enterprise technology perceptions. Start building your analyst relations program, leveraging those aspects of analyst relations that are best suited for your current maturity stage, and then continue optimizing and evolving the program in line with your business objectives. So if you are a technology vendor ambitious to grow, now is the time to act.