Talk:International Data Corporation/Archives/2015

Controversy

Let's insert a "controversy" section. I've done some research on IDC, and have found that they're essentially a "hired gun", publishing "research results"/opinion pieces that support whomever is paying for the "research", much like scientists paid by Big Tobacco to prove that smoking isn't harmful. We lose our NPV & become their PR trumpet if we don't at least mention that (with some good references).Sethnessatwikipedia (talk) 02:33, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

I think the reference [8] is not showing very objective controversy. Whoever the author of that blog post is, he seems to have some issues with IDC as he describes IDC with words like "Lying bastards" and "willing prostitute that sells its reputation for the highest bidder". And titles one chapter as "THIS IS BLATANT HEADLINE-BAITING BY IDC". Even last one would be true, I'd love to see somewhat less aggressive text to be used as a reference when controversy is being discussed. (Sorry, but I don't know if I can start removing stuff from an article based on this so I'm asking instead of removing the text.) Fantasos (talk) 05:46, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

Why is a criticism/controversy section included with this market research firm but not others? Sethnessatwikipedia mentions research and references hired gun, but does not cite it. The articles previously included as references in this section all deal with forecasts, which by definition are predicting business activity for a future period of time. Typically, it is a projection based upon specific assumptions, such as targeted prospects or a defined sales strategy. None reference or are specific to any company rather focus on predicting technology markets. I have also found several articles that identify similar missed forecasts/controversy/criticism for every single firm that tries to forecast markets, particularly in the volatile technology markets. I have deleted this section.Stephimaxsam (talk) 16:29, 1 July 2015 (UTC)[User:Stephimaxsam]