It is with a certain measure of distaste that I periodically review some “sources” of information on medical technology markets that are purely aggregates of 
secondary sources of their own. Without citing the particular market research report publishers (for that would cross a certain line), I can attest to the fact that there are numerous publishers whose information appears to be nothing more than compilations of public domain content. Of course, public domain content can be valuable and indeed must be part of any analysis that draws upon all relevant data inputs, but public domain content is indeed varied, whether it is methodology-specific government data (sometimes so specific as to be arcane), company annual reports or marketing literature (sometimes imbued with so much spin and hyperbole as to be akin to fairy tales), or publicly accessible brokerage reports (dutifully guiding the reader to invest, not so surprisingly, in that specific company).
I have a great deal of respect for my customers. But I also know that their workloads are high, their schedules are tight and, being in the business of medical technologies rather than market research, may well be attuned to a publisher’s attractive report price or the clever way the table of contents may be crafted to suggest a wealth of detail that simply isn’t forthcoming in the actual report.
So I urge caution. See sample information. Review the methodology (if they post it!). Examine the lineage of anyone involved in the publication.
In the end, medical technology market research has differentiated value based on all of these considerations (and more). It is not a commodity.
Posted via email from medmarket’s posterous
Post a Comment