Integrator Andrew Lanning has posted the following about IPVM:
The context is that IPVM published posts about publicly traded Latch and its SVP Lee Odess. Latch's stock has fallen 90% in the past year, more than 50% of its employees have been terminated, and an investigation into the company's financial irregularities is ongoing.
In particular, in May, Odess was promoted to run sales and marketing. 3 months later, Odess is out of that.
See IPVM coverage:
Latch Lays Off 130, Promotes Lee Odess
Latch's Lee Odess No Longer Runs Sales And Marketing
The allegation about discrediting authority is odd. Odess is an executive at a company that has severe problems. It is what it is. What do you say when a company's stock price is down 90% and more than half of the employees were laid off?
If you want to give Latch and Lee Odess a medal or trophy for this you are certainly welcome to. I am confident that most will understand that this deserves scrutiny.
I do thank Lanning for admitting our research's "occasional veracity". There's a reason why so many organizations have so quickly chosen to pay a premium for it, see IPVM Celebrates $200,000+ Research Service Contracted ARR In 1st Month and $4,000+ Average Annual Payment For IPVM Research Service. We offer the deepest and highest quality research in this industry.
Finally, I am proud of our critical reporting on companies and executives. We do not need this to sell research, indeed it certainly makes it harder as we offend powerful people, like Lanning and Odess.
But IPVM has always existed and will always exist to expose powerful entities and people. I can't sympathize with those wealthy executives' complaints but I can understand why they would hope everyone would just kiss up to them.
Update
I categorically deny this and the only reason I did not address it is that it is obviously illogical. However, since this is evidently the crux of his argument, I'll explain.
Lanning alleges:
Once they're hooked by IPVM research (which has occasional veracity), they're subjected to the non-technical editorial fantasy content that JH creates, unconsciously conferring it with equal gravitas to IPVM's technical research.
One, the opposite is how it works in practice. We sell research separately and for a much higher price than non-research (i.e., Info+). Info+ costs $199 a year while Research costs $480 to $10,000 per year depending on organization size. We can't and don't "hook" people with Research since we charge far more for it.
No one has ever made this allegation before because it's not sound. Typically, the allegation is that our critical reporting helps lead people to our research, but Lanning is making the opposite case. As I responded in the opening post, critical reporting hurts our ability to sell Research since executives like Lanning are repelled by being held accountable but it's core to us exposing unethical and phony companies and executives.
Lanning and Odess are entitled to their opinions but among those who respect us are the world's leading media organizations and government entities. For example, see the hundreds of citations we have received in the last few years. The video below shows just a sample of these from last year:
I get it - industry executives don't like to be held accountable. They want to talk about how wonderful they are and when their companies are in crisis, like Lee Odess's is currently, it is "harassment" and "cyberbullying" and "personal attacks" to fairly report on it.