There’s a real gap between how Analyst Relations describes analyst ROI and how CFOs hear it.

It’s easy when a financial analyst upgrades a stock from Hold to Buy; the recommendation is timestamped, the outcome is traceable, and the conversation with the CFO is straightforward.

Relationships with industry analysts are more complex. But that complexity is worth understanding.

Here’s what I’ve noticed: Buyer-focused analysts who attend vendor events bring something no briefing deck can replicate. They see the product or service in context, meet customers, and have unscripted conversations that genuinely inform their research.

Over time, that understanding shapes how they perceive a vendor, how they write, how they advise, and, critically, how they respond when a buyer asks for a shortlist.

That’s a long game, and it has real value.

Vendor-focused analysts bring something equally powerful, though different. Many have built substantial audiences of technology buyers and decision-makers that vendors can’t reach directly. When they attend your event and share what they see and hear, they do something vendor marketing cannot: lend credibility through a trusted third-party voice.

That reach is real. So is the influence.

The challenge is translating this into a language CFOs understand.

Here’s where AR programs can fall short: We talk about relationship-building, but CFOs need to hear about business outcomes.

What does a CFO-ready framework actually look like? Start here:

• Did analyst attendance deepen their understanding of your market position? Can you point to it?
• Did an analyst’s later research, inquiry responses or shortlist recommendations reflect what they learned at your event? Do you have evidence of this?
• For independent analysts with large audiences: Beyond reach and engagement, did their output resonate with buyers and other analysts? Do you have evidence of influence beyond impressions?
• For longer-term outcomes like awareness, relationships, and perception shifts, are you able to track and report these explicitly? Note that very few CFOs will accept “relationship depth” as a proxy.

These aren’t trick questions. They’re the questions that protect your budget when finance starts asking tough questions. And honestly, analysts should want to answer them, too. Vendors who can’t justify the spend are the ones whose budgets get cut.

AR is being asked to speak in terms of business outcomes, not relationship activity. Not because CFOs are hostile to the value analysts provide; they’re not. They just need AR to frame the value-add in a language they recognize.

The value of AR is evident, but in many programs, the measurement framework isn’t clear enough to articulate it.

We’re good at building that language for everything else. It’s time to build it to measure AR success.

I’ll finish with a question: What is your CFO actually looking for to justify spending on analyst events? If you’d like to respond, email us or comment on the LinkedIn post.