The Problem ComputerWeekly on the SAP UK/IR Conference

 What This Article Covers

  • Report on Leonardo Uptake
  • Is SAP Updating Indirect Access Policy?
  • SAP’s Empathy or Faux Empathy?
  • Back Maintenance Versus Back License Costs
  • SAP Pledges (Once Again) to Be Transparent
  • SAP Places Customers First? (While Ripping Them Off with Faux Indirect Access)


In this article, we will perform an analysis of a ComputerWeekly article on the UK/IR User Group Conference.

Report on Leonardo Uptake

“On the opening day of the SAP UK and Ireland user group conference in Birmingham, a survey revealed that only 2% of the supplier’s customers intend to use its much-trumpeted Leonardo artificial intelligence (AI) initiative, and 43% were unaware of its existence.”

Well, as covered in this article, Why SAP’s Leonardo seems so Fake.

SAP has very little to offer in the IoT space. And furthermore, SAP’s proposal to route IoT means that customers should probably not follow SAP’s direction on IoT as SAP intends to route IoT data illogically through their ERP system in order to create a false association.

Is SAP Updating Indirect Access Policy?

“And almost 50% were also unaware of SAP’s attempts to update its indirect licensing policy in line with how enterprise resource planning (ERP) systems are accessed now, as against in the 1980s.”

The version that SAP is enforcing against its customer’s something that we have called Type 2 indirect access — and it is an invalid claim. To understand Type 2 indirect access see the article Type 1 Versus Type 2 Indirect Access.

It is also in violation of the Tying Agreement clause of US anti-trust law which you can read in the extensive article How SAP’s Indirect Access Violates the Tying Agreement of and US Anti Trust Law.

Therefore, there is no reason for SAP to “update” its indirect access policy. All they need to do is stop enforcing illegal licensing against their customers. Secondly, everytime SAP “updates” its indirect access licensing, SAP tightens the noose further. But CW does not bother analyzing what the previous history of indirect access updates have been.

As can be observed, by reporting on indirect access this way, simply repeating that SAP plans to “modernize” its indirect access licensing, implies that SAP’s indirect access is a valid concept.

SAP’s Empathy or Faux Empathy?

“Cooper said SAP salespeople need to heed the words of empathy that have been coming from their CEO, Bill McDermott, expressed at this year’s and last year’s Sapphire customer conferences in Florida. “A lot of members are concerned about being back-charged,” he said.”

Does Bill McDermott really have empathy?

That is Doubtful.

SAP has savaged many customers using indirect access to extract money from them. So far Brightwork has not found any other vendor that applies indirect access the way that SAP does. What would be not even empathetic but simply reasonable would be to stop bringing invalid indirect access claims against customers. But as is usual Bill McDermott is deceptive in his statements. We often call Bill McDermott the happy face (Hasso’s term for him when he was selected as co-CEO) that hides SAP’s iron fist.

Once again, ComputerWeekly covers this story with the analytical capacity of someone writing a story at a high school paper. CW challenges nothing that SAP says, even though much of it is ripe for being challenged.

Back Maintenance Versus Back License Costs

“The problem for most organizations is they have no idea whether they are correctly or incorrectly licensed,” said Cooper then. “Despite SAP’s assurances that it won’t ask for back maintenance payments from organizations that are under-licensed, members have understandably been reluctant to speak with their account managers.”

We have addressed this sleight of hand previously. SAP wants customers to contact them so that SAP can have a low effort way to coerce the purchase of unwanted software from them. SAP only states back maintenance payments won’t be charged — it says nothing about back license charges — which of course it will charge customers.

SAP Pledges (Once Again) to Be Transparent

“Speaking during the same opening session, Hala Zeine, chief business development officer at SAP, said predictability, transparency, and consistency are the principles governing SAP’s efforts to update licensing. She said the “order to cash”, “procure to pay” and “static read access” scenarios that all make the shift to a business outcome metric will cover 80% of indirect access. And that the company is working on the other 20% of use cases with the user groups to further modernize the licensing for [what users call] indirect access.”

We suggest being very careful listening to anything Hala Zeine says. We have caught here repeatedly lying in her public statements. And once again, SAP’s Type 2 indirect access claims do not have any validity.

CW continues to speak about something which is merely a way for SAP to rip off their customers in a novel way as if it is something legitimate.

SAP Places Customers First? (While Ripping Them Off with Faux Indirect Access)

“Mike Slater, managing director, SAP UK and Ireland said in the same session: “We genuinely do hear you – we constantly talk about customer first at SAP.””

If that is true, why does SAP bring Type 2 indirect access claims against customers?

If this is true why does SAP allow such low quality consulting companies to extract so much money from customers with so little to show for it?

SAP is about SAP and is has shown repeatedly that it is one of the most extractive companies in enterprise software. Any comment about SAP related to being fair or putting customers first should be met with bellowing laughter. You would have to have no experience in the area to believe it.

“Slater announced some new efforts by the supplier to make itself more customer-focused in his territory. These include a new “customer success team” that is tasked with taking a long-term, non-transactional approach – a “blue ocean strategy”.”

What an idiotic statement. And once again, CW is there to act as SAP’s repeating mechanism.


Media entities like ComputerWeekly are complicit in reinforcing SAP’s false redefining of indirect access by missing the distinctions in topics they are writing about. Covering a topic is not simply collecting a series of quotes and putting them into an article.

ComputerWeekly is owned by TechTarget. ComputerWeekly is not an honest media outlet. ComputerWeekly creates content to capture information that is then passed to TechTarget’s marketing automation system. For this reason, ComputerWeekly would not have any interest in what is true.

This is covered in the following article How ComputerWeekly is a Front for Marketing Automation.

Financial Disclosure

Financial Bias Disclosure

This article and no other article on the Brightwork website is paid for by a software vendor, including Oracle and SAP. Brightwork does offer competitive intelligence work to vendors as part of its business, but no published research or articles are written with any financial consideration. As part of Brightwork’s commitment to publishing independent, unbiased research, the company’s business model is driven by consulting services; no paid media placements are accepted.

SAP Contact Form

  • Interested in Our SAP Research?

    The software space is controlled by vendors, consulting firms and IT analysts who often provide self-serving and incorrect advice at the top rates.

    • We have a better track record of being correct than any of the well-known brands.
    • If this type of accuracy interests you, contact us and we will be in touch.


Enterprise Software Risk Book

Software RiskRethinking Enterprise Software Risk: Controlling the Main Risk Factors on IT Projects

Rethinking Enterprise Software Risk: Controlling the Main Risk Factors on IT Projects

Better Managing Software Risk

The software implementation is risky business and success is not a certainty. But you can reduce risk with the strategies in this book. Undertaking software selection and implementation without approximating the project’s risk is a poor way to make decisions about either projects or software. But that’s the way many companies do business, even though 50 percent of IT implementations are deemed failures.

Finding What Works and What Doesn’t

In this book, you will review the strategies commonly used by most companies for mitigating software project risk–and learn why these plans don’t work–and then acquire practical and realistic strategies that will help you to maximize success on your software implementation.


Chapter 1: Introduction
Chapter 2: Enterprise Software Risk Management
Chapter 3: The Basics of Enterprise Software Risk Management
Chapter 4: Understanding the Enterprise Software Market
Chapter 5: Software Sell-ability versus Implementability
Chapter 6: Selecting the Right IT Consultant
Chapter 7: How to Use the Reports of Analysts Like Gartner
Chapter 8: How to Interpret Vendor-Provided Information to Reduce Project Risk
Chapter 9: Evaluating Implementation Preparedness
Chapter 10: Using TCO for Decision Making
Chapter 11: The Software Decisions’ Risk Component Model

How ComputerWeekly is a Front for Marketing Automation

 What This Article Covers

  • What is ComputerWeekly?
  • Who Owns ComputerWeekly?
  • Understanding the TechTarget Marketing Platform
  • Those Everpresent Email Capture Forms
  • Absolutely Corporate Controlled Media Output


Over time we have become frustrated with the information published by Computer Weekly regarding how they cover SAP.

We decided to investigate who owns Computer Weekly. This and how they operate will be the subject of this article.

What is ComputerWeekly?

On the surface, ComputerWeekly looks like a popular technology magazine with no particular bias. ComputerWeekly churns out conventional articles that essentially repeat quotations from sources at conferences and phone calls with technology companies. For many of the articles there is virtually no analysis, so while there are authors attached to the articles, there is not much reason to use authors. The intent of many of the articles is not to explain anything to readers, but to allow the marketing departments of technology companies to reach leads.

But mixed along with this are “real articles,” such as this one.

Who Owns ComputerWeekly?

What ComputerWeekly “is” comes to light when one learns who owns ComputerWeekly.

ComputerWeekly is owned by TechTarget. TechTarget is a media giant. It purchased ComputerWeekly in 2011. It owns other media properties such as LeMagIT, KnowledgeStorm, BitPipe, including others.

The TechTarget website says close to nothing about being a media entity but instead is entirely focused on marketing to businesses how it can help them with lead generation.

That is ComputerWeekly looks like an online technology magazine, but that is not what its owning company looks like. Not at all.

ComputerWeekly creates content to capture information that is then passed to TechTarget’s marketing automation system. This is what technology providers pay TechTarget for so that readers as potential buyers can be monitored and then shared with technology companies.

Those Everpresent Email Capture Forms

Article after article on the ComputerWeekly site has an email capture form to access content.

We would propose that most people that fill in this form have no idea what is behind this innocent looking website. This email form, along with cookies, is what feeds the TechTarget marketing system.

  • The forms are very specific to ask for a company email address. This is because ComputerWeekly and their “partners” want to find out what company you work for, and of course to spam your company address.
  • This, when combined with the article being searched, combined with the number of people with that same company email address allows TechTarget to create a profile of which companies are looking into various technology purchases.

ComputerWeekly states that by filling out your email address (which is done to receive some content), this gives ComputerWeekly the right for their technology “partners” to contact you. See the exact quotation below.

By submitting your personal information, you agree that TechTarget and its partners may contact you regarding relevant content, products and special offers.

However, this information that is provided does not explain the extent of what happens after ComputerWeekly/TechTarget receives the information.

Furthermore, when you select the partner list, you find a list of what appears to be a little less than 1000 partners. And of course, SAP is one of these partners. ComputerWeekly receives around 1.7 million page views per month.

With so many page views and with its backend, it is apparently quite capable of aggregating its email addresses to build a profile of interests in various technology and to track how that interest rises or declines over time.

TechTarget is watching, as are 1000 tech companies that are customers of TechTarget. Nothing on the ComputerWeekly website indicates the powerful backend analytics to which your email is subjected.

This means that while the individual person may think they are simply giving over their email, they are in fact signaling to TechTarget and giving up their privacy in a way they are more likely than not, not fully aware. Secondly, the person filling out the form has no idea that they through filling out that one form, it is as if they are filling out 50 or more forms on different vendor websites! TechTarget has hundreds of customers, and your email, as well as your company, could end up being shared with any of those companies.

Understanding the TechTarget Marketing Platform

TechTarget’s website (which again, the reader does not see) is very clear about how they allow tech companies to monitor readers.

These screenshots are directly off of the TechTarget’s website.

This video, also on the TechTarget website also shows how the TechTarget platform works. is a very popular marketing platform that integrates with TechTarget. In this way the TechTarget is integrated with other data, making the information even more powerful, which means even more invasive of your privacy. 


ComputerWeekly is a honeypot designed to obtain volume that can then be sold to technology companies. This means that ComputerWeekly aggressively tracks its viewers. It also means that its content is optimized around how to get the most targeted emails so they can be processed.

To maximize the financial benefits of such a model, you would have minimal interest in what is true; One would expect that ComputerWeekly would never write anything that was critical of any technology company. They will repeat self-serving quotations from readers as stated in this article.

Furthermore, it is quite likely that the topics of the articles are backward engineered from the information that they need to collect. This means that SAP and the other partners are instructing TechTarget what leads they would like, which most likely has a strong influence on what is published. And the larger the entity and the more they can pay, the more TechTarget will direct its resources to write articles about those subjects.

The objective would be to write articles that can maximize its ability to sell its audience to technology companies. ComputerWeekly does not need to advertise because the entire website is an email harvesting system. Advertising implies that the reader will see the ad and then contact or purchase from the advertiser. But in the TechTarget model, ads are superfluous as the customer of TechTarget (i.e. the partner) contacts the reader. Remember, SAP (and other tech companies) has a large database of email addresses and other contact details. This means they do not necessarily need to contact the person filling in the information. They may determine the person is too far down the food chain to be worth contacting (i.e., not an influencer) and they may instead use the filled in email addresses of a particular company to signal intent or interest, and then select what they think is the best contact in their database for that company to reach out to. This may be determined by the account manager who would be assigned to the prospect.

ComputerWeekly and TechTarget are yet another example of what is wrong with IT media. Here we have a popular website posing as an information provider that has its primary objective to capture information that it can sell as part of a marketing solution. And it is deceptive because unlike an ad, the reader is not aware of the complex apparatus in the background.

Interestingly, ComputerWeekly even had an article that is quite germane to this topic. However, they come to a conclusion that should be analyzed.

“We can’t and won’t go back to that old world of heavily staffed newspapers offering careers and good wages. The money isn’t there in the system any more. It is, then, this economic reality brought about by the technological change which is going to prevail.

There aren’t going to be as many journalists as there used to be and they’ll not get paid as they did, simply because the entire ecosystem of the business is able to extract less money from you and I, the consumers.

Which is all to the good of course, we consumers being who the economy is and should be in favour of. But, still, the good old days aren’t coming back; they never have done elsewhere either.”

And guess who wrote this article? Not a member of the ComputerWeekly staff, but Tim Worstall, a member of the Adam Smith Institute, which is a conservative think tank. “Free market” think tanks love the idea of wholly privatized and corporate controlled media. It allows the media system to deprived of income from any source but private companies. This way the media system does the bidding of elite interests, which is to serve as a purely propagandist function which is sold to the highest bidder.

That is what is meant when one says to bring the “free market” to media. A free market in media results in a corporate controlled media, and of course a media system that is controlled in a hidden manner and which has no mechanism to police itself or has any other objective than to push product out the door. Care t0 take a guess who pays the Adam Smith Institute to write such articles?

The problem with this is that the revenue model for a company like TechTarget is entirely funded by the entities that TechTarget writes stories about. And that means that ComputerWeekly both misleads its readers as to who is paying for ComputerWeekly, and ComputerWeekly’s content will be aligned with the companies that it covers. In this way, TechTarget misleads its readers in at least two different dimensions.

And this is the perfection of the model of “free market” media entities, as promoted by conservative think tanks. It meets the twin objectives of maximizing profits while minimizing the truthful information that is received by readers.


Enterprise Software Risk

See our free project risk estimators that are available per application. The provide a method of risk analysis that is not available from other sources.