Community IT Innovators. Established 1993. Serving social mission organizations with integrated technology services you can trust.

Blackbaud/Convio Session Highlights from the 2012 NTC

By: David Deal

I and many other eager listeners attended the session at the recent Nonprofit Technology Conference in San Francisco where Blackbaud Senior VP of Products and Marketing, Jana Eggers, addressed questions about the likely acquisition of Convio by Blackbaud, pending the Department of Justice Review. It was an interesting dance, as she could only address certain questions  because of the ongoing due diligence by DOJ.

I was observing the session from the perspective of someone who runs a company that helps nonprofits select donor databases and other software, among other services. Many of our clients use Blackbaud and Convio products and are watching the potential merger with trepidation. Here are the most interesting things I observed at the session.

1. Rumors about an “exodus” of Convio staff

Jana quickly quashed this comment by saying that from the numbers she sees regularly there is no exodus. Two observations to the contrary, though:

• This interesting comment in an email from Gene Austin, CEO of Convio, sent on April 11: “There have been some changes in personnel that you would expect in any transition such as this, but I am happy to report that the new employees that have joined us are outstanding and ramping quickly. In the unfortunate instance where someone on your account team has left Convio, we have done our best to respond immediately and assign replacements so your level of support is uncompromised.”
• Two large associations that use Convio products indicated that more than one member of their Convio support teams had left in recent months.

2. Questions about the impact on Convio’s products

Jana said that Blackbaud supports something like 19 platforms, several of which have been acquisitions, and so they’re experienced at integrating new platforms into their suite of offerings.  She said they have always continued to provide support to customers using products, even if they don’t continue developing additional versions of the products. To be clear, I heard no indication that they would stop developing the Convio suite of products.

3. Plans and contingency plans

So what happens if Convio support staff are leaving and continue to leave?  Jana implied that select Blackbaud staff could be assigned to provide additional support and would ramp up quickly. While she said Blackbaud can’t publish detailed integration and contingency plans until after the DOJ review is complete, she said they will do so as soon as they can.  Still, it begs the question…

4. What impact might this have on Blackbaud’s support for existing products?

If top Blackbaud staff are reassigned to augment a Convio support team in transition, what happens to the quality of support for other Blackbaud products?  There’s just no great way one could respond to that. The only question in my mind is how much it would be noticed by existing Blackbaud customers – a little or a lot?

5. New Blackbaud openness?

Blackbaud has historically had the reputation for making it difficult for third-party vendors to work on their products, and charging a lot to nonprofits simply to gain access to the API for products like Raiser’s Edge.  This doesn’t play well in an increasingly cloud-based world that values openness and interoperability.  Jana indicated that Blackbaud has struck a new strategy/attitude about this in the past year.  Convio’s products have taken a more “open and accessible” approach, especially those using the Salesforce.com platform (note: CITI is a Salesforce.com partner). It will be interesting to see whether this acquisition indicates further movement toward a new openness by Blackbaud, or whether it will ultimately result in a clash of cultures and strategies.

Tags: Blackbaud, consulting, Convio, Fundraising, nonprofit technology, NTC12, NTEN, technology assessment

5 Responses to “Blackbaud/Convio Session Highlights from the 2012 NTC”

1. John Palomaki Says:
   April 18th, 2012 at 3:15 pm

   This is very distressing. As soon as a competitor with an innovative approach comes along, Blackbaud gobbles them up. While there are still a number of providers in this space, and some consolidation is to be expected, why is it always Blackbaud doing the consolidating? I can’t help but think this has a stifling effect in that these products don’t get to mature or expand scope independently.

2. Jordan Dossett Says:
   April 19th, 2012 at 10:47 am

   I agree with John that this is distressing and that all Blackbaud does is acquire anyone that poses a threat. At the NTC there was discussion that now that Salsa is venture funded that they will be next. The ventures at Salsa can say all they want that they are socially responsible but money is money, right? So who is next?

   What bothers me is the monolith that Blackbaud has created and the illusion that the sector suffers from that bigger must be better. We all know that in Blackbaud’s case bigger is not better. In this article you say they “support something like 19″ platforms. This shows that when Blackbaud acquires they don’t so so because of business or IT intelligence to replace or expand on their products. They do so to quash their competitors. There is a true difference between a merge and an acquisition people!

   This may seem a bit callus but I see it like this. When you hold a Patent you hold it for 1 of 2 reasons. The right to produce the item or the right to stop people from producing the item. Blackbaud acquires companies to stop them from being a competitor. Not because they have a value added service they wish to add to their offering. Blackbaud acquires companies in direct competition with their existing products and dominates the market place.

   I will be very curious to see how the DOJ rules on this. When Ma-Bell did this it was market dominance. I don’t think they will see this the same way as there are what they will deem “competitors” left for now. Though I think that much like “jury of your peers” this is subjective.

   Oh vey.

3. Amanda Miller Says:
   April 20th, 2012 at 8:08 am

   John Palomaki, your last statement no doubt one of the many reasons BB is doing the consolidating–there will be less competition.
   For growing nonprofits there are many options when it comes to fundraising systems; not so when it comes to larger nonprofits with highly sophisticated needs.

4. Glen Kendell Says:
   April 20th, 2012 at 3:20 pm

   The Convios of the world will never be able to compete with Blackbaud. As Jordan pointed out, any venture funded business must have an exit strategy involving a big payout – get bought or go public.

   Blackbaud is simply doing its part as it sits atop the nonprofit technology food chain. On one side of the coin, they are the greedy monopolists who are gobbling up the competition. On the other, they are providing a service to the nonprofit community by taking on the support burden of maintaining these many niche platforms.

   If you are what you eat, then Blackbaud will have no choice but to make itself more open. Let’s just hope they don’t have a craving for Salsa anytime soon.

5. David Deal Says:
   April 27th, 2012 at 9:49 am

   As of today it looks like the acquisition cleared a major hurdle and is one step closer to completion.

   In my opinion, if Blackbaud were more transparent about the purpose of this acquisition it would help to build the more open relationship that I heard Jana say they’re seeking to build with the nonprofit sector. As a publicly traded company, the number one reason for this merger is undoubtedly its potential positive impact on Blackbaud shareholder value. Admitting that and framing the other good reasons as additional factors would be much more convincing to me.

   Could the combined company potentially create better products for multi-channel constituent engagement, as they say? Maybe, but I doubt it. I’m much more of the opinion that this has a net negative impact on the competition among vendors that serve larger nonprofits, and I believe that will lead to less, not more, product innovation in that space.

Leave a Reply

Name (required)

Mail (will not be published) (required)

Website