Do you own your own data? Are you sure?!

I heard a rather shocking story recently of a charity who, when they tried to move their data from their incumbent database supplier to a new database they had purchased, were told by their existing supplier that they (the charity) did not actually own the data, the supplier did! And, therefore, the charity would have to pay the supplier in order to have the data!

Unfortunately, when the charity checked with their legal advisors, they confirmed that the contract they had signed with their incumbent supplier did indeed state that the supplier owned the data. In the end, the charity decided that rather than go through what could be a long and costly legal battle, they would pay the supplier what they were asking for.

Although this is very sad, I have to say I don't blame the charity for deciding to do that. I don't know whether such a contract would stand up in court but even if it did not then I am sure that the time, effort and aggravation to get to that point would be awful and the cost could well outweigh the amount the supplier was originally asking for.

I think that what shocked me most about this was that a supplier should even consider saying that they owned an organisation's data, regardless of whether it is a charity. It wouldn't seem fair to me even if it was a commercial organisation who was using the database.

So the moral of this story is to check your contract very carefully when you are buying a new database - or using an ASP/hosted solution - and if in doubt then get legal advice. Don't be left in a position where you don't own your own data!

Supplier Acquisitions: Should You Buy Into Them or Say Bye?

In the last few years, acquisitions have increased in the charity database market: Blackbaud have acquired eTapestry (and before that, Fund-Master and AppealMaster), as well as ticketing and gift-aid systems; Systems Group bought Minerva, and then CSG bought Systems Group, and also Consensus and Care, and then IRIS bought CSG... Then ASI Europe acquired Fisk Brett and IRIS bought Donor Strategy. (And I've lost track of who originally sold the product now sold as Affiliate by RedSky IT). Not that this is unique to NFP suppliers of course; Oracle, for example, has acquired several direct competitors including Siebel, JD Edwards and PeopleSoft.

But what did this mean for the charities who originally bought these systems, or for those who might buy them or others in the future? Well, the positive spin from any acquisition is of course that it will improve investment, product development, support and, where appropriate, provide what is often called an "upgrade path" to a "better product". On the downside, you might find that any meaningful development ceases on the product you bought. Or you are encouraged to migrate to a different system in the new company which you did not buy, you do not buy into and which may not be so appropriate for your needs - and you might even find costs increase, whether directly or indirectly.

One reason for such procurements is when a smaller company who has initially developed a very good system simply can't afford to develop a replacement system when new technology dictates they really need to. As such, although the "upgrade path" is what Fund-Master and AppealMaster users received when Blackbaud acquired them, a migration path to The Raiser's Edge would have in the mid/long term definitely have been a benefit, although some AppealMaster users may not have believed that initially. And as The Raiser's Edge could quite easily manage the functionality of both systems, commercially for Blackbaud, it would not have made sense to continue to develop multiple systems.

IRIS, on the other hand, have continued to sell and support all the products they have bought (the same path which Oracle has taken, incidently). Thus, you can still buy Integra, Charisma, Care, Donor Strategy, Consensus and Profile Concept. I am not convinced as to whether this was the plan when all these companies were acquired by CSG but it seems to be the way IRIS are heading at the moment. To be fair to IRIS, there are different parts of the NFP sector which could benefit from (some of) the different packages in their stable; although in practise, I would consider some of them to be "more flagship" than others. And there is no doubt that there is considerable overlap in functionality across several of the databases.

Donor Strategy is an interesting acquisition because, at least historically, it has been oriented at the small-medium NFP organisation. I do hope IRIS keep selling the package as such because there is no doubt that this part of the sector needs good, cheaper solutions, and to replace it with a Care or Integra would be complete over-kill for such charities. IRIS are at least saying the right words for this, stating that it will "specifically extend its reach in the SME charity and membership market" and Donor Strategy's ex-MD, Jonathan Air saying it will "provide a safe future for our company". I hope so.

Whether IRIS do continue to sell, develop and support all their systems remains to be seen. I could personally see some of them merging more easily than others, and some would probably benefit as such. Not that it is necessarily easy for a supplier to simply migrate a group of their customers from one system to another. Some years ago, one major supplier in the market seriously considered purchasing their main competitor, but they ultimately decided against it because they realised that, at the time, they simply couldn't offer the same functionality in their existing product but they would not have wanted to continue to develop both systems.

Similarly to IRIS, ASI appear to have made a commitment to Fisk Brett's ProgressCRM. In a recent interview on NFP Techno, Robin Fisk confirmed that "Both iMIS and ProgressCRM co-exist under the ASI global brand" and "longer term, we will be able to plan development so that users of both packages can benefit from the same developments." As with Donor Strategy, I do hope that this is the case. ProgressCRM is an excellent product with a confirmed user-base and it would be a loss to the charity sector if it did not continue.

But if acquisition seems a harsh route as a user then consider users of DonorBase, AKC or any number of other smaller suppliers, all of whom went bust without any supplier-provided migration path to another system. And there are many companies still selling their systems but who are failing to really keep up with new technological developments and/or provide good quality support (or, some would say, even provide decent software).

So what if you are about to buy a new fundraising or membership database? Well, who knows whether any company will be bought tomorrow, or, worse, who will go bust? I would not have thought CSG would be bought but they were. Key to good procurement are issues such as due diligence on company information, considering access to the data/database, open standards and support contracts as well as points such as Escrow.

There are of course many independent suppliers still, such as ESIT, Redbourn, Saturn and Centrepoint. Will they remain independent? Time will tell.