Search News


Browse Archives

News

Blackboard's Next Phase

February 22, 2011

Share This Story

FREE Daily News Alerts

Advertisement

Blackboard built its e-learning empire on its learning management system, trading legal blows with some competitors and gobbling up others as it raced to satisfy demand for a technology that had rapidly become de rigueur in higher education.

That period of conquest is now over. Last fall, close to 95 percent of institutions had some learning management system in place, according to the Campus Computing Project. Accordingly, Blackboard’s business strategy is changing: with the company adding four new, separately licensed products to its menu in the last three years, Blackboard expects that it will soon no longer rely on Learn, its popular learning management system, to bring home the bacon.

Learn brought in approximately 55 to 60 percent of the company’s $450 million in revenue last year, John Kinzer, Blackboard’s chief financial officer, told analysts in a conference call this month. But the company expects its other products — which focus on mobile learning, synchronous communication, and learning analytics — to fly off the shelves, relieving Learn of a sizable chunk of its burden.

“Over time, clearly the other products like mobile and collaborate and analytics are growing much faster,” Kinzer said. “So we’d assume that over a three- to five-year horizon that percentage is going to be much lower than that, probably down into the 20- to 30-percent range.”

While Blackboard officials insist that this doesn't mean the learning-management platform will be viewed as any less crucial to the company, Kinzer's projection nevertheless marks a large shift in the company's identity.

For those who have been watching closely, this development should not come as a surprise. Blackboard has been laying the groundwork for this second phase over the last few years, slowly absorbing e-learning companies that are not involved in learning management and rebranding them as Blackboard imprints. Blackboard Analytics, formed earlier this month after Blackboard acquired the analytics firm iStrategy, is the latest addition to Blackboard’s inventory of acquisitions. It joined Collaborate, which Blackboard created last year after buying live-communications companies Wimba and Elluminate; Mobile, which Blackboard disaggregated from the Learn platform in 2009; and Connect, which Blackboard inaugurated after buying the notification company Connect-ED in 2008.

As far as the U.S. higher education market goes, several business analysts who monitor Blackboard described this shift as a natural phase in the evolution of a company that has reached the edge of the earth and can only continue to grow by building on existing territory (the K-12 and international higher ed markets are still rife with unclaimed lands, officials point out). When you can no longer sell your core product to additional customers, the analysts said, you have to sell additional products to your core customers — that is, if you want to keep expanding. And Blackboard, a publicly traded company, does. (Desire2Learn, a private company that also sells license-based platforms, is taking a similar tack for the same reasons, according to Kenneth Chapman, its director of product strategy.)

So what does all this mean for the hundreds of nonprofit colleges that use Blackboard Learn as their primary learning management provider?

Nothing bad, said Scott Berg, a research analyst with the investment bank Feltl & Company. As a general rule, “If you have more solutions from a single vendor, you end up being able to drive more out of your business,” Berg said. Therefore, as Blackboard enters the business of analytics software, mobile applications, and other in-demand technology, campus officials might be grateful for the option of continuity, he said.

Meanwhile, colleges that only want — or can only afford — Blackboard’s learning management platform should not worry about having their interests marginalized, Berg continued. While the new products might be expected to be big new revenue streams, they are still designed to be “wrapped around” Blackboard Learn, he said. “Without a core LMS product sale to a potential customer, Blackboard has almost zero opportunity to upsell its other products,” said Berg.

Of course, that raises the question of why Blackboard didn’t just bake its analytics, mobile, and synchronous communications tools right into the learning-management system. Ray Henderson, president of Learn, said the company decided to sell those products separately so that the company could invest more money in them without having to raise the licensing fees on Learn — a tack that has gotten Blackboard in trouble with customers in the past.

Selling the applications separately allows the company to make them sophisticated enough to keep up with competitors while not simultaneously blowing up the price of Learn and shutting out customers who can’t pay for the fancy new tools, Henderson said. More products don’t just mean more revenue streams for Blackboard, he said; they mean greater choice for customers.

In fact, Blackboard’s strategic shift might represent a greater challenge for the company than for its clients. Any company that plans to bring in 70 percent or more of its revenue from sources other than its core product is taking a risk, said Lou Pugliese, a former Blackboard executive who is now president of Moodlerooms. (Moodlerooms competes with Blackboard by providing services to institutions that use Moodle, a leading open-source platform.) “The higher ed market is moving away from overly complex products, add-ons, and features,” said Pugliese. “They’re sticking to the core LMS … everything else is, to some extent, a nice-to-have.”

Trace Urdan, a senior analyst with the investment firm Signal Hill, said there is no guarantee Blackboard will be able to sell enough non-LMS products to realize the sort of diversification of revenue streams that Kinzer described in the conference call earlier this month — especially given the budget cuts on many campuses, to which technology departments have hardly been immune. “Analytics is kind of cool and all, but people were living without it,” he said.

The fact that Blackboard is staking so much of its anticipated growth in the domestic higher education market on the success of its newer products could put colleges in a better position to haggle, Urdan added. “The whole notion of the market being saturated and [Blackboard] being reliant on new products to build their revenue stream — maybe the negotiating power is shifting a little more toward the client and a little bit away from Blackboard,” he said. This might be especially true given the gradual erosion of Blackboard's market dominance in recent years.

Henderson, the president of Blackboard Learn, emphasized that even if the company begins relying less on learning management revenues to balance its checkbook, Blackboard will not divert any money from improving and maintaining its learning management platform — and will, in fact, continue increasing the amount it spends yearly on research and development for Learn. Henderson added that additional revenue streams could allow the company to be more flexible when negotiating discounts with its learning management clients.

For the latest technology news and opinion from Inside Higher Ed, follow @IHEtech on Twitter.

Advertisement
Advertisement

Matching Jobs

Comments on Blackboard's Next Phase

  • Posted by Blog21 on February 22, 2011 at 10:00am EST
  • Funny to see an article mainly with investment analysts and competitors (or BB people) quoted. No quotes from actual end-user customers???

    I think many schools like to work with a single-source provider. Someone they can get integrated solutions from, and someone they can bring issues up to ("one neck to choke" as one CIO put it to me).

    I also think the idea of layered products is the right one, as you can make more sophisticated solutions, but not have to bundle the R&D cost into the base solution.

    Overall, I think BBs biggest issue continues to be how the treat the customer. Their product strategy is right, but can they keep their arrogance in check, and can they make service a priority.
  • Posted by BBadmin on February 22, 2011 at 11:30am EST
  • Well, if Blackboard is going to rely on the revenue from these non-core products, they're going to have to make them more stable than they are today. With almost weekly outages to Scholar, SafeAssign or Mobile, institutions will become wary of promoting them to end users. Then if adoption stays low, institutions will find it hard to justify extra expense for unused features.

    It is unclear how Blackboard's new analytics offering could be a success. Customers have asked them for years to produce accurate and meaningful reporting from their own core LMS, but they can't/won't. So it is hard to believe they could produce meaningful analytics from data sources outside of their area of expertise.

    Blog21 is exactly right that customer support is also an issue. They might have a bigger core LMS market share now if their service was better.
  • Posted by Steve Foerster , ad adjunct IT instructor at a Midwestern community college on February 22, 2011 at 12:00pm EST
  • I'm not sure where the "analysts" get the information, but I spent three years as the primary Blackboard administrator for a mid-sized university. Because of their well-earned reputation for providing terrible technical support, I expect many of those in positions like I had would advise against expanding a relationship with Blackboard.
  • BB vs open source LMS
  • Posted by Peter S. Cookson , Director of Distance Education at Delaware State University on February 22, 2011 at 1:30pm EST
  • What I do not appreciate is the high cost of the BlackBoard learning management system. As soon as an open source alternative learning management system becomes available that can facilitate the transfer of courses from the exhorbitantly high priced commercial learning management systems, I think there will be a mass exodus to such an open source learning management systems. Such alterntives continue to improve, becoming much more competitive and far more economical alternatives than the high priced commercial learning management systems that place their first priority on serving the stockholders rather than providing economical service to higher education institutions struggling with financial constraints.
  • Posted by ATSguy12 , Faculty Consultant on February 22, 2011 at 3:00pm EST
  • At our university we are in the process of migrating away from Bb to a different LMS solution -- mostly because our faculty were so dissatisfied, but also because of the company's lack of responsiveness and respect for us.

    As Bb acquires more products, it actually decreases our inclination toward those products. We were considering Elluminate as a possible lecture capture solution -- until it was aquired by Bb. From our standpoint, Elluiminate lost credibility by its association with Bb.
  • Posted by fisher on February 22, 2011 at 3:00pm EST
  • "...hard to believe they could produce meaningful analytics from data sources outside of their area of expertise."

    BBAdmin, the expertise comes through the acquisition of an existing company who's already deeply involved in analytics and data warehousing. They're not starting from scratch.
  • Vote for your favorite LMS
  • Posted by ednaker , educator at onlin on February 22, 2011 at 5:00pm EST
  • Which is your favorite LMS? Blackboard??? Desire2Learn??? Maybe newcomer Instructure? Or maybe you prefer open source? Cast your vote at http://ow.ly/40S2y
  • This is a big mistake
  • Posted by Tim West on February 23, 2011 at 7:00pm EST
  • "Without a core LMS product sale to a potential customer, Blackboard has almost zero opportunity to upsell its other products"

    However this is exactly what is happening and the article even mentions it. Bb has a fight on its hands just to keep their share of the core LMS market. Open source and new startups such as Instructure are where the market has been heading. This will leave Bb with a diminished customers base to sell their products to. Most of these new product lines still rely on Learn to some degree. Without the out of the box integration any non Learn client has little reason to look at them. The exception might be Transact and Collaborate.

    Furthermore this strategy will and has undoubtedly shifted resources away form the LMS, contrary to what Bb execs spin. The pace of innovation in the Bb LMS products is way too slow. Now they will need to innovate in collaboration, messaging, mobile, and analytics. Instead of trying to be leaders in one area they will be substandard in all areas.

    How successful has Bb been in selling these auxiliary product to non Learn clients? My guess is they haven't been and won't be. This strategy has been a big mistake and will seriously hurt this company in the next 5 years.
  • High Cost of LMS?
  • Posted by Steve Smith on February 27, 2011 at 8:30pm EST
  • Schools complaining about the high cost of commercial LMS software need to gain a bit more perspective.

    Compared to the cost of SIS or financial systems, the commercial LMS offers a great value. I bet you're paying far more for your SIS system than you are for your LMS -- and that your SIS system has no where near the usage metrics of your LMS. Bang for the buck, your LMS system provides very good value.

    Steve