I love GetActive, which is a company that manages the email lists and online marketing for many of this great nation’s top nonprofit organizations. They have a nice eCRM — which usually means customer relationship management (or constituent relationship management) which, in English, means they track people who interact with you online, most often by email. They have also added a CMS product — content management system — to their offering and have had some success selling that. Our client AJWS has been considering the CMS, so that their CRM and CMS will be on one platform — meaning one vendor and one training.

Now, GetActive announced last week, they are merging with Convio. So, the three majors who provide these services to the nonprofit world will become two. (The other is Kintera, which is a public company, so everyone can watch as they not-so-slowly bleed cash.)

GetActive and Convio are selling the sell-out as GetActive’s great CMS combined with Convio’s great CRM. Huh? I could be wrong, but I think the biggest part of GetActive’s business – and what everyone knows them for — is the email management, constituent management, online advocacy/fundraising management, which is all the CRM.

Here is something from the press release:

The acquisition will enable Convio to offer the most complete set of Internet solutions available that are specifically designed for nonprofits, associations and institutions of higher education. Convio plans to leverage GetActive’s strong expertise in advocacy, its highly regarded content management platform, as well as the company’s strong services operation based in Washington, D.C. The combined company will serve more than 1,400 customers.

Reading between the lines, what I hear is that Convio wants GetActive’s Washington office and connection to the advocacy organizations that are GetActive’s bread and butter. It also seems that GetActive has more customers than Convio but we can assume that GetActive’s are on average smaller and less profitable.

The CEO of GetActive sent out an email to their clients today. This kind of language makes me worry:

Client Migrations

GetActive and Convio have given a lot of thought to client migrations from the GetActive eCRM platform to the Convio eCRM platform. Efforts are already underway to identify the differences in functionality between the eCRM platforms. We have also begun discussing plans and ideas to make these as smooth as possible for our clients.

It is our explicit goal that clients will not pay fees for their migration to the Convio eCRM platform and that disruptions to their important work will be minimized. However, given the potential for unknown variables and the likelihood that clients may want to take this opportunity to implement Convio features previously unavailable from GetActive, there are some atypical scenarios that may require fees. For example, the decision to add integrated peer events or e-commerce functionality not currently offered by GetActive. An initial migration plan will be reviewed with clients by March 30, 2007.

OK… I have no idea what this really means, and they probably don’t yet either. One thing this means is, we will charge you if this whole thing turns out to be too much work. It might all work out fine in the end. But if I was deciding right now what to do, I would ask a lot of hard questions, get some guarantees in writing, and look seriously at the alternatives.

Kintera is trying to capitalize on all of this:

The proposed merger of Convio and GetActive, two niche product providers of nonprofit software, creates uncertainty regarding the integration of technology platforms, culture, and which platform survives.

“In this rapidly growing market, consolidation can be expected among technology providers. Nonprofits shouldn’t be forced onto a platform that wasn’t part of their initial analysis,” said Richard N. LaBarbera, Kintera COO.

He’s got a point, but they should be careful with their words. Given their current state at Kintera I wouldn’t be surprised if soon we were hearing all of these guys announce the newly formed GetConvioKintera.

If you are paying attention you know by now that every major announcement that someone is running for president has come with it’s own web video. You can listen to Obama, Clinton, Richardson, Dodd, Edwards, Brownback… and I just can’t keep up with who else. There was a piece on NPR this morning on this subject, but I would rather share with you Jon Stewart’s take on this and on the New York Time’s move to add more web video. Here you go:

Oy. I have been on the road a lot lately and have not written as much as I want, and I actually have what to say. For now, here are some tidbits:

In New York last week I met with the US Fund for UNICEF. These folks are doing the most important work there is – saving kids. On their website you see a simple calculation: 1 child + $17 = 1 adult. Wow. And when you know that so little money can have such a big impact, you take this very seriously. So I should not have been surprised when I saw a sign in their bathroom that said something like: “$180 could save the lives of more than 10 children. But instead, this is what we had to spend on a plumber for this bathroom. Please don’t throw things in the toilet.” You can donate right now and help them get over the guilt created by the stopped-up loo.

Porn in HD? Maybe not. The NY Times reports that the sex industry has some mixed feeling about high def porn. As all of us in technology know, porn has been a major force in pioneering and implementing new technology. High definition will probably not be an exception.

Second Life? How about a First Life. Nonprofits need to know and watch Second Life because it is becoming a significant outlet to reach people, and is therefore no different than MySpace or Facebook in that sense. But every time I talk to clients about this, they say, “Who has time?” Indeed. As if we don’t have enough to do in the real world, we need to create a fake one. The smart people at Social Signal did a good write up of Second Life for those who don’t know what it is. And once you know, check out this parody called Get a First Life.

Seth Godin writes about a contest from the International Thriller Writers (who knew?) where if you sign up for the newsletter you are entered to win a contest. The prize is signed books from thriller writers. This is worth pointing out because what makes it good is that those entering are only those you want to reach – because the prize is not an iPod, it’s related to the content of the organization.

Google just got a lot better. I use Google to follow my blogs and news by having a personalized Google home page. Yesterday they added a feature (AJAX) that allows you to click a little + next to one of the feed links and see the first paragraph of content, without leaving your Google page. It’s smart for the user and smart for Google.

There has been a lot of talk, and some new technology, that will bring online content to your TV. Because, really, isn’t a TV usually a better place to watch video than the small computer screen? There are lots of issues here, not the least of which is that short form content you need a much better way to navigate than you would have with a TV remote. I will write more about this soon. For now, I saw an ad recently that is pushing things in the other direction — improving the online viewing experience. Bose, the speaker people, have come out with a home theater type speaker product for your computer. I am not sure their products are better than much lower-priced ones, but boy these guys know something about marketing.

I just returned from a meeting at our client the American Jewish World Service (AJWS). Lots of interesting things there, but also some buzz about a column today in the Times by Nicholas Kristof. Kristof has been a leading voice on the issue of Darfur and has traveled there, documented what is going on, and has written probably dozens of columns on what is happening – and what is not happening – to stop the genocide.

This is of interest to AJWS because they have been the leading voice in the Jewish community, and one of the leading voices period, on this issue. They helped found the Save Darfur coalition, and their direct work in this area has been substantial.

You should read Kristof’s column today, called Car Washes and Genocide (requires subscription.) What he says is that the recent news out of Darfur, that Bill Richardson negotiated some kind of cease fire, was a direct result of grassroots activity in the US. While he is under no illusions that this is over, kids sending money and lawn signs in Peoria, do make a difference. In other words, all that advocacy activity that organizations work hard to do, often through the web and email, can make a difference.

The other thing I noticed here was how much old journalism is meshing with new media. This is because they have no choice – they are dying otherwise. At the bottom on this column online (I don’t know whether the same text is in the print edition) it says,

I’ve cited many more examples of ordinary people taking on the cause of Darfur in extraordinary ways in my blog, “On the Ground.” You can also post your comments about this column there.

This is a new level of accessibility between readers and journalists. The online communities mean that the author can write a lot more than will find its way in the print edition, and the result is as much a conversation with readers than it is the kind of top-down traditional media approach. All of this is good and bad. On this subject, there was an interesting piece by David Carr in yesterday’s Times about journalists and blogs, and how they change the normal news dynamic. For your organization and cause, it pays to participate in these conversations because you are then visible to a community of self-selected individuals who have proven by their presence that they care about the same things you do.

I was asked to participate in the Nonprofit Blog Exchange, a great program run by Emily Weinberg, who just announced a move to DC to work in nonprofit technology.

The blog I looked at happened to be an good example of the kinds of communications programs we are helping nonprofits develop. What we are doing here at See3 is trying to help “close the gap” between what organizations do on the ground everyday and what their stakeholders – donors in particular – see. We think video is a great way to do that, and an increasingly important way to do that given the availability of broadband and the continuing blurring of the TV-internet continuum. (Something like the space-time continuum?)

Organizations don’t have to start with highly-produced complicated expensive video programs. A great example of closing the gap can be found on the blog of Camp ASCCA, which is the world’s largest camping, recreational and educational facility for people with disabilities and affiliated with our fine friends at Easter Seals.

On the blog you have camp staff writing, in a very personal way about their experiences working with their campers. You also have video, which you can see in this post. It is not highly produced or filled with overt marketing messages. It shows the real life of the organization at that moment, bringing a large audience into a situation they would otherwise not be able to experience. You can talk about campers’ faces as they see the Disney show, but it’s nothing like seeing them.

I have been very interested for some time in the definition of a socially responsible corporation as well as the blurring line between business and philanthropy. I will write more about this soon, but now I want to say a few words about Wal-Mart.

Wal-Mart has become the focus of a lot of negative publicity, mostly for good reason. If we have to use tax dollars to pay for health care of full-time Wal-Mart workers, that’s a problem. (My mom, I am proud to say, helped write the Maryland law that would require employers with over 10,000 employees in the state to pay at least 8% of payroll for health care or pay the different into a state fund to subsidize Medicaid.)

One thing I have wondered about the Wal-Mart situation is what about Target? Are they so different? And, what happens when the pressure put on Wal-Mart begins to work? How should we react?

Wal-Mart found religion on global warming. Regardless of their motivations — or because of their motivations — that’s a good thing. Their plan to sell 100 million compact florescent light bulbs will actually make a different in how much energy is used in the US. I think we should be supporting that. (You can buy your compact florescent bulbs here.)

This whole initiative is connected to the movement of many to create for-profit business models to do good. Grameen Bank is a good example. The work of Omidyar and Skoll are also good examples of where for-profit and nonprofit are meeting.

For traditional nonprofits, I think this new way of thinking can — should — mean that they are thinking more about corporate partnerships. The door is opening to create more cooperative efforts that align the profit motive with the motive of us do-gooders. We are exploring that here at See3 as we try to create a sustainable model to assist nonprofits in getting their messages out.

Wow. Us nonprofity folk have been talking a lot about Web 2.0, that phenomenon where consumers of media are also publishers and everything is portable, and what it means for nonprofits. The bandwagon is being jumped on and the backlash has started, leading one to think maybe the whole thing has peaked.

Me, I think this is for real. While I am sure there is some “irrational exuberance” to the whole thing that will shake out, Beth Kanter just proved that the world of portable content and blogging and all that other stuff we are talking about can have a real impact.

Network for Good, an organization that helps nonprofits take donations online and individuals find and keep track of the nonprofits they donate to, partnered with Yahoo! to promote something they call Charity Badges. A Charity Badge is like a donation widget that you can put on your site, blog, MySpace page, etc. to encourage a group of people to give the same cause, through Network for Good, of course. Yahoo! ran a promotion through the end of the year that said the Charity Badge to get the most unique donators (not the most amount of money, but the most individuals giving) would get their total donations matched up to $50,000.

Beth Kanter, who I have talked about here before as someone who is a kind of nonprofit Web 2.0 guru, took up the challenge for an organization she is involved with, the Sharing Foundation. Now the Web 2.0 piece of this is the Charity Badge itself, but also Beth’s online network of bloggers and communities where she could promote the contest. [We must give Beth more credit than the size of her network. She (and/or the folks at the Sharing Foundation) has a good marketing head as well. They focused on unique donors and so told everyone they needed to give her only five minutes and $10. As you will see the average donor gave a lot more than that.]

How did Beth do raising money for the Sharing Foundation and against everyone else who was trying hard to win this contest? See for yourself. And while you’re at it, it’s not too late to give.