It was Howard Dean’s presidential primary campaign’s successful online fundraising efforts that helped to promote Convio beyond the niche market of nonprofits and political campaigns the software firm serves. Fast forward to last Thursday, when a Washington Post column prompted an abundance of online ire aimed directly at Convio, boosting its relative prominence. In her Special Interests column entitled, “A Marriage Group's 'Interesting' Union’,” Judy Sarasohn spotlighted the relationship between the tech firm and its client, Alliance for Marriage. Led by Matt Daniels, an active proponent of a constitutional amendment outlawing same-sex marriage, AFM is dedicated to promoting traditional matrimony. Not only has that Washington Post column spurred much chatter among political insiders and bloggers, it’s given rise to a broader question: can tech vendors serving politically-active clients remain non-partisan?

By Friday, big-name left-wing blogs had begun firing off inflammatory and sometimes profane comments at Convio. On his Americablog site, John Aravosis predicted, “I don't think, after this, any lefty non-profit will ever have the nerve to work with Convio ever again (because if they do, they'll be publicly savaged….” Daily Kos blogger, Markos Moulitsas named his anti-Convio screed, “Boycott Convio”, while Duncan Black of Eschaton blog fame wrote, “I think now would be a good time for all good lefty organizations to sever relations with Convio, if there are any.”

According to Convio CEO Gene Austin, no clients have stormed off just yet, though some have expressed concern regarding the AFM relationship. He adds that his firm is currently in the process of signing on organizations that are expressly against banning gay marriage, and alludes to a previous client, the now defunct Utah-based Don’t Amend Alliance, which campaigned against an amendment banning gay marriage in that state; it passed in 2004.

The main point of contention appears to be what Convio calls its “Right To Be Heard Policy”, a mission statement of sorts which some believe expresses a left-leaning or progressive stance. Most of the Convio contenders cite the final line of the three-paragraph statement: “Convio does not work with groups that promote prejudice and hate even if they are in full compliance with the law.” However, some seem to be overlooking the bit that reads, “We believe that all nonprofits conducting their business in a legal manner have a right to be heard.”

“The feedback came with strong convictions, and I’m glad it did because it landed on our radar screen,” acknowledges Austin, who says the company will reevaluate the policy and is currently assessing feedback regarding this recent controversy. But, according to Austin, some of that feedback mischaracterizes the firm’s services, such as the Americablog post which deems Convio, which serves both liberal and conservative organizations, a “Big lefty consulting firm.” Austin takes great issue with the notion that Convio is involved with its client’s strategies. “The consulting we do is limited to best practices on the Internet,” he insists. “We don’t talk to organizations about their mission strategy or policies. In the case of AFM, we’re strictly supporting whatever product issues as they may have.”

Another misunderstanding: most of the blog blather is based on the incorrect assumption that AFM is a recently-signed client of Convio’s. In fact, AFM has been working with the firm for about a year now.

“In general, we choose our vendors based upon who delivers; that’s the chief criteria,” comments AFM director of communications, Bob Adams. The organization did not respond to calls to discuss the issue further.

If a Boycott Falls in the Woods…?
The American Civil Liberties Union, an organization that regularly fights for lesbian and gay rights, entered into a two-year contract with Convio in December of last year, according to Emily Whitfield, the ACLU National Office’s media relations director. In a statement emailed to PDF, Whitfield noted the ACLU’s disappointment with Convio’s judgment that AFM is not a group that promotes prejudice. She continued, “We hope that Convio will rethink its position, and it's something we'll take into consideration when doing business in the future.”

Though Convio client, Planned Parenthood of Northern New England, may be rethinking its relationship with the firm once its contract expires in March of 2006, says Barrie Silver, director of marketing for the group, the main decision-making factors will probably involve streamlining internal operations and external marketing efforts more than Convio’s client list. “We’re aware that Convio works with diverse organizations and that all of them may not share our views,” she adds, noting that she was not aware of the AFM affair before being contacted by PDF.

Planned Parenthood of Northern New England’s New Hampshire community organizer, Lindsay Hanson, was also unfamiliar with the recent racket surrounding Convio. When asked whether client relationships play a role in vetting vendors, she commented, “We definitely do check and make sure that organizations using [a vendor’s software] are in line with our values.” She continued that once the time and effort of learning software programs is invested, it’s not necessarily feasible to drop one vendor for another. Plus, vendor contracts aren’t always so easy to wiggle out of.

Amy George, communications manager at the National Office of Mothers Against Drunk Driving, “only [has] really great things to say about Convio,” whose software the group has been using for three years. “Even if there was a boycott, we wouldn’t join it,” she asserts.

"I think people are taking [the Convio/Alliance for Marriage controversy] seriously. What the eventual impact is, we'll have to wait and see," comments Sheeraz Haji, CEO of Convio competitor GetActive, a software firm with clients as potentially adversarial as the Service Employees International Union and the U.S. Chamber of Commerce.

While GetActive has no public policy regarding how it chooses clients, Haji affirms GetActive has an internal client conflict policy. “We consider what is best for our business, based primarily on how a potentially controversial prospect will affect our existing clients, staff, and our reputation."

Indeed, the far more prominent software provider, Microsoft, came under fire recently for flip-flopping on its position on anti-discrimination legislation. Americablog and subsequent scuttlebutt throughout the blogosphere and realm of email also helped to fan those flames.

Partisanship, Passion and Perception
These debates, particularly the one surrounding Convio, highlight the larger question of partisanship among technology vendors. While some companies providing software tools for issue advocacy, constituent and member relationship management, fundraising, and the like appear to have aligned with one side or the other, most haven’t drawn any official lines in the political sand. However, as the Washington Post piece indicates, perception can overpower reality.

“Sometimes clients will tell you, ‘if you’re going to work for them, then you can’t work for us,’” explains Wayne Johnson, president of The American Association of Political Consultants, a group that includes technology company representatives as its members. According to Johnson, even telemarketing vendors and printers that don’t get involved with strategic consulting sometimes get caught up in political partisanship. This can result from simple business practicality, or paranoia on the part of campaigns and organizations concerned about their political opponents sneaking peeks at their strategy secrets.

One “centrist” software vendor representative who prefers to remain anonymous opines that software vendors who choose sides would never be able to achieve the business growth necessary to stay afloat in an increasingly competitive industry.

GetActive’s Haji recalls, "Early in its history, GetActive considered and rejected the notion of ‘taking sides’ in partisan battles or applying an ideological screen to our client base. We wanted to build a software business, not a political consulting business."

Convio’s Austin takes a similar stance. He concludes, “In markets that are emerging like ours these are the types of issues that are going to pop-up. It’s a grey area for our market right now.” Though he predicts that companies like his will more clearly define the client policies, Austin continues, “From Convio’s standpoint, we have made the decision that we aren’t the judge. Our zeal is for our market, not the side of the aisle.”

Still, the reality is that the market these companies have chosen to serve is quite often a politically zealous one. Though there’s no clear consensus, in light of the backlash against Convio, this issue could continue to rouse the passions of this typically politically-charged client base. In fact, if Americablog’s newly-launched offensive against Capitol Advantage -- an advocacy software provider which has served clients as polarized as Working Assets’ progressive ActForChange and conservative advocacy group, RightMarch.com -- is any indication, tech vendors serving partisan clients might have to reexamine their big-tent business models more seriously.