From my inbox
I would like to share a few e-mails that I have received in the last couple of days. Since they were sent to me via e-mail and not left as comments in my blog posts, I will NOT make attributions here.
Update: just got my permission, the following e-mail was sent by Bret Bass from Agile1.
I thought he was spot on, and thought I’d share with the rest of you.
I agree with much of what you’re saying here, and there are a couple of points I’d like to throw out for consideration. First, having come from a different industry (I’ve served in senior management levels at Tyco, GE, et al.) there’s certainly a case to be made for minimizing disruption and potential damage to any industry’s “interdependent ecosystem.” Acquiring the assets of a distressed company is a poor substitute for organic growth. When companies begin down the path of acquisitions to replace sales efforts, little good comes from it. This is also the lesson Axium should have learned itself. The purchase of Chimes was an $80 million mistake, designed to bolster a company that had not enjoyed the benefits of much organic growth. We used to call this “re-arranging deck chairs on the Titanic.”
My main point, however, is that companies slavering over the morsels left in the wake of Axium must remember that they are seeking to replace a product that often received high marks and much customer praise. Simply offering a replacement doesn’t mean that the new product will be as good, as cost effective, or as feature rich. In my experience, many companies will turn predatory quickly when such an opportunity arises. Desperate customers may find themselves saddled with a cumbersome, expensive, and poorly performing VMS because it was there. In such an instance, problems far worse than buyer’s remorse await an impetuous business owner.
Legal teams for companies who relied on the Chimes product are also advising their clients against using the applications for fear that accessing it would cause funds paid through the system to be claimed by the bankruptcy courts. Many of these companies are being urged to use manual processes in the meantime. What I’m taking this to mean is that there will be no quick and easy VMS replacement for Chimes. Without access to the data, everything will need to be entered into the new VMS by hand…a long and resource-laden process. VMS providers would be well advised to approach this undertaking not as a “transition” but as a new implementation. I’m not sure they will. It may be that we’ve not yet seen the darkness that they say precedes the dawn.


Brett Bass is spot on in all his points.
It is only natural that the other VMS providers will see this as a great opportunity to focus sales teams and marketing efforts in order to attain some of the great clients (most very large in spend) that were serviced by Chimes. It is a great opportunity. Brett is right that both customers of Chimes and their VMS replacements must realize there is a great deal of risk here if the process is rushed. Indeed all customers should look at this as a new implementation and begin change management efforts immediately to create an appropriate expectation for their employees.
That being said, if the customers have immediate needs that can’t realistically be met by reverting to a manual process of the past then they should take care in identifying and distinguishing the veritable necessities with which to begin an interim relationship with a replacement VMS. They should all heed Brett’s warning in doing this though as VMS and MSP are very sticky and companies - as most know following this blog(and especially now after this incident)- can become very dependent on them - whether or not the user experience is positive or efficient. So approach it as an initial phase of implementation and not a quick fix.