When SharePoint's own partners won't use it as Web CMS

  • 3-May-2010

Microsoft's closest software partners whose core competency lies in knowing the innards of SharePoint have largely rejected the platform as an internet publishing service.

SharePoint's web content management capabilities have always been controversial, especially for public website environments. Although Redmond can point to more than a thousand customers using SharePoint's WCM services, many systems integrators and consultancies -- including those close to Microsoft -- tell us privately that they recommend competing alternatives for their clients' public websites in all but the most trivial scenarios.

Of course, most integrators have relationships with multiple Web CMS vendors, to be able to match different customer needs.

This got me wondering about Microsoft's software partners, often labelled "the ISV (Independent Software Vendor) channel." They build tools that run on top of or alongside SharePoint, and are traditionally very loyal to Microsoft. Do they use SharePoint for their own websites?

I decided to find out, starting with a list of ISVs that we evaluate in our SharePoint "ecosystem" research, and adding nearly a dozen more to create a representative list. I looked only at partners who exclusively or primarily develop software to work with SharePoint. In other words, I left out the likes of EMC, Open Text, and other vendors who compete as well as cooperate with Redmond (and have their own WCM tools).

Let's look at thirty SharePoint ISVs across six categories.

1) Several SharePoint partners employ Dreamweaver templates, presumably with static or semi-static pages:

2) Some go with SharePoint competitors:

3) Others run on PHP-based, open source software:

4) Some run on pre-.NET, ASP-driven code -- or possibly Microsoft's old MCMS product:

5) Some partners' sites look more like custom .NET applications or some unidentifiable .NET-based CMS. To be fair, they could theoretically be SharePoint-delivered; if so, they were heavily customized (replacement master pages, URL-rewriting, killing extraneous JS and CSS, etc.), and somehow suppressed the tell-tale SharePoint response-header entry. In other words: extremely unlikely.

6) I found just four ISV partners whose sites definitely get served up by SharePoint:

Recall again that this is a list of ISVs and not integrators. Among the thousands of SharePoint services firms worldwide, surely many of them publish their websites using SharePoint, and some will no doubt leave comments to that effect below. I imagine they're more willing to invest energy in the same sorts of customizations they're pitching to client companies. Redmond will also more readily give integrators free licenses for external sites.

I think the profile of ISVs more closely matches that of you the customer: they have Microsoft expertise, interest in SharePoint, but don't want to over-invest in website customization if they can get more productized solutions elsewhere.

There are many potential explanations for why a substantial majority of Redmond's software partners eschew SharePoint for their public sites. Perhaps their website platforms predated MOSS 2007 and they didn't see the need to migrate. Perhaps SharePoint's eye-popping external licensing fees proved too steep, even for the loyal faithful (though some ISV partners can get free external licenses).

Or perhaps SharePoint's manifold shortcomings for public site management lay behind these decisions. Microsoft has addressed those shortcomings more in degree than kind within SharePoint 2010.

If you'd like to investigate how SharePoint's web content management capabilities stack up against forty-four competitors across twelve scenarios, check out our Web CMS evaluation research here. If you're interested to learn more about SharePoint's broader strengths and weaknesses, consult our Evaluating SharePoint research.

Our customers say...

"As high-end web consultants, we use a variety of research tools to keep on top of the evolving technology platforms. Among these, Real Story Group is by far the best--a sort of bible for our CMS consulting practice. We've used The Web CMS Research both to get a jump on understanding products in advance of a formal CMS selection, as well as to start the conversation about potential partnerships. It's also great when a client asks you about an obscure product -- and you can get back to them within an hour with a grounded, thoughtful appraisal of the product, knowing that the information is accurate and written by analysts with real perspective."

John Berndt, President and CEO, The Berndt Group, Ltd.

Other Web Content & Experience Management posts

Web CMS Tasting Notes

  • September 11, 2018

What if we could do simple "tasting notes" for certain WCM vendors, like wine critics do? What would we say? Quite tongue-in-cheek, here's a sampling...

The Sitecore Paradox

  • September 3, 2018

The vendor's focus on core R&D and channel-based selling proved a winning business strategy, but I think Sitecore has hit a ceiling in recent years....

What Is a Real Quadrant?

  • August 14, 2018

Customers and consultants have a love-hate relationship with marketplace "quadrant" diagrams. You suspect there's something not right in the arbitrary positioning...and you're correct!...

Thanks for the Book Reviews!

  • July 9, 2018

We wanted to take a moment to say a special thank you to a few people who took the time to write extended reviews of the book....

Is Salesforce the New SharePoint?

  • June 18, 2018

Like Microsoft, Salesforce has struggled to convert its employee-facing systems into effective customer-facing systems. Our research has found that enterprise licensees have encountered some nasty surprises around...

MD