the familiarity moat

Blackboard defined the LMS category. Can it survive what it helped create?

Blackboard’s endurance isn’t about being deeply loved. It’s about being deeply embedded. The product might not excite customers, but it’s surrounded by barriers that shield it from losing business.

TLDR: What’s Blackboard’s Path Forward?

Blackboard’s Core Problem: It’s stuck in the past—clunky UX, poor AI visibility, slow product evolution, and eroding faculty goodwill. Its interface is considered “dated” and less intuitive than competitors like Canvas and Brightspace .

• Why It’s Still Around: Deep integrations, regulatory compliance, multi-year contracts, and institutional inertia make switching painful for many universities. Blackboard's long-term institutional presence is tied to its deep coupling with student information systems (SIS), authentication protocols, and backend workflows, making extraction time-consuming and risky.

• Its Competitors Are Winning on Speed and Experience:

  • Canvas is eating market share with intuitive design and proactive AI integration.

  • Brightspace wins in compliance-heavy and global segments.

  • AI-native upstarts are layering over the LMS entirely.

• Blackboard’s Path Forward: Stop pretending to be an innovator. Start owning its role as the compliance-first, integration-deep, risk-managed platform. Focus on low-friction fixes, services-based retention, and partnerships.

---

In the early days of digital education, Blackboard was synonymous with the Learning Management System (LMS). For over two decades, it served as the digital backbone of higher education, quietly facilitating everything from assignment uploads to grade distribution. It was institutional, compliant, stable, and for many, invisible in both the best and worst ways.

But as AI reshapes the education technology landscape, invisibility is no longer an asset. Blackboard is described by many users as functionally outdated and “clunky,” with a user experience that frustrates instructors and a product architecture that limits flexibility. While competitors like Instructure (Canvas), D2L (Brightspace), and even upstarts like Class Technologies have moved aggressively to integrate AI, Blackboard’s response has been measured, incremental, and largely reactive.

The AI moment has become an innovation referendum in education, and Blackboard is being judged not on what it once built, but on what it hasn’t built yet. Among faculty, the sentiment is blunt: "Blackboard adding AI is like putting a jet engine on a horse-drawn carriage". In enterprise procurement, Gartner cautions buyers to evaluate AI claims critically when considering vendors. Blackboard barely registers in the conversation around AI in education.

This is no longer just about product features. It’s about perception, velocity, and future-readiness. Blackboard still powers a vast number of institutions, but what are its prospects for the future?

Like Morpheus from The Matrix, Blackboard offers a familiar red pill/blue pill dilemma: stick with the familiar or escape into the unknown.

---

Case Study: Repositioning a Legacy Tech Vendor for a Growth Comeback

Scroll to the end of this article for a case study of Emerging Strategy’s work in clarifying a path to growth even when customers see you as a legacy player.

---

Blackboard’s Five Structural Vulnerabilities

The fastest path to stealing market share from Blackboard is to attack its vulnerabilities. LMS competitors that align their product roadmap, marketing narrative, and sales motions around Blackboard’s core vulnerabilities can turn institutional frustration into deals. These are systemic issues that competitors can exploit.

1. Persistent Frustration with UX

Instructors consistently describe Blackboard’s interface as difficult to navigate and inefficient, especially when compared with platforms like Canvas or Brightspace. Recurring complaints from faculty focus on how frequently they have to guide students through basic tasks, how long it takes to complete routine actions, and how dated the platform feels in both design and responsiveness. This poor user experience creates internal advocates for switching.

2. Lack of Visibility in AI-Driven Market Narratives

When faculty and decision-makers search for platforms that are leading in AI-enabled education, Blackboard rarely appears. AI search queries return a consistent set of competitors: Canvas, Khan Academy, Quizlet, Google Classroom—but almost never include Blackboard unless it’s mentioned directly. This lack of organic visibility signals a deeper brand perception issue: Blackboard is not seen as part of the AI-forward future of education, despite having added some AI-related functionality.

3. Institutional Fatigue with Value vs. Cost

Although pricing details vary by contract, sentiment among procurement-facing users and instructors suggests that Blackboard is often viewed as expensive for what it delivers. Multiple customers cited cost concerns, with one noting their institution saved 40% annually after switching away from Blackboard. For many customers, the factor that is more important than cost savings is value alignment: faculty and IT teams express frustration at paying premium prices for software that doesn’t appear to meet their evolving expectations. This creates pressure during contract renewal cycles, especially when newer platforms offer more flexible pricing to encourage switching.

Many institutions are reevaluating what they actually need from an LMS, and how much value different platforms deliver in practice. Independent voice-of-customer research can clarify where internal sentiment stands before entering a renewal cycle.

4. Slow Product Evolution

Blackboard’s pace of innovation is consistently seen as slower than that of its competitors. Instructors and IT staff report that feature rollouts are infrequent, lagging behind broader edtech trends, and that updates often introduce more complexity rather than resolving pain points. While other platforms are more explicitly integrating generative AI or predictive analytics in core workflows, Blackboard’s updates tend to focus on infrastructure, backend performance, or incremental usability improvements. This creates the impression of a platform trying to catch up rather than setting direction.

5. Weak Brand Affinity Among End Users

The overall tone of faculty commentary around Blackboard reflects resignation rather than enthusiasm. While some institutions continue to use it out of habit or contractual obligation, it is rarely discussed with pride or support. In contrast, competitors are often praised for being intuitive, responsive to feedback, and more closely aligned with how instructors want to teach. This matters in environments where faculty input influences LMS selection. Once brand loyalty erodes at the instructor level, it becomes difficult to recover, even if IT and administration remain on board.

---

Companies looking to win in crowded markets weaponize competitor weakness and customer discontent. Emerging Strategy helps category challengers pinpoint where incumbents are vulnerable, and where frustrated buyers are already leaning. The result? Targeted growth strategies rooted in customer reality.

---

The 4 Alligators in Blackboard’s Defensive Moat

While Blackboard is still in the room, it no longer leads the conversation. And among a growing number of institutions, particularly those piloting AI-first teaching tools or revamping their online course strategies, its continued presence feels less like a strategic choice and more like a holdover from a previous era.

That said, Blackboard remains deeply embedded across thousands of higher education institutions in the U.S. and globally, in compliance-heavy regions.

Blackboard retains a meaningful user base because of its long-standing footprint and the complexity of migration away from it. Many universities have customized their workflows, reporting, and data flows around Blackboard’s architecture. For IT leaders and procurement teams, the prospect of switching to another LMS—especially one with different compliance postures or unknown integration risk—is daunting.

This is the “familiarity moat”: the inertia of not wanting to break what’s already duct-taped into place. For all the frustration it generates among instructors and students, Blackboard’s persistence is the result of structural defenses that delay or deter institutions from switching. These moats are not glamorous, but they are effective.

1. Switching Costs Are High, Technically and Politically

Migrating from one LMS to another is a multi-year operational effort. Most institutions have customized workflows, data integrations, and authentication systems that are tightly coupled with their LMS. These include links to Student Information Systems (SIS), assessment databases, and even single sign-on protocols. One analysis noted that migration timelines typically span 18–36 months for institutions heavily invested in Blackboard, particularly when integrations touch multiple administrative systems .

IT departments understand the technical risk and human cost of transition. Even when faculty want to switch, administrative leaders may hesitate, knowing that change management, retraining, and potential data loss could derail an academic year. This inertia often outweighs product experience dissatisfaction.

2. Embedded Governance and Compliance Infrastructure

Blackboard has spent years building out features that meet FERPA, ADA, and other regulatory standards, especially for U.S. institutions and international campuses with complex compliance requirements. Its reporting tools, user permission structures, and audit logs align with what universities need to document access and protect student data.

While newer platforms may meet or even exceed Blackboard on UX, few have the same institutional legacy around compliance. For larger universities where procurement involves legal, accessibility, and data security teams, this history of compliance serves as a form of institutional reassurance.

3. Familiarity Reduces Perceived Risk

While many instructors criticize Blackboard’s usability, long-term users have adapted to its quirks. Syllabi, gradebooks, quizzes, and modules are already built in Blackboard’s formats. Teaching and learning centers have pre-existing support materials. IT staff know how to troubleshoot issues.

Replacing Blackboard means replacing embedded knowledge. In institutions with decentralized decision-making or low change tolerance, the path of least resistance often wins. Familiarity becomes a quiet but powerful argument for staying put.

4. Multi-Year Contracts and Procurement Lock-In

Many institutions are bound by multi-year agreements that include service bundles, licensing discounts, or statewide procurement frameworks. These arrangements can make it expensive to exit. Even if and when user dissatisfaction reaches a tipping point, universities need to wait for renewal windows or navigate state-level contract processes before making a move.

This delay acts as a buffer. It gives Blackboard time to patch weaknesses, roll out new features, or renegotiate terms before a competitor can win the bid.

---

For legacy players under pressure, the real advantage lies in knowing which moats are still defensible and which have quietly eroded. Emerging Strategy helps clients audit their strategic posture and identify where to reinforce, reframe, or retreat.

---

If Blackboard were to Punch Back like Popeye

Blackboard is unlikely to out-innovate younger platforms in speed or UX polish. Its product architecture, reputation, and culture are built for what seems like a bygone era. But it could redefine the battleground from feature velocity to institutional resilience, and focus on low-friction enhancements, compliance-led positioning, and services-based lock-in.

Here’s how that could work:

1. Play Offense Through Compliance-First AI

Rather than chasing generative features that excite early adopters, Blackboard should double down on AI that satisfies legal, ethical, and auditability concerns. These are areas where universities are especially risk-averse.

• Build transparent, human-in-the-loop AI features for grading suggestions, participation analysis, and outcome tracking.

• Emphasize bias mitigation, accessibility conformance, and data protection compliance—not just functionality.

• Position these tools as part of a “safe AI” framework designed for provosts, general counsels, and data officers.

This allows Blackboard to differentiate without having to be the most sophisticated player in the room.

2. Reposition Services as Strategic Differentiator

Blackboard offers support, training, and integration services, but treats them as backend functions. To retain and grow accounts, it should reframe these as high-impact, renewal-driving assets by packaging offerings like:

• Faculty enablement (e.g. AI adoption, course redesign)

• Compliance consulting (audit-ready setups, documentation)

• SIS integration support tied to contract renewals

This shifts the conversation from product limitations to institutional outcomes: an area where Blackboard holds leverage.

Platforms that succeed in shifting customer perception often start by validating how different stakeholders define “value.” That clarity is hard to gain from within. Our work at Emerging Strategy has supported such transformations through voice of customer analysis.

3. Reposition as a Stability Layer in an Unstable Market

While newer platforms talk disruption, Blackboard offers continuity. Instead of being apologetic about being a legacy platform, reposition itself as the infrastructure backbone for serious institutions, especially those operating across multiple regions or subject to strict regulatory scrutiny.

• Promote its long-term compliance record, multilingual capabilities, and configurability for non-U.S. institutions.

• Publish thought leadership and host customer roundtables focused on “AI Readiness for Enterprise-Scale Universities”—appealing to decision-makers who don’t want disruption, but do want safety and credibility.

• Reframe its legacy as institutional memory, not baggage.

Blackboard needs be the most defensible, the least risky, and the easiest to keep. That’s how it holds onto existing clients—and possibly wins back institutions that left prematurely.

More tactically, Blackboard could lean in by:

1. Identifying the highest-friction, highest-visibility pain points and address them through surgical improvements (mobile, Gradebook and Syllabus tools).

2. Opening itself up to external AI partners, creating a controlled plugin environment for vetted third-party tools. This “middleware” approach would position Blackboard as the safe scaffolding around more innovative tools, extending its lifespan without demanding in-house transformation.

---

In a shifting market, the advantage goes to the player with the clearest value proposition. Emerging Strategy works with leadership teams to define differentiated value propositions, test go-to-market narratives, and reorient positioning around what matters most to buyers right now.

---

Blackboard’s Future Will Be Defined by How It Redefines the Game

The window is closing and the market may begin to fragment with AI-native layers reducing LMS centrality. Brand affinity is shifting toward platforms that make faculty and students feel empowered, not boxed in.

Blackboard sits in this narrowing space: tolerated by institutions that can’t easily switch, dismissed by those who already have, and ignored in the places where edtech’s future is being actively built.

The path forward is about anchoring to what Blackboard has: the trust of cautious institutions and the muscle memory of faculty who’ve used it for years.

---

Emerging Strategy’s work in this space:

Case Study: Helping a Legacy EdTech Firm Regain Strategic Clarity

A mid-sized education technology provider (once a category leader) was losing ground. Its platform was deeply embedded in institutions, but user frustration was mounting, new sales were flat, and competitors were gaining visibility. Internally, the company was unsure how to respond.

Emerging Strategy was brought in to answer a direct but difficult question:

What do our customers actually want now, and where are our competitors vulnerable enough for us to win?

We went to work on three fronts:

1. Voice-of-Customer Discovery
   We interviewed faculty, IT leads, and procurement officers across current and former clients, surfacing friction points, unmet needs, and shifts in how institutions were evaluating edtech partners post-pandemic.

2. Competitive Teardowns
   We reverse-engineered competitor go-to-market narratives, onboarding experiences, and public positioning, and tested them with real buyers to identify disconnects between brand promise and actual delivery.

3. Strategic Repositioning
   We worked with leadership to reframe the company's value proposition—not around shiny features, but around what we learned institutions cared most about. The new GTM narrative was supported by concrete changes in messaging, packaging, and roadmap prioritization.

The result?
In less than a quarter, the company stopped churn at two major accounts, re-entered the RFP process with a top-25 public university, and secured a pilot with a flagship R1 private institution by leading with credibility, not hype.

This is where we come in.
Emerging Strategy helps education providers—whether legacy or insurgent—make clear, confident decisions rooted in customer insight and competitive truth. When the ground shifts, we help you find the footholds that still matter.

---

Recent Articles: