GLI / Ediis / Magellan
Results in the Tech Stack study
Results come from publishers’ answers and cannot be edited by the vendor. Learn more
What its users say (28)
4/10“Everything related to digital is problematic because they do not master that environment.”
3/10“No development, very expensive, poor service, ageing company.”
8/10“We have been working with Ediis for many years and are satisfied. It is a partner that knows our needs and our environment well, which makes our day-to-day collaboration easier.”
4/10“Too complicated to manage and to retrieve information.”
3/10“Complicated to evolve, a heavy legacy to manage and a migration that scares everyone.”
6/10“Does the job but requires intermediaries or heavy development to launch digital operations quickly and autonomously.”
5/10“Robust but technically outdated. Lacks features for capturing acquisition sources (CDP-type) and a proper CRM module. GLI's Loggia is very complicated to get to grips with and not at all intuitive, which limits the possibility of entrusting it to people who only use it occasionally.”
5/10“Loggia/GLI, an old and complex tool (the front end looks like a Minitel screen!), which hasn't evolved, not suited to digital subscriptions, even though GLI is one of the market leaders! Quite a few changes in the management team and at operational level. Loggia/Magellan switch planned for 2025, little visibility on this major CRM change, not very reassuring.”
6/10“Tool that manages databases well but doesn't allow us to address other issues effectively, such as payment methods.”
4/10“GLI not agile at all. Everything is complicated and slow, doesn't drive improvement or innovation at all.”
5/10“Solution made for print with an ageing interface but a good relationship.”
4/10“ERP. Little flexibility. High costs to adapt to publishers' changing needs. Limited features.”
5/10“A long-standing relationship and trust in our contacts but… Agility that could still be improved and ageing back offices and BI tools.”
7/10“Lack of flexibility, difficult to evolve technically, APIs unavailable, print model hard to adapt to the web.”
5/10“Reliable, stable but completely has-been, especially for web subscriptions, and very rigid. But no choice if you want to manage print subscriptions; the very modern solutions can't handle them (cheques, VAT, etc.).”
5/10“Complex to evolve or adapt to our needs.”
5/10“Ageing solution but expert in managing print subscriptions.”
4/10“Very little agility, custom development is costly and slow.”
3/10“"Print first" solutions that no longer meet the needs of digital subscriptions. Migration in progress.”
5/10“Little responsiveness and agility, old-school way of working. Little pooling between clients / a lot of ad hoc development. Vision heavily steeped in the print model, not at all user-oriented.”
4/10“Obsolete LOGGIA support interface, unreliable data and availability, poor or even unusable documentation, sometimes difficult contacts, and a matrix historically built for print (and therefore less suited to our challenges around digital subscription).”
5/10“Awaiting migration to GLI's new platform – Magellan + Netful.”
3/10“The solution lacks agility.”
3/10“The problems encountered with Ediis would take too long to list…”
5/10“Ageing tool in terms of ergonomics and reporting. Modules being rewritten that never arrive (e.g. BI module…).”
6/10“No evolution, not agile, not flexible… but they make efforts depending on the account manager.”
5/10“Very poorly suited to the web.”
7/10“Ediis is finally profitable and that is reassuring for the future. They have invested heavily in data security, and because today there are no other alternatives offering the same service at the same price, and one has to be pragmatic.”
Anonymised comments from study respondents.