Interactive Intelligence earnings, revenue improve

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

Indianapolis software developer Interactive Intelligence Group Inc. earned $1.2 million in the second quarter as revenue increased 39 percent, to $76.2 million, the company announced Monday afternoon.

Earnings were 6 cents per share for the quarter. A year ago, Interactive reported a $1.1 million loss in the same period, equal to a loss of  6 cents per share.

Orders for the company increased 115 percent, while cloud-based orders alone surge 469 percent, which accounted for 64 percent of all orders.

Contract sizes are also increasing. Interactive had 43 contracts worth at least $250,000 and 14 worth $1 million or more in th quarter, compared with 36 and 8, respectively, in the second quarter of 2012.

“With each large deal we get, our credit goes up,” CEO Donald Brown told analysts during an after-markets conference call Monday. So-called “mega deals” tend to birth other “mega deals,” he said.

Changing over to cloud-based services has been a bumpy ride for the software company.

Rather than collecting upfront costs for setting up call centers, revenue now comes in on a subscription basis. Profit in 2012 plummeted to less than $1 million from almost $15 million in 2011 as the company adjusted.

Interactive shares rose 11.6 percent, to $64.75 each, in after-market trading.


Post a comment to this story

We reserve the right to remove any post that we feel is obscene, profane, vulgar, racist, sexually explicit, abusive, or hateful.
You are legally responsible for what you post and your anonymity is not guaranteed.
Posts that insult, defame, threaten, harass or abuse other readers or people mentioned in IBJ editorial content are also subject to removal. Please respect the privacy of individuals and refrain from posting personal information.
No solicitations, spamming or advertisements are allowed. Readers may post links to other informational websites that are relevant to the topic at hand, but please do not link to objectionable material.
We may remove messages that are unrelated to the topic, encourage illegal activity, use all capital letters or are unreadable.

Messages that are flagged by readers as objectionable will be reviewed and may or may not be removed. Please do not flag a post simply because you disagree with it.

Sponsored by

facebook - twitter on Facebook & Twitter

Follow on TwitterFollow IBJ on Facebook:
Follow on TwitterFollow IBJ's Tweets on these topics:
Subscribe to IBJ
  1. John, unfortunately CTRWD wants to put the tank(s) right next to a nature preserve and at the southern entrance to Carmel off of Keystone. Not exactly the kind of message you want to send to residents and visitors (come see our tanks as you enter our city and we build stuff in nature preserves...

  2. 85 feet for an ambitious project? I could shoot ej*culate farther than that.

  3. I tried, can't take it anymore. Untill Katz is replaced I can't listen anymore.

  4. Perhaps, but they've had a very active program to reduce rainwater/sump pump inflows for a number of years. But you are correct that controlling these peak flows will require spending more money - surge tanks, lines or removing storm water inflow at the source.

  5. All sewage goes to the Carmel treatment plant on the White River at 96th St. Rainfall should not affect sewage flows, but somehow it does - and the increased rate is more than the plant can handle a few times each year. One big source is typically homeowners who have their sump pumps connect into the sanitary sewer line rather than to the storm sewer line or yard. So we (Carmel and Clay Twp) need someway to hold the excess flow for a few days until the plant can process this material. Carmel wants the surge tank located at the treatment plant but than means an expensive underground line has to be installed through residential areas while CTRWD wants the surge tank located further 'upstream' from the treatment plant which costs less. Either solution works from an environmental control perspective. The less expensive solution means some people would likely have an unsightly tank near them. Carmel wants the more expensive solution - surprise!