February 27, 2006
A Dose of Reality
Posted by Kevin | Print This Article
Ben asks five questions about the Long Tail and its impact on associations in the real world. The first three make excellent points: more members are learners than teachers; we all face a qualified volunteer deficit; and the Long Tail concept seems to work better for resellers than content developers (though points two and three could be dealt with by associations that realize they may be better suited to be resellers than content developers).
His last two questions, however, while being valid questions to raise, both include statements I disagree with.
” … members are entitled to roughly equal levels of service commensurate with their dues investment. This is a fundamental principle of association management.”
I don’t think that’s a fundamental principle at all. Admittedly, this may be because Ben is a professional society type, and I’m a trade association type (and I’m not one to have much truck with “fundamental principles” in the first place). In the trade association world, it’s common for members to pay different dues based on company size, and it’s also common for smaller members to avail themselves more of certain association services than larger ones (who pay more dues) do. This may very well be a model that needs revisiting, but it’s the reality of what happens.
In addition, this point seems to suggest that “anyone who joins” is entitled to an “equal level of service.” I don’t believe this to be the case, as it is entirely appropriate (and in my opinion, recommended) for associations to choose who they want their members to be — based not only on the organization’s mission but on how profitable those members are. An unprofitable member is not an asset to an association, whether you think in terms of either bottom line or mission (and you need to think of both).
In any event, with the Long Tail, however an association chooses to view such a model, the goal is to leverage technology and intelligence to gain more “profit” from members within smaller niches — not to spend more resources on them.
“Overlap is inefficient.”
That’s like saying the free market is inefficient. Competition is good, but I’ve made that point before.
Finally, I followed Ben’s reference to Bradley Horowitz’s post on “Creators, Synthesizers, and Consumers.” The model Horowitz drew on the 1/10/100 model for “groups” is the same model we are all very familiar with in the trade association world. It’s how most of us work: small number of leaders and active volunteers, slightly larger (but still comparatively small) number of members, producing resources that benefit the entire community of members and non-members alike. Interesting to see the “online social community” folks realizing it.
I’m coming at this “entitlement” principle from a different angle. Read this example and let me know if you still disagree. Your assn operates 10 sections. Out of the ten, nine get a budget of approximately $10K, and each of these nine generates services that benefit about the same number of members. The tenth, however, has a budget of $100K, and only serves half the members that other nine do. Now, there may be cases where this is appropriate, but you better believe this would cause most managers to ask a lot of hard questions.
Well, of course competition is good, Kevin, but it’s also inefficient. There’s no denying it. We’re expending duplicate resources to create the same things. But what it fails to deliver in efficiency, it makes up for in choice.
Like I said in my original post, these questions aren’t deal-killers. They’re simply obstacles we need to address and solve.