September 9, 2007
“Your Money or Your Life!”
Posted by Kevin | Print This Article
Scott Briscoe posted an interesting piece at Acronym last week that generated a little discussion, particularly with some insightful comments from Virgil Carter and Jeffrey Cufaude. I was going to write a comment there as well but thought, what the heck, why not post it here as my first full-length post in a year?
Scott asks, “Why does growth always seem to be a strategy?” and it’s a good question. (The problem is that he then undercuts his argument by saying that growth is important — just not, you know, certain kinds of growth.)
I think Scott is dead on when he says that there are other possible numbers beyond membership growth that can be meaningful to an association’s success, such as the “growth in participation” which he suggests.
The difficulty comes in defining what those numbers are — because they will vary not just from association to association, but from member to member. Members join for different reasons.
In a comment to his original post, Scott defined “time” as the metric he may be striving to measure. Yet not everyone has an interest in giving time — as Virgil and Jeff note in their comments, the much-put-upon “mailbox member” is generally only interested in receiving certain tangible (or semi-tangible) benefits in exchange for their dues. In most cases, these sorts of members make up the majority of an association’s members (this is certainly the case of trade associations).
As I’ve written before, I am a mailbox member in certain organizations. I belong for specific reasons, and have little interest in being badgered into “participation.” I am very selfish with my time. So are most of your members.
A successful strategy is one that views the association as a whole. Simply looking at membership growth alone provides a lopsided view of the organization. But I think that simply coming up with an “engagement index” and looking at that alone would be just as dangerous.
Most associations offer “services and programs” that fall into two categories:
Knowledge & Intelligence. This is exclusive knowledge or intellectual property that members of the organization’s industry or profession can use for their professional benefit. It’s information and/or data they can use to get a competitive or personal advantage.
Community & Connection. These are ways, be they meetings or online forums or peer groups or whatever, that associations can use to help members connect with other members – so they can get a competitive or personal advantage.
The problem, as I see it, is that the notion of “time” only measures a member’s willingness to engage in one of these areas.
If your association is providing knowledge or intelligence resources that are worth a damn, then you will attract members who are “mailbox members.” If you keep introducing new resources that meet their needs, they will continue to renew.
If your association is providing a place for community or conversation, dependent on participation among the membership for value, then you will attract members who are willing to give “time” in cultivating these relationships. If you continue providing innovative opportunities for these connections, and make them easy to take advantage of, they will continue to renew.
In some cases, these are the same members. In many cases, they differ. I’m curious as to why associations should feel compelled to choose one or the other? Why can’t we have a strategy that includes both? And why can’t we value metrics that measure both?
Trackbacks & Pingbacks