Association Trends reports today that an association filed for bankruptcy “when a near industry-wide ban on travel doomed its 2009 conference” and 70% of its expected attendees had a travel ban imposed on them.
Now, I do not know the first thing about this individual association or its experiences, and so I have nothing to say about it in particular — knowing firsthand the complexities that occur within specific organizations, I do not wish to express any opinions about any specific groups.
However, the news article offers a cautionary example of something I feel very strongly about, which is that associations cannot depend on traditional “association stuff” if they are even to survive, let alone thrive. Some people argue that the answer is to dive into “social media.” While it may not be a bad idea depending on your constituency, ultimately it is, I believe, missing the point.
A week or two ago, someone asked on an ASAE listserve for associations to share “their most valuable benefit” and I was struck by how many respondents responded with some variation of “networking.”
Networking is not a benefit — at least not one for which people are willing to pay very much. And if the only thing you have to offer is that you are a “group of people who do X or are interested in Y” then congratulations — you’re now a commodity. It costs absolutely NOTHING to form a community these days. One that doesn’t have any of your governance baggage or historical complexities that inevitably form over years in all associations.
I’ve written about this before, but as time has passed over the last several months, I believe it is now more desperately important for all associations than ever. If the only things you sell are meetings, advertising, advocacy, and a “community” then I am afraid you are in a very fragile position.
While I have railed against people in the past who have said things like “associations must do THIS” I almost feel like I have to say it here. Except instead of saying “you must” I will say “please” — please, please offer more tangible, real benefits than traditionally soft “association” stuff. Otherwise I’m very concerned about the long-term (or even short-term) fates of some associations.
{ 1 trackback }
{ 11 comments }
I’m really looking forward to the comment stream on this posting! You make an excellent point “…costs absolutely NOTHING to form a community … [which] doesn’t have any of your governance baggage or historical complexities…” But while I agree this point and that we must offer tangible benefits in addition to soft benefits – I don’t necessarily think all networking is “soft”. Part of the problem is that we haven’t cast it correctly but more so we haven’t overlaid the tools to move the networking outcomes into tangible benefits (think knowledge creation). For awhile associations dove into the affinity market only to find out that there’s always a competitor lurking that can do it one better. So we must have the unique balance.
Thanks, Peggy. In my opinion affinity programs are a classic example of the commodity community mindset. “We are a group of people and in exchange for a few pennies on the dollar we will give you access to us.”
I believe affinity programs do have a role to play, but it is a minor, ancillary one. Few programs will generate real membership, even fewer real loyalty, and almost none real growth.
“Relationship” revenue streams like affinity programs, sponsorships, etc. are subject to the whims of others over whom the association has no control. We cannot build on a foundation we don’t own.
I would contend that there is a difference in the quality of a networking environment. You’re right–building community is incredibly cheap if not free. But, is that community providing the sought values and needs of the individual? I hear many educators (my industry, sorry) bemoan the quality of their conversations on groups on Yahoo, NingEducation, etc. Why is that? Many of them answer "because it’s free, and you get what you pay for." Networking has layers and layers of nuance that can and are impacted by its infrastructure, support mechanisms, delivery modes, and frequency. Genuine, rich, comprehensive, full-modal networking is still a commodity worth paying dues to a professional association for. –Howard Wahlberg
Assistant Executive Director
National Science Teachers Association
I agree with Howard on the networking “benefit.” It’s a little more complex. We have an online forum behind our member wall, and there are three or four other innkeeper forums that are free. What I find, since I lurk around those forums, is that there is a lot of drama/complaining and less idea-sharing in those discussions. Innkeepers find that in our forum, the tone is much more professional and the time spent there is much more useful. So, in our case, when a member says that “networking” is one of the best benefits of our association, I have to put it into context a bit. With the association’s name attached to the forum and with association staff monitoring the discussions, innkeepers tend to behave themselves appropriately and the value of the discussion is high.
Yes, networking is not the benefit…the idea-sharing and problem-solving due to the networking are the benefits. Associations should promote the idea sharing and problem solving as the benefits, and in our case, I suppose we could say “The most professional forums in the industry for innkeepers to share ideas and solve problems together.” But members are smart enough to know that when we say “networking” as the benefit, they can connect the dots and quickly understand that it really means idea sharing, problem solving, making professional/career building connections, opportunities for commerce, etc. I don’t get hung up on not using the word “networking” as the benefit.
I’m not as pessimistic about the future of associations who continue to offer the “soft” and traditional benefits of conferences, “networking”, advocacy, advertising, etc. Advocacy might be necessary, and many members will join to support the cause. I can cite recent advocacy efforts we are working on to our recent spike in membership. No doubt, because the issue we are working on hits home for our members. Advertising is still viable, as long as associations are seen as a place where buyers and sellers can come together. Conferences are still important to those who want to interact with, learn from and do business with LIVE human beings.
To that point, I think most social networking success is based completely on people having FIRST made connections in person with other LIVE human beings. I haven’t made any NEW, meaningful connections on Facebook, LinkedIn or ASAE’s member directory with people I didn’t already meet in person. If associations continue to offer the in-person opportunities for people to meet and bond, only THEN will the social networking tools be valuable (IMHO). I am “friends” with about 20 or so ASAE colleauges on Facebook…some I’ve known for years, and others I met for the first time in San Diego over a fun dinner. We’ve allowed those dinner friendships to blossom by staying connected on Facebook. Again, it was only the in-person dinner “networking” that allowed Facebook to be valuable in these cases.
Kevin is right in that we cannot rest on these “softer” benefits. It is our responsibility to find new, creative and tangible benefits to round out a valuable portfolio of benefits. Not everyone joins for the tangibles; not everyone joins for the intangibles. Associations should continue to offer both in meaningful ways.
Jay Karen
CEO
Professional Association of Innkeepers International
Howard, thanks very much for the comment. I think you are absolutely right — the cultivation of our walled gardens leads to a higher quality “networking” experience than free Yahoo groups and the like.
But I said it costs nothing to FORM a community — I didn’t say it had to cost nothing to JOIN a community!
Imagine a scenario where a person — perhaps an entrpreneur, perhaps an individual or small group of people already well-known in your industry — form a community with a very minimal investment in technology and their own time. And to make it a higher quality experience, they too cultivate it as their own walled garden. And to make it worth their while, they charge for it.
Could they charge less than you do? At a higher margin?
This isn’t a fictional or what-if scenario, or even a particularly new or novel one. It’s happened in many industries, including the one in which I work, long pre-dating “Web 2.0.” (And I think the fact that it happened turned out in the end to be a very good thing for us.)
I don’t think that networking isn’t valuable at all. I’m just suggesting that it may not be, in and of itself, a sustainable business model, at least not at the rates organizations are used to charging.
Jay, thanks very much for the thoughtful comment! I appreciate your insight.
While I think my response to Howard covers some of this as well, let me clarify that I’m not saying that “meetings, advertising, advocacy, ‘community’” are bad things, and I’m certainly not suggesting that anyone should flat-out stop doing them — only that an association that is completely reliant on them may find itself in a very difficult position.
As we’ve all seen in many sectors, advertising and traditional face-to-face meetings are very prone to cycles affected by the overall economy. And both of these areas are also undergoing profound technological changes that are nowhere near shaking out, and which will greatly affect revenue models for each.
As you say, advocacy is extremely important to a lot of associations — certainly to ones like mine, a trade association representing small businesses. But what does “extremely important” mean? It’s a vital part of our mission and has a profound impact on our industry and members — but only a minority of companies in most industries will usually pay dues to an association just to “support the cause.” Why? Because we’re going to do it whether they pay dues or not!
(The exceptions I’ve seen are when an industry rallies to support a very specific cause, usually an imminent political threat. Once that issue has been dealt with, associations quickly find that the “lately” in “what have you done for me lately?” means, like, this morning, not yesterday.)
I agree that associations must continue to play to their strengths, and those strengths include the communities that we have built and that we have become. However I think where associations will truly break free from their current constraints is when they take that community and mine it for the creation of innovative programs and products that are NOT commodities, that are NOT available anywhere else.
Essentially, I believe the networking benefits to members that you outline — “the idea-sharing and problem-solving” — are very real for the members, but almost ancillary for the association. The bigger question is — is your association mining those same ideas and those same solutions being shared among your members, and then using them to create brand new innovative services and products?
Because THAT’s what will make associations grow and thrive, in my opinion. “Bringing people together so they can talk” may have been more valuable when bringing people together was hard. But it’s not, anymore. So I do not believe it is the best possible end-game for an association, though it may be a means to enabling an even greater end.
Thanks for your great comment!
It’s not that networking isn’t a valuable benefit, it’s that it often is not enough to induce a person to join.
Associations not only promote networking as a benefit, they include activities that can also benefit people who are not members.
What can your association provide that has value to people and they cannot get anywhere else. That’s a member benefit.
Hi Kevin,
As you may guess, I’m going to offer up that the role of local components becomes more important to associations all things told.
As you mentioned, it’s easy to throw together an online community. As someone who spends time on Facebook and Twitter, etc. I have met people that way – and often find a way to meet up when we can.
The F2F element fuels the relationship building – which may also support the health of an association.
The challenge is many chapter leaders are not trained in the type of leadership demanded by today’s participants. Local leaders have to provide dynamic experiences which provide opportunity for meaningful impact – every time they open their doors.
When that happens the word of mouth can take off – which helps to build the momentum of the association.
Of course, a rotten experience may also be tweet-worthy – thus the importance of well trained leaders.
Networking, tweet ups, meet ups, chapter meetings – are all only as hot as the experience they provide.
Which plays into the importance of testimonials and the ability to explain what is different about the experience your association offers.
I agree with you that “networking” and other overused words are not enough.
Cynthia, I love that you commented on this, because your “Chapter Leaders Playground” is such a good example of what I was talking about earlier in the comments! It’s a great resource (we’re going to sign up all of our chapter leaders for it) and has a lot in common with some of the other groups I referred to in my reply to Howard — the Playground offers highly targeted resources and an aggressive training schedule to help its members, at a great value.
Shouldn’t more associations be able to say something like that?
While it is free to throw up a Yahoo group or a Ning site, that’s not community. It’s just a container.
There is a difference between associations that network, and building an actual network, which we did. That’s why we dropped the word ‘association’ from our name 10 years ago and replaced it with ‘Network’.
When we met with a ‘wiki’ social networking software firm, they told is we would end up with a network of executives. We told them we already HAVE that, 180 companies, 600 executives.
Trust me, in business, a network that is alive, responsive, instant, online and literally an actual network is light years beyond ‘networking’ and it DID cost something to build.
Like Harvard said, there’s ‘work’ in the middle of the word networking, it isn’t easy, its less about skill and more about will.
Comments on this entry are closed.