Communications

October 14, 2008

People Love Being Surprised in Comfortable Surroundings

Posted by Kevin | (9) Comments | Print This Article

I have to admit it: Cynthia D’Amour has hypnotized me. It was not ever thus. When I first discovered her blog soon after she started posting, I crinkled my nose a little bit.

• What’s up with the three bullet point style of blogging?
• And the kooky pictures?
• And the little “moral” at the end of each of her posts?

So I wrote her off as kind of hokey, aiming for a target audience that didn’t include me. There’s nothing wrong with that, after all.

But then, as time went on …

• I found myself clicking on her posts in my feed reader first.
• I’d laugh a little more at each one.
• And I wanted to read the moral to see what lesson she derived for “chapter leaders,” and found many of them surprising and insightful.

Cynthia is unusual among bloggers in that she locked into a set pattern and style of blogging early on, and has been consistent ever since. The result is that with each of her posts, you know exactly what to expect, but that’s exactly what allows her to be surprising.

• Sure, she makes good points …
• But she does it in a way that’s fun and comfortable.
• She’s found the right balance between offering a consistent style that people look forward to reading, without being repetitive or boring.

Which, while I wouldn’t recommend her individual style to other bloggers (she’s cornered this particular market), is a great example for association communicators, whether they’re writing newsletters or websites or whatever. Find the tone and the pattern and the style that works for you and your audience, be consistent, and have fun, and you will be granted great freedom over what content you are allowed to cover.

In other words …

Makes me think of association communicators … do your members look forward to your insights because you offer them in a comfortable, fun and consistent way?

August 29, 2008

The Biggest Myth About Online Publishing

Posted by Kevin | (2) Comments | Print This Article

No, I don’t mean those myths you can debunk on snopes.com. I mean one of the most common myths that I hear, often from otherwise very smart people.

It’s this: “People aren’t willing to pay for content on the Internet.” I have no idea why this myth is still propagated when it’s so obviously untrue.

Just a few examples:

• CooksIllustrated.com has over 150,000 online subscribers at around 20 bucks a year — that’s $3 million for essentially recycled, “repurposed” magazine content.
• Consumer Reports has over 3 million online-only subscribers paying either annually or monthly.
• MarketingSherpa sells access to thousands of reports, surveys, case studies and samples for a little under $400 a year. Couldn’t find a number of subscribers but they’ve been going strong for years (with events, publications, workshops, even a certification program, they are similar to a lot of associations except slightly more useful than some).
• Speaking of MarketingSherpa, yesterday they reported that consumer review site Angieslist.com has 330,000 paid members (the site lists fees ranging from around $9/mo or $82/year plus signup fees).
• Lynda.com offers online training on a huge number of subjects, mostly related to software and technology, for fees ranging from $25/mo basic memberships to $375/year premium memberships. They claim “tens of thousands of subscribers” and have been around for 13 years.

What we’ve learned in online media during the last several years is that big “general interest” websites of any kind — those aimed at huge consumer audiences, like newspapers, networks, etc. — are not able (or at least have not been able) to charge successfully for content. But more targeted, niche websites can be very successful in charging for different types of content aimed at a specialized audience — and even small subscriber bases can be very profitable.

The good thing is that associations are the definition of niche. Are you taking advantage of that fact?

August 12, 2008

Nobody Is Representative

Posted by Kevin | (1) Comments | Print This Article

An interesting conversation in the comments at Acronym on their “blog backlash” case study, and then continued in Lisa Junker’s post on reaction to criticism. I said my piece in both comment threads, but there are some very interesting concepts here that merit further exploration.

First, going back to my original comment on the case study, in which I said it was patently ridiculous to suggest that bloggers are representative of majority viewpoints. That’s because I think it’s absurd to suggest that any one individual member is “representative” — be they a blogger, a listserve participant, a committee member, a past chairman, an officer, or whatever. She might be insightful, she might be wise, she might have good ideas, she might have found an issue that no one else had considered, she might be cranky and contrary — but none of that makes her representative.

As I said in my comment on the second post, we cling to comments from active or vocal members all too often because we don’t have anything else on which to rely. This is because many associations fall into a structure along the following lines:

• We answer to a Board, comprised of volunteers who by the very virtue of their self-selection as board members have proven that they are unlike most of the members
• We work with committees, comprised of volunteers who by the very virtue of their self-selection as committee members have proven that they are unlike most of the members
• We do a survey of the full membership every year or two that by its very nature is outdated by the time the results are compiled

So when we hear from real, actual members, we enthusiastically embrace what they say as “representative” because we don’t really know anything else about what our members think. (Lisa’s story about an association taking a year to revise a program because one member wrote a letter — this is NOT unusual, I’ve seen very similar things happen.)

BUT, now we have lots of tools and data available to determine what our members really “think” (I’ve written about this before), and so we should be a lot more clued in and able to respond to criticism in an appropriate way (when it’s merited, fix the problem; when it’s not, explain why it’s not). HOWEVER — when I refer to what members “think,” I’m really referring to what large percentages of them “do” (actual behavior) coupled with some ongoing qualitative queries.

I will use ASAE as an example. I did a search of old Blogoclump posts to find someone saying something about ASAE that I didn’t agree with. It wasn’t hard; Ben Martin apparently wrote a post saying that he’d decided ASAE’s listservers were no longer valuable and he dropped out of them.

I, however, find the listserves to be very valuable, and in fact the only tangible benefit to my ASAE membership (except maybe the magazine), and if I were to drop out of the listserves, dropping out of membership altogether wouldn’t be far behind (though I agree the software could use an upgrade).

So, the question is –

Is Ben representative of ASAE members?

Or am I representative of ASAE members?

I would posit that NEITHER OF US is representative, we’re just two individuals with blogs, and ASAE should no more base its decisions on what Ben thinks, or what I think, than on what the man in the moon thinks. What matters is the actual behavior of the actual members on a large scale.

How many subscribe, and to how many listserves, and is it growing or shrinking? What’s the percentage of lurkers versus active participants, and is it growing or shrinking? How many people are “dropping out” and how does that compare to prior years? And very important from the quality side of it, are the number of “frustrated” emails sent to the listserves (me-toos, complaints about repeats, people asking how to unsubscribe) growing or shrinking? This sort of data (both the numbers and considered quality reviews of the listserve conversations), reviewed on an ONGOING basis, could easily tell you if the software needs revamping (and, I’m willing to bet, would have revealed that the listserves needed some tweaking a long time ago) or if more drastic changes should be considered.

This is just one example — but it’s an important example of the type of analysis that associations should be doing about all their programs, all the time. Weighing programs and analyzing member behavior is not something to do once in a while, or when you get some complaints, but a regular part of what you do. Kill the programs that aren’t working (or change them). Create new ones. But if something is working, you should know it’s working, and not go all frantic when a small number of people don’t like it. You should be doing enough that there are other things you offer that they DO like … and if they don’t like anything, well, then why are they members at all?

(Oh, and I know the case study actually detailed a complaint about a board meeting, not a program, which I think may have warranted all of a thirty-second response rather than a day of hand-wringing … but I enjoyed where the comments took us.)

June 25, 2008

Why Associations All Sound the Same

Posted by Kevin | (8) Comments | Print This Article

I haven’t read Rohit Bhargava’s book Personality Not Included yet, but it’s on my list as soon as I can come up for air and frankly I’m looking forward to it. Rohit’s an engaging writer, as evidenced by his blog, but apparently the book is not really about “social media” though those types have been all over it. I may have more to say about it when I have had the opportunity to actually read it.

However, the main reason I’m looking forward to reading it is that I am interested in Rohit’s insights on a topic that I’ve been obsessed with for many years, namely: “Why are so many associations so completely devoid of personality?”

Associations, which are often viewed as “groups of like-minded people with a common interest” (I actually think they are more complex than that), all too often come off as automatons — not people at all.

Communications are stripped of language that conveys any emotion beyond a smug Stepford-like optimism. Emails from the XYZ Association come from “XYZA”. (Just how am I supposed to connect with that?) Newsletters are written like press releases, “chairman’s pages” are published that could be interchangeable with any individual holding the office in this decade or the last, speeches given that boldly avoid any “controversial” topics — every article, every interview, every email safely scrubbed of opinion, wisecrack, or uncomfortable truth.

Members are not engaged, they are “handled.” They are not communicated with, they are “spun.”

Believe me, I am not saying that there shouldn’t be standards, because there should. I’m not saying that you don’t have to be careful, because you should. I’m just saying — for god’s sake, lighten up. Allow members to get to know your people, not just your organization — because your people ARE your organization.

And the fact is, if your organization is coming off as impersonal and distant, it’s the PEOPLE who are the reason, not the “organization” (because, well, see the last line of the last paragraph). I used to think that it’s because people are afraid to reveal themselves. Over time, I’ve realized it’s really because:

An alarming number of people, at all levels of all organizations including the highest, simply don’t know how to write.

They write stuff the way they do because THEY THINK THAT’S HOW THEY’RE SUPPOSED TO DO IT. Junior level staffers write something engaging and “personable” and it comes back devoid of personality, not because the upper-level person is evil or overbearing, but because the upper-level person did what she thinks she’s SUPPOSED to do.

But it works the other way, too. I once gave an article back to a staffer and told her, “Write like you talk,” and she gave me a blank look. She rewrote it, but it didn’t sound anything like she talked, which was actually funny and quirky.

The end result? A bunch of associations that all talk, walk, and sound the same.

I see lots of people calling for all sorts of new ideas and new technologies and new strategies and new things that association staffers should learn how to understand and how to implement. I do it, too! But I’ve realized that there’s something else we need to say, first, which is:

“You need to learn how to WRITE.”

Without that, frankly, all the other stuff ain’t gonna work, anyway.

April 17, 2008

More Stupid Email Tricks

Posted by Kevin | (3) Comments | Print This Article

Remember my post a couple weeks ago on Desperation Marketing? I hate to repeat myself, but I’m getting these emails so frequently I’ve decided to just start calling people out. And maybe, just maybe, offer some advice to improve their campaigns.

The latest was from PRSA, which I used to belong to, and which sent me an email with the subject line, “PRSA Would Like to Welcome You Back!”

As I’ve already made pretty clear in my earlier post, I couldn’t care less what PRSA would like. This is not a subject line that inspires reading, let alone whipping out my checkbook.

But, for the sake of this post, I went ahead and read it. Turns out, the awful subject line wasn’t the only thing wrong with it. They somehow managed to 1) reduce opens with a bad subject line, while also 2) repelling the people who actually opened it. Here’s why:

1) The email is not from an actual person, it is from “PRSA Member Services” (with the warm and fuzzy email address of “emailupdates@prsa.org”). While I might feasibly, possibly care about what Jane Smith thinks, I definitely don’t care what some faceless organizational department thinks.

2) The email begins, “To: Kevin W. Holland”. It’s nice that you know my name and middle initial, but so does every other computer database in the world. This is not an inviting lead.

3) The first sentence beneath the quote-unquote “greeting” is, “The Public Relations Society of America would like to reinstate your membership.” Setting aside the fact that they appear to only care about themselves, “reinstate” is such a cold and clinical word. It immediately suggests “separation” between the sender and the recipient.

4) They then graciously offer to waive their “reinstatement” fee. ‘Nuff said.

5) The remainder of the email is a list of generic-sounding benefits. Stay informed, accelerate your career, launch effective campaigns, expand your network, blah blah blah.

6) The closing line: “We look forward to welcoming you back to PRSA!” Because, of course, it’s all about the association.

The sad fact is that association executives write in to ASAE listserves all the time saying things like, “We tried email marketing, and it doesn’t work.” Of course, what they “tried” is an email like this one. When you do something wrong, it frequently doesn’t work.

Here is an email that *might* have gotten me to “reinstate.” This is just off the top of my head, of course.

Subject: Sorry to bother you, but …
From: Jane Jones, PRSA
Body:

Hey Kevin,

Sorry to bother you, but I was looking through our member rosters in Virginia and noticed that you hadn’t renewed your PRSA membership in the last couple years. I know how busy you must be and how we all have to justify our annual dues expenses given all the associations in our field. But I just wanted to check and see if you had taken a look recently at some of the new things we’re offering.

For example, our online database PRC Search gives you direct online access to thousands of award-winning PR campaigns. It’s like a brainstorming session with the best minds in PR, 24/7, whenever you need some quick inspiration or are thinking, “I wonder if anyone has tried THIS …”

Of course, if you want more real-time Q&As with experts from all over the country, our professional sections and chapters put you in touch with more than 20,000 members, many of whom have “been there, done that” and are more than happy to share what they’ve learned (saving you from learning the hard way).

And our daily, monthly and quarterly publications keep you in touch with the latest and most innovative practices and tactics in the field. Only members get them!

I think you’ll find the new PRSA a boon to your career, whether you’re happy where you are or seeking new opportunities. In fact, I’m so sure you’ll think you made the right decision that I’ll be happy to waive the usual $35 fee we charge returning members, if you are ready to give us another try.

Just give me a call at XXX-XXX-XXXX and we can take care of this for you right away. (If you’d rather sign up online, just go to www.xxxx.org and use the tracking code “RETURN” to save the 35 bucks. But, I’d love to talk to you!)

If you have any questions, shoot me a reply or give me a call. I’m sure you’ll find PRSA offers a huge return on a small investment, and I look forward to helping you continue to grow your career!

Yours,
Jane

April 7, 2008

5 Ways to Add Value

Posted by Kevin | (0) Comments | Print This Article

5 quick and easy ways to add value to your association’s membership, particularly your website (of course, “quick and easy” is almost as subjective as “valuable”):

Legal Q&As. People have lots of legal questions, no matter what their industry or profession. So, take their questions and answer them. Now, NO, I’m not suggesting you offer them legal advice (LOTS of disclaimers are necessary here). But you can provide them with general information that can make it easier for them to decide what to ask their pricey attorney. And, NO, I’m not suggesting YOU answer the questions. Find a lawyer who will. If you’re a state or local organization, depending on your industry, you can probably find an attorney who would love to do this sort of thing for free in exchange for publicity. If you’re a national organization, you might have to pay a relatively low monthly retainer. But take their questions (through your website), send them answers, then post the Q&As to your website as a growing resource library. (Similar things can be done with tax/financial issues or other specialized areas of knowledge for your industry.)

Consumer Education. If your members have “customers,” create consumer education pieces that they can use to distribute to their customers (or potential customers) on various issues related to your industry. Make them available as articles that can be used on websites, e-newsletters, or print newsletters, as well as turnkey brochures and flyers (it’s easy to create PDFs that allow people to add customized contact information as form fields).

Seasonal Copy. Make copy available that members can adapt and use on a seasonal basis in direct mail, newsletters, local press releases, or other communications to customers or stakeholders. It may sound silly but finding clever ways to tie your industry’s message to unusual holidays (like Flag Day or Arbor Day) can offer your members an opportunity to stand out in their marketplace.

Case studies. Interview 2-3 members a month and create a “case study” that focuses on one area where each member has excelled (and all members excel at something). Pick out the 3-4 “top lessons” that person has to share about what he or she has excelled at. Write a brief but pointed case study that hits on those top lessons. Continue adding 2-3 a month. Make case studies available to members. (The focus of the article should NOT be “Profile of XYZ Inc.” but rather “5 Ways to Get and Track Referrals” or whatever they are talking about.)

Ask provocative questions. Send an email newsletter? Then each week ask a provocative question about something industry-related. (I said INDUSTRY-related, NOT association-related. So it’s “How do you handle XYZ in your business?” NOT “What do you think of this association program”?) Have them email their answers to you (in a LOT, if not most, industries today, it’s still a lot easier to get emailed responses than it is to get public responses, such as in a blog format). Compile the most interesting responses. You can use them in future issues of newsletters (a great way to create free copy), and/or post to your website in a special area. The key here is to pick questions about things that either 1) people are going to disagree about, or 2) are likely to produce funny and interesting stories.