Leadership
July 23, 2008
What Associations Are For
Posted by Kevin | (0) Comments | Print This Article
Catching up on blog posts this evening, I see that lots of people are commenting on a piece Ben wrote — Lisa Junker at Acronym has a good roundup here.
The only thing I have to say on this topic is this:
If you think the purpose of your association is to “bring people together,” then you should go ahead and close your doors right now. You are, frankly, unnecessary.
I believe the purpose of a successful, competitive association is to deliver innovative products, services, and experiences that meet the needs of the market it represents, and for which people are willing to pay.
“Bringing people together” is merely one part of that process.
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 30, 2008
We Are Pleased to Announce a Major Initiative In Which You Might Be Vaguely Interested
Posted by Kevin | (3) Comments | Print This Article
Associations love to do “big” things. We love to launch “major initiatives.” I think it’s because we love making a big announcement. You know, sending out the press releases, maybe holding a big launch at an annual meeting, proudly announcing a major new program that is going to revolutionize our sphere. Associations love to do big things, because you can’t grow big by thinking small, right?
Wrong.
In fact, I think starting small is almost always preferable. The revolutions that really impact an association — the discovery of a new program, the development of a new tool that makes members’ lives easier, a sea change in the way programs are developed and made available, the growth of transparent conversations between members, finding new ways to make members feel heard and special — these are all things that can make a profound impact on the association’s bottom line, create new value for customers and members, and almost never get “announced”. They’re the things that make the association viable and successful, but tend to get pushed aside and ignored by folks eager for a shot in the spotlight with their “major, earth-shattering, world-colliding, paradigm-shifting, life-will-never-be-the-same initiative.”
We should all keep a scorecard of how many “major initiatives” turn into actual programs that make a real difference in the lives and businesses of members and how many just get thrown overboard next year for the “next big thing.” (If your new initiative involves “people sitting around and talking about something important,” then you can pretty much just assume that it made little difference. To the majority of your members, it was, at most, just background noise happening somewhere else.)
April 27, 2008
What Do Your Members Really DO?
Posted by Kevin | (3) Comments | Print This Article
I always talk a lot about knowing your market, serving your market, not trying to be too broad for fear of losing your market, etc. But Tony Rossell’s comment on my last post made me think that I want to make sure I’m not sending the wrong message here.
When I say you should know who your core market is, fundamental to that is that you should know what it is they REALLY “DO” … perhaps better than some of them even know it.
To use a silly example, if there had been a Horse & Buggy Association way back in the day, and if they’d paid close attention to what their market really DOES, then they’d still be around today … even though horse-and-buggys certainly aren’t.
Similarly, if railroads had believed that they were in the business of moving freight rather than in the business of running railroads, then the trucking industry would look very different today. (I know, I know, there are lots of intricacies involved in the history of interstate commerce and the regulation thereof, but allow me this one simplistic example.)
Anyway … believing fervently in your market and your ability to serve it requires that you understand what it really DOES. It’s key for the success of your association, but even more importantly, pretty darn key for the success of your members.
April 23, 2008
The Foolishness of Crowds
Posted by Kevin | (2) Comments | Print This Article
So, social media lets people organize without organizations.
While it’s nice to wrap buzzwords like “social media” around things, this is nothing new; some of us have been dealing with “ad hoc” groups in our industry segments since long before anyone had heard of “blogging” let alone tried to create a whole new genre around it. Websites, listserves, message boards: none of it is quite snazzy enough to count as Web 2.0, but it’s all been pretty easy, cheap, and in some cases quite effective, for a long time now.
There are a couple things about these self-organized groups that pose both challenges for themselves, and for the associations they compete with:
PEOPLE ARE OFTEN WRONG ABOUT A WHOLE LOT OF DIFFERENT THINGS, AND LOVE SHARING THEIR ERRONEOUS ASSUMPTIONS AND JUDGMENTS WITH THEIR PEERS AS IF THEY WERE FACTS.
We’re often forwarded posts from one niche website in our industry (essentially a listserve that costs $50 a month) that have confused us because we are not sure whether to laugh or let our jaws drop. People share ideas and concepts that are outright wrong, in some cases beyond-the-borderline illegal, as if it is gospel.
Myths propagate themselves and pick up steam. Since these people are all essentially peers, working in the same industry, with access to the same communications tool (just click “send”), there is no way for credibility to be assigned. When others speak up and say “hey you’re wrong and what you’re advocating could cost people hundreds of thousands of dollars,” the dissent — if it is noticed at all — becomes a matter of disagreement, as opposed to one person being right, and one person being wrong.
On the one hand, it is frustrating to see members of an industry or profession you serve and love be led astray by (probably) well-meaning yet ill-informed (or, most likely, simply inexperienced) practitioners.
On the other hand, it is nice to be considered the place where people go for the RIGHT answers, and there is competitive advantage to be mined there. It has certainly worked well for us.
PEOPLE HAVE BIG EGOS, AND WILL TRY TO TURN THEIR “DISORGANIZED ORGANIZATIONS” INTO “REAL” ORGANIZATIONS FOR THE PURPOSES OF THEIR OWN AGENDA.
Though I haven’t read the book mentioned by Ben and Jeff, I got a kick out of this quote from the book which Ben placed on his blog:
“The jury is still out on whether any of the current interest in reforming the US health care system will change anything, but if I had to pick between MoveOn and groups like the self-organized strangers in Dallas for having the more profound effect, I’d bet on the ad hoc groups.”
Why do I find this amusing? Because MoveOn started out as — a little email group! They were circulating a petition to try and get Congress to censure Clinton rather than impeach him. (They failed, by the way.) And it turned into — apparently a big old-fashioned evil “organization” beset by these little social media networks.
Personally, I think it’s great that people can band together using the Internet to advocate for something, whether it’s a “Passenger’s Bill of Rights” or a speed bump on their local road. More power to them. I don’t view any of these groups as a threat to associations. If there are people loosely getting together on a single issue that intersects with your interest, then, uh — join them and get to know them and work with them or against them as you see fit. Don’t really see how they are all that much different from the little advocacy groups that have been springing up since time immemorial. They’re easier to form and so there will be more of them, but dealing with them is not exactly rocket science.
If people in your profession are using Facebook or LinkedIn or whatever all those sites are to “get together” then how is it a threat to your society? You can play catchup with a similar network of your own, or else you can sponsor their happy hour and buy them all a drink. (The latter is probably a lot easier and will have a bigger pay-off.)
The problem, of course, is that people have egos and agendas and big aggrandized visions, so many of them will try to turn their little one-issue groups into something bigger that can attract corporate funding. Some of them will succeed, most will fail, and the ones that succeed, if they are in your industry or profession, will become competitors for your association.
To which, I’m afraid I must say — so what? Competition is good! Deal with them as you do any other competitors. Learn from them, steal from them, crush them, work with them if you must — though on the whole my preference is for simply keeping them in your peripheral vision while you focus on serving your market best by creating new or better things they can’t get anywhere else. As I like to say, “We’re here to learn, we’re here to grow, and we’re here to win.”
What you should not do is gnash your teeth about this new “competition” and how it will affect your association. Yes, they may use new tools — but of course, YOU CAN USE THEM, TOO. Other than that, perhaps to the chagrin of some young and eager minds, and as I learned myself when I too was young and eager — there is indeed nothing new under the sun.
April 11, 2008
Random Thoughts on New Rules for Association Growth
Posted by Kevin | (5) Comments | Print This Article
In preparation for a brainstorming session with colleagues, I gathered my thoughts on the “new rules” for future association growth, and for what little it’s worth, here are a few of them, in a very rough form.
We have a market, not a product.
Expand our share of the market we serve, and resist the urge to seek new markets, which can be time-consuming and costly. Develop new products that meet the needs of our core market and retire products that don’t. Wash, rinse, repeat.
We can’t build on a foundation we don’t own.
Grants, sponsorships, “affinity programs” – these all have a role to play, but in and of themselves will not lead to sustainable, exponential growth because they depend on the whims of others. Build products and services that we own, that either don’t exist anywhere else or are better than anywhere else.
Dues are ancillary revenues.
The concept of “membership” has already changed and associations need to catch up. Membership used to be the realm of associations and American Express. Now it’s niche websites, professional service firms, “social media,” pay-as-you-go, pay-per-view, time-shifting, short attention span theater. We need to adapt. Just as we should not view members as merely people we can sell stuff to, we should not view customers merely as potential members. Recognize and celebrate both the member and the customer and explore new ways to engage both.
It’s not enough to collect data, we must connect data.
We are nothing more than the sum of the knowledge that we have about our members and customers. We must have a systematic way to draw connections between behavioral patterns, to understand motivations for participation in particular programs, to build on existing products with new products the market will want, to create new services beyond random “a-ha” moments.
Think fast, act faster.
As annoying as the Web 2.0 concept of “Everything Is Beta” is, it is actually the most important thing this latest bubble has taught us. Once a new product or service is identified, move as quickly as possible to implement it. This doesn’t mean you rush half-assed things to market and it doesn’t mean you drop half a million dollars on a whim. It means you start small, test it, learn from it, change it, test it, learn from it, change it, test it. There is no longer any time to wait for something to be “just right” before you launch it and there is no longer any reason to restrict “testing” to a small self-identified sample such as a committee when you can learn more from larger portions of your market. (Obviously there are exceptions here – I’m not talking about safety standards, etc.)