Communities
February 27, 2006
A Dose of Reality
Posted by Kevin | (1) Comments | 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.
February 19, 2006
Blogging Is Over; Long Live Blogs
Posted by Kevin | (2) Comments | Print This Article
How do we know blogging is over? As Daniel Gross points out in Slate, it’s the subject of too many magazine articles, media conglomerates are spending too much money on it, early investors are gleefully cashing out, and “the clueless and the greedy” are rushing to the trough in hopes of grabbing a few leftovers.
To which I say: thank god. This whole “Web 2.0″ bubble has been an irritating sideshow, a tired retread of the mid-90s being played out by people who should know better.
The problem is that too many people are associating “blogs” — a simple interactive publishing tool — with “blogging,” the overhyped media sector. And then it all gets lumped in with all these other so-called Web 2.0 tools.
And then those people completely miss the point that what’s interesting about all this is a change in mindset toward user-created content — how they do it (through blogs, “tagging” applications, vidcasts, whatever) is almost immaterial. Tools are going to come and go. We can talk about del.icio.us and Technorati and Flickr and blogging platforms until we’re blue in the face.
But the only really interesting phenomenon out there right now — what’s bringing it all together — is MySpace. It has over 56 million members and growing. It has 50% of the web community market (10 times more than any other single site, including Yahoo, Craigslist, and LiveJournal). Its traffic is neck-and-neck with Google. (reference here)
It brings all that other stuff — photo sharing, blogging, videos, audio — into one place. And the ease with which it allows groups to form puts other web community sites to shame. (Think MySpace is just a place for teens to hang out? Then check the “Business & Entrepreneurs” category in groups. Sure, lots of junk, but also some rather active groups for business owners and professionals.)
MySpace doesn’t get a lot of respect from the Web 2.0 types because it seems like a lot of juvenilia (and it was bought by Rupert Murdoch) but they don’t seem to have noticed that it’s already done much of what they want to do — on a huge scale. Whether it lasts and grows, or completely falls apart, doesn’t even matter. It’s created an experience that is going to shape the expectations of an entire generation.
August 28, 2005
The Luxury of Choosing
Posted by Kevin | (3) Comments | Print This Article
From an article at Fast Company’s website on how the long tail is changing the meaning of “luxury”:
“In the hospitality industry, for example, developer Ira Drukier is applying a set of rather narrow consumer insights to create a different kind of luxury hotel. As reported in The New York Times, Ira’s idea is that there’s a market in Manhattan for a hotel with small rooms; and even shared bathrooms and bunkbeds; so long as it’s equipped with wi-fi, iPod docking stations, and flat-screen TVs.
“Drukier figures that if the rooms are clean, neat and wired, he’ll attract young travelers whose only option at $125 a night is not nearly as, well, luxurious.”
Yeah, I’ll stay there! (Well, not in a bunkbed.) But the size of a hotel room has never mattered that much to me, even when I’m traveling on business and will have time only for holing up in the hotel — but I do care that the hotel is in a convenient location, the room is wired, the bed is clean and comfortable, and the TV is large and modern. Beyond that, it could be pretty much a closet and I won’t mind (I probably won’t even notice).
But I know lots of other people who would disagree strongly, and care much more about large rooms, lots of comfy furtniture, and the usual luxuries of a four-star hotel. Different things for different people; markets used to be put in three broad tiers (low-end, middle-class, luxury) but those markets have splintered. For one thing, the lower tiers now expect a lot of the things that used to be reserved for the top tier (style, cutting-edge technology, brand awareness). And for another thing, as Tim Manners points out in the above-linked FC article, “luxury” as we know it may be going away as “the long tail” works its magic (basically, “micro-niches” may soon offer more sales and marketing opportunities than mass markets).
Associations have traditionally had a fairly egalitarian mindset — dues gets access to the same array of services/programs/opportunities. Even if dues are broken down in tiers, such as many trade associations that charge differently based on things like revenues or number of employees, that difference in cost usually has little to do with the actual member experience, and is based on ostensibly objective criteria — in fact, there can sometimes be a total disconnect between what an association’s dues are and the individual value a member receives. (This is why you frequently read conversations on the ASAE listserve between association staff who are agonizing over different ways to “explain” their value to members.)
Starting several years ago, some associations began experimenting with “a la carte” dues, allowing members to pay differently based on the individual services they wish to receive. I’ve never been a big fan of the concept; for one thing, there are too many things central to many associations’ missions — such as advocacy, standard-setting, etc. — that are expensive but simply aren’t very marketable in and of themselves. (In fact, the reason many associations get into so many other business areas is because they need to sell those products to fund the things they can’t sell.)
But despite all this, something is going to have to give in many organizations as people begin demanding more individualized experiences — “micro-niches” are going to be served whether it’s by us or someone else. And, ironically, in order to fund the basic services that are central to an organization’s public service mission, I think many associations may have to focus a lot more of their marketing efforts on what some of their members want (and are willing to pay more for) and less on what all of their members need.
August 7, 2005
Personal Learning
Posted by Kevin | (7) Comments | Print This Article
Just stumbled across this — the Personal MBA — an interesting concept that is basically a big book club built around a discussion forum. It was just recently launched by Josh Kaufman and grew from a post on Seth Godin’s blog (Seth is a one-man idea machine) in which he wrote:
“An MBA has become a two-part time machine. First, the students are taught everything they need to know to manage a company from 1990, and second, they are taken out of the real world for two years while the rest of us race as fast as we possibly can.
“I get away with this heresy since I, in fact, have my own fancy MBA from Stanford. The fact is, though, that unless you want to be a consultant or an i-banker (where a top MBA is nothing but a screen for admission) it’s hard for me to understand why this is a better use of time and money than actual experience combined with a dedicated reading of 30 or 40 books.”
Josh Kaufman took up Seth’s challenge and created the Personal MBA site, built around a “curriculum” of 40 books, the PMBA 40, and word has been spreading through the net pretty rapidly.
Looking through the list, I find several books I’ve already read, several I’ve heard of and wanted to read but haven’t got the chance (or rather, taken the time), and several I haven’t heard of but now want to read. So now I’m salivating and looking forward to reading (and in a few cases, re-reading) all of them. (Of course, one of the salient points of a “curriculum” like this is that it can change at the push of a button — Josh has already made changes to his “Top 40″ list.)
This whole thing is a fascinating concept because of the ease in which it can be created, its low cost, and its potential ramifications for more traditional association learning programs.
One can easily imagine taking this core “curriculum” and with a few modifications, creating online groups built around self-learning in a specific industry or professional discipline. Everything in my gut tells me that people today — especially gens X and Y — are far more interested in personalized learning that they can control than in more formalized traditional accreditation or degree programs. And it doesn’t help that those programs are more frequently coming under fire regarding their relevance or necessity (see internal debates on CAE, ABC, APR, and other designations).
I’m not suggesting that a program like Personal MBA is necessarily better than, or will replace, existing programs, and I’m no expert in educational programming. But I do know that I’m initially drawn to participate in this online program (we’ll see how much I do), yet have no interest in any existing certification programs or sitting for another degree.
It may be a model that associations should consider incorporating or adapting before someone else in their industry or profession does. (I know that ASAE/The Center has created something called learning communities that may follow this model up to a point but I haven’t looked into them yet.)
July 8, 2005
The Advocacy Fallacy
Posted by Kevin | (1) Comments | Print This Article
In a thoughtful response to a post from yesterday, Rich Westerfield includes the following comment:
“…if there were no associations, who would do the lobbying? Online communities can design, adopt and promote standards and practices. They can share ideas freely and build upon them in ways associations are afraid to adopt. But at present, online communities do not represent a viable option for interaction with government and legal entities for the purposes of influencing law. Until that changes, associations are here to stay.”
This is not necessarily true.
On the left, MoveOn.org is the very picture of an online community forming to have an impact in the political sphere, and several others have formed on the right, like Progress for America.
Now, these are mass-market communities of individuals with broad leanings toward certain areas of the political spectrum, as opposed to the more specific niche interests usually represented by the typical association. However, there is certainly nothing stopping niche groups with a specific policy interest from forming ad-hoc online commmunities to promote it legislatively.
Well, that’s not exactly true: what’s stopping them usually is a combination of leadership, capability, and time. It’s one thing to want a specific policy outcome, it’s another thing to possess the willingness and know-how to step up to the plate and create a way to make it happen. As Rich also notes, “As leaders in online communities are not getting paid, is this a viable model for the long term?”
The answer is no; online communities seeking long-term viability will by necessity morph into physical organizations, with bylaws, governance, and, yes, paid staff, or at least paid “consultants.” Once they do, they’ll find themselves facing the same issues as old-school associations because they will, in fact, become old-school associations.
One of those issues is what I call the “advocacy fallacy.” Overall, in spite of the fact that alternatives exist, I think Rich is correct in that advocacy is one of the areas that associations generally excel in better than pure-online plays (though one should note that there are many old-school associations that do not “do” advocacy). The problem is that advocacy in and of itself is not a sustainable business model.
There simply aren’t enough people/businesses/organizations (whatever your membership niche) willing to pay for pure advocacy to provide the resources necessary to actually affect continuous policy outcomes.
It may be possible to find enough people willing to pay for “one thing,” and thus form a temporary ad-hoc coalition. In the long run, even if the desired outcome occurs, the affected niche is then left with one thing done.
What happens when they want something else done? (Which they will.) Well, they can go back to the original coalition members and try to put it together again (or form a new one). The problem is that not everyone will agree with this new goal. Some will outright disagree; some will think other priorities are more important.
And there you have an association. Associations exist to promote the interests of a common membership, recognizing that not all of the members agree with everything the association does. The real problem arises when an association only does advocacy. Because, as I noted above, there aren’t enough people willing to pay for it consistently. They either:
1) Disagree with certain parts of the overall agenda, or
2) More commonly, fail to truly grasp how the advocacy agenda really affects them or their business. They may agree; they may wish some particular policy outcome could be achieved; but the whole concept seems disconnected from their everyday concerns.
There are some exceptions, but they are mostly confined to industry segments comprised of a relatively few, relatively large (or wealthy) players willing to pay relatively high dues to sustain a common agenda.
For everyone else, you need to find ways to get people to support the association for reasons other than advocacy. This is where products come in (using “product” as a catchall for everything from actual products to training, certification, knowledge resources, etc.).
Today, many associations are fighting with competitors who are cherry-picking the products that associations used to be best at (from trade shows to publications to, yes, “communities”), leaving associations with advocacy. And competitors have not taken advocacy because they realize there is no money in it.
So these associations are being left crippled, whether they realize it yet or not. For their own long-term viability they need to continually recreate new products and services that build their membership so they can continue to afford to provide the advocacy that their non-profit mission calls for, and, as described above in the example about the problem with ad-hoc coalitions, their members need (whether they realize it yet or not).
This means associations need to get smarter about beating new competitors and about creating entirely new services. They need to get smarter about learning from their members/customers (which is more than having a board and committees comprised of members — governance is not product). They need to think like, yes, entrepreneurs — which means *staff* have to think (and be treated like) entrepreneurs.
HOWEVER — “services” in and of themselves do not mean success. Association membership is a strange thing; people join not only because they perceive a direct value but because by joining they desire to feel a part of a “community.” Associations that focus on building a book of business without providing the influence and community that are necessary for the association’s mission become simply another vendor, and they’d better be pretty good at whatever they do. A decade ago I saw several state organizations collapse because they thought they were in the business of providing discount telecommunications services. When that market dried up, so did theirs.
Back in the mid-90s, I doodled the following diagram as a way to remind myself of how to structure programs that appropriately balance. Yes, it’s very simplistic, and yes, the world has changed, but I still take a look at it now and then:
It’s a perfect square (and in its own way, a vicious circle). To sustain the organization — or to grow it — the sides must stay equal. “Influence” is the association’s perceived ability to “make a difference” for its members with external audiences (be that legislators, regulators, other organizations, or customers, the media, or whatever publics are important to the members). “Value” is the association’s perceived value through its products. Membership and resources are self-explanatory.
And the sphere in which the square resides — that’s the perceived “community.”
July 7, 2005
“They Like Us! They Really Like Us!”
Posted by Kevin | (1) Comments | Print This Article
A survey released this morning claims that 83% of Canadian hiring managers “cited involvement in industry or trade associations as beneficial to an employee’s career.”
There have been many similar studies in the past. It’s easy to say that association involvement is important when hiring because it offers a simple way to distinguish resumes from one another in the initial weeding-out phase.
The problem is that some association folks may read studies like this, pat themselves on the back, and decide that what they’ve always done is still relevant, after all. That’s not necessarily a good thing, because it’s not necessarily true.
In an email exchange with Shawn Lea, Seth Godin noted that while he has belonged to associations in the past (joining primarily out of fear of being left behind), he only belongs to online communities now.
Which leads to two questions:
1) What’s the difference?
2) At what point did those association memberships cease being a necessity for staying in the game?
(EDIT: He actually said he joined for “fear of being left out,” which is a different thing altogether, although the questions remain the same.)