Archive for June, 2008
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.
June 25, 2008
… But That’s the Way to Bet
Posted by Kevin | (1) Comments | Print This Article
Though I still wake up every morning grateful that I am not a consultant, Alan Weiss’s posts on the “value” of social media for consultants — here, and the follow-up here — are not just entertaining reading, but a valuable contrarian perspective for trade associations as well. (Found via Debbie Weil, who has a more interesting summary)
June 24, 2008
“I’d Like to Start By Boring You for a Few Moments”
Posted by Kevin | (1) Comments | Print This Article
Don’t usually link to Seth Godin because everybody else does, but I loathe “administrivia” in conference general sessions, and he offers one idea to make it a little less boring.
June 23, 2008
An Association Should Be Better Than Its Members
Posted by Kevin | (1) Comments | Print This Article
In 1992, I began my association career working for a state association with 6 employees. I was the director of public affairs and de facto number 2. In those dinosaur days when I first started, we had no computer network (just some bizarre word processor things), our newsletter was basically typewritten on yellow pages, and we had around 800 members.
When I left in 1998, we had a state of the art (for the time) network, a useful database, a glossy magazine, a “USA Today”-like newsletter, a website, a regular education program, an insurance subsidiary, and nearly 1200 members.
I’m not writing this to brag. When I started I had no idea what an association was or what it could do. I’m writing to say that one of the main reasons we saw such success in those years was this:
My boss had saved nearly 10 years worth of ASAE’s ASSOCIATION MANAGEMENT magazine. And I read every issue cover to cover.
The magazines themselves were professional, well-written, interesting and engaging. The people profiled and mentioned and quoted were lively, opinionated, and committed. I was fascinated. I didn’t read case studies from organizations with a lot more money than we had and think, “If only we could afford that.” Instead I read them and thought, “Hmm, could we do that?”
Ultimately, that magazine (which in those pre-Internet times, for all intents and purposes, WAS the association) gave me something to ASPIRE to. Between the ASAE magazine and my young hunger for books by Tom Peters, I caught a vision for what was possible, and a desire to take risks to make it happen.
What I learned from this experience is that ultimately, associations should be better than their members. Yes, in this particular case, I was working for an association and belonged to an association. But even if the association represents widget manufacturers, I believe the association should offer its members something to ASPIRE to.
I’m not engaging in the old “need vs. want” debate here. Instead, I’m simply calling on all associations to adopt higher standards in everything we do.
As the years have gone by and I’ve talked with a lot of people in a lot of different associations, I’ve noticed that an awful lot of associations seem to settle for “GOOD ENOUGH.” It’s a seductive place to rest; I have fought the same temptation. “Our members are widget manufacturers,” we say. “They won’t notice if our magazine has a tired outdated design. They won’t mind that our online store is clunky. They’ll accept if our training programs aren’t as progressive as they could be. They’ll be happy to participate.”
To which I say:
1) When a member reads your magazine, they are not comparing it to “other association magazines” or even trade magazines in your industry. They are comparing it to Fortune, Time, Fast Company, Business Week, Entertainment Weekly, or any other magazine they actually read because they want to. (And maybe they have already reached the point where they don’t want to read magazines at all … which is a topic for another post.)
2) When a member buys something from your website, they are comparing their experience to Amazon.
3) When a member goes to an education program or to a conference, they are comparing it to other things that they COULD have been doing with their time that week.
“GOOD ENOUGH” equals mediocrity. Mediocrity equals irrelevance.
Your members should feel PROUD to belong to you. To reach that point, it’s better to be PHENOMENAL at a few things than “so-so” at lots of things.
Reject mediocrity. Be phenomenal. Make your members proud.