Many in the meetings and events industry and association world know of my thoughts and concerns about MPI’s recent decision to charge for virtual attendance to their upcoming World Education Congress 2009, a departure from their free virtual attendance at “MeetDifferent 2009” conference in January. I’ve turned from MPI member evangelist to MPI member critic overnight.
My unscientific, biased Twtpoll shows that at least 68 people were going to purchase MPI’s virtual access pass which at $299 each comes to more than $20,000 to MPI’s revenues. [I'm sure MPI is happy about adding this to their bottom line.] That same unscientific biased poll shows that nearly 80% of 411 votes disagree with MPI’s decision.
Some of you agree with me. Some publicly and some of you have sent private direct messages to me in agreement afraid to publicly post your views for fear of retaliation. Some of you disagree with me. MPI leaders and board remain silent with the exception of Jeff Busch, VP of Strategic Communications who has sent tweets to me. I’ll be honest that my tweets to him have been curt and blunt, it is limited to 140 characters.
Regardless, the one sticking point is the word “free.” Everyone, including, MPI, agrees that they should be live streaming their event and offering online content. That’s a huge improvement from a year ago at this time. The disagreement arises when we discuss how and who will pay for it and whether it should be free. I argue that the costs are less then they say, especially if they were to use UStream or Qik. But they’ve chosen to use a supplier who I’m sure is insisting on splitting some of the revenue with them.
Interestingly enough, while this conversation was occurring, Society of Human Resource Management (SHRM) was streaming specific sessions from their 2009 annual conference online free for anyone to see. They’ve even provided 5 Ways To Particiapte In SHRM 2009 From The Office free! Interesting how the HR professional industry understood the gravity of this issue and the need to provide value for its members and the industry.
This is not a new discussion nor is it going away anytime soon. Newspapers and magazines are facing these same issues, some of which refrused to adapt and have since folded. Any content provider will have to deal with this issue of free content at some point in the future, or they will be left in the dust.
To further the discussion, I offer two perspectives from leading social media explorers: Seth Godin and David Meerman Scott. Read for yourself their views.
In Seth Godin’s June 30, blog post Malcolm Is Wrong, regarding free he writes:
The first argument that makes no sense is, “should we want free to be the future?”
Who cares if we want it? It is.
The second argument that makes no sense is, “how will this new business model support the world as we know it today?”
Who cares if it does? It is. It’s happening.”
He proceeds by stating: “People will pay for content if it is so unique they can’t get it anywhere else, so fast they benefit from getting it before anyone else, or so related to their tribe that paying for it brings them closer to other people. [No association holds a monopoly on such unique content that all members will pay for it!]…
Like all dying industries, the old perfect businesses will whine, criticize, demonize and most of all, lobby for relief. It won’t work. The big reason is simple:
In a world of free, everyone can play.”
Likewise, David Meerman Scott identifies the Six Rules Of the Rave in his book the World Wide Rave. Regarding two rules, he writes
Rule 2. No coercion required.
For decades, organizations of all kinds have spent bucketfuls of money on advertising designed to coerce people into buying products: Free shipping! This week only, 20% off! …[Purchase now and apply $100 discount to your attendance at a 2010 conference.] this product-centric advertising is not how you get people talking about you. When you’ve got something worth sharing, people will share it-no coercion required.
Rule 3. Lose control.
…You’ve got to lose control of your messages; you need to make your valuable online information totally free (and freely sharable); …
David proceeds to layout multiple examples of businesses and organizations that give away online free content which leads to success and purchases. He also tells his own story of how his publisher Wiley encourages him to give away content from his book World Wide Rave and how they’ve shown that it leads to people purchasing his books.
So, I ask again, why should I as a member that pays $375 for my membership dues, pay $299 for online content. All I want to see free, is similar to what MPI offered in January, the opening general session and power keynotes.
What do you think about Godin and Scott’s view of free online content? How do you think SHRM’s members responded to their willingness to offer five ways to attend their annual conference free?
Very well argued. Thanks for including my perspective. Both Seth and I offer tons of free stuff (blog posts, ebooks, podcast interviews, and more). By offering all of the free information we both sell a lot of books.
Your organization should consider offering lots of stuff for free. Then people will want to pay money to get even more because it has so much value.
(PS – if this blog were not free, I would not be here.)
Good luck. David.
@David
Thanks for stopping by and adding your comments to the conversation. Actually, I said, “Wow, he stopped by, read my post and added his point of view.” Social media conversations are so cool!
My only comment is that MeetDifferent was a beta test of the first online content. MPI has said so numerous times that it was free because it was testing, and they wanted to see what was the desire in the market. They were also told that the kind of information that would be available from future events (WEC) would be worth a nominal charge. Personally, if I am paying $600+ dollars to go get this information, but Joe Smith can get it for free online, I would be a little upset.
Plus, its $300 down, $100 goes to your next conference, and you get over 100 sessions of info (so $2 a session) and you are interacting live with people in sessions and during the tradeshows? I do think it is a great option, and I didn’t get my diploma for free, and doubt anyone els here did. Information has a pricetag, and every business pays for continued training and education, so how is this any different? MPI has given out free information already in the last 2 months. Free webinars for anyone, not just members!
I just feel like this subject is getting a little out of control, of course we would all like it free, but in reality, how can we expect it? Just because a beta test of minimal information didn’t have a price tag can’t be the prescident for all future developments.
I understand your points, but I also see why it has a price tag.
Jeff, I’ve been thinking about this a lot over the past couple days. You’ve done a great job of engaging a lot of thought leaders to weigh in on this important/evolving topic. It’s also very impressive to see David Meerman Scott give his opinions on this! He’s definitely the expert.
What’s been going through my head is…what would I do if I were MPI? I applaud them for leveraging live content to a virtual community. I’m definitely a believer of…by giving a virtual community a taste of the live event, you will benefit by converting those folks as future attendees plus, of course, build loyalty for the brand/membership.
As this is an evolving issue, if I were MPI I’d probably take more of a middle of the road approach. Here’s how:
1. Stream a number of sessions LIVE for FREE to members and non-members. Pick some good ones to make sure the desire to be there in person increases.
2. Solicit sponsors for all recorded sessions. The value that they will get for being the ones that helped bring this education to the community (good guy thought leaders) is very valuable. Collect contact info for the sponsor for maximum benefit and for future target marketing by MPI.
3. Hold back two handfuls of recorded sessions. One set would be offered free later (maybe one a month) the 2nd set would be considered premium sessions that would be offered for a nominal fee in a webinar series. If the sessions are received well on site, word of mouth for those attending live will help drive traffic for the deferred online showings. The paying live attendees should not mind these free or discounted offerings because they heard it 1st and also experienced it live. MPI would benefit by extending the life of their conference and come across as delivering value to the community vs. trying to make a quick buck. They may even attract a few more bodies to Cancun.
Any way, we should expect our industry associations to lead the way with best practices. I believe MPI’s intentions are good here, but don’t agree with the deployment and pricing model.
Dave Lutz
Velvet Chainsaw Consulting
@Trevor:
Great feedback and I agree that there are costs associated with education! Thanks for bringing up this side of the discussion and I respect your POV.
Trevor, I have an education degree myself and am Director of Education & Events in my day job. I KNOW that education cost money. I am already paying MPI $375 for membership. I’m questioning the value of those membership dollars versus what I get in return. I expect MPI to take my membership dollars and then budget from their revenues for some quality free education for its members, education that is relevant to me. I also know it can be done because I do it every year. I am not getting quality or even mediocre advanced content from my local chapter or from headquarters, which is why I’ve joined SPIN, Senior Planners Industry Network, free.
Using your college analogy, I’m not paying to get a degree with MPI. Would you pay a membership fee to join a college and additional fee for tuition? How about in this economy? Probably not. You’d probably even question college officials on what that membership fee got you in return.
MPI’s free education this past April-June was a series on “Why Meetings Matter” which is preaching to the choir for me. I already know that or I wouldn’t be in the meetings industry. MPI’s free 2008 CSR series is not content that I want or relevant to me.
As for MPI saying numerous times that their January live streaming was a beta and they would charge later, I did not know that. This is the first I’ve heard that and I never saw that in an email, online or marketing piece. Moreover, had I know that, I would NOT have joined MPI again this year. Let me remind you that what got me to return as a paying member was the free streaming of three or four sessions from MeetDifferent. Now I have to pay to get that from WEC. It’s either $300 for 100 sessions or $20 for one.
Lastly, so you feel the subject is getting out of control. Good. That’s what social media expert David Meerman Scott says you should do, “Lose Control.” Go read his book. Or download one of his free eBooks. This subject of free content is far from finished. There’s even a new book coming out about it called “Free.”
@Davidlutz
You’ve done a wonderful job of moving the conversation from “why or why not free content” to showing everyone how to do it. Eloquently stated and hat tips to you. Other associations should read this as you provide some great ideas to explore and implement. Thank you for furthering the discussion in this direction.
Now if we can just get MPI leaders and board to engage in this dialog. To paraphrase Ben Stein’s famous Bueller quote, “MPI? MPI? MPI? Anyone?”
My question is for Trevor, who wrote: “MPI has said so numerous times that it was free because it was testing, and they wanted to see what was the desire in the market.” How does a free beta test identify the market for a paid subscription? Clearly the value proposition in the two cases is entirely different. It doesn’t make sense to evaluate how many people might pay for something based on how many people participated when it was free, does it? If I’m missing something — please elucidate.
@Elizabeth:
Thank you for your comment and raising a very important issue that MPI’s value proposition might be flawed. Trevor, do you want to respond? Or someone else from MPI want to respond?
I was specifically addressing the justification of the free “MeetDifferent” webcast as a beta test. But if we’re going to talk value proposition, I would definitely be interested in hearing how the price point for the WEC virtual attendance was decided.
Is the face-to-face aspect of attendance really worth less than half of the overall conference fee? If MPI thinks so, then they are vastly overstating what they really do best, which is providing the networking and opportunity for gathering. Education is still not MPI’s strongest offering generally speaking, and until it is, $299 to get it does seem exorbitant.
Just had to add my stupid blurb.
As an EventStream provider and designer of Hybrid Meetings, I would have LOVED to sponsored the virtual pass…and if not wholly sponsored, at least provided underwritten attendance for members.
sigh.
While discussing the recent MPI “bolt-on” solution to a virtual attendance package, @SamuelJSmith asked for some clarification on the importance of EventStreaming. So, I compiled the major errors I witness that have inspired my Hybrid Meeting white paper (it’s in progress. a slow, painful progress.)
Here’s our conversation:
As an AV company, we have only recently started to offer EventStreaming and online content management and retrieval. However, the mistakes we saw from many organizations influenced our decision to introduce these services from an event professional and Audio Visual perspective (rather than IT). They are primarily:
1. Lack of quality. Many associations bring in an outside webcasting service and they do not have broadcasting, studio or AV experience. They’re missing an understanding of the importance of the quality of the input and how that translates to a virtual attendee’s quality of experience on the other end.
2. Misunderstanding of the purpose of adding online content. Is the purpose of virtual attendance to have content available for educational purposes? If so, how much content should be provided? And for how long? If it’s just for event promotion, then that’s another situation and we have other structured answers.
3. Pricing Structure. This is a direct affect of #2. Identifying the purpose of the EventStream ™ and online content is the determining factor for price structures.
4. Virtual Attendee considerations. Has the virtual attendee package been incorporated into the entire event scheme? Or is it an afterthought (as is evidently the case with the MPI/WEC debacle!). With the correct integration of SM tools and Audio Visual technologies, we can enhance the experience for the Virtual Attendee…or even design regional event pods to provide some networking benefits (primarily high-level association or corporate functions).
That being said…what Pulse Staging offers is technical consultation to design a full Hybrid Meeting. Working in tandem with MarCom professionals and Event Planners, we create custom packages using traditional AV equipment, webcasting and online content storage/branded storefronts.
This honestly is not meant as a self-promotion…just all the thoughts that have been gushing through my noggin for many, many months
I do respect MPI for their intent. It was just the execution that hurt.
Thanks Jeff for the discourse. As I will be muttering to my grave…YOU ROCK!
@Midori
You have provided some wonderful, insightful commentary regarding this issue and video streaming as well. It’s not stupid at all.
Wow, meeting planners, I hope you’re reading this. You just got four great tips from a “CSR Green AV Strategist.” Those are worth gold.
Thank you for sharing Midori.
I’m really digging this discussion…not the MPI bashing part, but the parts where we are sharing best practices & strategies that will help draw attendance to future live events. After all, our careers are dependent on that.
Here’s another idea that MPI/others could consider. There are lots of organizations with chapters. What if one or more of the sessions was broadcasted a few weeks after the annual meeting at a chapter conference? Perhaps chapter leaders that were in SLC could lead the discussion and tell everyone how great it was to see it live.
Midori makes some important comments on the quality of the production. If you are going to make the content available virtually, the quality should be pretty darn good…especially if you are charging $299 for it.
Would love to hear what other organizations are doing to share & extend the life of their conferences. Are you building loyalty? Are you converting that loyalty to future conference attendance?
Dave Lutz – @velchain
Velvet Chainsaw Consulting
Grateful for this continuing discussion and the ideas.
DING DING DING, Dave Lutz (@velchain) for your ideas. Adding to those — what if an org. chose some local facilitators and offered the sessions in real time and allowed a group to discuss and then provide feedback in real time? The engagement and feeling of association/community would be tremendous.
Years ago, at an ASAE annual meeting, when some of us arrived at a very full (and desirable) session, the ASAE staff let we who were ‘overflow’ use the room next door, piped in the sound, gave us the flip charts to do the exercises, and we ran our responses over to the larger group. Very low tech AND very effective. In today’s world, the concept could be adjusted to different kinds of broadcasts, again enhancing one’s membership experience and thus the community experience.
People could gather in someone’s conf. room, brown bag it and have a fab time interacting w/ others there and at the site of the conference.
It is a great discussion and one that we can all gain from. I hope that what started this – MPI’s WEC charge-for-virtual-attendance – will be reviewed and maybe — just maybe happen.
Fascinating discussion….social media helping to solve the problem by bringing new players to the discussion.
Engaging sponsors in order to use new technology. Great market exposure for Midori’s company while buying time to figure out the business model that can works for hybrid meetings.
But let’s elevate the discussion — it’s the value proposition that threatens “bricks and mortar” associations.
I watch internet marketers through the lens of twitter and how quickly many have reacted to the recession…they are using social media to deliver more valuable content online for lower prices, offering more payment plans, bundling premium online content with a free pass to a later conference. These are some of the things that are working. I am also watching an ongoing conversation among social media thought-leaders about how to blend the conversational and financial aspects of working online in an ethical and high-value way. They are asking the right questions….and I believe that leads to the right answers.
We shouldn’t minimize the problems….in fact, I think we should appreciate how difficult they are….and work together, collaboratively, to find the path forward. There are so many disciplines and parties that need to come together to create the future. The conversation needs to be held at a very high level of creative thought.
Using social media tools constructively, can get the discussion pointed in the right direction, as Jeff’s blog demonstrates.
I’m a big fan of Free! So much so that it is the business model for my company Dimdim: the world’s Free Web conference. We let people meet online using Dimdim for free with up to 20 people. We also provide our source code for free so others can mash it up with existing tools and improve the experience for all. We’re doing so well that I can offer this tool to host the World Education Congress 2009 for FREE – no need to split any revenue with us.
We think that if people use our free product to experience great content, they will consider using Dimdim again in the future. And some people just might upgrade to bigger/better plans and our business model works.
If you want to take me up on my offer, just visit Dimdim.com. My email address is on the management page.
@Joan
I love this idea. What a simple yet effective impact extending this event could have with those who couldn’t attend. MPI’s own WEC local town hall discussions and engagement. Great input and thanks for sharing.
Isn’t social media amazing here. Look how many people have contributed to this discussion, offered concerns, added new ideas and taken this in new directions. I love how Web 2.0 removes the Ivory Tower and puts it all on the ground floor. It’s about expanding our resouces horizontally, not vertically. (Thanks @clinton for that thought.)
Steve — I appreciate your contribution to this discussion, but I’m disappointed that you felt the need to market your product more than discussing the business model that led to your “free” objectives. As a practitioner in the field, you obviously have reason to believe that your model is profitable and beneficial. That’s what we’d like to convey to MPI, I think. As for using your services specifically, perhaps you will find that demonstrating your knowledge and helping us to address the questions we are asking would be the best way to market yourself.
@susan
What can I say except Amen! Amen! Amen! I too am amazed at the discussion that’s occuring on this blog and how some amazing people are adding to the conversation. And we are benefitting by it. I also invite MPI to engage in this dialog with us, not from afar. That would be true community engagement.
One of my take aways from this ongoing discussion is that we need to embrace that our readers, our audience, our followers, our members, our attendees know more than we do and we should take advantage of that. We should capitalize on using Web 2.0 tools to help us move forward, together. There is some amazing new thought-leaders for associations, meeting and event planners and communities at large emerging here. Great questions being asked too.
@Steve
Thanks Steven and I am very familiar with Dimdim. Interesting that once again, the topic of free is brought up here. I also appreciate that you believe if people use your free product as a conduit to great content, they may purchase upgrades. Cool.
@Elizabeth
Thanks for extending this discussion and adding your input. Your thoughts and comments are greatly appreciated.
Elizabeth, totally agree with you – didn’t mean to sell anything. I am simply offering to take the cost of the platform argument out of the equation while reiterating that “free” can be a great business model if done right. That said, there are counterarguments: http://gigaom.com/2009/07/03/maybe-paid-is-the-future-of-online-business/
In the end, it’s about striking a balance between what you give and what you get. And sorry if I’ve offended by marketing my stuff here: I’m a passionate believer in the power of free.
@velchain (That’s his twitter username!)
You’ve added some great thoughts and questions too. Yes, if anyone has any other experiences extending the life of their conference, please add to this discussion.
I have to take issue with the phrase “extending the life of the conference.” We need to embrace a higher level of thinking about what we are doing:
– avoiding stovepipe thinking, that the highest good is serving our department’s interests.
– looking in a more integrated way at how we serve members needs. THEY are at the center…it’s not about the conference. It’s about how well we serve our members interests.
– So, what do you think of this as a substitute: It’s about “extending our engagement with our members” so that we can deliver increasingly exceptional value to them…so that we all grow and advance our personal and professional capabilities and strengthen our industries. ((The economy needs this!!))
– that’s the gold standard for associations, the blend of the online and offline excellence to achieve heretofore impossible levels of accomplishment and enable our members to do the same.
@Susan
I totally agree with your thinking about extending our engagement with our members. I specifically used extending the conference because most of the people engaged in this discussion are meeting and event planners, not association staff. So they see the issue differently.
I think it’s a both/and as we need the strategic over-arching vision of extending our engagement with members and we need the tactical approach of extending conference experiences before, during and after the event. I’m an educator by trade so I look at the conference from the education design knowing that people learn and retain information by repetition.
Here is a slightly different historical perspective which I hope is not too much of a non sequitur:
Since the beginning of the recording and radio era, professional symphony musicians have taken the attitude every time they play live they should get paid, every time they are on the radio they should get paid, any time anyone takes a picture or video of them they should also get paid.
Here’s the net result, for what it’s worth: a small number of people become superstars– 10-20 conductors, 10-20 “major” orchestras, and a handful of international soloists (quick– name a famous cellist other than Yo-Yo Ma). That’s in the world.
However, overall, the number of buyers of the product shrinks. This brings about the necessity for subsidy. If this happens, the next step is, the culture becomes insulated and disconnected from the general market. Also, so many resources are taken up with maintaining the minimum status quo of this oligarchy that there is little capital left for outside innovation.
Overall there are fewer and fewer opportunities for any newcomers, and the culture itself tends to stagnate, it just does what it has done in the past, as its business model and primary purpose is now to raise money.
I think this also applies to political parties, come to think of it.
–jl
@Justin:
Thanks for adding another layer to the conversation. I think it’s a great historical perspective that illustrates what happens in the market and how the culture tends to stagnate. Great thoughts.
I concur w/ Susan Kuhn-Frost — to some degree and maybe it’s a bit of semantics.
It’s more extending the life of the community for me — extending the ability to interact w/ people w/ ideas on content – learning how the content is still relevant (or not) later. For organizations and individuals it is about listening to the conversations beyond a conference and allowing us all to observe the trends.
Associations are stuck — more than stuck. The model is so old and stodgy; the communities are not nearly as dynamic as they could be.
And OY! the meetings/conferences — even those delivered via webinar are just flat (for me and my learning style.)
This discussion leads to opportunities galore for MPI and others to really delve into what would make a difference. It’s never just about price – it’s about value.
Well if I may be so bold, joan’s post and this discussion brings up a big picture topic that dogs me constantly, which is, how do you innovate in a tradition-heavy culture?
I am building a blog or e-book or presentation about this, and I’m a long way from done, but here are some of my rough ideas of basic principles:
1) organizations rarely innovate, it is always done by individuals within the organization.
2) If you are not the person in charge, it is important to find out if innovation benefits or “de-benefits” the person(s) in highest power. I often see people killing themselves making logical arguments for changes for the benefit of rank and file, without considering what benefit will come to the person who is in a position to make the decision, and who is currently sitting very pretty with the status quo.
3) It often takes a crisis for change to be considered much less implemented,
4) Loyalty to the past is a powerful force,
5) Making innovation happen requires one to be disloyal to the current way of doing things. This is a capital crime in some situations, no matter how illogical the current culture is and no matter how how well-intended or logical your idea is.
In other words, it’s not always a logical argument.
Thank you for letting me participate (!), I hope this is worthwhile reading. – jl
@Joan
I love the way you’ve framed the discussion here. You are so on target that associations are stuck. They are stuck in status-quo, sacred cow initiatives and as Jeff De Cagna says, they’ve lost relevancy. Yes, this discussion leads to fantastic opportunities for MPI and other associations to do something different, to focus on providing outstanding value to their members and constituents and to be true authentic, transparent, leaders.
Now how can we get MPI leadership, its board of directors and its chapter leaders to participate in this conversation? How can we engage more MPI members in this discussion and really create a revolution in MPI from the ground up, a grassroots campaign?
Jeff – you wrote: “Now how can we get MPI leadership, its board of directors and its chapter leaders to participate in this conversation? How can we engage more MPI members in this discussion and really create a revolution in MPI from the ground up, a grassroots campaign?”
If we figure this out .. we’ll get some prize! When I served on what was the membership cmte. (but w/ a different name) just a few years ago, surveys were done that showed that MPI’s members are there for the ‘resume’ credit — and not necessarily for the engagement. There is a small percentage (relative to the entire membership) that are engaged w/ their chapters — and are content w/ what they can get and give there.
MPI’s elected and paid leadership seem to be a bit out of touch. I contend that it is because there are very few (any?) who are now or ever were employees of associations. Associations are very different animals and one has to understand them to understand members.
THAT all said, this discussion started about MPI. I could easily apply to ASAE whose price for stand-alone webinars is (IMO) astronomical. Then again (I have a few hands to play here) if attendance at f2f meetings is down, how will associations make money if not this way?
And on yet another hand, one could say that if there is value, they will come.
(Never ask a “scanner” who’s also an MBTI “P” for an opinion or decision that must happen quickly.)
One more thing — anyone who is a member of any association should do what one does when there is a product or service that is not satisfactory: WRITE! In this case with MPI, write to the Board, to the staff, to your chapter’s leaders. Make it be known that this is not satisfactory. Those of us who have been and continue to be outspoken about many things would like your company. Collectively — collaboratively — ‘co-creatively’ — we can make changes.
@Justin
Yes, it is worthwhile reading, and a great primer on disruptive innovation and what keeps sacred cows sacred.
I wonder of the social Web 2.0 e-revolution is enough disruptor to cause change.
@Joan
And I think that’s some of what we are doing here. Writing and engaging in dialog about it. I agree that this situation could fit any association. Thanks for continuing this discussion.
…and the discussion keeps getting better. Great post by Justin on change. In the current economy, there is no better time to stop doing things because you’ve always done them that way. So-so ideas in a good economy are often shelved. Those same ideas in a bad economy are manna from heaven.
Joan added some great thoughts to this conversation too. She’s the content queen! She implied that you need to have worked for an association to be in touch with your members. I think the issue is more about listening to, and being in touch with, your customers and community. This isn’t unique to associations. Any business that isn’t driving their business based on customer feedback is putting their brand at risk.
MPI definitely needs to chime in on this conversation. Not necessarily to defend their position, but to demonstrate that they are listening and willing to make mid-course change.
Dave Lutz – @velchain
Velvet Chainsaw Consulting
I love you Dave Lutz! Yes.. it is about listening to your customers – and more – it is SEEKING customer input. My thinking about associations is that they are or should be member-driven — members are the key stakeholders. W/o members associations are gone or have to find a very different model (which is what Susan Kuhn-Frost has brought to this conversation.)
We are seeing associations falter, esp. in this difficult economy. You know — a roof over one’s head, daycare for children, food on the table .. or an association membership and training. Many clients and colleagues have told me of the horrific drop in membership and/or in member participation in conferences, webinars, etc. leading to less revenue for assns. which leads to staff layoffs and cutback in services which ultimately can lead to no association.
Jeff Hurt – thank you. Glad you began this conversation here. It’s one that many of us have had in other places over many years and it needed a public airing and lots of input from a diverse group.
@Velchain (@Dave Lutz)
Wahoo! Agree, agree, agree. I think the reasons Joan, Susan and me resonate with this dicussion is that we’ve all been association employees. We understand the dynamics of association work and we understand the need for drastic change, especially in this arena.
I’m a strong advocate that it’s about making Midcourse Corrections and, listening and engaging with those in the trenches. I honestly don’t think MPI has done that very well in the past nor are they doing it now. Social media is giving many of us a new avenue to share our perspectives and engage in healthy dialog about issues that are dear to us.
@Joan
Jeff thanks for the grin .. nice to have comments & thoughts appreciated.
Justin: YES! There are lots of issues you raise that need to be discussed — and I think that looking at the benefits to/for the “highest power” (in associations not in a spiritual/religious sense!) have to be part of the discussion.
Sacred cows have been shown to fall in the corp. world. Not so much in associations bec. people seem to hate change .. or some people; certainly not us.
The people in power do have a benefit, don’t they, in gaining evangelists for the ’cause’ (organization, their actions, the product, etc.) if they are willing to listen to a broader base? Isn’t that what Guy Kawasaki has written about for years?
It is troublesome to me that we are not hearing from people within industry associations and in particular w/in MPI .. and again, not in defense … just engaging in the conversation about what is seen about ‘sacred cows’, content delivery, assn.’s concern about members, and so much more.
Again, thanks Jeff for being our provocateur.
Well thank you all for letting me participate in the discussion. It is interesting to see how this has evolved from the issue of free stuff to “Why isn’t the management listening to us more?” Well it’s a common complaint, so I have an answer of sorts . . . I promise this is somewhat relevant to the discussion.
There are two sides to leadership. One is “the vision thing,” i.e., plotting a course for the future and championing that plan thru resistance. A lot of emphasis is placed on that sort of heroic bullheaded activity.
The other side, which in my view almost never gets taught in leadership curricula, is the power of perception. I come at this from a musical perspective, and in working with conductors, consistently, the best ones were all about perception. The lesser ones were all about “watch me, follow me” . . . But the best conductors created a sort of vacuum force with their perceptions, not just hearing sound, but seeing our spiritual potential better than we could ourselves, which inexorably pulled resources out of us beyond what even we thought we could do.
So I don’t blame people in leadership positions who alienate by ignoring, as they not only lack the training, they have often been taught to ignore resistance (read: input) and stick to the plan. That first part is important, but they lack the other side of the training. So it is unfortunate roles get reversed, and we underlings end up trying to perceive them, opening up channels for them to speak, etc etc.
When I got out of the orchestra biz I thought I was done all that, but alas, it seems to be universal! – jl
As Stewart Brand said in 1984:
“On the one hand, information wants to be expensive because it’s so valuable. The right information in the right place just changes your life. On the other hand, information wants to be free because the cost of getting it out is lower and lower all the time, so you have these two things fighting against each other.”
So looked at from that point of view, associations can increase the value of the information they provide to members or reduce its cost. Or both.
In business, the former path — increasing value — is what leads to a sustainable enterprise.
Justin — taking this a wee bit off course and am curious: if one lacks the power of perception and one who lacks it doesn’t seek training, with whom is the ‘responsibility’? If an organization doesn’t help those in leadership positions learn or point out what will help make them (and the organizations they serve) better leaders, it seems a melt-down.
Yes, the ‘vision thing’ is fairly easy — the ability to move that along and gain others’ involvement should be more difficult and should be helped.
hi joan, well i am happy to offer up an opinion and label it as an answer– actually i actually have some slightly thought-out opinions to offer– but first, jeff, need your input, since this has meandered so far from your initial post, what do you desire? shall we continue the discussion publicly here or shall we take it offline so to speak? –jl
Joan, A shout-out from the social media world to you about the issue of engagement and customer-centricity. Blogging and twitter skills alone are not enough….the conversational skills, the fluency to use these tools to improve organizations, these are a huge learning curve for everybody.
And it is not just the issue of engaging with members…it is learning to use these tools to create greater value for members. I don’t think associations can get away with the “resume credit” value proposition anymore…as you say, in a changing world someone has to help professions learn how to navigate change. If associations don’t someone else will.
In the corporate world, there is an emerging job function of “community manager” to describe a person fluent in managing these tools. The author, Amber Naslund, demonstrates considerable “fluency” in the world that so many are struggling to master…
@Justin @Joan @Susan
The comments on these posts are coming fast and I’m trying to keep up.
That’s a blogger’s dream!
Also, feel free to answer another person even if their question veers from its original thoughts. That’s the beauty of Web 2.0 conversations. And when someone asks publicly, you can guarantee there are others reading that want to know too!
I have a different spin on the views regarding leadership and listening. Vision is important. Perception is important. Listening is important.
Several people have wondered aloud if MPI is listening. I echo what Lara McCulloch-Carter stated that MPI and its leaders should use social media for listening. I believe that MPI needs to have a social media listening dashboard and become a “Listening Organization.” As social media strategist David Armano states, “Use the social space to ‘Listen, Learn, Adapt and Respond.’”
@Justin, it doesn’t matter what style of leadership one has, the discussion happens on the Web with or without those leaders. Any organization that refuses to engage or respond online, risks more people joining the rally cry of “Where are you? Why are you not responding?” Thus, members and constituents feel disenfranchised and they begin to create their own uprising. Or they bash the organization relentlessly and it’s hard to recover. There is much to say about this and I’ll explore it more in a future post as well.
Hi Joan,
ok, to reply to your post,
Well you are right, if no one is communicating, a meltdown is pretty much inevitable. But even in meltdowns there are opportunities. The one mistake I repeatedly made early in my musical career was not understanding how frightened and vulnerable your average conductor or manager was. I also consistently failed to understand just how much power *I* had in these seemingly hopeless situations. Now that I know better, well, granted, there is no magic bullet, but if one is to break the logjam of disconnection, there is no reason why you can’t “take responsibility” yourself and thereby be the impetus to fixing the problem, no matter where you are in an organization.
What finally dawned on me was that the power of perception works no matter where you are in the hierarchy. No matter how powerful or high up someone is, they are still a human being, and they need the same strokes and sense of connection as everyone else. So whenever I am confronted with a person who is “perception challenged,” I don’t complain about it, because that can only make it worse. When people are in that disconnected /fearful state, no amount of logic will get thru to them. I counter it by the one thing that might work, which is actively listening to them. It’s often amazing what effect this can have. Granted, it doesn’t always work, but if you can reestablish a sense of connection, you are halfway home, because it was the sense of disconnection was causing most of the problems of the first place. And besides, what better way to train them than by example? Got to start someplace.
I must admit, I can see how people can be listening-challenged. I came to understand the power of listening late in life. I had been too long operating under the impression that it was my job to compete for “airtime” and get people to listen to me. I was under the impression that if you are doing listening you are in a subservient position to the person doing the talking. I have now come to believe that the person who does the most listening is the person with the most power. i wonder if others have this problem, of being taught to approach people competitively rather than perceptually, and if so how you are adjusting.
Just speaking philosophically here, re: “responsibility,” there’s a tendency in organizations to believe that for every problem, there should be an official process to fix it. But there is be something to be said for the idea that individual initiative, not official process, is a better fix for some problems. Just one example, while orchestras are bureaucracies on steroids, within that culture, it is understood that there are times and places when command and control of the entire operation may fall upon this or that person, and when that happens, they must step into the primary leadership role, and everyone else defers. The good conductors understand this and stay out of the way. The lesser ones prevent it, and then they wonder why, with so much control being maintained and exercised, the concert still flopped.
I like to talk about conductors because many people like to think of the “dictator conductor” as the ideal manager, when in fact what goes on a major symphony orchestra is remarkably complex teamwork. It’s not the answer to every problem, but I hope you find the perspective to be interesting. I would be curious to know if these comments have any application in your world
best,
–jl
oi, also please pardon the typos caused by my voice recogntion software that i caught too late — justin
@Justin
Thanks for the thorough explanation and yes, there are applications to our world.
Thank you for this thoughtful post.
I offer tons of free information in the form of written blog posts, videos, teleseminars and a social networking site that connects thousands of like-minded people. Not only does it support my business financially, it sustains my personal commitment to serve. Sharing, empowering and connecting with other people is ultimately why we are all on this earth. The ability to do those things and earn a living simultaneously is rewarding, not only for me but for the people I serve.
@Donna Maria:
Thanks for adding to the conversation and sharing how free information works for you.
well jeff i must say i am very impressed with and inspired by your online listening skills, which have drawn out so many responses. is this a talent, or did you learn this somewhere? you’d make a good conductor- jl