Have you seen the movie Underworld: The Rise Of The Lycans? I know, it’s one of those cheesy B-grade monster movies about vampires and werewolves. But hey, vampires are trendy right now. The movie traces the origins of the centuries-old blood feud between the aristocratic vampires known as Death Dealers and their onetime slaves, the Lycans. In the movie, the aristocrats live in a walled, gated, ivory tower community while their slaves are imprisoned in dungeons and the slaves relatives are killed if they come near the castle. The Lycans eventually overthrow the Ivory Tower and a new world order emerges.
That’s how I feel about MPI and its members right now. MPI is sitting in its Ivory Tower making arbitrary decisions that impact its members without increasing any value for its current membership. Outside its Ivory Tower, a new public online conversation is emerging. It started softly at first and continues to gain speed and increase. The conversation about MPI, free digital content, and virtual attendance has morphed into discussions about new ways to fund meetings, how associations must enter the social space to begin listening to and engaging with their members, that associations do not have a monopoly on industry content and some are even questioning the association’s value proposition. The world is changing.
The title of this post comes from a quote from Clinton Bonner who participated in a live Twitter chat on MPI’s decision to charge $299 for the Virtual Access Pass to WEC 2009. Clinton said to me, “Their (MPI’s) ‘tower’ they sit in is now just the ground floor. They need to realize horizontal tower MUCH TALLER in reality.” Clinton was saying that today Web 2.0 and social media have leveled the playing field and association members have an equal voice to the once-top-down hierarchy of controlled messaging and branding from companies and organizations.
For the first time in MPI’s history (that I know of), there is public discourse online about MPI, its decisions, its offerings, and its services. The Ivory Tower is being flattened and MPI’s refusal to engage with members in the social space is a clear indication that a change needs to be made in leadership strategy.
Here are some of people’s thoughts and blog posts including two from within MPI’s “Ivory Tower” Fiefdom.
My initial post that started the discussion.
MPI’s Vice President of Knowledge Vicki Hawarden posted that MPI’s VAP in January was a beta and MPI intended to charge at WEC all along.
MPI’s CEO and President, Bruce MacMillian posted The Debate Over “Free” and as expected ignores MPI members’ questions and concerns posted here and in Twitter. It is the traditional top down controlled hierarchy company line post that we have all grown to expect from MPI. Bruce has yet to embrace Web 2.0 principals of conversation online with MPI’s members.
Susan Kuhn Frost argues that it’s the value proposition that threatens “bricks and mortar” associations.
Serenity J. Knutson, Editor in Chief, Plannerwire.com discusses that MPI has issues larger than free online content because they are turning a blind eye to public voiced member concerns. She also states that conflict and disagreements are symptoms of of unmet needs.
Sue Pelletier, MeetingsNet Web editor and editor of Association Meetings magazine states that she hears a lot about people’s dissatisfaction with MPI and what MPI is doing is making it irrelevant to a good chunk of its members.
Don England feels that we should pay for content because of costs associated with delivery.
Mike McCurry ponders if virtual live streaming cannibalizes the face-to-face event.
Julius Solaris states that pricing a virtual event in this price-range looks like a desperate move than educational strategy. He offers ten new business models for events
My follow-up post asking should you make your online content free?
World Wide Rave author David Meerman Scott offers his view that MPI should offer free content.
MPI employee Trevor says MPI stated numerous times the meetdifferent content was free because it was a beta. (I find Trevor’s statement odd since he didn’t start working there until April 2009, according to his Facebook public profile. He was not an employee in January so how would he know that MPI stated it many times.)
Elizabeth asks, “How does a free beta test identify the market for a paid subscription?”
David Lutz’ suggestions on how MPI can take a middle of road approach.
Midori Connolly who offers some great tips on offering a good hybrid meeting experience (and announces she would have sponsored the virtual streaming)
Joan Eistenstodt offers a suggestion on how MPI could engage more non-WEC attending members in the virtual experience.
There are others who have responded too, current members, past members and non-members alike. This is just a few of the comments recently posted. This is certainly a lively discussion that will not end any time soon. So where do you stand? Share your thoughts here.
These conversations NEED MPI too!
There are learning curves all over this discussion….learning the hard skills of using the technology is just the foundation. The really important layer is the relationships that such conversations enhance, the mutual learning that occurs, and the “bigger space” we create in which to work together.
WE have to change, to become bigger, to make these tools work to all our benefit.
What is stopping anyone from calling their friends at MPI to talk about this discussion, see if they even know it is going on, and helping them to participate in a way that moves the conversation forward? We’re past having the luxury of allowing an us v. them situation to emerge.
To paraphrase Liz Strauss (http://lizstrauss.com), blogger and relationship-builder extraordinare, the way to bigger success (and the way past this frustration) is to negotiate from the same side of the table. We’re in the soup together.
This is the ethos of social media that requires us to grow and change. The future will be built — is being built — by people who learn to have these conversations, keep widening them, and create new value together.
@Susan
Ooooo, this comment is chock-full of rich wisdom. It’s so true that grassroots still works. Thank you, thank you, thank you for continuing to drive this conversation forward.
Here talking for me as a young professional working with events. Whatever association that does not state clearly what the real value of membership is – it’s not appealing to me.
Whoever thinks online is a marketplace of stupid people willing to buy anything – they are insulting my intelligence.
Let’s organise a side virtual event with all of the above participating and show them how to generate great content for all to enjoy.
Best
Julius
Good morning all, thank you for the insightful comments and thought shared in this blog! The following is the text of a comment I posted a few minutes ago to Bruce MacMillan’s Blog article on this topic. (http://www.mpiweb.org/cms/mpiweb/blog/blog.aspx?blogid=3275&customerid=1123249)
“Bruce, while I applaud MPI’s decision to offer a virtual pass to its members for WEC, I believe MPI has missed an opportunity to distinguish itself as a true social media thought leader in the meetings and events community. Why?
Well, the pricing model MPI used for this Virtual Pass is in my opinion exorbitant. Many industry folks, MPI members and non-members alike agree, viewing this move by MPI as a revenue generation attempt, rather than an innovative value proposition to its members. Regardless of MPI’s intentions, perception is reality, so they say…..
At GMC PCMA we will be offering a webcast of our September Educational event, and intend to provide this service free, or at the very least, for a small fee to cover our expenses. Our priority objective for offering a webcast is to enable PCMA members, who can not attend our events, for whatever reason, an opportunity to benefit from the strong educational content delivered by our organization. We believe this, will in the long run foster membership loyalty and further position our chapter as a leader in the events business.
MPI would be better served to do the same with the WEC Virtual Pass. Offering the Virtual Pass at no charge (or nominal fee) will provide your members, many of which may have never experienced a WEC, a taste of MPI’s conference experience. The lost revenue opportunity, in the short run, may be recouped via increased membership retention and increased attendance at future WEC conferences, in a better economy.
I urge MPI, as a fellow leader in the meetings industry to reconsider this pricing stance.
Respectfully Submitted,
Michael M McCurry
2009 Greater Midwest Chapter PCMA President”
I really hope he responds to this, and also joins us here on this blog for some productive discussion!
@Michael
Very well stated and I am in agreement with your point of view regarding the value of offering free virtual pass. It’s about adding more value to my membership. Thank you for sharing and let’s see if MPI even acknowledges those that have left comments here. I would hope Bruce, Vicki and other MPI leaders and Board of Directors would engage in the open dialog with everyone here and not only from behind the comfort of their ivory tower.
@Julius
Yes the online marketplace is full of brillant people from all sides of the World and Web 2.0 allows all of us to engage with one another qucikly, unless you refuse to engage. When people remain silent and refuse to engage, they illustrate that their brand doesn’t really care about its customers, its members. Their silence and omission speaks volumes about their culture, their belief system, their values and their respect of others, or I guess I should say, lack of respect.
Great idea too for a virtual event. I’m there!
OUCH! I just noticed MPI pulled the TwitterFountain from the WEC page.
I actually feel some sympathy for the association. This is absolutely uncharted territory for them right now.
Wait – did I say them?? I did! Let me take that back…this is new ground for all of US. The us v them thing really doesn’t make sense in this situation. We don’t work for MPI, we’re not compelled to show up for meetings…it’s our “club” that we are shaping and forming with or without the leadership of MPI. So, maybe it’s more of an us v the unknown we’re trying to cope with here.
If you think about it, it was just a few short months ago that MPI realized Twitter existed. They were quick to participate and encourage the conversation in the rudimentary manner that most groups do when they first discover this parallel community within their membership. They added Pathable and have a few key personnel twittering on a regular basis as well as supporting their member Tweeps (case in point, when they heard we were trying to arrange a Tweetup, @DigLiberry responded within a day to make it happen).
But obviously that’s where the success stopped. Faced with honest and constructive criticism, association leadership tried to shift the conversation to their own, controlled platform. Rather than Bruce showing up here and talking with the leaders of this outcry (and I’m a fan of Bruce, FYI), he took a stodgy, bureaucratic and probably what they considered a safe route (sorry Bruce, but it’s true) and wrote a blog post on the MPI site. http://www.mpiweb.org/cms/mpiweb/blog/blog.aspx?blogid=3275&customerid=1123249
As I wrote on Serenity’s eloquent blog posting, experts in Blogger Relations state that there are 3 criteria for choosing which bloggers to respond to. They are 1. Popularity 2. Authority 3. Relevance. Call me nuts, but I’m thinking we fit the profile of bloggers worth responding to!
To my Meeps (my affectionate term for the MPI Tweeps that I honestly adore), if you’re listening:
Stop hiding, start a Twitter chat and see how to correct the VAP situation. If it’s finances you’re worried about, let me just state that that is fairly easy to overcome. Although the MeetDifferent webcasting provider charges high fees (I happen to know who it is), there are many other methods available (as in sponsored or free…two options already mentioned in these conversations). As demonstrated by Michael McCurry and PCMA, there are certainly ways around this particular challenge (Michael, can I sponsor your event? haha).
Now, if you truly feel that the VAP is worth charging for, then that’s okay too. Many associations and conferences do this. But find out at what price point and what content level makes it worth it for your members! Survey, TweetChat, listening to the comments already made…easy peasy.
This is a make or break opportunity for MPI.
I believe in OUR association. I think this is the time to see the leadership, innovation and creativity that WE, the members, are charged with providing in our various services.
MPI…are you listening?
BROOOOOOOOCE!!! That’s an RT from #MD09 if anyone remembers
Midori
@GreenA_V
Here are my suggestions to MPI (though I suspect they are currently more interested in defending the rightness of their position, than listening for opportunities to improve…):
While I don’t expect information to be 100% free, there are many pressures that are driving the price toward free. Most speakers blog their thoughts, contribute to online communities, distribute ebooks, all for free. So whether or not the information can be delivered for free, there is a growing expectation that information, if not free, should at least be inexpensive.
If MPI had priced their VAP at $60, I would have had no objections. Other members will respond differently to this pricing; some will say that any fee is too high. I suspect, however, that there are thousands of people who would have been willing to pay $60. In terms of MPI’s bottom line, if you reduce the fee from $300 to $60, but 5x as many people sign up at $60 than would have at $300, your revenue remains the same. My guess is that you could expect 10x the participation (doubling your revenue), but MPI would need to collect data to confirm or refute my guess.
Another pricing model that I would find more palatable and would still generate revue for MPI would be $25 per session, I get to pick and choose which sessions I want to attend.
Either of these arrangements could be profitable for MPI, while reaching out to a broader audience. Which means that MPI fulfills its mission by providing more meeting professionals with the information they need to bring more value to their clients. And at the same time, raising awareness about WEC with the opportunity of converting virtual attendees into real world attendees next year.
Mike McCurry and Bruce McMillian have asked, But won’t the low cost of virtual attendance hurt real world attendance? I suppose that depends on what the conference has to offer. During my stint in the corporate world, I recall having to defend each conference I wanted to attend. My boss would say, “Can’t you find this information in a book? I’ll buy you a book or a subscription to a trade journal.” (You see, even then, there was pressure on the price of information). My response was that it wasn’t just about the information, it was about entering into a community where information would be exchanged, relationships would be built, debates would be held, questions would be asked, ideas would be shared. I couldn’t get community from a book.
What is fantastic about today’s technology is that at the same time it threatens to erode the value of information (approaching free), it simultaneously creates opportunities to build communities and create other valuable interactions. The simple answer is that conferences that learn how to create value for their attendees will still thrive even as the value of information diminishes.
Hi Jeff,
I’m just reading up on this topic now – and it seems to have provoked some very strong opinions. I want to preface by stating that I’m not an MPI member. However, as an industry advocate and a member of other associations, I do have some thoughts on this issue…
First, an industry association’s role is to serve and add value for its members while running a healthy, profitable business (in order to serve and add value for its members). It’s really critical that MPI understand whether the thoughts above are reflective of the thoughts of the majority of their members.
Second, it’s critical that MPI actively participate in this dialogue. I’ve been extremely impressed by MPI’s engagement in Social Media to promote their events, build brand awareness, create desire with non-members, etc. It’s a natural extension to use this medium to ‘listen’ to members and use the information garnered to improve the experience for all members.
I agree with Susan and Midori’s comments above. I would love to see this medium used to create a collaboration of thought leaders – even if their perspectives are on opposite sides of the fence. To have everyone truly ‘hear’ each other can only do good.
I’d be delighted to shift the scheduling of our next #eventprofs chat to facilitate this dialogue, if people feel it would be of value.
Respectfully,
Lara
@ready2spark
@Gregg
Thank you for adding another layer to this discussion. You’ve outlined some different ways associations can price live streaming of conferences. That is very valuable information for all meeting and event planners.
I think you’re right on the money about the value of community and face-to-face interactions. I argue that people who register for attendance at an event are actually paying for the face-to-face experience, the ability to engage in community live and the opportunity to network. I don’t think people are paying a registration fee just for content. The live experience is much more than that.
Consider the NFL and Super Bowl. Viewers don’t pay to watch NFL games or the Super Bowl on their TVs and thousands of people still pay high-prices to attend the NFL events face-to-face. Do you ever hear any of the fans that purchase a ticket to the Super Bowl complain that the event is being live broadcast around the world and that their fees are underwriting the live streaming? Do you ever hear the Super Bowl organizers concerned that the virtual attendance of their event undermines and undercuts the attendance of the face-to-face event? Actually, it does just the opposite, increases the value of the face-to-face experience, and increases the value of the live streaming as well.
The more virtual eyes on the Super Bowl, the higher the ratings, the higher the advertising fees, and the higher the face-to-face ticket prices. Companies actually fight over who will pay big-dollars to advertise during the event. The Super Bowl is water cooler talk for days as are the ads. The NFL has learned how capture eyeballs and increase value for advertisers, viewers and face-to-face attendees.
There are some lessons there for meeting and event planners to consider. I’m going to write more about this very concept soon.
@Lara
Thanks for weighing in and offering your insight.
Everyone reading, if you don’t know Lara, you should. She’s the founder of #eventprofs Twitter chats and a social media strategist and event professional. You can follow her in twitter at @ready2spark and on her blog http://www.ready2spark.com.
I whole-heartedly agree that MPI has the opportunity to actively particpate in this dialogue via social Web tools. I was also impressed by MPI’s engagement in social media from meetdifferent and CLC09. That’s what caused me to renew my membership.
I echo what you’ve written that MPI should use this medium to listen to its constituents and to create collaboration from thought leaders. I think all organizations are struggling with how to adapt these new tools for the benefit of its members.
Thanks for offering the next #eventprofs Twitter chat as a way to facilitate this dialogue too. MPI, did you see that? Are you listening? Another great offer for MPI’s leadership and its Board of Directors.
Thank you Lara.
@Midori (The Green AV Queen!)
I remember that BROOOOOOCE!! tweet from #MD09. That’s when we first met via Twitter. You gracioulsly engaged in tweets with me about the OGS and other sessions at MeetDifferent. Another amazing serendipitous social space moment! Thank you for engaging me a virtual attendee.
I too was a long-time fan of Bruce and my perception of him has fast become tarnished. I was so hoping that MPI executives had turned the corner of ignoring constructive criticism or provocative thoughts. You’ve written some wonderful words and I hope they read this.
I think your comments about MPI being our organization need further exploration too. What are the healthy attributes of an organization that encourages and invites it’s members to have a voice, a vote and a difference of opinion?
Jeff,
Have been reading your comments and those of the others with great interest, both here and on Twitter.
Let me get three things out on the table before I start rambling: (1) My comments are my own and have no connection with my employers or coworkers; (2) Would have loved to attend the upcoming the WEC but can’t swing the finances, and (3) am a former MPI member, who dropped my membership after one year due to finances and “cliques” within the local chapter. With that said…
I like stuff to be free. My membership dues and my educational opportunities are paid out of my own pocket, so I really appreciated the free content that was streamed out of MeetDifferent in February and the weekly webinars that MPI produced about the Meetings Industry in Crisis, that also promoted the upcoming WEC. You felt that they covered basic material (and in some cases, it was), but I learned something from every one of those programs. I saw an events industry organization that “got” virtual and social media, much more so than the other groups. I even toyed with the idea of reapplying to MPI since I saw value from them (some recent expenses have eliminated these thoughts, however!).
The $499 non-member price for the virtual package seems very high to me. I do know that to produce these types of events virtually is much more intensive than a standard webinar. Also, as a non-member, I don’t feel that I am entitled to get the entire program for free. If I were a member, I probably would want to have access at something much cheaper than the $299 member price.
I agree with Dave Lutz’s comments regarding some different options they could have taken. Why not make Ben Stein’s Opening General Session free to everyone to promote the WEC and virtual package. Offer ala carte or daily packages – much more cost friendly to individuals and much more likely to generate additional revenues.
Why are the recordings only available through October and not maintained indefinitely. Why does a portion of virtual package get donated to the MPI Foundation? Why was the virtual package only offered up less than two weeks prior to the event? What if I cannot attend a 2010 MPI event in person – would the $100 credit roll over to 2011?
It will be interesting to see how IAEE and PCMA handle the virtual questions for their upcoming events in December and January, respectively.
I am more troubled by the lack of response from MPI on this topic. In fairness, (1) Jeff Busch of MPI has tweeted some comments to you, (2) an MPI employee participated in Thursday’s #eventprofs chat on this topic and (3) the MPI CEO posted a blog on the topic. They have removed the TwitterFountain from their website (and to be honest, I would have done the same thing if I were in there shoes). However, they need to respond and not be like an ostrich with its head in the sand.
Associations need to adapt to the changing times. I started in the events biz over 25 years ago, working trade shows for groups of coin collectors. Many of those associations were slow to react to the changing times and no longer produce trade shows. Private individuals and companies stepped in and produced better events without the bloated infrastructure.
For many of us, if we don’t attend the national conferences of the event associations, we are not going to be getting our money’s worth for our dues. For example, one organization charges nearly $500 to belong as a Supplier Member and the local chapter meets quarterly. The luncheon fee for Supplier Members is only $20 less than the non-member fee. At some networking events, planner members are free and Suppliers may the same fees as non-members. In this situation, I would be better off saving the dues money and paying the non-member fees – I would be hundreds of dollars ahead.
Associations – you need to adapt to the times or you may become irrelevant.
Greg
@GregRuby
@Greg:
Thanks for adding to the conversation. You have raised some interesting points.
BTW, the Twitter Fountain is still on WEC home page. Click the Twitter button and you’ll see it. They’ve not removed it.
I too am concerned about the lack of response from MPI. It shows that organizations either totally embrace the social space or when they create more problems when they don’t. MPI used social Web successfully to broadcast messages and engage with people at conferences. So one would assume that there would be people at MPI monitoring the social space and responding. MPI focused on social media as their OGS at their CLC09 conference for chapter leaders and I served on two panels at that conference about social media strategy for chapters and associations. So they see the value of it. I’ll give them credit for that. It takes a major culture shift.
I think MPI Leaders and Board of Directors has not yet learned how to become a “Listening Organization” setting up listening posts throughout the social Web to engage its members and nonmembers. This is critical in the new media arena.
It is a holiday weekend, so I hope that come next week, things are different. I will give them the benefit of the doubt for now.
Dear Jeff,
First, it’s an honor to be quoted by you, thanks for feeling our conversation was worthy of sharing. I will be as brief as I can be. Content WILL BE FREE. Soon (next few years) our cell phone bills will be greatly reduced or eliminated, replaced by sponsored (ad enriched and demographically focused) commercials and along side (in parallel really) new opportunities to monetize in telecomm. will emerge. Newspapers, we all know what sorry state they are in, will ALL eventually go to a digital, and most likely free format and new monetizing opportunities will sprout up alongside these markets and communities of readers and contributors. Cable will eventually BE FREE as the likes of Canoe-Ventures working with all the major MSO’s bring us the newest set top boxes that are social media enriched and interconnectivity ready. The new verticals that will emerge will allow the user to “accept” certain new rules in exchange for absolutely free content, this is coming and coming fairly soon.
Content WILL BE FREE … I do not profess to have all the answers regarding how associations and Meeting Profs will handle this shift. But one idea we can begin wrapping our heads around is that the thousands and thousands you can gather around your free content CAN BE MONETIZED. And don’t think traditional advertising either … In 1984, Dr. Egon Spengler of the Ghostbusters famously uttered the phrase, “Print is Dead”. So think beyond traditional web advertising and begin to understand the 2.0 social sale and relationship sale that can be fostered by communities you helped gather, all because your “bonfire”, aka your content, was inviting, warm, and oh yeah … FREE!
Associations and those who put out content as part of their offering, have an incredible opportunity to monetize their communities … there are emerging tools available and platforms they can now plug into, to start to make this transition a reality. If they, whomever THEY are, do this, they can make more money than ever before and do great things with these profits. If they revert, and clutch to their content too tightly, they will be the only ones left interested in reading it anyway.
Like it or not Content WILL BE FREE – Those that find innovative ways to capitalize on the crowds their content can gather, will win, those who do not, or worse yet, refuse to try, will eventually lose. Shift the conversation forward from “should” it be free and begin figuring out today how to create new markets around that content. Good Luck!
Jeff, great job bringing this to light, and thanks everyone for your stellar contributions.
Best,
Clinton Bonner
@clintonbon
@Clintonbon
Great additions to this discussion and a nice perspective through a futurist’s eyes. Thank you.
Jeff, I’ve been reading closely and pondering carefully since discovering the fascinating debate you’ve kicked off here, and we’ve just published a blog post of our own on the topic. The conversation has taken some nifty twists and turns, but I’d like to bring it back to three basic questions:
• Should MPI be charging, or charging this particular amount, for its Virtual Access Pass?
• Is the Virtual Access Pass a solid, worthy experiment, or a misguided attempt to attach a price tag to online content that should be free?
• Is it ever legitimate to charge a fee for online content? (And is there a single, all-purpose response to that question, or does the answer depend on what we mean by content?)
The context for this debate is an issue we’ve discussed a lot within our team of content capture specialists, and about which we’ve done a bit of blogging so far.
Although the business model for conventional media is gone, there is no solid foundation for the social media on which we have all come to rely so heavily. And I’ll presume to disagree with Seth Godin when he suggests that a gap of that magnitude doesn’t matter: It may be trendy to espouse disruption as an open-ended process, maybe even as an end in itself, but I think it matters a great deal when a medium like YouTube is on track to lose nearly $500 million this year. Unless we think we can adapt seamlessly and suddenly do without free social media that we’ve come to take for granted.
There’s a parallel argument for conferences. We continue to hear from associations that are losing 20, 30, or 50% of their onsite attendance this year, along with large chunks of sponsorship funding. We know of some events that are down 70% or more. If conferences aren’t reaching their audiences and association budgets are hemorrhaging, why wouldn’t organizations turn to their online communities for an alternate channel that keeps members engaged, and opens up a new potential revenue stream?
Sure, there are times and places when there’s no need or reason to charge for content. But the cost (hence, the price) of that information depends on its form, which should ideally be guided by the purpose it’s intended to serve.
The comments you’ve generated on this topic are a great example. A captivating discussion brought together an enthusiastic gang of volunteers, who gave freely of their time to keep the conversation alive. I intend no criticism of that work when I observe that it takes a lot of effort and attentiveness to sort through the raw material: it’s just a reality that comes with the territory.
A synthesis of that wide-ranging debate would add value for lurkers and impact for participants, as long as it faithfully and respectfully captured all viewpoints. It would probably draw in a wider audience of more casual readers. But even if you could line up a volunteer writer (or volunteer your own time) with the editorial skills and balanced perspective to produce the summary, the model would not be sustainable across a continuing stream of online debates. At some point, if everyone still expected the content to be free, the writer would have to go out and find a day job.
The same applies to the content MPI is offering through its Virtual Access Pass. Home video is free to all if you post it on YouTube (as long as Google is prepared to lose $500 million again next year for our viewing pleasure). Verbatim video on a private site incurs costs for recording, processing, and hosting, which makes it a tad unrealistic to ask an organization like MPI to supply it for free.
Arguably, though—with the possible exception of headline speakers like Betsy Myers and Ben Stein—the biggest cost of Web streaming is the time we expect online viewers to devote to the material. Oh, and the opportunity cost organizations incur when those viewers log off after five, 10, or 20 minutes, leaving the best content untouched after realizing that they don’t have two hours to sit through the whole session online. Organizations can mitigate that cost by supplying value-added summaries, but not when they’re expected to deliver all their content online at no cost.
None of this is to argue for synthesis or summaries as the right format for all purposes or, necessarily, for any purpose. Just to suggest that we take a step back to purpose and objectives before deciding how to organize and, sometimes, put a price on content.
We can demand free content until we run out of breath. But at the end of the day, the blogosphere and a million Twitter tweets won’t give us all the information we need to function in a knowledge-based industry or a democratic society. Even if they do, with only 28 hours in every day and eight days in every week, we’ll run out of time or move on to the next burning issue before we have a chance to sort it all out. That’s not to deny the incredible value and transformative power of social media. But before we argue that all information yearns to be free, we’d best be careful what we wish for.
This is not the first time there has been pubic discussion about a disagreement with a change in MPI’s policies. If you go back to last year’s launch of One+ magazine there was discussion on their blog function, granted there was not much dialog from MPI about their position on it or answering member’s concerns. But I know of at least 7 critical comments about it. There was also discussion about on the Meetings Community google group. Mostly negative.
My Company is a Small Business Donor to the MPI Foundation. When I was at WEC08 in Last Vegas, I felt after the opening General Session that MPI took two steps forward and one step back.
It seems like MPI has a habit of doing this.
Listen, most of us are meeting planners, we plan meetings and understand Profit and Loss Statements. During this economic slow down we understand that MPI is going through some hard times because, my guess, is membership revenue is down, sponsorship revenue is down, registration revenue is down, and misc. sources of revenue is down. The attendance at this year’s WEC looks like it will be down at least 35% from last year. So the hotel occupancy will be down and possible attrition will be up. I really do not know of any association that is not facing this.
But what we do not see is transparency in the running of MPI. MPI made some major changes in the past few years to increase its membership outside of North America, opening new offices and holding new conferences. They have changed the organization of the VP positions and made major changes to their magazine and website.
But as members we really have no idea how the organization is run on a day to day basis. We have no idea what the total cost of any conference was and what the bottom line profit or loss is for the conference. How do we know our money is being spent in an effective manner? We can look at the 2008 Audit report, but I believe there was a change in the bylaws so they do not have to share that with us in 2009.
Bruce, if MPI is facing hard times, then let us know! And let us know how bad it is! How can we help if you do not let us know?
I also find it strange that the VAP came out after most people who would have come to the conference had booked their travel and registered. It should have been offered at the beginning. It looks more like the attendance numbers did not come in where we wanted them, so how do we get more money to help cover the bottom line? “Let’s add VAP.”
So MPI, let us know what is happing and what the concerns are, you might be surprised by who will be willing to help you and offer effective solutions to your problems. But you can’t stay in the ivory tower any longer and rule the members. Members can leave and join other associations.
@Mitchell
Thank you for your thoughtful and introspective review of this issue. Your basic three questions are a good place for others to start and readers can quickly see the complexity of this matter.
I believe that what you saw on my blog was social media at its best. It gave people a chance to voice their opinion, dialog and debate with each other and engage in community around this issue. Regardless of each person’s position, each one had a voice. MPI missed an opportunity to engage its members to discuss and debate this issue before they announced the VAP fee. Had they done that, don’t you think we’d be having a different conversation now?
@Jim Louis
Thank you for bringing forward your views and a historical perspective. I stand corrected that this is not the first time there has been public discussion about a disagreement with a change in MPI’s policies or directions.
You are right that we can all identify with the situation that MPI is facing this year. Some of us are association planners so we completely get it.
One of the things I think we’ve witnessed regarding this topic and subsequent posts is that people want to have a voice. As I said to Mitchell, people are engaging in public dialog and debate about this situation which is very healthy. It is a missed opportunity by MPI to engage with the industry and members alike instead of claiming that they will have a white paper or position paper after its all said and done. Like you said, members can leave and join other associations and it may be at the expense of your proposed white paper.