Yesterday, I looked at the question: Does offering free live streaming of an event cannibalize its face-to-face attendance?
This entire discussion started with these two posts: Should You Make Your Valuable Online Content Totally Free? and Am I The Only One Scratching My Head Going Huh?
Let’s continue the discussion and look at these questions that have arisen due to the debate surrounding MPI’s Virtual Access Pass:
- Is it the responsibility of virtual attendees to share the cost of the face-to-face event?
- Should face-to-face attendees bear the full costs of the event including any expenses related to live streaming?
Two Different Business Models For Virtual Acess Of Face-To-Face Events
Again, let’s turn to the sports industry for comparisons.
Chris Yates of Huddle Productions left an interesting comment on Chris Brogan’s blog regarding the discussion of “free.” Yates argues that he’s seen two different sports industries go in opposite directions to make money from their content and one succeeded while the other one failed.
The Boxing Industry Live Streams Its Events – Pay Per View Model
Yates says that boxing industry wanted to protect their content so they charged viewers to watch fights on TV (pay per view). After years of doing this, no one wants to pay any more. He further argues that the industry missed a great opportunity to make money from promotions (advertising, logoed products, etc.). He says that killed the industry.
The NFL Live Streams Its Events – Advertising Sponsored, Free To Viewer
On the opposite end, Yates says the NFL is the #1 sports league by a huge margin and that they understand the concept of free. He says they don’t charge for live streaming and people that want to watch the games, can just tune in free. Further, he says the Super Bowls are some of the most watched TV shows in the world, again free.
Yates says that the NFL’s content is so valuable that it brings many eyeballs and companies pay handsomely to advertise during those live streamed events. He argues that great content offered to viewers free has great value and that NFL has a different business model to make money from the event.
Associations have learned the magic formula of advertising-supported free content delivered in their own trade magazines. Most distribute those magazines free to members and nonmembers alike. Yet they have not learned how to transfer this model to live streaming their conferences and events, like the NFL has.
The Verdict: Touchdown Or Knockout
I argue that associations that choose to protect their online content and charge additional fees for virtual attendance are going down the path of the boxing industry and that soon, they will dig themselves a grave. I contend that they must begin to offer outstanding value, remarkable unforgettable face-to-face experiences and free online content to its members in addition to community, networking, government relations and research. If not, they’ll get knockedout or find themselves shadow boxing with fewer and fewer members.
What do you think? What other business models could associations use to support live streaming? And let’s not forget the disruptive business technology of UStream.tv and Qik.com both that offer live streaming of events for free. Any one care to share about their experience using them ?
Jeff -
Great discussions, but curious what your business model is? I see that you work for an association that charges for it’s webinars, content, membership, etc., and fairly pricy compared to your target MPI. Are you evolving your model? Are they okay with the rhetoric you’re spreading on their back?
Thanks, Scott
Hi Jeff,
Nice job with the post and nice job managing this topic.
One business model that you did not bring up is the “freemium” type model. Where you get some stuff for free. Then you pay for the upgrades. Several software service companies are using this type of model. I could totally see events organizing themselves around a freemium type model.
In regards to UStream.tv. I have benefited from people sharing this type of content with me many times. Here are three examples:
> Digital Now Panel session with Clay Shirky, Bruce MacMillan, and other association execs. Awesome panel discussion. Price = Free (I received it in a tweet from Bruce MacMillan – the irony kills me).
> 2009 Event Marketing Summit Keynote Presentation from Paul Salinger of Oracle. Another awesome presentation. Distributed on Ustream. Price = Free.
> Several Enterprise 2.0 Panel Sessions recorded on UStream and tweeted via David Armano. Price = Free.
Also, I want make the following notes about the above presentations:
(1) I had not heard of these conference before.
(2) After watching the videos, I am more likely to tell somebody about the events, share the content and buy a ticket to the real event in the future.
Those are my two cents.
- Sam
twitter: @samueljsmith
Jeff, do you know of any implementation of this in the association world?
I know of plenty of internet entrepreneurs who have built profitable businesses from “giving people a taste” free — and sometimes whole meals — only to get business down the road.
But I think the issue is not one of choosing someone else’s business model. It’s not about looking OUT THERE for an answer.
It is about looking honestly at one’s own association and ask: Are we truly serving our members? Have we increased our service to our members this year? Are we irresistable because we are spot on in making our members’ professional lives better?
The question of free v. paid comes AFTER that.
Your CEO members may want exactly what you are offering at the price point you are offering because you are essential. Your business model may be just fine.
Other associations that are seeing a decline in participation, a rebellion from members, or just feeling stuck will need to back up and address what is amiss.
Once you are sure you have grabbed the bull by the horns…then start strategizing about how to accomplish goals.
Free content builds loyalty and brand recognition. It’s nearly free advertising if you do it right.
It’s also adding entrepreneurial and social technology skills to the essential skill set for association professionals.
It’s stressful to learn your way through so much change — but it’s good stress once we stop the blame game and (as Liz Strauss famously preaches) start to negotiate from the same side of the table.
@Scott
Thanks for the feedback and honest questions.
According to your IP address, you wrote this comment from MPI’s headquarters. Do you work for MPI and if so, what’s your role there?
First, MPI is organized as a 501(c)(3) nonprofit charitable/education organization and NADP is a 501(c)(6) a trade association, both with different business models at their core. MPI membership is made of individuals and NADP’s membership is made of companies. MPI exists to make its members successful by building human connections to knowledge and ideas, relationships and marketplace (so says MPI’s 2009 Policy manual). NADP exists to promote and advance the dental benefits industry. So, it’s like comparing apples to oranges.
BTW, as it says on the About page on my blog: “The thoughts here are mine (not those of my employer-NADP, its members or stakeholders, my family, friends, my pets, any boards or committees that I serve on, or anyone else for that matter). However, I will say that as a nonprofit trade association, it our goal to provide our members and their employees with the best products and services possible for their dues. It’s something we constantly evaluate.
The Webinar pricing model we use at my work is per company, not per individual and each company can have as many people as they want attending a webinar at their main location. We use a subscription model and our members receive discounts based on the total number of Webinars they purchase. We also provide a variety of free Webinars, live call-in radio shows and podcasts by experts and thought leaders for our members each year. So it’s very different from MPI’s model.
Our members decide the price points for our membership dues, conference fees, webinars and other services. Staff does not. Again, a different model than MPI, although MPI’s Board does approve the fee for membership dues.
Obviously, I’ve touched a nerve with this issue with you and others. You say I’m spouting rhetoric and I believe that in today’s society all opinions, divergent thought and ideas are welcomed at the table and encouraged. And, as a paying dues member of MPI, as MPI’s customer, I have a right to voice my opinion, and a duty to let MPI know when I dislike the direction its taking.
Clearly, I’m not the only one with this opinion either based on the comments and the continuation of dialog around this topic. Many people have stepped forward to voice their opinions as well. Likewise, I don’t think this issue is specific to MPI. I think the issue is one many associations and businesses will have to face in the future.
@Susan:
I like this: “It is about looking honestly at one’s own association and ask: Are we truly serving our members? Have we increased our service to our members this year? Are we irresistable because we are spot on in making our members’ professional lives better?…Other associations that are seeing a decline in participation, a rebellion from members, or just feeling stuck will need to back up and address what is amiss.”
Yes, that wraps it up nicely and puts the discussion on a different level. Thank you.
@Samueljsmith
I really liked your three examples. Especially the first one that Bruce sent out himself with a link to free online content from Ustream.TV on digital now. That’s very ironic indeed.
I also enjoyed your two take-aways about watching those free online videos. Thanks for sharing.
Jeff, nice analogy! In adding to your post, NFL games are definitely not commercial free. There has to be some sort of value back to the sponsors &/or sponsoring organization.
Another model that we may be able to learn from is MarketingProfs. Every week, I get an e-zine from them. The top two articles can only be accessed by Premium Members. The bottom four articles are free. I like this model because the premium members feel like they are getting something for their money and the free loaders are wondering how good the premium content is.
Back to sponsors…I hate webinars or live meetings where the sponsor gets up and does the obligatory 5 – 10 minutes, especially when they are feature puking. They need to be recognized and thanked, but a better approach would be to have attendees quickly self qualify themselves for more information. By asking one buying intent question, it would dramatically help the sales process and increase sponsorship value.
We got to find a way to reach a greater % of the membership with a valuable content, but also try to monetize it.
Dave Lutz
Velvet Chainsaw Consulting
[...] Are Nonprofit Associations Headed Down The Path Of The Boxing Industry? [...]