Tag-Archive for » leadership «
I listen to my friends as they retell stories of their families and loved ones that have been laid off from work recently. Recession has taken its toll. Their voices are riddled with fear, fear that they are next, fear that the economy will cause them to lose their houses, fear that they’ve not saved enough, fear that they don’t have enough, fear of the unknown.
For it is fear, more than anything else, that seems to define our age.
Fear can drive our inner daily conversations. Fear, worry and asking why can become stopping places for failure.
Rajesh Setty’s book, UPBEAT: Cultivating The Right Attitude To Thrive In Tough Times addresses the need to surround yourself with upbeat conversations. Setty gives some great advice on how to turn the Recession into an opportunity to create a better job, better life, better world. As Setty says, “UPBEAT will help you quickly find the right rhythm to thrive in this great environment.” UPBEAT talks about how to THRIVE during tough times.
Here are my Top Ten Gems From UPBEAT.
1. Recession is here and everyone is invited to the party. Attendance is mandatory and you have been given your free ticket.
2. You can control and develop an UPBEAT attitude that’s recession-proof.
3. Continuously engaging in conversations that lead to nowhere is a sure recipe for disaster. It is a “license for inaction.” [Watch the conversations you have with yourself as well.]
4. If our daily conversations are weak, we may end up starting a “sympathy exchange” movement.
5. You need to be on a diet that is lean on unproductive behavior.
6. Being flexible is to be open to change and to new ways of doing things.
7. Adapting is to make new ways of doing things YOUR ways of doing things.
8. Once you adapt, you will not be conscious of the fact that you are changing, as the new methods and practices have become your methods and practices.
9. Always remember the golden rule: Give first! If you forget to give, you become extra baggage in others’ lives.
10. If there is one metric that makes sense, it is the “extra capacity” that you add in the life of another person in your network. With you being in their life, their life should be significantly better than without you being in their life.
Bonus: This is your time to increase your investments in yourself.
You can pick up your own copy of UPBEAT by going to Amazon. You can also follow Rajesh on Twitter @UpbeatNow or read his current posts on his blog Life Beyond Code.
Several weeks ago, a person commented on another blog that I had an obscure blog.
What exactly did she mean? I wasn’t really sure, so I turned to a web dictionary.
Obscure: indistinct; indistinctly heard; faint; far from centers of human population; out of sight; hidden; not readily noticed or seen; inconspicuous
This woman is an association executive, leader and owns an association management company. We are both members of the same association and she serves in a leadership role there.
She felt that my opinions and perspectives were hidden, out of sight and far from anyone being able to find me. Odd, since my blog and opinions were on the web for anyone to read and view. My point of view was out in the open.
She further felt that I should bring my concerns behind the association’s membership walls and follow a chain of hierarchy to voice my matters privately. She was upset that I had aired dirty laundry. As I said to her, if the association washed their laundry, there would not be any dirty laundry to air. I also said to her that the conversation could not be controlled by anyone, never was controlled, and to think that it was, was old guard, old school typical boomer thinking. (That comment pushed her buttons and she let me know so.)
She felt that I was not a valid blogger or legitimate member with an authoritative voice. I’ve heard this argument many times before concerning blogging and social media. Some people say social media and blogs are only for illiterati, the uneducated, amateurish, immoral unprofessional.
Here are the comments I left on another blog about a very similar issue where educated journalists were crying foul about so many bloggers and that internet publishing was for hacks and idiots. My comments on that post apply to this situation as well.
Those who decry, disparage and denounce social media and digital publishing are protectionists living in a world of nostalgia, yearning for yesteryear. The tougher times get, the more nostalgia seems the clever play.
Nostalgia, old guard, traditional thinking
The smart money, of course, is moving on. New technologies, new markets, new opportunities, new hope, new conversations, new writings, new communities — time and commerce never go backward. Nostalgia is just a way to convince the frightened that someone else is to blame. Erudite writers [and old guard association leaders] refuse to embrace that the world is changing and that people don’t want “talked at” or even “talked to,” they want “talked with.” People want an open, honest, transparent, two-way conversation.
We are tempted to pine for former days, to imagine that life was better in some “golden age,” and to believe that some evil power forced modernity on us. That all we need for restoring sanity to our lives is to go back to a bygone era’s certainties, when top down control was embraced and those who marched to a different drum were pronounced heretics. [That association members are to keep their opinions to themselves, get in line and be quiet.] That only an exclusive few have the ability to communicate and write with any panache and the rest of us are to consume those thoughts and litanies without causing any provocation.
We play with fire when we cast longing looks backward and refuse to embrace change. We risk losing today and compromising tomorrow. We lapse into delusion, as if rekindling a high school romance wipes all slates clean. Today’s problems don’t get solved by imagining better times, especially when those times weren’t any better. How can we make a useful contribution to today’s society if we are fighting over yesterday, freezing time in an ancient place and treating writing and publishing as a profession that stopped with the invention of the Internet? We must not emulate these pedantic writers [or association leaders].
Freedom is hard duty. To paraphrase a great quote, “Off with their pens!”
So what do you think? Should nonprofit associations welcome and encourage divergent thought and opinions? How should organizations deal with a variety of ways people voice their concerns and issues today?
Brian Birch asks an interesting question on ASAE & The Center’s Acronym Blog: Who are we really, as association professionals? If you work for a nonprofit association as I do, I suggest that you read his post and the replies.
Here’s how I responded to “Who are we really, as association professionals?”
I could answer this question with I’m a humanitarian, a heretic, a servant-leader, a contrarian, an advocate, a peace-maker, a fool, a strategic big-picture futurist with a penchant for implementation, a conduit, a life-long learner or a number of other labels.
We might be shaped by our pasts but our futures are always open. People ask repeatedly, “Where’d you come from? What have you done? Who are you?” The larger question is always, “What are you becoming?”
What are you becoming? Who are you as an association professional?
The truthful answer to this question—and to all moments of becoming—is, “We have no idea.” We can move in any number of directions. We will have false starts and dead ends; we will find some paths congenial; we will dodge some challenges and embrace others. But movement will always be forward.
Today, tomorrow and many years from now, we can be blessed by the opportunity to become, the chance to try something new, the occasion to develop into something different, the opening for a do-over.
The world looks backward—mainly to stifle life, if you ask me—but I like to focus on bearing forward with a restless spirit and a burning desire to help.
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 ?
Does offering free live streaming of an event cannibalize its face-to-face attendance?
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? What are the benefits of attending a face-to-face event versus virtual attendance? Why do people choose to attend a face-to-face event?
These are all great questions that people have asked regarding Meeting Professionals International’s (MPI) WEC 2009 virtual access content strategy. Regardless the organization, these are the same questions every nonprofit association will eventually face.
Ok, WEC09 what is it? Is it World Education Congress or World Extreme Cagefighting? Given the current debate about MPI’s decision to charge for virtual attendance for its conference (after offering it free at January’s MeetDifferent), I suspect we could make some arguments that they are both one and the same. 
Oh, I digress. Wanted to add some levity here even though they share the same Twitter #hashtag.
So does offering free content online, in this case live streaming, undermine the face-to-face event or experience? Will people choose to stay home to watch and not pay to attend the event? Let’s turn to the sports industry for comparisons.
The Face-To-Face Experience Versus Virtual
Does live streaming an event undermine the value of the face-to-face event? Consider the NFL and Super Bowls.
Crazed Football Fans
We all know people that purchase tickets to attend the NFL’s face-to-face events. I submit to you that they are not paying a fee for the content that they could get at home on their TV free. They are paying for the NFL experience, the opportunity to see it live in person. It’s all about the the thrill of adrenalin, the roar of the crowd, the sights, sounds, tastes and smells of the live event coupled with the ability to be in one place with like-minded fans at the same time. It is a remarkable, unique and memorable experience like none other and people pay high dollars to be there in person. (Does this remind anyone of a book called The Experience Economy?) However, if the NFL team is doing poorly, few want to attend their face-to-face events or watch it live.
Have you ever heard anyone that is attending the Super Bowl complain that people are watching the event free on TV worldwide? Have you ever heard a Super Bowl attendee exclaim that they are paying thousands for travel, lodging and expenses and therefore everyone watching live should pay too?
No, that’s ludicrous. Everyone knows that the face-to-face experience is unique and people are willing to pay those high dollars for the experience, not the content. [Now if the WEC09 experience is not unique, unforgettable and remarkable, that’s a different conversation.]
I believe this is the same thing happening with association conferences and events. Members are paying a conference registration fee, not for the content, but for the face-to-face experience. They are paying to be there in person, connect with others and network. They are paying for the sights, sounds, tastes and smells of that conference experience and to be at the same place at the same time with a large body of like-minded individuals. Those that are not there would also like to take part and see the content free. They know they are missing the full conference experience.
What do you think? Why do you think people attend face-to-face events? Is it the content, the networking, the experience? A combination of those? Why do you think people are so afraid that the live-streaming of an event will undermine the face-to-face experience? Share your thoughts.
Tomorrow, we’ll look at two different business models regarding live-streaming content.
Recent Comments