Skip to main content

Why Are We Here?

In my last post, Ben points us to a question derived from Clay Shirky's book (It is tops on my list of books to read right now, I just need to find the time):

Now that forming groups is ridiculously easy, what's the point of "professional group organizers" like association professionals?


Ok, association professionals. Time to defend our salaries. Why are we here? Why are our associations here?

I will post my answers later on, but I want to hear what you have to say!

Comments

Anonymous said…
Hi, Matt! This is a great dialogue. Here's how I see the question you and others are asking: if everyone can make connections via the Web in any way they wish (to others in their profession, to others with the same social causes, to others seeking the same change in the world, etc.), then why would they continue to join associations?

The question suggests some assumptions, including the fact that everyone has access to the Web, knows where/how to conntect to others via social networking options, and chooses to forge strong bonds through those options in the same way they have forged strong bonds via their association membership.

While this is all true for some, it's not true for others.

In our case, our trade association members retain membership even though the strong bonds have already been forged. Why? Because they can get together with their friends/colleagues at our events, and do so within an established PD budget they have through their employment.

Could they get professional development online or elsewhere? No doubt. Could they meet up with their colleagues outside of our events? Absolutely, and they certainly already do (through membership in other associations, vendor-organized meetings, etc.).

The advantage to membership? We already have the structure in place that provides a way for them to justify the cost for in-person meetings. We have already developed and offer the PD events relevant to them so they don't have to go find them somewhere on the Web.

Are we looking at Web 2.0 anyway? You bet! But we also, every day, make sure our members see us as THE place to get what they can't get anywhere else. As long as we can do that successfully, we will retain our members over time.

Is it too naive to think that associations struggling with membership loss due to social networking are those that can't define what makes them unique and therefore desirable if not necessary?
June 29, 2008 at 11:27 AM
Maddie Grant said…
Forming groups is easy - nurturing them is not. As long as associations can provide continuous and ever-improving reasons for their communities to thrive and to be indispensable, they will survive. Those that provide average or mediocre content won't, and I predict there will be a substantial loss across the industry before there can be reinvention to a better model of association.
June 29, 2008 at 12:34 PM
Lindy Dreyer said…
It's important to realize that ridiculously easy group forming is not just a Web 2.0 phenomenon. There are lots of ways that people are more connected than ever. Plus, sometime in the next 10 years, the Web 2.0 tools that seem so foreign and new to some folks are going to be as ubiquitous as e-mail is today.

Then what? When people want to get together to discuss a very specific, urgent problem, will they go to your webinar that takes a minimum of three weeks to plan and promote, or will they self-organize and meet up immediately?

So I believe we need to redefine our value. Rather than seeing ourselves as producers of events, we can see ourselves as enablers of groups. We can be the ultimate resource by being knowledgeable about our industry or profession, in touch with new ideas, and agile enough to take the lead when new groups or initiatives need work.

We have all the building blocks and we hold all the keys...but if we lock down too tightly, someone will come along and change all the locks.
June 30, 2008 at 8:30 AM
Jeffrey Cufaude said…
I echo Linda's astute observation and add that just as the US is going to have to increasingly find its way as less of a superpower in our global economy, so are many associations going to have to explore the implications of being less a superpower in their members' lives as it relates to community and professional development. What does it mean to be one of many and not necessarily the preferred source for all things? It's definitely not an exclusively Web 2.0 question, but it does have some new nuances to it.
July 12, 2008 at 10:39 AM
Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

10 Thoughts on #ASAE10

Ok, so I could have spelled out the title, but chose the hashtag - #asae10. Supposedly there were over 8,000 tweets with the hashtag, but probably countless more direct messages of messages that left out the hashtag but were conference related. Two years ago, we were using twitter as a backchannel to talk about speakers. Now, over 800 people sent conference related tweets. If you aren't on Twitter, you are already late to the party. Anyway, on with the post... In no particular order, my thoughts on this years ASAE Annual Conference: 1. LA was a good venue. Lots to do. Hotels close by. Only downside was the rooms were a bit of a hike. 2. I missed Sunday because of family obligations. That really put me behind the 8 ball. Since I led a session, that meant I only got to go to 3 true sessions. Sorry, I don't count Joy Behar and the closing session. Although Marshall Goldsmith was good, I probably wouldn't have gone to see that speech as a Learning Lab. 3. Based on #...
11 comments
Read more

Sunk Costs, Marginal Costs and Economics

When I was in college, I hated Economics. Then, several years later, I found myself teaching undergrad Econ and learned an appreciation for it. Now today, I have an even bigger appreciation for it. I have also noticed that not enough people have a solid grasp of some basic econ concepts that can be applied to everyday life. Two of these are cost related. Here are some basic definitions from The Economist website : Sunk Costs - When what is done cannot be undone. Sunk costs are costs that have been incurred and cannot be reversed, for example, spending on ADVERTISING or researching a product idea. They can be a barrier to entry. If potential entrants would have to incur similar costs, which would not be recoverable if the entry failed, they may be scared off. Marginal Costs - The difference made by one extra unit of something. Marginal revenue is the extra revenue earned by selling one more unit of something. The marginal cost (or whatever) can be very different from the AVERAGE c...
1 comment
Read more

Do you want your association to be Walmart?

Earlier this week, I had a small Twitter discussion with Kevin Holland ( @associationinc ) regarding aggregation as a value proposition. @associationinc - Deciding your role is to aggregate other people's value is like George Costanza wearing sweatpants. "You're telling the world, 'I give up.'" @cardcat - Interesting comment about aggregating. Don't you think it is a viable option for a small association who can't afford it? @associationinc - Nothng wrong with aggregating content as long as you don't perceive it to be your value proposition. There's no real future in it. @cardcat - Don't think it is THE value proposition, but I think it could be A value to members, a big value. @associationinc - A big value is something you offer that nobody else can or that u can do better. Aggregating content is easy, there4 unsustainable. @cardcat - True, it isn't sustainable. But I almost think if you don't act as an aggregator, you risk folks...
3 comments
Read more