I got permission from Bruce Butterfield, president of the Forbes Group and author of the only chapter in Professional Practices in Association Management (one of the required readings for the CAE exam), Defining the Future, that I actually relished reading and read more than once 
, to reprint a comment of his from an ASAE listserve. Read it and weep. Here’s the whole thing. I’d love to hear your thoughts on the questions Bruce poses.
“A recent story in the Washington Post really brought me up short. It was about the decline of newspapers due to their lack of vision, and you could just as easily have substituted associations. Author Howard Kurtz lamented that “back in 1993 before the Internet had become a consumer force, I argued in a book that newspapers (associations?) had become too cautious, too incremental and too dull, tailored largely for insiders… Then the Net changed America, but newspapers (associations?) remained mired in two-dimensional thinking.”
What is some of that two-dimensional association thinking?
. The drive for membership instead of customership (all members are customers, but not all customers are members).
. Adherence to the annual dues model, which forces members to pay in advance for future delivery of services and products some of which they may not want. [Me: like this?]
. Clinging to a volunteer governance model that continues the myth of representation, sucks human and financial resources from pursuits that deliver member value, that asks people to do way too much or that gives them jobs for which they are poorly prepared or ill equipped. [Me: hmmmm....]
. Continuing the exclusionary “club of membership” that results in opaqueness, even in strange areas such as putting staff contact information behind the Website’s member firewall. What’s that all about?
. And most egregious, giving away or selling for cheap the best stuff. Example, an educational association gave away free downloads of two highly desirable documents for reinventing how their subject was taught because the board thought it was in “society’s” interest. Had they micro-priced those documents at, say, $5.00 a download, they could have made millions (so far there have been more than a million downloads of just one of those offerings). Now they are facing a revenue shortfall that never would have occurred if they hadn’t been information socialists.
The article about newspapers points to some approaches in the publishing industry that are transferrable to the association sector. Author Kurtz says that Steve Brill, founder of Court TV, “is talking to publishers about a site that would allow consumers to easily buy subscriptions, day passes or single articles from numerous media organizations, each of which would decide how much to charge and how much to put behind a pay wall. Robert Murdoch, who is considering development of an e-reader that might be better suited to newspapers than Amazon’s Kindle, also plans to begin charging “micro-payments” for individual articles on the Wall Street Journal’s subscription-only Web site.”
So, what if associations micro-priced what they offer? What if you could be a member for a day, or a week or a month? The technology exists to allow that. What if associations charged for an article from their journal instead of the whole thing? What if you could “register” for a speaker or panel or session at an annual conference instead of buying the whole deal? What if sector-specific associations (e.g. healthcare, education, business, engineering) banded together to create the kind of site that Steve Brill envisions where on one stop you could get a boatload of knowledge at an affordable price that would create large revenue on volume? [Me: Or maybe like this or like this...]
We live in a world of “now,” of collaboration, of expectations that things will be free or cheap. Why not parse your association’s offerings? Tear down that “club of membership.” Yes, members are special customers that deserve something extra for their commitment and loyalty. But that something extra is intelligence, not stuff. You’ve got a horde of customers waiting out there.
We talk about these issues a lot in the association blogosphere, so I asked Bruce if I could post his listserve comment here and open it up to the floor. I know you won’t disappoint – tell me what you think!!
- Bit.ly URL for this post:
- http://bit.ly/7X9Qbk
45 responses to "On two-dimensional association thinking"
{ 9 trackbacks }
{ 36 comments }
Socialfishing:: On two-dimensional association thinking http://www.socialfish.org/2010/01/on-two-dimensional-association-thinking.html
via uberVU
RT @maddiegrant: Socialfishing:: On two-dimensional association thinking http://www.socialfish.org/2010/01/on-two-dimensional-associatio …
via uberVU
On two-dimensional association thinking http://ff.im/-eoURd
via uberVU
RT @maddiegrant: On two-dimensional association thinking http://ff.im/-eoURd Could add this to reading/post http://bit.ly/8i3XsZ
via uberVU
On two-dimensional association thinking http://bit.ly/8vLFsm #socialfish
via uberVU
I want your thoughts!! On two-dimensional association thinking http://ff.im/-eoURd
via uberVU
RT @maddiegrant: I want your thoughts!! On two-dimensional association thinking http://ff.im/-eoURd
via uberVU
RT @maddiegrant: I want your thoughts!! On two-dimensional association thinking http://ff.im/-eoURd
via uberVU
Good read still pondering how to respond RT @maddiegrant: I want your thoughts!! On two-dimensional association thinking http://ff.im/-eoURd
via uberVU
Micropricing is a powerful concept. RT @maddiegrant: I want your thoughts!! On two-dimensional association thinking http://ff.im/-eoURd
via uberVU
On two-dimensional association thinking http://bit.ly/4xeBEw #news #socialmedia
via uberVU
On two-dimensional association thinking http://bit.ly/4xeBEw #news #socialmedia
via uberVU
On two-dimensional association thinking http://bit.ly/5koyTK #news #socialmedia
via uberVU
On two-dimensional association thinking http://ow.ly/Xbbd #eventprofs
via uberVU
Socialfishing: On two-dimensional association thinking http://ff.im/-eoURd
via uberVU
There is a pretty simple answer to the questions posed. After hanging out and networking with many many CEO’s of associations of all types and industries, there is one common thread that runs through those who struggle… they have no sense of entrepreneurship, future vision or innovation. They are not savvy marketing, finance or business people. They are individuals who know how to govern. Those who will succeed in the future will “not” be those who run the association like a President, Governor or Mayor, which many do… They will have to have the savvy of Bill Gates and Steve Jobs that constantly are thinking about the future, creating member value and developing services and programs that hit at the heart of what members need to succeed.
On two-dimensional association thinking http://bit.ly/8QH1i4 #socialmedia
via uberVU
On two-dimensional association thinking http://bit.ly/51AUtX
via uberVU
On two-dimensional association thinking http://topblo.gs/7zLtBT #postrank #nonprofit
via uberVU
I completely agree with the gist of Bruce’s argument, and I think associations should be experimenting with micropricing (and other experiments) to figure out which ones will be part of a reinvented business model, but I emphasize the word experimenting, rather than knowing that micropricing will work. Bruce’s example of an association that could have made millions by micropricing something that was downloaded a million times doesn’t necessarily fly. Seth Godin did a post a while ago about supply and demand with micropricing. If something is free, it gets downloaded a bazillion times, but if you charge ANYTHING for it (including $1), the demand plummets. The act of simply needing to get the credit card out may stop people. That’s probably changing too (itunes apps), and that reinforces the need to experiment, but I don’t think micropricing for content is a guaranteed hit. It will take some work to figure out where it will really work, and it obviously seems more applicable to bigger associations.
On two-dimensional association thinking: http://ow.ly/XIpK
via uberVU
RT @MemberClicks : On two-dimensional association thinking: http://ow.ly/XIpK
via uberVU
What I take away from this post is Tom Morrison’s comment: most CEOs are not prepared to lead in an innovative style that rides the waves of change and innovation. Instead, they react, ignore, or try to stop the waves.
I’ve never surfed, but I get the basic concept that if you don’t ride the wave, it will drag you under and drown you.
Technology will always evolve and change, as will the way consumers/customers/members interact with organizations. Where we continue to fall down in the association community is developing (or finding!) leaders that know when to act and when to wait and see.
Not every decision demands broad consensus; some decisions demand that an individual take action and then be accountable for what happens. We continue to cover up our leadership problem by fussing over equipment.
will assn choose talk or action – 2-dimensional thinking http://ow.ly/XN9s post inspired by @maddiegrant http://ow.ly/XNcY
via uberVU
Are we all talk? Check out Peggy Hoffman’s post referencing this conversation! http://www.marinermanagement.com/idea-center/20100118/associations-following-newspapers-its-talk-v-action
Jamie, I respectfully disagree. The educational association I was talking about makes a ton of money selling books and journals. Its member teachers are used to paying for knowledge. Also, many of the downloads of the standards documents came from people who aren’t members. Because the standards were so important, they would have paid for them. Even if a portion of the free downloaders would have paid a small fee, there would have been money in the till instead of cobwebs.
I also don’t agree that micropricing is more applicable to bigger associations. That assumes that only the member is the customer. Also, if the item has significant value and affects careers (in the example I cited, it determined how school systems and teachers should teach math) people will pay.
Another example: ten years ago we did seminal research for a health care organization that yielded a new approach to defining the future of health care globally. The approach was so unique that the “Economist” magazine asked us to write an article on it for them. After publication of the research, my chief economist was on a plane with the VP of health care for Intel and talked about the paper. The Intel guy asked if he could get a copy, and my economist said that the association was selling it for $95. The Intel guy roared. “I love associations,” he said, “because they’re such information socialists. I would have gladly paid $10,000 or even $15,000 for that report and thought I’d gotten a heck of a deal.”
My point is that associations have nothing to lose by charging fair market value for what they do. At best, they make more money. At worst, they keep the status quo. “also have to look past their members for other customers. One of our signature products is called “Customers’ Customer Analysis.” It looks at what is influencing what the customers of the association’s members because that will determine what members demand and what products and services the association will provide in the future.
Bruce
Leave a Comment
Hi Bruce. Perhaps I was just loose with my words, because I think we agree. I have no doubt that in the case you mentioned they could have made some money with the downloads. I just wanted to caution against the more general approach of “1 million downloaded it for free, therefore we could have made $1million if we’d charged $1.” That’s just not always true. But I agree they missed an opportunity. And by bigger association I did mean bigger market (including customers), I just wasn’t clear.
Well Maddie, you certainly gave me a lot to think about. This is going to be the topic of our next board meeting for sure. Unfortunately we are only a chapter so there is little we can do overall. But it does make me think an interesting experiment would be to ditch our chapter dues and ask people to pay what they think we are worth. Perhaps we could do the same with information and reports we produce. I’m also wondering how we could experiment with this temporarily to get a feel.
Right now we do not have a good answer to why should I be a member. I’m not saying there isn’t one…we just don’t have a good answer yet.
I know of a few restaurants who do this every now and again and find that most people pay more for their meal than the price normally on the menu.
Another post from Shannon Otto! http://www.memberclicks.com/blog/2010/01/19/on-associations-and-newspapers/
An interesting point of conversation. I quite enjoy reading all of the comments and taking in the different viewpoints.
While I agree that micro-pricing could essentially work in theory, what would happen to the value of a professional membership if you dilute the product by allowing “customers” to be members for a day/week? While the status quo of associations is, in my opinion, to gain membership, do you think we would be doing them a disservice by offering this type of pricing structure? It feels as if we are abondoning the association model, and turning our knowledge and content into more of a business.
I do agree with Cecilia that it is more reliant on the leaders of these associations being proactive instead of reacting. Finding leaders who can effectively manage the finance and bring in members while not hedging the educational content. These times call for creativity, and if that means micro-pricing information then thats what needs to happen. Although, I think all options should be exhausted before relying to breaking down the value of membership and selling it off like parts of scrap metal from a totaled car.
Great conversation going on about two-dimensional association thinking (via @maddiegrant) #assnchat #smchallenge http://ow.ly/108pM
via uberVU
RT @unhatched: Great conversation going on about two-dimensional association thinking (via @maddiegrant) http://ow.ly/108pM
via uberVU
Kevin Holland pushes back – http://www.associationinc.com/658
David:
You are defining members by the term of their involvement. The important thing is to build loyalty around value, not term. Why should I, as a member, be forced to pay for things I don’t want because of a broad-based “tax” called dues? I want to be treated as an individual, not as a constituency. That’s what mass customization and 1 to 1 marketing are all about.
I’m not saying that there’s a one-size-fits-all approach, but we are in an environment of distributed knowledge where people, particularly young people, are fickle in their allegiances. We should abandon the association model or at least be open to significant modification. If we insist on clinging to the 20th Century version, we’re going to be toast. Associations and their consultants talk a lot about being innovators, but now’s the time to prove it.
RT @ maddie grant: revolution 4 associations – micropricing and focus on customership instead of membership – http://bit.ly/8sXzbc
via uberVU
Monday morning reading: On two-dimensional association thinking http://bit.ly/8sXzbc http://bit.ly/aKhgIo
via uberVU
Comments on this entry are closed.