Acronym

Ben, this is an interesting post, and I have a comment and a question about it.

My comment is that I would extract a different and more straightforward lesson for associations from this story: if something isn't working, sunset it. Google Answers may have been the better service, but it didn't gain traction with a critical mass of customers. So now it is going away. Perhaps if associations took innovation more seriously, they could performing this necessary pruning function as effectively as Google.

Here is my question: don't many, if not most, associations function as intermediaries in at least some aspects of their businesses? If they do and you are right about growing member intolerance for middleman tactics, it would be yet another reason for associations to recognize and embrace the absolute imperative for a balanced approach to innovation.

I agree with Jeff’s comment about the importance of ending programs that don’t work. I think that ability is part of what Google does well—-it’s the flip side of their innovation coin. On the one hand, they are constantly looking for the next great idea, and giving their engineers and designers time and resources to develop those concepts; on the other hand, they’re killing what doesn’t work so it doesn’t drain resources from what does.

It reminds me of SHRM’s commitment to “purposeful abandonment,” where they annually evaluate products and services and drop what no longer serves the needs of their members. It's very difficult to try new things if your plate is already completely full with ongoing programs.

Actually, one of the criticisms of Google is that they are reluctant to kill projects that aren't succeeding. This seems to signal a new direction in strategy.

Terrific thread! There seems to be an assumption that an association's middleman role is broker or pimp rather than as match-maker or market-maker.

Seems to me that the larger lesson is best summed up by the classic MasterCard ad campaign: trusted advice--answers--is priceless, not free.

The fact that trust is earned, not sold by the drink, is good news for associations. Our business model depends on our reputation as a trusted space that attracts the best and the brightest.

Associations need to own that space, not a percentage of the action.

That’s a great point, Ann! As information overload increases, I certainly find myself looking for someone (or some group) I can trust to help me cut through the clutter and find the real gems among the piles of fake glitter.

So how can associations build trust in such a way that members will continue (or begin to) turn to them?

As a starting point, I would say that we need to avoid language that comes across as “salesy.” I think that people are becoming more and more advertising-sensitive, and if they feel like most of the mail or e-mail they receive from your association is a hard sell, they will tune you out. We need to find ways to connect the right member with the right product or service, of course —- but the experience should be more like an academic advisor pointing you to a book that will advance your research or a friend sending you a link to a website she thinks will amuse you. The right kind of customer service, and the right kind of language in association communications, can establish this kind of relationship with members.

What else can associations do to earn this kind of trust?

My reply is here.