Acronym

I noticed that awesome quote too! The other thing people tend to forget, is the 1:10:90 rule - 90% of people will read but not actually comment.

I believe that the "what ifs" stem from fear. We fear what we don't understand. In most cases, those that object to implementation of social media simply don't understand it or don't use it. "If I've made it this far without it, why do I need it now?" There's the obvious approach - our next generation of members are going to want X, so let's get moving. But, what are we doing to educate current members about why we're doing X? If they are the "obstacle" to moving forward, what can we do to help them understand what these resources can do?

Maddie: Great point. It's amazing how easy it is to be pushed along by the vocal 1%--without taking the time to find out if their concerns are at all representative of the rest of the membership.

Kristi: You're absolutely right--educating the current membership (perhaps even just the current leadership) is so important if there's any possibility of them being an obstacle. Although, if they are being an obstacle, another option is to work through the low- or no-cost options out there, and get something moving without needing budget approval. Creating a Facebook group or a Typepad blog is free, and at least it can get your association out there building conversations and relationships.

Still, that doesn't solve the issue of educating current leaders who aren't really down with the social media thing. Would it help to give them social media "homework" between board meetings, so they can see the value of reading a blog/participating in a wiki/etc. over time?

Just for kicks and to bring the conversation out of theory and into the real world, let's compare the relatively positive commentary here: http://digg.com/environment/5_MILLION_ACRES_of_the_Great_Bear_Rainforest_saved_from_logging

...with the relatively negative commentary here: http://digg.com/health/1_BILLION_people_lack_access_to_clean_drinking_water

Both articles were posted by me to Digg in hopes of bringing web traffic and people who were concerned about environmental conservation to The Nature Conservancy's web site at http://www.nature.org/ -- both worked and brought huge spikes in web traffic to us.

Now: what actual impact does this commentary have? And as for the negative commentary, are the positive marketing outcomes (web traffic, links, increased SEO, branding of breaking news, etc.) enough to outweigh whatever impact these commenters might have?

Just so we're clear -- I don't know what the answer is here, but I'm truly interested in what you think.

It's also important to remember that people will say bad things about you if you give them an forum or not. The question is, do you want to know what they are saying or not?

Great point, Carol -- does anyone out there spend time monitoring the blogosphere for comments about their organizations, CEOs, brands, trademarks, and/or copyrights? It can be very illuminating.

Try a quick search on Technorati for your group's name: http://technorati.com/search/ASAE+%26+The+Center+for+Association+Leadership?authority=n&language=en

Another great tool to stay on top of what people are saying about you is using Google Alerts. http://www.google.com/alerts

You can set up up Google Alerts to scan the Internet for your association name, your industry - even your own name.

I follow about 12 terms I've determined help me stay abreast of my work in leadership development. I get a summary email once a day for each term - it's sort of like reading a newsletter customized to your interest. You get to see the headlines and the first sentence or so of the website, blog etc which used the term that day.

If something is interesting, you just click through.

You can adjust the frequency of delivery too. You may want to have instant delivery for your association name. I do with my own name so I can respond quickly to folks who are talking about me. It helps keep the conversation going and I get to bring more value to the table. Other terms are fine once a day for me.

Using Google Alerts is an easy way to stay on top of what is relevant to your association.

We applaud groups like The Nature Conservancy who embrace dialog among their constituents (both positive and negative) and we are happy to have them as a customer using our platform.

By contrast, we have had a group with over 8,000 members who approached us about using our Group Engagement Network but wanted us to "turn off" the discussion forums. The reason for the request? They were afraid all they would get were negative rants. We walked away from the deal.

If we are to stay true to our mission of "empowering the World’s groups to share, communicate and network – professionally and socially – privately or in public", then we must empower them to speak their mind both positively and negatively as well.

That's really interesting, Shaun--and I applaud your company's willingness to walk away from a deal that doesn't fit with your mission. That's difficult for a lot of organizations (for- and nonprofit) to do.

Have any of your customers actually seen discussion forums that fill up with negative rants? I'd be curious to hear what your experience has been on that front.