“The Membership” Doesn’t Exist and Other Thoughts
Recently, Scott Briscoe wrote a thought-provoking membership article “Should you be serving or leading your members?” As we think about the future of associations, the wants and needs of membership deserve critical consideration. Hopefully some of our respected marketing and membership folks will weigh in, since they have important insights. Here are some thoughts which I hope will further discussion:
Thought 1: “The membership” is a myth. We can’t generalize about membership. If “the membership” means a homogenous, unified, like-minded body, then it doesn’t exist anymore than “the electorate” or “the consumer” exists. What exist are various member, electorate and consumer segments. Each segment has its own common or shared interests or aspirations. For example, there are association members whose primary interest is expanded knowledge. Among the electorate are red-dog Republicans. And there are consumers for whom “green” is more than a color. Point is, while these are important segments, they hardly represent the entire spectrum. Success in membership and marketing depends on identifying and understanding your markets and the voices of the customer. Membership success, like the success in any market, is seldom achieved by thinking and treating everyone like they are a size 6.
Thought 2: Volunteer vision frequently is a 12-month window. Our active volunteer members often see things in short term, annual perspectives, particularly if they have a one year leadership position. Governing boards, even with 3-year terms, often have difficulty focusing attention beyond one year at a time. The “project oriented” Millennials may have an even shorter attention span. So this leaves the staff to see and deal with the longer term strengths, weaknesses, opportunities and threats facing the association—if is to be done at all. Since volunteers often define success as 12 months of smooth sailing (no problems please), is it any wonder that the natural tendency is for volunteers to focus on (this year’s) wants rather than (longer term) needs? Beyond membership, how do you suppose the 12-month window influences successful strategy, operational execution over time and other cross-enterprise and intra-enterprise performance?
Thought 3: Traditional models may not match emerging membership challenge. My association model will hardly surprise long-time observers of associations. Many older associations, like mine, were founded for “higher purposes” (ASME was founded in 1880 for public safety, property protection and growth/access to the engineering body of knowledge). We tend to be about engineering, not engineers. Our thinking for 127 years has generally been that what is good for engineering is good for engineers and others with technology interests.
We have a culture where volunteers “mature” their leadership by volunteering for increasingly more responsible roles, over extended time periods. Our members self organize into common interest groups, often working together for many years, to build and share knowledge, community and advocacy. I regularly give out 15, 20 and 30 year pins to staff. We are a fine organization with great traditions.
As a global association, in a rapidly changing world, we are increasingly required to be an agile, innovative and performance-oriented enterprise. Here’s the emerging challenge: Members and volunteers who may: 1) be primarily motivated by their individual, personal interests; 2) have less disposable time, resources and patience for “leadership ladders” and extended, time-consuming volunteer commitments; and 3) identify with their peer interest group rather than the enterprise. Can the challenge be successfully resolved in the old, traditional membership models? What’s the definition of insanity: doing what you’ve always done, the way you always have, and thinking you’ll get new and different results?
Where are the new membership markets, voices and models? How do we reconcile wants and needs?
| | Permalink |
Comments
I think you need to ask the question of how the association can help its members accomplish their professional and workplace goals.
One approach is to make it easier for members to communicate and work together. That may mean that the association spends less attention on growing traditional publishing and meeting activities and more attention on making it possible for members -- wherever they are located -- to find out about, and establish relationships with, other members who share their interests.
I'm a big believer in using social media and social networking techniques to help this happen, especially since, as you point out, member and volunteer time horizons tend to be limited. But it does take strategic thinking to adopt such tools since it may involve a major mindset change on the part of the leadership about what the role of the association is.
Meanwhile, of course, younger and more active members may be "voting with their feet" by establishing their own connections and relationships using publicly available tools such as Facebook and Myspace. Then when membership renewal time rolls around, the association finds out who still values the membership.
Posted by: Dennis D. McDonald | November 30, 2007 7:18 AM
I read Virgil Carter's thoughtful comments on "the membership" not being a homogenous, unified, like-minded body. Like the electorate and consumers, members have varying motivations and needs. It is possible to segment your members by asking each one what they expect from your organization, then summarize the most important info into a code, and put the codes into your data base. For example, you can identify those most interested in certification, volunteer leadership, meetings, books or technical info, getting your message across to govts and willing to mobilize, enhancing the status of your profession, etc. And why write the same renewal letter to everyone when you can be more personal and write a letter based on the motivations of each segment? You may enjoy www.YTheyJoin.com which addresses this topic. Happy New Year.
Posted by: Leah Baker | January 1, 2008 11:50 AM