Give em what they want or give em what they need?
Over the 4th of July weekend I went to a local casual dining restaurant that I hadn’t been to in a while. It tended to be a bit pricey for what they served but since they sent me a coupon and I was near on of their locations I decided to give it a shot. I was really surprised when I walked in and noticed that almost all of the items on the old menu had been replaced by mostly healthy items. I was very excited because I like to be able to go out and still eat healthy. I also immediately wondered how much longer they would be in business because from what I have seen the restaurants that promote themselves as healthy and then serve more or less only healthy food go out of business fast even though we all know that human beings should be eating at places like this instead of eating hamburgers and french fries at some of the other restaurants in the area.
While I was eating my white meat chicken, brown rice and mashed sweet potatoes and drinking my unsweetened ice tea I started thinking about our role as association professionals and how we best serve our members. Do we give our members what they need, those things that research and past results show will serve their needs best in the long term? Or do we give them what they want because it will provide short term satisfaction and probably a higher amount of immediate revenue? In my example the restaurant I went to decided that they are going to provide what customers need (healthy food) not what they may want (fried or salty or sugary food) and at least for now is willing to risk their business to do so.
What should an association do when they face this type of situation? Do we take the money and give members what they are yelling for yet may not truly need? Or do we go against their wishes and force them to take what we believe they need to have? Or is there a middle ground where we can accomplish both? I think this is a conundrum that most organizations and most association professionals will face, or have already faced. I would love to hear how you decide what you do to best serve your members, how you did it and then whether it worked or not. To me this would be valuable info for all association professionals to have access to especially in our current economic situation.
| | Permalink |
Comments
I think you have to do both. If we stick with your restaurant analogy, they could offer both turkey burgers with vegetables and beef burgers with fries. As associations we have to offer what members immediately want and have the long-term need information we know they will need/want one day. I think the challenge with that, though, is allocating resources.
Posted by: Anonymous | July 8, 2009 4:43 PM
Scott, this is like that old "should we lead or should we follow?" question and I say pfui, it's not either/or. I'm not big on your restaurant analogy. As you note, restaurants that specialize in "good for you" food tend to go out of business, so I'm not sure why an association would jump up and say, "We're going to offer nothin' but carrots because in the long run, this will be better for our members!" Not if you go out of business, it won't.
We have to take into account the unique nature of associations, and the fact that many of the things we do -- the "leading" things, so to speak -- don't pay for themselves. These will vary from organization to organization, but may include things like advocacy. standards, "future-focused" education or whatnot, etc. etc. But they still have to be paid for.
The model I came up with in my younger days, and which I still refer to in order to keep myself focused, is a perfect triangle. One side I call "influence" -- the ability of the association to exert positive influence, both internal to its base and externally. Another side I call "value" -- the tangibles that members/customers/constituents "buy" for immediate return on investment. The bottom line is "resources" -- revenues, time, energy, expertise, etc. (but mostly, let's face it, revenues, because that's what pays for time, energy, expertise, etc.).
So a healthy association, in my opinion, recognizes the balance needed to sustain itself over the long run. If you focus ONLY on tangible "value" then you will ultimately collapse. You're just another vendor in the business of offering whatever products or services it is you happen to offer. Likewise, if you focus only on "influence" (leadership, carrots) you will ultimately collapse, because not enough people are willing to pay for it.
And if you want to grow in either of the three lines, you must be mindful of the balances. Grow resources? Grow in value, but you can't neglect the influence or you're just making money for its own sake. Grow influence? Then you need to grow resources, but that means you need to offer more value.
It's all a balance that, I think, needs to be nurtured consciously. Anyway, that's my thought for the day.
Posted by: Kevin | July 8, 2009 7:45 PM
The restaurant management switched to a healthy menu not because they presumed to know what their customers "needed". They changed menus because they believed there was a market for healthier food. There's a rather unsubtle difference in those two ideas. Certainly there are certain services we must provide "for the good of the industry", but most associations would do well to be more market-driven. Alas, eliminating services, even which costs and usage show that to be the right thing to do, is a bitter pill in most associations. We like to keep our "sacred cows" healthy, even when what we ought to do is euthanize more of them.
Posted by: Scott Brunner | July 8, 2009 9:11 PM
Going with your restaurant metaphor, couldn't a place provide healthier options without browbeating us with it? Switching from white rice to brown rice and white bread to whole grain would both be simple, positive choices. A restaurant could just do that without calling a lot of attention to it.
Associations could still meet immediate needs but do so in a manner that includes some "healthier" dimensions provided more long-term value. if I do a workshop, I try to meet attendees' needs for "the five things to do when I get back to work on Monday," but I also try to equip them with ideas and content that have staying power for Tuesday, Wednesday, Thursday, etc.
Posted by: Jeffrey Cufaude | July 9, 2009 3:54 AM
I agree with Anonymous: it's a balance between value (often perceived as immediate member need, influence (setting the stage for and anticipating future member needs), and resources. Particularly in an association which relies heavily on technology services, this is an important distinction: the association has to prepare in advance of member need so that the deliverables are in place when the need is articulated. Otherwise, you're always running behind the buss and not catching up.
Posted by: Judith Lindenau | July 9, 2009 7:46 AM
I once wanted to "water down" an educational program because too few of our members wanted what we were offering.
Our Program Director vigorously protested, asserting that our members "needed" what we were offering.
We compromised, primarily because although members may not have wanted the original program, the reputation of our association might have suffered by offering a "watered down" program.
The result was only mildly better, so we opted for the watered down version the following year.
Posted by: David M. Patt, CAE | July 12, 2009 3:46 PM