Acronym

This really caught my attention because in part I am a proponent of the smaller association - or more accurately the smaller communities formed and nurtured within an association. It also reminds me of a conversation I had a few years ago with a components relations prof who was researching where the tipping point was for chapters - when did they become too big (so much of the chapter discussion is focused on how many are needed to start).

I agree that the economic tide has shifted - but I don't believe it signals a return to the lumpers in the traditional sense but rather the connectors who will delftly bring smaller communities (or associations) to share resources and participate in common ground.

Great post!

Steven, you are a man of culture and taste, never thought I'd see Leakey quoted here! This is an interesting set of questions; it feels to me like there will be a shift to more regional/local networking for a number of folks/groups, along with a shift to more specific, niche social networking platforms and applications (vs. say Facebook, as so many contacts and mini-applicaitons, and information over time becomes overwhelming)...whichever associations can shift business models to adapt to physical localization and digital diversification might be the key, big or small...but of course I could be dead wrong, love to have someone argue these points, where are all the fired up association professionals?...it is interesting to apply evolutionary thought to this concept...too much diversification of a species can lead to over-specialization, adapting too much to one niche can be a huge risk if conditions or the environment changes

Steve:

Not disputing your line of thinking, but do you have data that backs up your assertion that "For the past 10-15 years the association world was dominated by “dividers”—those who saw more readily the differences between the members of an organization"?

The proliferation of newer, smaller associations is the result of our being better able to segment our market (which we've always believed was a good thing) and deliver more services to more easily identified and accessible niche groups.

Instead of merging or disappearing in the future, small associations may find newer ways of sharing resources and working cooperatively, without sacrificing organizational independence.

I'm not sure I agree that the division has been quite as clear-cut as you make it out to be, though overall I find the lumper/divider distinction an interesting one. Mostly I think it emphasizes that the most successful organizations -- in the past, and into the future -- are those that are both broad-based *and* able to segment and serve the distinct needs of distinct niche groups within their base at the same time. The art lies in being able to differentiate between a true industry or professional niche with its own specific needs and interests, and a "splinter group" defined mostly by the self-interest and personal agendas of a few individuals.

I think Brian raises some great points. In fact, if one of the primary goal of associations is to provide a forum for networking among people in like disciplines, the association world is as good as dead with the rise of social networking.

To really succeed as a member-driven association these days, the organization must provide tangible member benefits and experiences that can't be duplicated online. Things like industry-accepted accredidations, meetings, trainings and even brick and morter products such as books or manuals should be the focus.

I think networking as a member benefit is no longer a viable selling point. Anybody can do this anywhere and at anytime now. Why would you want to pay for that when you can join the Facebook group or an online forum that caters to your speciality?

Big or small, and especially in this economy, members need to be driven to join by offering "must have" products or sevices of real value.

Exactly what Chris said.

I totally agree with all his points--especially that networking as a member benefit no longer being a viable selling point. There are innumerable opportunities to network today--for an association to even try to compete in this category seems like a losing battle to me.

If networking is no longer a viable selling point then how come it still ranks high on membership satisfaction and needs surveys? Just wondering. We just ran two membership surveys in which we were probing of how members want to communicate and network ... here's the thing, in both surveys the results speak to the value of targeted networking available in their association.

So I'm not sure I agree that assn area automatically losers in the game of networking but that our structures which don't allow for/facilitate specialized groupings is the problem. I know that I go to my assn's networking platforms as a first source for networking. Of course I do the same in many parts of my life - go to the tried & true for the new item (think looking for organic food at my Safeway).

Getting back to the main point of the lumpers/dividers ... if we effectively divide then perhaps we can give members what they are looking for?

I think Chris is dead-on about "networking." In my experience, serving niches within your base means providing tangible, valuable things that meet that niche's needs, not just a "group to join."

To Peggy: members may claim to value "networking" but that doesn't mean they are REALLY willing to pay (much) for networking and networking alone.

To repeat something I've written elsewhere: Communities are commodities, and growing moreso every day; "connecting people" was a lot more valuable when "connecting people" was hard, but it's not anymore; associations that offer little more than "community" and "networking" will likely see the amount of money they can wring from such things continue to decline over the coming years.

Sorry, I have been out-of-pocket this past week on vacation-business travel; but I wanted to answer Jeffrey Cufraude's good question above.

The Census Bureau statistics I have copied and pasted below quantify trends we have all witnessed in the association world. In the early 1990s most associations did not have the majority of their membership "on-line." (Doesn't that seem like pre-historic times?) This rapid trend in acquiring popular Internet access during the 1990s represented a key strategic environmental shift for the association community whose primary member benefit was/is to serve as a place for networking. Prior to the 1990s, members were largely dependent on their associations for this critical benefit; but with the popularization of the Internet associations no longer had the corner on this market.

There is an interesting study on the impact of electronic communications on organizations called "Fragmentation and Cohesion in American Society." Those who are interested in reading more can access this at: http://web.mit.edu/gtmarx/www/frag.html-full article
_________________________________

INTERNET USE TRIPLES IN DECADE, CENSUS BUREAU REPORTS
June 3, 2009

New data from the U.S. Census Bureau show that 62 percent of households reported using Internet access in the home in 2007, an increase from 18 percent in 1997, the first year the bureau collected data on Internet use.
Sixty-four percent of individuals 18 and over used the Internet from any location in 2007, while only 22 percent did so in 1997.
Among households using the Internet in 2007, 82 percent reported using a high-speed connection, and 17 percent used a dial-up connection.
“As access to high speed connections have become more prevalent, so too have the number of people that connect to the Internet at home,” said Thom File, a statistician with the Census Bureau Housing and Household Economic Statistics Division. “These data give us a better understanding of who is using the Internet and from where.”
http://www.census.gov/Press-Release/www/releases/archives/communication_industries/013849.html - full article
These figures come from the 2007 Internet and Computer Use Supplement to the Current Population Survey.

Confirmed by USA Today: http://www.usatoday.com/tech/news/2009-06-03-internet-use-broadband_N.htm

Experts have talked about this before. How many times have you read about the importance of ‘adding value’ for your audience? How many times have you read about ‘building trust’ with your readers/prospects?
Many, many times. You know it well. Every marketing guru has spoken about this topic. I’m sick of hearing it. But it STILL bears repeating.

www.onlineuniversalwork.com