Acronym

It is interesting how the ASAE and Center blog is predicting the end of the association membership model while for profit companies are running full speed toward a business model.

Feel free to take a look at posts over the past year on the Membership Marketing Blog (membershipmarketing.blogspot.com) that highlight this trend:

Corporations Coop Membership Marketing – For profit marketers argue that every company should offer membership.

Costco Membership Up 30,000 per Week and Renewals at All-Time High of 87% -- Costco does not seem to be having a problem selling membership.

A Wake-Up Call for Associations – Magazines are offering association membership services

Exploring Alternative Membership Models -- Everyone from insurance companies to museums to retailers now offer membership.

So perhaps the issue is not that association membership is dying, but that association membership needs to be more effectively presented and managed.

The problem here, Scott, is that you're not defining "membership" -- or else you're assuming that all associations and societies share the same definition.

I would argue that you are probably correct if an association is charging dues in exchange for a "membership" that consists primarily of access to a community of like-minded individuals. I believe that ncreasingly a basic association membership model of "you pay dues and we give you meetings/magazines/listserves/connections/whatever" is going to face tough competition. As I've written many times now, "communities are commodities" that are too easy and inexpensive to form. They may be less easy and less expensive to actually maintain, but really, who cares? Once one "community" loses steam there will be others to replace it.

In the face of this competition from free or low-cost alternatives (that are also free of whatever historical, political and governance baggage plagues your association -- and all associations have that baggage), it is going to be harder and harder for associations to continue making as much money from membership dues as they have been used to making ...

... IF they offer a membership that does not provide more tangible value than simple access to a community or what we association folks like to call "networking."

I completely agree with Tony that for-profit companies and groups are falling all over themselves to offer a "membership" business model. This is because they are actually selling something else and see "membership" as a way to better connect with customers and move their real product or service, whatever it may be.

But what if you're an association that isn't selling something else ... what if community and old-school "membership dues" is all you've got? Then in my opinion, you have some serious rethinking to do -- or else you face a future of much more limited scope than you have gotten used to.

I do not agree that dues-paid membership as a concept is dead. I think that associations do need to figure out what it is that they're charging FOR ... and if what they're charging for is becoming more and more available as something that is free or less expensive elsewhere, then they (and actually, I'll say "we" -- because I certainly haven't figured out all the answers here) need to begin re-defining what membership is and begin developing real exclusive value that will make our organizations worth belonging to.

Ooops -- that last "anonymous" comment was from me! I forgot to fill out the top part of the form.

I have said it before on Acronym and I'll say it right now, a large number of associations consider networking and access to information as a member benefit. These benefits are dead because people of like mind can network, in 99.999999% cases, more effectively via Facebook, Twitter, Myspace, Ning, etc., and your information is a Google click away.

Tony Rossell's comment doesn't say this but it is implied, you need to offer real value that people can take advantage of convienently or cost-effectively.

And in this economy, that pretty much answers why Costco is raising membership numbers 30,000 a week.

(Okay, maybe 99.999999% is an exageration, but show me one association website where people spend half their day on and who are not employed by that association.)

Thank you for the thoughtful comments. First off, I need to make one clarification. Tony - don't let my views be interpreted as the views of ASAE & The Center. What I write on the blog is never meant to be taken as the position of ASAE & The Center.

I agree with all of your comments -- including yours Tony!
I think Kevin and Chris's comments take your excellent start and put the right context to it: redefining what membership is and offering some kind of value that is not access to information or networking, which in most cases do not qualify as valuable anymore.

My prediction on the current NON-profit membership model (I don't really think you can compare the for-profit Costco type models since you still pay for membership in those types of businesses):

Eventually, members will become "pay as you go" as opposed to a larger annual fee. For example, a small initial fee will be paid for access to "Members Only" information, but this will be nominal and get your name on the rolls.

After the initial fee, members will then pay only for those services they want, such as purchasing a book, purchasing a meeting registration, etc.

While you could make the argument "this IS like Costco because you pay a small fee for access" the thing is, I don't join Costco for networking with like-minded people that can help my professional development. I join Costco so I can buy 42 pounds of OxiClean for $15.00 (or whatever the price actually is).

Maintaining the value of the intangible is what the challenge will continue to be for association membership, but that has always been the challenge. As long as non-members are allowed to participate for a higher fee, membership value will be diminished.

Perhaps US Associations need to become more "clubby."

Scott – Thanks for the reminder that the blog is not an official statement of ASAE and the Center policy.

As I was thinking about your post, I was reminded to share two additional pieces of data from the Membership Marketing Benchmarking Report that we released at the Annual Meeting.

First, in our survey, 45 percent of association executives reported that membership had increased over the past year. Only 35% saw a decrease. That is pretty good considering the economy—it beat the stock market.

Additionally, 49 percent of association executives reported an increase in new member input over the past year. While only 21% saw new member input fall. The survey had over 500 participants.

Both of these are pretty good indicators of the health of association membership.

Interesting stuff so far. Looking forward to more of it, particularly if we can address the issue of membership and dues both in terms of the initial attraction/joiner and the retention of members. I think for a lot of long-term members the value we received for our initial few years of dues may have been worth it, but now it feels more like a charitable contribution as opposed to getting any real R.O.I.

I'd add the concept of scarcity and abundance from Chris Anderson's writing (The Long Tail, Free) as worth considering.

If access and weak ties, information, and content are abundant (and that's not necessarily true yet for all professions or industries), the value proposition worth paying for may be in what's scarce:

(1) the opportunity to connect with and build strong ties with the people that would matter most to me;

(2) distilled and condense information in the areas I prefer coupled with deeper analysis and insight that would be difficult for me to produce alone; and,

(3) customized learning experiences that are more personal, more real-time, and more connected to on-the-job needs.

Otherwise, I'm with Cecilia's observation on Costco though I somehow have missed that OxyClean bargain.

Scott, whoa, I wouldn't rule out "access to information" so broadly like that. Again, it depends on how you define the term. There's information, there's knowledge, there's applicable specialized expertise.

I firmly believe that there is still a valid and growing market for paid content for specialized expertise which can be a very valuable part of a membership model. Many of us associations have done a lot of careful dancing and calibration over the years trying to figure out what should be "walled off" and what shouldn't. I think it's a dance that is ongoing and needs to be continually revisited.

It's very possible that many of the things your association decided to wall off a few years ago -- probably for very good reason a few years ago -- no longer make sense to block exclusively for members. Is the content REALLY valuable -- by which I mean is it something that the member can access and actually use, for real benefit, in their profession or industry, and which is not easily or freely accessible elsewhere? If not, making it "members only" may actually be DETRIMENTAL to an association. Its hard for a member to take an association seriously if it is perceived as pretending that something is valuable when it is obviously not.

@Kevin You make a great a point about access to information and how some of it may not be as valuable as associations would like to perceive. A great example of this for me is ASAE's own magazine Associations Now. Even though I can access it via my membership I find it ironic that the often recurring social media stories are behind closed walls. A lot of Associations Now's content in of itself is a marketing vehicle for ASAE membership and should be set free.

@Jeffrey and @Cecilia I think your comments are also insightful, especially the "I don't join Costco for networking with like-minded people that can help my professional development. I join Costco so I can buy 42 pounds of OxiClean for $15.00." If I interpret that correctly, you joined Costco for the value/discounts you receive.

If you think about it, as the ability to network is becoming easier online, members are starting to scrutinize things like customer service, certifications, trainings, books or resource discounts, etc., when considering dues.

I also think the "charitable contribution" feeling @jeffrey is experiencing is a warning sign. Associations, now more than ever, need to consider addressing needs over the lifetime of a membership.

Of course the a la carte view is another way to look at it, but membership dues can allow for customer service perks, discounts, etc.

Isn't it this simple? If you deliver appropriate value in the eyes of the member, then membership will continue to belong and pay dues. If you do not then members will leave.

So like any business transaction it comes down to value delivered vs. the cost to attain that value.

If Associations are the only source of industry standards, information, benchmarking, credentialing, etc. then they can build the appropriate value into their dues requirement. If they fail to do this then the Association dies.

Back to defining membership for a moment...

If membership is simply belonging, then asking organizations or individuals to pay for that is not a good model. Communities (or associations or societies) exist, they aren't formed by hanging a shingle out that says "The Society of the Widget Collectors". People that collect widgets are part of that group by default.

Twenty years ago the widget collectors didn't have a way to interact without a group that held meetings and published magazines about widgets. Now, anyone can do all that (and more)from their living room.

So, what really do we mean when we talk about membership?
I think we mean access to products - much like the aforementioned Costco model. Can we charge membership fees? Well, like someone said above, maybe nominal ones, but i do think the days of big ticket membership invoices is quickly running out. I spent a great deal of my career on the other side of this equation, defending the cost of renewing membership on an annual basis to my for profit employers. I did it successfully because I believed there was (and still is) value to belonging. Still, it got harder and harder every year.

The model isn't dead. It is, however, stale and muddied. Clarifying what we are selling is a must. Our customers, yes customers, are too smart, under too much financial strain and way too busy to not have an easy and clear understanding of what they are paying for and why.

@Dave Nerz: I think the basic principle that as outlined in your first sentence is that simple. The implications of "appropriate value," however is anything but.

As you assert, you can pretty much right your ticket if you're the only source for something people value, but I think it's likely to be harder and harder to be the ONLY source for many tangible things as Chris has previously noted.

So maybe that's where intangible starts to come into play more, and I'm not sure a lot of associations do well there despite the fact that the Decision to Join suggests there is value in doing so. How are associations helping members feel a greater sense of purpose, feel connected in intimate ways that they value, leveraging their contributions in ways that make them feel important, etc.?

I wonder if value increasingly will bridge both ends of Maslow's Hierarchy ... the fundamentals and a sense of higher purpose. Just thinking out loud here as I look at my $395 ASAE & the Center dues renewal that came in today's mail.

Here's my blog response - http://www.socialfish.org/2009/09/being-interesting-at-the-heart-of-the-future-of-membership.html

Another thought - Clay Shirky's take on this issue was that "member value is in the platform associations provide to enable people to convene." He also talked about associations as portals of information. I personally think membership will never be about discounts on commodities. There's something bigger that we want to be a part of and that we're willing to pay for.

Seth Godin has some interesting thoughts today on scarcity, abundance, and free: http://bit.ly/predH

Associations don't form merely for networking (unless that's what people value).

By identifying a group of people with shared interests, an association can deliver a variety of services and products - value - to people already identified as potentially interested in those services and products, and not waste the effort on uninterested people.

Whether or not the vehicle is called "membership" doesn't matter. The model of providing value to groups of people with common interests is very valid and is not going to disappear.

Wait a second Jeffrey -- this is all hypothetical. You're not supposed to think about it when your ASAE & The Center dues notices comes!

(But seriously, thank you so much for your contributions to this discussion.)

There are a whole lot of assumptions here that I think are based more on conjecture than fact. For example:

- Is there actual data to show that social media has result in a general decline in association membership?

- Is there data to show that association membership, in the aggregate, has declined over the past ten years regardless of the cause?

- Are online "communities" really equivalent to the type of community offered by associations? I don't think most members would equate the two. While I am an active user of social media, I know this certainly isn't true for me. At my career stage, the value of my ASAE membership is more and more defined by access to the community rather than information or educational offers. I imagine this might be reversed for younger or less engaged members.

- Is the information/knowledge associations produce really a commodity? While this has been a meme among business gurus for more than a decade, I'm still not convinced. At least for scientific and medical societies, most of the highly technical content we produce is not just floating out there free on the internet. I believe this is true for many other associations as well.

I have been hearing about the death of the traditional membership model for nearly 15 years. I have probably written articles about it at some point. And who knows, it might be true. I just haven't seen any hard evidence to support it.

I think we are seeing an evolution. People will always feel the need to belong to a common interest group. It's a fairly fundamental urge amongst our species. Therefore membership, when defined as people choosing to belong to a group, is unlikely to disappear anytime soon.

However associations maintain their role as the facilitators of healthly membership communities is evolving. Those who stick with the old "you buy a membership and then you will belong model" are not likely to do well.

Those associations who are thriving are those who are promoting products and services that answer the needs, challenges and concerns of their members and prospective members in a sustainable manner.

By providing real value to a common interest group in a manner that is ... dare I say it ... profitable then associations and their members will continue to prosper into the future.

I agree that membership is not a value in itself anymore. Our blog site often addresses this issue. On the other hand, associations won't often pack it in, because they have Fund Balances, and most elected leaders don't want to let those go. We don't have to live for the past. There is much that associations can still offer that creates a value proposition worth the cost of dues. When done well, it is value proposition that will extend and revalue the membership model.

We believe the key to the future of associations is in providing services that their members cannot provide, and that each member should not have to create. Consider the post http://www.reconis.com/?p=129 "Can Brokers and REALTOR® Associations Create a Partnership to Build Trust?"

This is a tall order, and no one member can accomplish it. It will be associations that tackle this type of issue. However, associations can no longer do this merely by controlling the news. The Internet makes information much more available, and dissent much more scathing. The work is harder now, because it requires real change, not just talk of change. Would associations dare encourage member evaluation by their customers? Though a chilling thought, would that not do more to support the future of the industry than press releases saying "trust us"?

Hey Scott, I think you make some strong points. Here are some responses.
First, I don’t think anybody is arguing that social media has resulted in a general decline in association membership, much less would have actual data to show it. The argument is that social media is and will change the way people affiliate. This is a different and more fundamental threat to associations than the information portal threat of 9 or 10 years ago (has it been that long?).
Not that I think I’m so convincing a debater, but I need to preface the next statement by saying I don’t want you to stop paying dues. But Scott, what amount of access to the community do you think your dues dollar is getting? You have a good, far-reaching network. I grant you, you got that in no small part because of your affiliation with ASAE & The Center – but don’t you think that you can maintain it and even grow it without us? If you don’t see that now, then I’m betting you – and the other 4,000 yous out there – will begin to see it that way in the future.
Here’s my position: Some people think the social web is a fad and there is no need to seriously consider its impact on associations. To that group, I say good luck.
The rest of us fall on some continuum between the social web being another important tool for associations to make use of and it being a deconstructive force that will make associations fundamentally rethink what they are and how they operate. Both groups see the need for serious adaptation as a result of social media – and that’s the debate: is membership evolving or is there a need to develop a new model?
I have something to say about your information scenario, but I think I want to make that a separate blog post for the future. In a nutshell, First, I think associations need to be open to/reckon with the idea that information – even the great, important information that associations are known for – is being or will become more decentralized. Second, and it’s a far-removed second, copyright enforcement is going to become an increasingly sticky subject for associations. Two thoughts on this: it’s already a messy business internationally, and the other is do you really want to be in the business of threatening to sue your members?

Interesting that most comments give people credit for self-interest but not much for altruism. If an association makes membership purely a transaction then no doubt I will value it in terms of ROI. If by being a member I am enrolled in something I believe in, with people who share my desire to accomplish something, then I probably will value it as satisfying (or not) a desire to be part of an important community. So far, to me anyway, membership in social networks isn't really delivering either value, although I believe there is potential out there.

Just a thought. Good discussion

It is interesting Jennifer -- thanks for the observation.

I think there is altruism involved in a members' affiliation with his or her association. But I believe that will be a strong feeling in the fraction of your members that are significantly engaged (is that 10 percent, maybe 20 percent?) and much weaker feeling in the majority that is not.

I want to see what Jeffrey Cufaude is writing for Acronym (I'm hoping it will be in and posted by early next week) as I think he will at least touch on this notion.

Membership is not a value in itself. It is what that membership value represents. I run an ethnic chamber of commerce within the Sacramento region, the Sacramento Asian Pacific Chamber of Commerce, and the value proposition for our members isn't necessarily ethnic based (i.e., API small businesses as a community) the value proposition for our members are the products and services we offer to help them succeed. The question then becomes, these products and services that we offer, are they unique to this community, or can our members simply get these services anywhere? That is the value proposition we are struggling with.

Hai i am ridwanzero...Interesting that most comments give people credit for self-interest but not much for altruism. If an association makes membership purely a transaction then no doubt I will value it in terms of ROI. If by being a member I am enrolled in something I believe in, with people who share my desire to accomplish something, then I probably will value it as satisfying (or not) a desire to be part of an important community. So far, to me anyway, membership in social networks isn't really delivering either value, although I believe there is potential out there.

www.onlineuniversalwork.com