Acronym

Scott...that is an interesting question, why should they have to join?. In my experience with our association, I have sold many things to people, including memberships,gear, products, certifications, educational courses and events, sponsorships, exhibit space etc. The hardest and most frustrating sell is membership to someone who doesn't really get it or want it---I am often unable to define in their terms why they NEED it. Some people are joiners, some aren't (feel free to argue this point). I'd love to hear any thoughts on not just growing membership, but strategically targeting the most proactive, engaged member prospects...would you rather have 1000 non-responsive members, or 100 highly active, engaged ones? Just curious what others think...

Brian, It's a great question: led me to think of Rick O'Sullivan's Sept 8 exec listserv post that asserted "membership is about governance--not revenue." I never earned my CAE and always handled the "business end" of the association, so Rick may be right, but my own predictable response is that I will ALWAYS prefer 1000 members (100 responsive, 900 mailboxers) over the alternative. Most of our organizations have the latter membership structure as it is, and this allows the organizations to remain flush, viable organizations. (There's a reason we see few bankruptcies, mergers, or other closures among associations--membership makes a great economic cushion.) We need the revenue and the conscious affiliation of people to properly represent our fields & causes, and to subsidize the activities that members/supporters/donors would never fund 'a la carte.'

Part of my viewpoint has been colored from having worked in both the association and charity worlds; in the latter, we rely on an individual-institutional relationship more tenuous than membership to support good works, often to the tune of hundreds of millions of dollars in unrestricted funding. In charities successfully sell and keep re-selling the intangible value of what we do to donors to encourage them to maintain their support, even though we rarely if ever deliver tangible benefits to them personally. I often feel that associations should encourage membership among non-members more aggressively and on both tangible and intangible levels, balancing the "here's what you get" approach with more emotional appeals, to altruism, elitism, collective interests.

I think our associations are complex enough organizations to manage and effectively describe to outsiders that the bundle of services called membership will probably always be a far superior model for developing, pricing, promoting, and delivering services than an a la carte customer relationship would be or any other form of loosely-structured relationships with our supporters.

I know from interacting with hundreds of associations over the years from speaking, peer networking, agency/consulting work, and volunteering that many of us would in fact prefer the 100.

Interesting comments Brian & Kevin!

Kevin, I think your point is well taken -- that is a good description of the traditional model. One point to make is that it is not trivial that as a percentage of revenue across the association sector, dues income continues to shrink at a significant pace. I just don't see that trend changing.

In fact, I think it will only hasten due to, at least in part, the social web. When you talk about the intangibles an association delivers -- grassroots, political influence, industry or professional publicity -- these are things where the real value is decreasing because the social web enables people to effectively combine voices quickly on an as-needed basis.

Let's take a narrow look at public affairs -- lobbying & advocacy. There is always some issues affecting a group, but I think if we're honest with ourselves, there are times when it's REALLY important, and most of the rest of the time is just maintenance. It's too easy in the social web to come together quickly for the important stuff, and as a result, the maintenance is valued much less. Important note: I'm not saying this is right, I'm saying this will be the experience. So as part of the changing model, associations need to realize where the value is and isn't, and plan accordingly.

And Brian -- I'd absolutely argue with you on some people not being joiners. There are a tiny, tiny, tiny number of people for whom this might be true. But I believe that biologically, we are a social species and want to join and belong. Associations have forever had to overcome the "what" objection, as in, what people want to join/participate in -- would they rather volunteer with their child's PTA or volunteer for their profession? What has changed/is changing is the nature of how and what we join and participate in. And I think that's my point in all of this -- associations are going to have to figure out their role in this dynamic, and I don't think we're there yet.

Scott Briscoe said: "But I believe that biologically, we are a social species and want to join and belong."

I think this is an important point, one I hope to elaborate on my future post, so I won't say much here other than raise a related question.

But what price should belonging entail? And by price, I am not only thinking of membership dues though that obviously is a major consideration.

Here's an interesting article on how old school media companies are emplying traditional nonprofit membership tactics to their for profit models - http://www.pbs.org/mediashift/2009/09/can-memberships-clubs-cruises-keep-media-companies-afloat264.html

(I'm personally looking forward to my behind-the-scenes Acronym office tour, LOL)