Associations as value facilitators
Here's a Big Ideas Month blog post we received from Jeffrey Cufaude—thanks Jeffrey!
"The things you own end up owning you."
~ Tyler Durden character in Fight Club by Chuck Palahniuk
What if associations shifted more of their efforts from being direct providers of member value to facilitators of members receiving value?
Associations have long prided themselves on delivering high-quality programs and resources for members, including certification, educational conferences, magazines, and journals. Most of these programs are done in-house and require a significant investment of resources. In essence, these are association-owned efforts. They create them; they pay for them; they deliver them. They are an essential part of the association’s stated benefits and identify with members.
Association staff and volunteers often express some of the not-so-positive consequences of this direct provider approach: You can’t ever kill a program around here. Once we start doing something we rarely stop doing it. We keep adding more to our plate without ever taking anything away. We try to do so much for so many that we don’t do very many things very well. By trying to be everything for everybody we end up being not much for anyone in particular.
So what’s the different between being a provider of value and being a facilitator of value being received? At its roots, the word facilitation means “actions taken to make it easier.” What is it that associations would be making easier? Members receiving the value they need in the form they want it, when they want it, and at an affordable price.
But wait you say, isn’t that what associations already see themselves as doing …? Providing programs and services that meet member needs? Well yes, but the key word there is providing. Associations see making things easier for members primarily through the lens of the association being the direct solution provider. But no association has unlimited resources or ability to meet all of the specific needs its members might have at any given time. Rather than try to do so, associations should incorporate a greater role facilitating members receiving the value they need. Doing so would complement the specific areas where it is in the association’s best interests to retain its role as being the actual provider of value.
Some associations already do these by default. I’m simply advocating that more of it be done by design. Associations doing so would:
- Identify complementary/competing associations its members might now consider joining and negotiate special affiliate rates that provide a limited bundle of benefits, the ones that would be most attractive to members.
- Negotiate special rates for members to purchase resources/attend educational programs sponsored by other organizations. These resources or programs might be ones that the association itself would be less capable of providing at the best cost or the highest quality or that might require a disproportionate percentage of resources in relation to the number of members who would be served.
- Purchase generalist content others create and then adding additional information addressing specific implications/applications for the association’s members and providing the enhanced product as a member benefit or publication for resource.
Instead of seeing this as a gatekeeper roll think of it as a door-opener or hyperlink function, one in which I receive additional value specifically through access, pathways, and opportunities that my primary association has acquired for me … ones I might not have been able to access myself as easily or as cost effectively.
But perhaps the greatest shift in mindset and action would be in the way the association sees itself relating to, and interacting with, its members. In any association community, a significant pool of member interest, talent, and knowledge remains untapped. In its purest role as facilitator of members receiving value, associations would devote more effort and resources to creating the infrastructure that would enable members to more easily and quickly connect, share, and create with each other.
Again many existing efforts fall into category, including listservers, online discussion forums, member directories, etc. We frequently see members rating these services as being very important benefits, yet the association merely provides the framework in which members provide the actual content that is valued. They facilitate members doing what they want to do.
This is where the real untapped opportunity exists— engaging members in determining the platform that would enable them to create and access the value they most desire. Associations pursuing this path would be seen as enablers, facilitators, and amplifiers of member-generated content and initiatives. In this respect, the association would be acting somewhat like the iPhone application store: providing the hardware and the programming guidelines for others to create apps that are then screened for standards compliance before being released to the market.
The value is sustained for any particular initiative by members’ interest and ownership as opposed to direct allocation of association resources for a specific program. Associations wouldn’t have to kill off sacred cow initiatives that only a small population values. Initiatives would die on their own when insufficient member interest and ownership remains to perpetuate and manage them.
Not everyone wants a DIY bundle of value, so associations cannot—and should not— get out of the business of being a direct provider of value. But the resources provided for doing so should be more focused and leveraged more exclusively for those topics/areas where the association is uniquely positioned to directly provide the value … better, faster, more efficiently, or at a better price.
The right mix of direct provider versus facilitator is something each association must decide and regularly revisit based on changing conditions in their profession or industry, broader environmental trends, as well as members needs and preferences. So finding the answer is up to you and your organization. I’m fairly confident that the act of doing so is well worth your time and attention.
| | Permalink |
Comments
Great post and I wanted to highlight two points that really resonated for me.
I liked the visual construction of thinking about an association as a "hyperlink," purposefully creating connections between members, ideas and other organizations and allowing those who enter the ability to jump off into other areas that interest them.
Secondarily - I am always interested in ideas that promote the re-purposing or elimination of sacred cow programs. Allowing the members to participate in the pruning process is something I can really get behind.
Thanks for this post.
Shelly
Posted by: Shelly Alcorn, CAE | December 10, 2009 12:39 PM
I'll have to ponder this for a while. It's got me thinking and I'm trying to wrap my head around exactly what this would look and feel like both as a member and as an association employee.
I've been at associations that have tried some of the things you suggested--discounts at other events, co-membership in organizations, repurposing content specifically for our member audience--and our members didn't see it as door opening. However, I need to make sure my personal experience doesn't get in the way of new opportunities.
I like the idea of being a value facilitator, a catalyst of experiences, a conduit of connections, a living hyperlink. That's definitely resonates with me.
Posted by: Jeff Hurt | December 10, 2009 4:26 PM
Jeff Hurt:
I have had similar experiences where things like that didn't work, and I think you raise what I see as a critical element: these types of choices have to be done because members would receive value they otherwise would not be able to access as easily or as cost-effectively ... or because their association wouldn't offer service/value in this area at all but it is important to members.
If members wouldn't see it as a benefit, it's not the right choice to pursue. Done right, it should feel like "Wow, look at all I can access by being a member of this group."
Posted by: Jeffrey Cufaude | December 10, 2009 5:01 PM
Great post which offers lots of room for dialog and consideration. The first item that crossed my mind is something near and dear to my heart: chapters. The model or mindset you are suggesting would greatly support - and indeed shift the thinking about - chapters. If national organizations thought of chapter relations through the lens of being a "facilitator of members receiving value", how differently would they approach the relationship? And would this shift perhaps invigorate chapters? And most importantly, create additional value of members?
Posted by: Peggy Hoffman | December 10, 2009 7:50 PM
Great post - I think it all revolves around knowing your members and what they need and value. I think we need to listen more and not just run with something because we think that is what the members want.
Posted by: Cathi Eifert | December 11, 2009 10:01 AM
'Tis the season ... this post made me remember the scene in “Miracle on 34th Street” where the Macy's store Santa turned the world on its head by sending a customer to Gimbel’s when the competing store actually had a product that better met the customer’s need than anything Macy’s had to offer.
At NCRA, we HAVE gotten very serious about asking the question "are we uniquely competent to build it ourselves or should we find someone else to buy it from?" when looking to create a new member product or service to meet a need. But the paradigm and almost inviolate governing principle seems to be an assumption that, from whatever source it comes, the only way for NCRA to deliver value to its members is for NCRA to be the direct provider of the product or service to the end user.
There are a multitude of examples of associations "sort of" doing the kind of thing Jeffrey describes, particularly through affinity programs. But here's the difference.
We (NCRA)long ago abandoned the formal affinity agreements with (among others, but just to provide a concrete example) rental car companies. I personally am probably eligible for a dozen different discounts from a a dozen different rental car companies because of my affiliation with various organizations, frequent flyer programs, local activities, etc. I have to admit, I have never ONCE when faced with the need for a rental car thought of NCRA (or ASAE or the Metropolitan Opera Guild or the Fairfax County Chamber of Commerce) as a possible source. And I probably never will. (But I know I am eligible for "special" rates due to the "elite" agreement each of these entities have with most every one of major car rental companies.) Trying to make people think of NCRA when they think of transportation is a losing battle and one not worth expending ANY effort upon.
Go to the other extreme: court reporters DO have very specific professional liability and equipment insurance concerns that are NOT adequately covered in a typical business insurance package. They are so narrow in their needs, that any individual going to their own carrier is going to get something more expensive than they need or that only approximates the actual coverages that would be meaningful. So NCRA CAN and does provide a real value when it collectively bargains on behalf of the membership for an insurance program specifically tailored to the needs of a working court reporter.
There is a vast range of things members might need and value that falls somewhere between those extremes... somewhere between "If we don't do it, no one will" and "We could do it, but so could a hundred others." Things that it wouldn't be worth NCRA's while to create or even negotiate a specific, sole-source affinity agreement for, but maybe it COULD help members find.
"I am sorry, but Macy's doesn't carry anything like that. Might I suggest you go to Gimbel's? They have just the toy you are looking for, and at the following price ..."
But suppose there is
Posted by: Mark J. Golden, CAE | December 14, 2009 10:59 AM
Hi Scott,
Your post seems to imply that associations should be centers for information, connections, and resources--brokers more than providers? Should the organization best function as a portal to funnel members into receiving "what they want, when they want it, at an affordable price"?
If the organization is a center, then it can be controlled by a skeleton team but supported by experienced professionals providing specialzied services for a range of needs. Mark outlines several extremes.
This model also redefines the role of publications--a major benefit to reach remote members. Integrating e-pubs, blogs, PDFs, articles, e-stores, etc., with relevant content and connected to appropriate resources is a high level function that thrives on consistent delivery. Yet it is a definable function that can be fulfilled by tying managed resources together.
The association becomes the hub, the quality arbiter, the trusted broker, the place for members to save time, money, and have support to make the best business decisions. It means that reviewing, cataloging, presenting, and interacting become roles for the skeleton; all functions can be facilitated through orbiting satellite organizations and suppliers. The sacred cows to abandon are housing all these functions within an organization's overhead. It changes the nature of "control" and requires a brave cultural redefinition.
Liane Sebastian, designer, editor, author, www.wisdomofwork.wordpress.com
Posted by: Liane Sebastian | January 15, 2010 12:07 PM