First, I'd like to welcome to several new association blogs:

- Aaron Wolowiec, a former Acronym blogger, has launched his own blog at AaronWolowiec.com. An early standout post: Exposing the silo effect.

- Karen Tucker Thomas recently began the CEO Solutions blog. Early standout: Board orientation or board development.

- Management Solutions Plus brings us The Common Thread blog, featuring a number of staff, including well-known association blogger Jamie Notter. Early standout: Enquiring minds want to know how and why, by Angela Pike.

- If you follow any of the ASAE & The Center listservers, you're surely familiar with Vinay Kumar; he now has a blog of his own, too. Early standout: The Ferrari, the race, the pit-stop.

- If you have an interest in legal issues related to associations, check out Mark Alcon's new Association Law Blog. An early standout post: top 10 signs of a dysfunctional board.

Several existing blogs and bloggers are putting together interesting new series:

- The Vanguard Technology blog has begun a new "5 Questions" series, where they'll be asking five questions of an association professional doing innovative things with technology. This first interview (presented primarily in podcast form) focuses on why email marketing matters more than ever.

- DelCor has begun a weekly "Social Media Sweet Spot" show on Ustream, hosted by KiKi L'Italien.

- The SocialFish blog is hosting a series of interviews with association social media managers.

Many other association bloggers have had interesting things to say in recent weeks:

- Maddie Grant shared a thought-provoking post from Bruce Butterfield on lessons associations can learn from the struggles of the newspaper industry. Kevin Holland responded with his thoughts on what is missing from that comparison. Both posts inspired very interesting comment discussions.

- Elsewhere, Kevin Holland had a great discussion with Matt Baehr about aggregation as a value proposition for associations.

- Shelly Alcorn shares her take on the Supreme Court's ruling in the Citizens United case.

- Joe Gerstandt has a thoughtful post on opportunities he sees for local SHRM chapters to advance the cause of diversity and inclusion. I think his ideas could be applicable to a lot of other associations, too.

- Jeff Hurt shares a meeting planner's perspective on conference housing and attrition.

- Jeff De Cagna shares his five key words for 2010.

- Ellen Behrens argues that many of our current work practices are unhealthy for both ourselves and our organizations.

- Judith Lindenau shares her "A list" advice for association membership recruitment and retention.

- Maggie McGary is starting a list of association and nonprofit community managers.

- Eric Lanke at the Hourglass Blog shares a first draft of principles of innovation for the association community.

- Sue Pelletier responds to one possible model for the future of work and speculates on how associations might fit in.

- Tony Rossell has a simple method you can use to calculate where your membership numbers are headed.

Any people in the association blogging community who will be there and blogging about the conference, we'd love to pull your posts through to the Hub as well. We'll need you to set up an RSS feed that is specific to your posts about the Technology Conference. Send the feed to webteamATasaecenter.org and we'll pull it through. (If you need help setting up a feed specific to the conference, contact me at sbriscoeATasaecenter.org.) Oh and all you bloggers and Twitterers: be sure to sign up on our conference Blog Roll and Twitter Roll so others know to follow you.

Also, I wanted to let you know that our PR Manager Jakub Konysz will be available to you before each general session if you have questions about this year's attendance, want access to someone on ASAE & The Center's staff, or would just like to chat about the organization. You can email him at jkonyszATasaecenter.org or reach out to him on Twitter: jkonysz.

As far as what we'll be doing here on Acronym at the conference, Joe, Lisa, and I will be sharing our thoughts on the conference activities we attend. We'll also do a photo roundup and take a look at some of the interesting Tweets and blog posts from around the association community.

If you're going to the conference, maybe we can meet at the Tweetups on Thursday or Friday. If you can't make it this year -- check into the Hub and back here on Acronym to get a flavor of the happenings.

The free day was subsidized by a sponsorship from Acura, which of course got a nice big banner ad on the front page and more ads elsewhere throughout the site.

I thought this was worth pointing to on the heels of the recent discussion that's been going on here and elsewhere about micropricing and, more broadly, pricing models in general for associations.

This "free for a day" sponsorship is an idea that I could see associations emulating in their products and services, whether it be online content, meetings, books, education, or anything else they normally charge for or keep behind the members-only wall.

Two important thoughts to add about it:

• "Free for a day" (or "week" or "month" or whatever) has a certain buzz-creating ability that "sponsored by" or "brought to you by" just doesn't have. It's worth noting I found out about the WSJ promo yesterday via friends/colleagues on Twitter.
• You can't offer something free for a day if you don't ever charge for it at all.

Curious if any associations have tried this specific type of promo and, if so, how it went. Let us know in the comments.

Here’s what I’ve seen some of your colleagues doing pre-kick-off this weekend to creatively highlight their organizations. Maybe there’s still time to throw together a special play of your own…. Feel free to post at the bottom.

Whoa, despite a $3.2-million price tag for 30 seconds of ad time and tons of buzz about the hilarious eTrade babies, the American Heart Association and King Pharmaceuticals are getting early kudos for running their always-great ad about fighting heart disease. This year’s goal: Drive people to AHA’s virtual tool for assessing high blood pressure risk. Watch it at http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=c164abc595. It’s funny, too.

Instead of a fancy ad spot, the American Urological Association (AUA) Foundation and the NFL have partnered to use the Super Bowl as a chance to encourage men over age 40 to "Know Your Stats about Prostate Cancer," the second leading cause of cancer death for men in America. The AUA wants guys to visit its www.knowyourstats.org site to read new guidelines

Today's Harvard Business Review Daily Stat points to a study that suggests that a CEO hired from within an organization is a less risky choice than one hired from the outside. The study, by Yan Zhang of Rice University and Nandini Rajagopalan of the University of Southern California, says "relative to outside CEOs, inside CEOs will tend to have a more 'even' performance across various levels of strategic change."

The exact details of the study are more nuanced, of course, and they suggest that an outside CEO's affect on an organization can be positive at low levels of change. It also suggests that the advantage of hiring an inside CEO becomes more apparent over the long term, after the first two to three years. Before then, the performance of both inside and outside CEOs is comparable.

Associations face this CEO question with an extra wrinkle: is it better to hire an experienced association executive or someone from the industry that the association represents (e.g. a banker as CEO of a bankers association)?

Nonprofit or for-profit, the most basic question is this: does good management trump experience in an industry or organization, or vice versa?

I don't have the management experience to answer that question, though I'd lean a bit in favor of inside experience. The answer may also depend on exactly how much change you're looking for in a new leader, too.

Here's what David had to say:

The governing boards of associations in 2030 will not look like the boards of today. As we sort through all the changes we are facing in associations and philanthropic organizations today, including social media, enhanced access to information and knowledge through the Internet, reduced willingness to travel for meetings, time pressures from work and family commitments, and changing perceptions of governance, there will continue to be a series of shifts in our not-for-profit organizations.

Today, when we conduct new board member orientation sessions, we advise participants to exercise great care when using electronic media for governance communications. We all know of regrettable instances when accidental distribution of sensitive information result in hurt feelings, political crises, or worse, legal problems.

Now shift your thinking forward, factoring in the incredible level of acceptance of these means of communications, and ask yourself: How will your association deal with the even more rapid and constant levels of interaction that are coming? How will governing boards ensure the participation of all board members when using new forms of communications? How will they maintain confidentiality of electronic discussions? How can they build processes for deliberation on issues and policies that will avoid legal challenges to decisions made in a world of universal access to information?

I propose that the business of governance will no longer be episodic. Rather, there will be a constant stream of both text and visual interaction among leaders that could challenge the abilities of association staff to manage the organization’s messages and to deal with unexpected problems as they surface. The pace of business that we find so challenging today will seem as slow as the fax machines we used just a few short years ago.

We will not be required to physically travel to a site for most board meeting to take place. Our organizations will be required to modify policies, procedures, and expectations for how to handle governance meetings. The important interactions that result from the present model of face-to-face meetings are rapidly changing, and few groups have considered how they will resolve the varied challenges that are sure to result. As board members spend less time together physically, will they actually have more net interaction electronically?

I expect service on governing boards will be easier to perform, be less costly for members, and allow for more nimble action on issues. This will, however, require us to plan now for a process of smooth transition to new governance models that embrace change.

What do you see as the critical governance issues associations and foundations will face over the next several years and how should they begin the process of considering fundamental governance changes?

• On Scott's "Welcome to governance month" post, Maddie Grant commented with a general feeling of angst toward boards, and she said "A friend said to me that people should print my comment and show it to their boards and say, ‘this is what some people think of boards - how would you refute it?'"
• Then I saw "Three Quick Steps to Clear Writing" on Copyblogger (which, if your job entails writing in any way, you really should be reading). One of his steps: "Care: Clarity comes from deeply caring if people truly understand."

The latter reminded me of the old writer's adage "write for the reader," which really means "consider the reader's perspective, not your own." But with Maddie's comment in mind, I realize that this mindset should permeate pretty much everything you do.

• For your next membership campaign, don't just assume that prospective members might be interested in networking or improving their careers. Assume that your prospects are content, lazy slouches with no ambition, little desire to expand their horizons, and zero familiarity with membership organizations. Then figure out how to make membership in your association relevant to those people.
• Next time you call a staff or volunteer meeting, don't just assume that your colleagues want to collaborate with you. Assume they're already overworked and have little to no knowledge of the need for or the fundamentals of the work you'd like to do together. Then figure out how to make them excited about working or volunteering with you.
• When you give your next presentation at a meeting or conference, don't just assume that the audience wants to learn. Assume that they came to your session because it looked like the least boring session during your time slot and that they don't think your topic is in any way relevant to their field of work. Then figure out how to get that audience engaged.

Of course, in most of these cases, people do care. But don't assume that. Don't assume anything in your favor. Rather, before you take on any task, ask yourself, "What if no one cares about this?" Then, with that perspective in mind, direct your efforts to making sure that you reach the people who don't care. It will make everything you do much more effective.

[On a related note, my colleague Lisa Junker wrote a great article back in 2007 on "red teaming," which is an exercise in assuming the mind of your competition to better understand your own weaknesses. It takes the "What if no one cares?" idea a step further by asking, "What if people want to defeat us?" and addresses it on an organizational level. It's a good read.]

In his post introducing this month’s conversation on Acronym, Scott Briscoe pointed out that despite the importance of governing to the association community, it “doesn’t ignite the passions and creativity of big ideas.” Similarly, in some of my recent talks, I’ve posed the following question to association leaders:

Sadly, most attendees don't make a connection between what they see in the current practice of governing inside their organizations and the opportunity to "nurture and unleash energy, passion and imagination." In fact, their real world experiences with how governing operates lead most of them to reach the opposite conclusion.

As we begin the second decade of the 21st century, the time has come to change our view of governing from a wanting yet necessary evil with which associations must cope, to a driver of value creation and a source of genuine strategic advantage. We can accomplish this critical shift by challenging “governing groups” (an umbrella term that includes all stakeholders who contribute to the governing process, not just boards of directors) to commit to undertake “the new work of governing,” which I describe below:

• Designing purpose-driven business models through innovation--In today’s hyper-competitive operating environment, the stale “for-profit vs. non-profit” debate is an irrelevant distraction from the broader strategic challenge of creating “thrivable” associations, i.e., organizations with the capacity to flourish by leveraging the forces of paradigm shift. Associations need vibrant business model innovation, and governing groups must provide support to imaginative experimentation efforts with the goal of developing new business models that fully integrate the inextricably linked pursuits of purpose and profit.

• Building capacity for "thick value" creation--The viability of new business models will depend on whether associations can innovate to produce novel forms of authentic value for customers, members and other stakeholders seeking deep support and meaningful solutions to complex problems. Governing groups must build a clear and context-specific understanding of what this kind of “thick value” looks like for its communities, and ensure that the right mix of organizational capabilities is available to create it.

• Nurturing cultures of shared responsibility for stewardship--In the reset economy, the intelligent, long-term stewardship of associations is a critical element of thrivability. Every association is a commons, and the success of the commons requires cooperation and collaboration. Governing groups can cultivate commons thinking by building shared commitment to interdependent action and nurturing cultures of shared responsibility as part of a strategic framework for meaningful stakeholder contribution and engagement.

• Coordinating new social systems for contribution and engagement--To maximize the substantive impact and value of stakeholder contribution and engagement, while minimizing its disruptive impact on stakeholders themselves, associations need to design and implement systems that eliminate bureaucratic legacy structures while making participation as convenient, simple and social as possible. Governing groups also need to establish new “terms of service” covenants with contributors that are reciprocal, ensure mutual benefit and build social capital across the organization.

The new work of governing is not the same as the old work of governing, and that is precisely the point. As long as there are governments interested in monitoring and scrutinizing association activities, governing groups will continue to have compliance and oversight responsibilities that exist specifically to reduce unnecessary and harmful risks. The new work of governing is about establishing an organizational mindset and architecture to support essential and generative risk-taking, a strategic intention for 21st century association success that only governing groups can choose.

Grubb says that what might be viewed as mere "getting to know you" conversations should be considered just as crucial as the more substantive conversations that also happen between an association CEO and a board chair.

Over the years I have found in myself a passion for things that I’m sure when I was 10 years old I would have made a face at, including:

- Stuffing envelopes (allows me to think clearly without a computer in my face)
- Strategic planning
- Marketing (I was going to be a marine biologist, where did I go wrong?)
- Sales
- Travel to trade shows (don’t ask me why)

Yet a passion for governance eludes me. I understand all the blah blah about how important it is to the association etc., but I am asking all of you governance gurus out there: What is the source of your personal passion related to board governance? What motivates you and what rewards do you get out of it that make you feel all warm and fuzzy? Please don’t leave me hanging!

• "On two-dimensional association thinking" on the SocialFish blog
• "Associations following Newspapers? It's Talk v. Action" on the Mariner Management & Marketing Idea Center blog
• "On associations and newspapers," on the MemberClicks Splash blog
• "Leading Broken Organizations," on Get Me Jamie Notter

The discussion focuses on whether the association business model is doomed to the same fate as newspapers, and it arose from a broader discussion about the association model on ASAE & The Center's Executive Management listserver.

However, another theme that arose in the discussion is "micropricing," which I'll loosely define as "small fees for single-resource access." Think 99 cents per song on iTunes or $9.99 for a book on an Amazon Kindle. Some newspapers are poised to try this method with their online content. The discussion on micropricing in the comments to the SocialFish post has been good (you should go read it), and I want to pull that topic to the forefront here. I think micropricing could work for associations, and here's why:

For a long time, membership strategy for many associations has been to put access to resources behind the member wall, with just a small sample available for free to nonmembers in the hopes that it will entice them to pay to become members. The inherent challenge in this model is that the gap between free and a membership fee is often quite large. It's a big leap to ask people to make.

Associations need to provide some stepping stones in between. This is where I think micropricing comes in. In between the free resources and the all-access, big-fee membership, micropriced content and resources could generate additional revenue among nonmember customers.

But here's the important part: micropricing will only work for associations as one method along a continuum. If you threw away membership and free, it's doubtful that micropriced products would generate sustainable revenue. But, if you offer some resources for free, a lot of resources for small fees, and full access to all of your resources (and the community) via membership, you have a nice three-tiered system that's built to entice people to spend some money.

Think about the three groups of prospects you have:

Group 1: People who are only interested in the products you offer for free.
Group 2: People who pay for some of your products but not for a full membership.
Group 3: People who pay for membership.

With just "free" and "membership," you miss out on Group 2. With micropricing, you can do three things:

• Generate revenue from Group 2.
• Push some people in Group 1 toward Group 2.
• Push some of the people in Group 2 toward Group 3.

These last two are important, because they're a lot easier to do than trying to get people to move all the way from Group 1 to Group 3.

So why aren't many associations trying this? My guess is this: while "free" equals zero dollars and "membership" equals $100 or $500 or $1,000, micropricing is messy. It means you have to do actual trial and error, actual research on your members' and customers' buying habits, and maybe even some actual math. And you have to do it with every individual product or service you offer. The concept of micropricing gets derailed fast when people start asking, "What price is right?" The leader in that situation has to make other people comfortable with, "We won't know for sure until we try."

So to answer the question in the title of the post: no and yes. While micropricing can't be the only method of generating revenue at associations, it could be one method, and it could be one that bridges the gap between the others. If you're familiar of any associations that are trying some form of micropricing, let us know in the comments.

“You think your board’s bad, you wouldn’t believe what mine did at our last meeting.”

It’s a common bonding moment at gatherings of association staff members as individuals take turns sharing the latest tale of woe about some misstep involving volunteer leaders. We commiserate, we laugh, and we engage in the time-tested ritual of all professions: telling war stories.

But is it an “exemplary standard of professional conduct?” Because that is the first item listed in ASAE & The Center for Association Leadership’s Standards of Conduct, the code all ASAE members agree to uphold upon becoming a member.

Give me a break, Cufaude. This is harmless. Everybody does it at some time or another. It’s just a way of letting off a little steam with colleagues who can understand.

Yep, it is. But again, is it an exemplary standard of professional conduct? It may be normal or common, but is it exemplary? One of the common tests in ethical dilemmas is to consider whether or not you would want your conduct detailed in a prominent publication. I’m fairly sure some of the stories I’ve heard association professionals tell over the years are ones they would prefer not to see splashed across any page in the Washington Post or any other newspaper.

Get off your moral high horse Cufaude. Geez. Everyone needs to cut loose once in awhile.

Yep, we do, but at what potential cost? At the expense of our board members or other volunteers who donate their time and talents to our organizations? Do they really deserve us speaking of them in somewhat derogatory tones to people they don’t even know in forums where they can’t respond?

The tone of these remarks rarely suggests we are trying to solve the problem, one of the many we as association professionals are hired to address: strengthening the governing capacity of our association. It’s not, “hey my board is really getting into the weeds and I could use some advice on how to help them focus on the big picture.”

The tone is gossipy and sometimes mocking of the people we describe. It’s conversational one-upmanship. It engenders a good laugh and then people go about their business … which is … working with the leaders they just criticized … aka, their bosses.

Beating up on the boss is too easy. And more importantly? It doesn’t change anything.

So let’s commit more of our capability to the really hard work: having respectful and honest conversations with the volunteers involved in governance about the shortcomings we see and the opportunities to strengthen their contributions and more effectively lead our organizations. Let’s dial down the war stories and make peace with the fact that we have work to do. And let’s exemplify the highest standards of professional conduct as we go about doing it.

There's not much dilemma in this ethical dilemma, at least not until you consider he was a new hire and had just moved his family to a new location and was just beginning to get settled—all of a sudden, he's wondering if he made a big mistake.

As with the Times, so far I've found MIT's David Dalrymple's answer most interesting. He says:

"Before the Internet, most professional occupations required a large body of knowledge, accumulated over years or even decades of experience. But now, anyone with good critical thinking skills and the ability to focus on the important information can retrieve it on demand from the Internet, rather than her own memory."

Dalrymple sums up his most important lesson as the ability of an employee to focus will be more important than her knowledge. It's a fair and important point, one meaningful for associations as they staff their organizations and look for capable volunteers.

But I'm intrigued by what this means for associations on a different level. Associations have been creating these bodies of knowledge for some time and have long considered it a critical value proposition. As I and others have said many times before, this particular value proposition is becoming obsolete (if it isn't already). Replacing it, is being the conduit for how people connect with knowledge and other people. Getting credit for that is how associations will be valued.