Love Your Association, Fear Your Association
Have you heard the rumble? On Tuesday, Jeff Hurt started a conversation that meetings industry associations everywhere should be watching very carefully. In short, he says he has turned from a "member evangelist" to a "member critic" overnight due to MPI's email announcement earlier this week that virtual attendance to WEC09 is now an option... for $299.
Basically, Jeff wants to know why MPI isn't offering online WEC content for free, like it did earlier this year with MeetDifferent. Some industry pros agree, some disagree, and the discussion has really been one to watch. The views and reactions contained in the ongoing comment thread on Jeff's blog post and in today's #eventprofs Tweetchat (scroll down to about the 9:00 a.m. timestamp to view the beginning of today's scheduled discussion) have delivered lively, varied views into the issue. The conversation is still going on as I type, through Twitter and other online avenues, so go check it out.
This is a real-time example of social media at work to make members' needs and concerns heard... and, in several opinions, MPI is not listening. In his followup post yesterday, Jeff noted that MPI leaders have, for the most part, ignored the opportunity to engage in the discussion and address the issue. Jeff Busch, MPI's VP of Strategic Communications, weighed in yesterday with his perspective via Twitter, and Trevor McCaffrey, Member Care Sales Coordinator, participated during the #eventprofs chat today. Otherwise, it seems Jeff might be right with his inkling that MPI is just hoping he will go away.
All of that said, here is what concerns me the most about this whole situation: repeatedly, throughout the various conversations on the topic, I have seen several connotations of fear of retaliation among those who wish to speak out. There are people out there who feel a change is needed, but they are afraid to speak up because they feel they will be ostracized within the association community.
Hold on, right there. Stop. This is completely unacceptable. In any association or in any organization, if your members are afraid to voice their concerns, then you've got a much bigger problem than whether or not to charge a fee for your online content.
Turning a blind eye to blatant, publicly voiced member issues is bad enough and will quickly and efficiently alienate those who feel they're not being heard. Allowing any environment to become so cliqueish and imposing that members actually express fear of saying what they think... that's a damn travesty. If members are discouraged from discussing issues of change, then nothing will change, and all of the unhappy members will continue to be unhappy until their memberships expire. In the meantime, they've dropped cold, hard cash into an association that does not want their feedback and does not want to hear it.
Conflict and disagreement are indicators of unmet needs. Feedback should be encouraged and applied. You don't have to take it personally. It's called constructive criticism. It's called working together to make the association better.
But maybe when you've got 24,000 paying members, you can afford to ignore a contingent or two.
As Sue Pelletier commented on Jeff's blog earlier today, "There are a lot of people who really want to love MPI." From where I'm sitting, issues like this one might make it awfully hard to love.
Are you afraid to speak up?
Serenity J. Knutson, Editor in Chief
PlannerWire.com
Serenity@PlannerWire.com
Basically, Jeff wants to know why MPI isn't offering online WEC content for free, like it did earlier this year with MeetDifferent. Some industry pros agree, some disagree, and the discussion has really been one to watch. The views and reactions contained in the ongoing comment thread on Jeff's blog post and in today's #eventprofs Tweetchat (scroll down to about the 9:00 a.m. timestamp to view the beginning of today's scheduled discussion) have delivered lively, varied views into the issue. The conversation is still going on as I type, through Twitter and other online avenues, so go check it out.
This is a real-time example of social media at work to make members' needs and concerns heard... and, in several opinions, MPI is not listening. In his followup post yesterday, Jeff noted that MPI leaders have, for the most part, ignored the opportunity to engage in the discussion and address the issue. Jeff Busch, MPI's VP of Strategic Communications, weighed in yesterday with his perspective via Twitter, and Trevor McCaffrey, Member Care Sales Coordinator, participated during the #eventprofs chat today. Otherwise, it seems Jeff might be right with his inkling that MPI is just hoping he will go away.
All of that said, here is what concerns me the most about this whole situation: repeatedly, throughout the various conversations on the topic, I have seen several connotations of fear of retaliation among those who wish to speak out. There are people out there who feel a change is needed, but they are afraid to speak up because they feel they will be ostracized within the association community.
Hold on, right there. Stop. This is completely unacceptable. In any association or in any organization, if your members are afraid to voice their concerns, then you've got a much bigger problem than whether or not to charge a fee for your online content.
Turning a blind eye to blatant, publicly voiced member issues is bad enough and will quickly and efficiently alienate those who feel they're not being heard. Allowing any environment to become so cliqueish and imposing that members actually express fear of saying what they think... that's a damn travesty. If members are discouraged from discussing issues of change, then nothing will change, and all of the unhappy members will continue to be unhappy until their memberships expire. In the meantime, they've dropped cold, hard cash into an association that does not want their feedback and does not want to hear it.
Conflict and disagreement are indicators of unmet needs. Feedback should be encouraged and applied. You don't have to take it personally. It's called constructive criticism. It's called working together to make the association better.
But maybe when you've got 24,000 paying members, you can afford to ignore a contingent or two.
As Sue Pelletier commented on Jeff's blog earlier today, "There are a lot of people who really want to love MPI." From where I'm sitting, issues like this one might make it awfully hard to love.
Are you afraid to speak up?
Serenity J. Knutson, Editor in Chief
PlannerWire.com
Serenity@PlannerWire.com
Comment
-
Comment by Serenity J. Knutson on July 7, 2009 at 10:04am -
Midori - Thank YOU for your insightful perspective! Yes, many individuals, companies, and associations are currently (or have been for some time) experimenting with how they might best utilize social media. As far as that goes, social media is still, in and of itself, an experiment. I will argue one point: many such individuals and entities are experimenting by engaging. :) When trying anything new, a few foibles and fumbles can be expected, and those engaged in the social media realm seem to be fairly forgiving when it is apparent an entity is trying.
As demonstrated by the links Jeff has included here, along with a follow-up post from Bruce MacMillan yesterday afternoon, MPI is aware of the discussion and the concerns but has, so far, chosen to respond in top-down fashion, rather than joining the existing conversation.
MaryAnne suggested in a comment on Bruce's latest post that the MPI blogs are the appropriate avenue to discuss MPI issues. What do you think? I see MaryAnne's point, but I, personally, disagree that this should be the only avenue. Yes, the MPI blogs are available, but the conversation about the issue did not arise there. Should the conversation be relegated solely to association-approved forums? In a Web 2.0 world, I don't think that's possible. As much as I had to grin at the wit and sarcasm in Michael Owen's take on the subject, I do feel it is past time for someone to come down off the Ivory Tower, as Jeff coined it, and mingle with the masses.
Through all of the conversation over the last week or so, MPI has, in essence, been bombarded with constructive suggestions for improvement. Busy staff members or not, I sincerely hope the opportunity is not wasted.
And Jeff - Thanks for all you're doing over at your blog and on Twitter to keep this discussion alive. Few are the meetings industry topics that garner such voracious online interaction. I, for one, am glad to see people talking, and I am curious to see the level to which this topic finds its way into the hallway conversations at WEC later this week. :)
-
Comment by Jeff Hurt on July 6, 2009 at 11:28am - Thanks Serenity for raising this issue. As you know, MPI’s CEO and President, Bruce MacMillian posted The Debate Over “Free” on his blog late in the afternoon of July 2, as did MPI’s Vice President of Knowledge Vicki Hawarden. Since then there has been many more people asking for MPI to engage in coversation with others in the social space. Since it was a holiday weekend, I've given them the benefit of doubt so we'll wait and see if they respond any further.
-
Comment by Midori Connolly on July 3, 2009 at 2:21pm
-
Doh! Perhaps my candid remarks that led the charge several days ago have been creating rancor and costing me friendships at MPI...but somehow I don't think that's the case.
I honestly believe that more than anything, our association is scrambling with how to deal with all of this! The arena of social media and how to accommodate unchained voices is brand spanking new territory for MOST businesses, let alone an association that is probably a little financially challenged at the moment.
But, I would agree that MPI is failing in one aspect...the two-way communication opportunity. They would really benefit from facilitating discussion on the issues that are obviously of main concern to their members. By taking ownership of the conversation they can learn and grow from the primary players.
There are 3 criteria for responding to Bloggers who are talking about your product (either for or against): Popularity, Authority and Relevance. In this situation, it's obviously been the 2.0 leaders in the community who are making the most noise...certainly @jeffhurt meets all of the profile criteria to necessitate a reply.
There are so many stories where addressing concerned clientele through their own platforms has translated to great success for organizations. At what point in the history of marketing and customer service have organizations ever had the opportunity to engage in open dialogue with their most vocal and authoritative clients? It's a windfall for affordable and efficient client managment!!
As is often stated, blogger relations are no different from good old fashioned client relations. The difference is that social media allows for seeing your own brand through the eyes of others. According to SM experts at Brickfish in San Diego, research shows that when people get information from a friend, 78 percent are more likely to believe it. An online “brand evangelist” - a loyal customer who spreads a company’s brand message to others - can typically influence 150 people. Although this "Dunbar" number of 150 is rapidly expanding as SM tools rapidly develop.
Perhaps next week the community will be abuzz about how I was found with a bullet through my WEC name badge...but I have faith that once MPI really gets a grasp of the current environment and how to adapt, the discussion happening now will be viewed as invaluable input that helped catapault their events to the forefront of the future of meetings.
Thanks Serenity for an eloquent, in-depth discourse of the current MPI environs (beyond just this WEC situation).
Midori Connolly, CEO
Pulse Staging and Events
@GreenA_V
© 2010 Created by OnSite Media
You need to be a member of PlannerMix to add comments!
Join PlannerMix