Acronym: Comments

Comment on "A new chapter for ASAE blogging"

Fri, 28 Sep 2012 14:11:28 -0500

Congrats on the changes that sound like they will keep the ASAE site current and at the forefront of the field. Looking forward to it!

- Lori Woehrle

Comment on "A new chapter for ASAE blogging"

Fri, 28 Sep 2012 13:36:15 -0500

Kudos to Joe and Mark for their association "wisdom" and welcome to Samantha, Katie, Rob and Ernie. Looking forward to the new digs and new chapter in Acronym history. Thanks for being the reliable go-to source for Association news and management. Best wishes for continued success =-=

- Kathi Rabil

Comment on "A new chapter for ASAE blogging"

Fri, 28 Sep 2012 11:09:25 -0500

Well three cheers to everyone who worked hard over the years to make Acronym an anchor blog in the association community. And another three cheers for taking something that works and changing it. I look forward to the new site.

- Jamie Notter

Comment on "Lessons on Usability From #ASAE12"

Thu, 20 Sep 2012 21:57:30 -0500

Usability depends on what you want to do with it. My iPad is tremendously usable when it comes to games and video and some great apps, but less usable when I need to view Flash videos for my online classes. So how do we really catch it all? A simple usability test will get a lot of what people need, but will it work for everyone? For those with disabilities, or in a hurry, or with a particular interest? What can we do other than be continuously open to input?

- Moira Edwards

Comment on "Big and niche"

Wed, 12 Sep 2012 17:23:38 -0500

Thanks Kerry, Jeffrey, and Kevin. I'm not surprised to see three different viewpoints w/in three comments here. I like the thoughts about being in motion instead of being paralyzed and that what your core ideology is may matter less than simply having one. That ideology may very well be to go for one part of an industry, or it may be to go tiered, as Kevin suggests. I think "doing both" would be a muddied-middle approach if it is built on complacency or upon an assumption that one strategy could still serve multiple types of members. But if there's a clear strategy (or strategies) for serving both big and niche, then there's no reason an association couldn't build itself to succeed in both ways. It just may be more challenging.

- Joe Rominiecki

Comment on "Big and niche"

Wed, 12 Sep 2012 13:45:01 -0500

Why not do both? Lots of associations have a fairly open and low-cost membership, and then a higher-priced, higher-value "elite" group that gets more services, more ego stroking, and much higher fees.

"Doing both" doesn't mean go for the muddy middle -- it means having different strategies (even different organizations) for different audiences.

Pick one over the other, and you're stuck with it.

Also, in regards to the posting on associations "losing their claim to represent whole industries" I'm not sure what was so shocking about the talking heads pointing out that AMA only represents a small portion of their profession. Politically active trade associations deal with regulators, legislators and the media bringing up this issue all the time (since almost none of them have a particularly high percentage of their target market within their membership), and the smart ones use it to their advantage (every industry/profession has crooks or bad actors; do you really want to represent them, too?).

- Kevin

Comment on "Big and niche"

Tue, 11 Sep 2012 22:55:34 -0500

The middle is too muddied. A little of this, a little of that, but not enough meaning for very many.

Wal-Mart is for everyone and focuses on everyday low prices.
Target is more niche and focuses on design for the masses.
K-Mart is lost in the middle and confused.

Collins and Porras pointed the way in Built to Last when they said what your core ideology is may matter less than having one and ensuring cult-like alignment around it. Plant a flag for people to rally around and then see who shows up.

- Jeffrey Cufaude

Comment on "Big and niche"

Tue, 11 Sep 2012 16:23:52 -0500

These are clearly complex times for association leaders. As you rightly point out, the correct answer to the challenges at hand will more than likely be, "it depends". In many cases nobody else knows what to do either. Complexity and uncertainty isn’t confusing just you. It’s confusing everybody. Carving out your own path is more essential than ever. There won’t be many milestones in the early stages, but the fact you have a bias for action and are in motion instead of being paralyzed by the unknown will make you stand out.

- Kerry C Stackpole FASAE CAE

Comment on "Digital Event Engagement Manager: A New Role for Association Pros"

Thu, 23 Aug 2012 09:28:37 -0500

Maggie--great post. Couldn't agree with you more. Since I now focus entirely on working with event planners & show organizers, it's clear that there is a gap in their knowledge of social. It "seems" that it is easier for them to learn social and add to their skill bank, but I always find that the marketing people are taking on social. I do think that we are seeing a true convergence of digital and event worlds giving rise to the new discipline of event marketing and meeting architecture. We work on these concepts a lot at etouches and are supporting the emergence of these new types of roles. We believe that there's a huge future out there for people that understand both the power of virtual and face-to-face engagement and the architect that can put the experience flows together in a way that promotes consistent touch and minimizes the dips in engagement curves is going to be a key position in associations.

- Suzanne Carawan

Comment on "A Pair of Lessons Learned From #ASAE12"

Wed, 22 Aug 2012 11:52:07 -0500

I appreciate Kimberly's point about choosing a session and having a back up. The SXSW Interactive Conference has a culture people moving on if the session is not right or if the speaker does not grab their attention. I like this as an attendee AND as a speaker (as everyone is where they want to be!).

- thom singer

Comment on "The End of Relevance"

Wed, 22 Aug 2012 08:41:01 -0500

When Jeff says we need to abandon a quest for relevance, he's not arguing that irrelevance is okay. Angela's closing "no relevance = no members" is absolutely accurate. But it kind of implies that the inverse ("relevance = members") is true, and I don't think that is necessarily the case. I think that's Jeff's point. If all we do is focus on relevance, we're setting the bar too low and we're missing the real opportunities that we have in our markets. Let's raise the bar.

- Jamie Notter

Comment on "What if you had at least one member in every staff meeting?"

Wed, 15 Aug 2012 15:14:04 -0500

Interesting concept â€“ member attending an association staff meeting -- but a remarkable association is not member driven (see 7 Measures of Success, ASAE, 2006), it is data-driven. Thus, the remarkable association constantly collects, analyzes, and acts on data â€“ much of which is from the members. Employees for a remarkable association are scanning the environment, reviewing data (membership data, experience evaluations, etc.), and actively seeking data to drive decisions. Certainly a member could attend a staff meeting; and, in the remarkable association, the member would find employees who operate with blinders off, are focused on mission, wide open to feedback, and drawn like a magnet to data. Based on the findings, the remarkable association acts.

- Amanda Batson

Comment on "The Upside of Negativity"

Tue, 14 Aug 2012 08:54:31 -0500

Seems like several concepts are intermixed here: fear, negativity, worry, threat.

Threats and the fear they engender have long been used as a leadership tactic to persuade people of a need to change. And it can be effective so long as the threat is imminent, the consequences are seen as very negative, and the path forward is not seen as too painful or the benefits are seen as outweighing the pain. For an example of ineffective fear/threat leadership just look to conversations about the deficit.

But is this the way we really want to lead? Shouldn't we be creating a culture of aspiration, one where the benefits of the future to be created are seen as so desirable that they are worth the risk and challenge that might be required? For me, I'll stick with the Kouzes and Posner definition of leadership. It's the "art of mobilizing others to want to struggle for shared aspirations."

- Jeffrey Cufaude

Comment on "The End of Relevance"

Mon, 13 Aug 2012 08:40:48 -0500

I agree w/ Angela on this as well. Unfortunately, many associations (particularly their leadership and volunteer boards) feel and act that which has made them successful in the past will continue to suffice. Meanwhile key metrics such as active members, percentage of total addressable market, annual revenue per member, referral / repeat growth from current members are all declining or are flat at best! Members are struggling to see the value in their own lives in what the association is offering. And I can't think of a more appropriate strategic focus than relevance and impact. How are the members better off because of the association is THE ONLY question that matters!

- David Nour

Comment on "What's the Right Way to Disagree?"

Sun, 12 Aug 2012 15:23:06 -0500

I've always found William Isaacs' framework for dialogue to be a useful way to introduce the topic of disagreement with boards. He talks about four distinct practices can enhance the quality of conversation (quoted verbatim in what follows):

1. Speaking your true voice and encouraging others to do the same
2. Listening as a participant
3. Respecting the coherence of othersâ€™ views
4. Suspending your certainties

There is a nice article available for download from this web page: http://www.dialogos.com/resources/index.html

- Jeffrey Cufaude

Comment on "What's the Right Way to Disagree?"

Sun, 12 Aug 2012 15:11:49 -0500

I agree that the two speakers did not present the best form of the arguments they were trying to make. I also agree that we could learn and apply lessons to our everyday life, based on what we saw this morning.

I think you are letting Michelle Bernard off the hook a bit, though. Her introduction, in which she teased out James Carville jokes while praising Karl Rove for his "commitment to education", set the stage for the dynamic that followed. She let both speakers run on too long (it appeared to me that she favored Rove, but I am biased).

I think if we want a better discussion, we have to start with ground rules (that's part of your point, as well). It seemed to me that we wanted substantial discussion and we got political theater. That's what happens in the absence of ground rules.

- Brian F. O'Leary

Comment on "What's the Right Way to Disagree?"

Sun, 12 Aug 2012 15:00:30 -0500

I did appreciate Carville's question up front, about who in the room was undecided. There weren't many hands raised. They were speaking to a polarized crowd, and were unlikely to sway anyone. They weren't looking for solutions, and given that context, the conversation was exactly what we should have expected.

- Eric Peterson

Comment on "What's the Right Way to Disagree?"

Sun, 12 Aug 2012 14:59:27 -0500

I was not in attendance, but I noticed a tweet that said the session was a missed opportunity. Did Ms. Bernard ask them about the pending legislation that would limit government employees' conference participation / GSA scandal?

- Elizabeth Glau, CMP

Comment on "Making lives both easier and better"

Sat, 11 Aug 2012 23:56:06 -0500

I love the analogy.. as at first one might think that brand loyalty is brand loyalty --- but an association is really about people and mustard is about taste.

People stir up feelings. We are, as mentioned, wired to social structures. We are not wired to eat mustard.

Association conferences can create experiences like a food product cannot. It is all about the people.

I do not think it is about "whats in it for me" vs. "good of the order".... instead it is about cultivating a sense of belonging to a group that provides BOTH.

thanks for this post, it made me think.

- thom singer

Comment on "Be an Acronym guest blogger at #asae12"

Fri, 10 Aug 2012 15:14:59 -0500

With ASAE annual literally right around the corner, Iâ€™m banging through work like I would if I were preparing for a vacation â€“ double time. In a sense the ASAE is like a mini sabbatical â€“ itâ€™s a short break from the normal day to day and a chance to recharge the professional batteries. Itâ€™s a chance to reconnect with friends and make new lasting connections. Of course there are always those â€˜ah-haâ€™ moments that allow you to return to work and look at the world from a slightly different perspective.

- David Frick