Acronym: Comments

Comment on "Neglecting a Big Slice of Potential Membership"

Wed, 23 May 2012 13:32:28 -0500

This is a great post, thanks for sharing it. I believe that these concepts tie in very nicely to the idea of Engagement and specifically, scoring engagement. The above concepts are important to measure in a consistent way that is aligned with each association's strategic plan. Interestingly, many associations who continue to serve "pizza" actually have strategic plans that talk about the other things noted above. BUT, they fail to execute on those plans typically due to two factors. First and foremost, they have plans that are not focused enough. Secondly, they don't measure the things that actually reflect their achievement of their strategic goals. It is our view that engagement scoring needs to pull this together and help associations measure their focus on the types of ideas noted in this article. If anyone is interested, I just published a free eBook on this topic and I think it ties in nicely to the above. The book is available here: http://bit.ly/aptifyscore

- Amith Nagarajan/Aptify

Comment on "How Much Influence Does a CEO Have?"

Tue, 22 May 2012 11:21:38 -0500

When I first became a CEO, a colleague gave me what I thought was sound advice for how to focus my efforts. She said.

Institutionalize and operationalize culture.
Deepen and broaden capacity.
Expand connections and strengthen commitments.

- Jeffrey Cufaude

Comment on "A little curation on curation for associations"

Wed, 16 May 2012 15:36:31 -0500

Thanks Terry and Jeffrey. I agree: there definitely isn't one particular tool that is perfect for curation, and I think that's mainly because it's such a multi-faceted endeavor (again, more of a philosophy than a tactic).

Facebook, Twitter, and LinkedIn all present their unique advantages and challenges, as does any tool. In those places, you could do real-time curation if you carved out a clear space for it, such as a hashtag or even an individual @name or Page, dedicated specifically to curated information. Plenty of people do it that way in a very simple fashion.

Scoop.It provides a nice looking collection of those links as you gather and share them, as does Pinterest. From the curator's point of view, these are both handy, but the challenge still lies in getting eyeballs on those items, when your audience likely follows you through email, RSS, Facebook, Twitter, LinkedIn, or other channels. I think that's why you see tools like Scoop.It adding Twitter and RSS integration. In the end, anything you broadcast you want your audience to be able to consume in their preferred method. Which is why Jeffrey's point about Brain Pickings is a good one. There's nothing wrong with an email newsletter if that's what your audience likes.

Long-tail curation, on the other hand, strikes me as something that the curator needs more control over: a web page, an infographic, an entire website, a print brochure, presentation slides, videos. Any and all of the above. The design of how the curated info is presented to the user is a lot more important in that case, IMO.

- Joe Rominiecki

Comment on "A little curation on curation for associations"

Tue, 15 May 2012 14:50:40 -0500

Great post Joe and I also like Bhargava's definition.

Terry raises a good question. Those I follow who are curating seem to use Scoop.it most, some are playing with Pinterest, and a few (like Brain Pickings) does it the old-fashioned way in an email newsletter.

- Jeffrey Cufaude

Comment on "A little curation on curation for associations"

Mon, 14 May 2012 17:35:16 -0500

One of the interesting things about social curation is that I don't find the major public social networks (Facebook, Twitter, LinkedIn) are particularly well-suited for this type of activity. I don't see any easy way with any of them to create a evolving collection of information that is structured in any way. I used to use delicious a number of years ago, and it was better, but in the end I moved away from it because the signal to noise ratio just wasn't high enough for me. So, I'm curious as to what people are using for social curation these days.

- Terry Coatta

Comment on "How Much Influence Does a CEO Have?"

Mon, 14 May 2012 08:06:44 -0500

Thanks, Jamie---an excellent point, of course. One subject we've tackled here and in the magazine (though perhaps not enough) is identifying leadership capabilities outside of the C-suite ranks and finding ways to cultivate and encourage those abilities. There are a lot of reasons why they're not---an internal culture that avoids "rocking the boat," anxiety among top leaders about having their notions challenged, etc. It may be that among the chief roles of the CEO, apart from the obvious implement-board-decisions one, is to support that culture of leadership from the top. Of course, there's the question of how to best make that happen...

- Mark Athitakis

Comment on "How Much Influence Does a CEO Have?"

Fri, 11 May 2012 14:27:43 -0500

I think the biggest problem is the part that we take for granted: that CEOs SHOULD be in charge, somehow. Leadership is NOT an individual characteristic. Leadership is the system's capacity to shape its future. Yes, in a centralized system, the person at the top of the org chart has some serious power--power to decide things and allocate resources in ways that others in the system don't have. But that doesn't leave everyone else power-LESS. I think our problem is that we rely on our CEOs too much, rather than building capacity in the rest of the system.

- Jamie Notter

Comment on "Curation, retail style"

Tue, 08 May 2012 17:35:52 -0500

Thanks David and Maddie. Following up on Jeffrey's comment, your points are helping me see where the difference is between what "limiting choices" and "curation."

I agree that limiting choices, at face value, is problematic, particularly if it is done with no purposeful set of criteria or if it is done with the the association's benefit in mind. And, as Jeffrey said, simply editing a selection down to a few choices doesn't add much value.

But I think limiting choice does become valuable when it is done with the audience's benefit in mind: items chosen by quality, with criteria that align to the audience's needs, and sorted and organized in a way that helps the audience better decide what to consume. In short, separating the wheat from the chaff. I think that's the tipping point between simply limiting choice and valuable curation.

It occurs to me now, too, that curation doesn't always have involve limiting choice (and that might be where I steered wrong in this post by equating the two). If the universe of choices is manageable, a good curator could add value for an audience by analyzing, evaluating, sorting, and organizing those choices in a way that helps the user better navigate them. Maybe only a "best of" is presented up front, but the user could dig as deep as he/she wants into choices beyond those. So it might not always have to involve cutting off other choices. Maybe, as Maddie says, curation could simply equate to helping members better find what they need.

In the digital information context, though, the universe of selection is essentially equivalent to "whatever you can find on the internet." And while some people will be happy to sort through all of that on their own, I think the phenomenon of digital overload is common enough that helping members deal with it is a role associations could serve through curation. "How" is certainly a big question, but I think the value is there. (Conveniently, someone much smarter than I, Steve Rosenbaum, who spoke at Digital Now two weeks ago and who wrote Curation Nation just wrote about this at the Huffington Post: "Will Associations Become Filters for Digital Overload?")

But your point is well taken that limiting choice could be a dangerous downside to curation if it's not done purposefully and with the audience benefit in mind. And I definitely agree that the retail context is more complicated. Manjoo's take on how Best Buy might improve is interesting, but it's hard to say if that alone would save it.

- Joe Rominiecki

Comment on "Curation, retail style"

Mon, 07 May 2012 10:56:00 -0500

Interesting post! I have to agree with David on this one, though. (Although he might not agree with me on this followup point) - I think it's dangerous for an association to limit choice, because that's still a "top down" or centralized way of thinking about what we (the org) can do for you (the member). I think associations need to figure out instead how to customize choices for their members, where there is no longer such a thing as one size fits all - while still being mindful of resources, obviously.

I think Best Buy's problems are far more complex than this, related to how people now rely on reviews and online product information before they buy things like TV's and appliances - and if they are already online, already looking at a product, then why would they buy in store? Best Buy needs to rethink what the in-store shopping experience is all about before they go the way of Borders...

- Maddie Grant

Comment on "Curation, retail style"

Sun, 06 May 2012 23:45:39 -0500

Limiting choices is an economic decision. It benefits the assocaition, not the member or customer.

If you determine, through your curation, that you can deliver a beetter product or more robust services by limiting choices, that may be a good decision for the association, and it may be the result of good curation.

If the members or customers who want more choices can't get what they want from your association, they may go elsewhere, and you may be OK with that. You may feel that your association just can't be everything to everybody.

But the concept of limiting choices is not good for individuals. If a grocer no longer stocks your favorite foods, or a clothing store no longer sells the styles you prefer, or an association stops providing services that you value, how is that limitation of choices good for you?

- David M. Patt, CAE

Comment on "Curation, retail style"

Fri, 04 May 2012 16:27:31 -0500

Thanks Jeffrey. I hadn't read about The Shops at Target project yet, and it's a very interesting approach. What a great example. They even use the word "curated" in the tagline! If nothing else, I guess that's a signal of the traction the concept seems to be getting.

I agree with your point about the difference between curation and simply editing, and the Target project definitely goes a step beyond what Costco is doing. Costco's main selling point is buying in bulk, which effectively requires it to edit down its selection. It's already a big store; offering multiple choices of items that come in packs of 50 would be physically prohibitive. Overall, that simpler selection reinforces the ease of the Costco shopping experience, but you're right that there isn't much of a theme beyond "here is a selection of things that you can buy a lot of at once."

The value in curating around a theme is a great point, especially for associations, which often deal in fields with multiple subspecialties. Offering a "best of" collection of content or resources in a specialized topic definitely takes the value to a higher level.

- Joe Rominiecki

Comment on "Curation, retail style"

Thu, 03 May 2012 12:05:34 -0500

Not to get too deep into semantics, but I think there is a philosophical difference between editing and curating. As the marketing consultant quoted in your post said, "You don't have to choose from a variety. They've edited it down for you. You've paid them to do it."

That fits nicely with Barry Schwartz and his thinking about the paradox of choice (despite outliers like David who may not appreciate being given fewer choices). The retailer edits the options to what they consider to be an appropriate number of choices.

That type of editing (in my mind) is focusing heavily on the quantity of the choices. When I think of curating, I think sorting through a large quantity of options and selecting a limited number of choices that meet a certain quality/thematic standard. Curating seems more robust to me and reflects more than just a reduction in the number of choices. By editing down the choices, curators offer us more rpbust meaning/value, but in fewer choices.

Again, maybe I'm all wet on this, but the words hold different connotations in my mind. Target's new initiative (The Shops at Target) this month seems much more like curation than what Costco does: http://www.target.com/c/The-Shops-at-Target/-/N-56f52

- Jeffrey Cufaude

Comment on "Curation, retail style"

Wed, 02 May 2012 09:45:38 -0500

Thanks David. These are important points. Regarding the first, I think the answer is a matter of market research and quality control. If you're putting forth a selection that you deem to be "best," but your customers or members mostly disagree, then you're just not doing a very good job. Curation should involve constant evaluation and re-evaluation of all options, based on both objective criteria and market response. Selecting one product or source of information as best one day shouldn't guarantee it that position the next.

As for whether fewer choices or more choices is better, I think that varies from person to person and from situation to situation. There may be certain products or services for which more members prefer having access to all possible options and others for which more members want a trusted evaluator to winnow the selection down. For any given context, there will probably always be a split between the two preferences; the association's job would be to identify the areas where the demand leans heavily toward curation and serve that function there.

- Joe Rominiecki

Comment on "Curation, retail style"

Tue, 01 May 2012 16:05:33 -0500

But what if the curation yields an unacceptable result? What if the one TV offered by Best Buy is not the best and customers go somewhere else for a different brand?

If associations only offer one choice of service or product and potential members don't want it, they'll go somewhere else, too. (That may already be happening).

I'm insulted by grocers like Jewel Food Stores that claim to be saving me from having to make choices. I want more choices and I don't want to be forced to accept choices somebody else made for me.

- David M. Patt, CAE

Comment on "Curation, retail style"

Mon, 30 Apr 2012 17:08:23 -0500

Thanks Jay. I hadn't given much thought to product curation before seeing/reading these items, either. It shows how broadly applicable the concept can be, though. But it does make sense that it's applicable in a physical context, given that "curation" comes from the idea of a museum curator. I think the bottom line is that people want and need help making sense of the world, in any context. Associations have always done that, but they used to do it by finding and collecting information that was too hard to find. Now they can do it by collecting and organizing information that is too abundant. When people talk about associations doing curation, they talk mostly about information, particularly online, which I agree is the primary opportunity. But the lessons from these retail entities applying a curator's mindset to physical products could also apply in certain contexts for associations, such as tradeshows (would smaller be better than bigger?) or endorsed products.

- Joe Rominiecki

Comment on "Curation, retail style"

Mon, 30 Apr 2012 13:00:08 -0500

Interesting vantage point on the concept of curation. I can honestly say that I've never thought about this from a retail perspective. Nor have I given consideration to how product curation contributes to Costco's success and the lack of it is hurting Best Buy. In this challenge there is opportunity.

- Jay S. Daughtry

Comment on "Professional comfort"

Mon, 30 Apr 2012 10:56:53 -0500

Thanks Kellee. I like your idea of asking staff to "earn" their members every year. You're right that that would engender some very different behavior. I also like the "scorched earth" exercise you mention in your blog post. Those are tough questions to answer, but they're the type of questions that an association could go years without answering just by maintaining the status quo. The model doesn't naturally demand answers to those questions. So an association exec should make a conscious effort to agitate, to get staff a little uncomfortable, enough to shake them from their ingrained habits and routines.

- Joe Rominiecki

Comment on "Professional comfort"

Thu, 26 Apr 2012 16:29:19 -0500

Joe: thank you, this is very thought provoking (as was Dan's original article on 'Nonprofit Pathology'!) I incorporated a reference & link to it for my blog post today, "Scorched Earth: Can you Survive?" (http://www.monkeybarmanagement.com/scorched-earth-can-you-survive/). Obviously, there are exceptions to the rule, but I think you've identified correctly that the lack of a passionate and motivated workforce is a major generalized issue facing associations. If every person on the team felt that it was their personal responsibility to truly 'earn' our members every year, I suspect many of them would behave very differently. In general, are we creating jobs or careers? Are we creating passionate advocates, respected specialists, or cogs in an assembly line? I don't have all the answers, but thanks for asking the powerful questions.

- Kellee Magee O'Reilly

Comment on "Professional comfort"

Tue, 24 Apr 2012 15:23:05 -0500

Thanks Maggie. The other reputation associations might get is that of "special interest," which I'd classify as a bad reputation as compared to being lumped in with nonprofits, which to me is more like having no reputation. So I think I agree with you, because at least with the "special interest" reputation, people have a biasic understanding that associations engage in government advocacy. I often find that people who use the term "special interest" pejoratively aren't upset about our rights to organize and petition the government; they use it to label lobbying organizations that don't align with their own political opinions. So in that regard, I think it's easier to fight the bad reputation by reminding people that the work associations do helps the government make better decisions. But for people who have no impression of association management at all, it might be harder to paint a clearer picture for them. Bottom line, though, neither of these options bodes well for the prospects of developing a workforce that is attracted to the profession rather than simply there by chance.

- Joe Rominiecki

Comment on "Professional comfort"

Mon, 23 Apr 2012 17:01:10 -0500

Hm, good point...I'm going to go with "no reputation at all." Associations get lumped in with nonprofits, but for people who don't work in the association sector, the thing they think about when they hear "nonprofit" is "fundraising." They don't get the association thing.

- Maggie McGary