The Blogoclump

Read & discuss at Matt Baehr's blog.

In my previous posting I mentioned that Mission to Learn turned one on May 15. As chance would have it, I spoke on a Web 2.0 panel that morning at the annual meeting of Medbiquitous, the organization that was the subject of my very first posting here on Mission to Learn. My topic for the […]

Read & discuss at jtcobb's blog.

Busy getting ready to head to the ASAE Membership and Marketing conference tomorrow, but was reading a few recent things in my RSS feed and came across a really nice post on NTEN I couldn’t resist linking to.

If you don’t know about NTEN (The Nonprofit Technology Network), they are the membership association for technology professionals in the non-profit sector. Here’s more on them. Anyway, as you can imagine, they have a pretty great blog. I encourage you to subscribe!

The post I am referring to is all about how you might build all the flashy social tools in the world, but what if your members don’t want to use them?

Holly writes,

“…You may build it, they may not come.

Of course, this is not to say that I don’t think you should be experimenting with social media. I think you should be trying as much as possible. What I am saying is that your audience may not be ready to have the conversation that social media enables. That’s because social media does not just enable conversations. It enables PUBLIC conversations.

• If you blog, do you remember your first blog post? Did you feel awkward and silly for publishing your two cents where anyone could read it. Did it make you feel like a bit of an egomaniac?
• Have you posted a photo online and wondered what your boss, colleague, or significant other would think if they ran across it online?”

That is so perfect. Sharing is actually pretty scary until you get used to it!

Read the rest, but she ends her post with some tips:

• “Demonstrate that it’s ok. Find a few community members (not staff!) and ask them to participate in your conversation, and encourage others to do the same.
• Use social media like a normal human. You will be more successful at having a conversation if you don’t participate as “THE ORGANIZATION.” Empower your staff to participate as individuals, sharing the right mix of organization party line (Check out our new program!), as well as personal news (I got a new puppy!).
• Keep at it. Building a true, interactive community takes a lot of time, and it happens slowly. Keep plugging away at it, and be consistent in your attempts and it will start to pay off.”

These are absolutely things I advocate and try to do myself. I would also add, be open and honest at all times. Of course it’s probably obvious to you that I am not afraid to argue, or stir the pot, or be scared, or not get it, or be overly enthusiastic then have to reign it in, or be wrong - but it’s taken a while for me to build up my confidence. I hope some of that can rub off on those who engage with me. ; )

Anyhoo… I will be in Charm City tomorrow and Friday, hopefully doing some live blogging, or taking video for PITV, or getting together with some YAPstars. If you are there and want to hang with us, follow me or Lindy on Twitter (@maddiegrant or @lindydreyer) and we’ll keep you updated as to where we are. If you’re not there, I’ll see you on the other side.

Read & discuss at Maddie Grant's blog.

Why do so many people shop at Whole Foods when they can get less expensive groceries at other stores? There are no discounts at Whole Foods, no preferred cards, and no deals.

They value what is offered.

Associations that offer value don?t have to discount their memberships, programs, or products. People will want what is offered and be willing to pay for it.

Does your association offer value?

Read & discuss at AEM's blog.

If you’re a professional development / learning professional, go see Elliott Masie’s LearningTown community. The latest blog post asked for recommended books to read and has collected over a hundred so far! There are numerous communities within the community that you can belong to. So far, I’m only marginally participating, but it’s a great experiment. I believe it’s using the CollectiveX community platform. Check it out.

Read & discuss at Mickie Rops's blog.

   This person made my day.
After kvetching on my blog about feeling sort of used as a volunteer yesterday, I discovered this delightful message about a leadership conference I spoke at last week in my email box…
Just a quick note to say Thanks. You did a great job.
I had never attended a leadership conference and […]

Read & discuss at Cynthia D'Amour's blog.

I was shopping online a few days ago for a nice fountain pen. When you want a fountain pen, you start with Mont Blanc. However, Mont Blanc publishes no prices online and they do not allow their retailers to do so either. The result? Many pages across the web featuring very nice Mont Blanc pens, […]

Read & discuss at david@highcontext.com (C. David Gammel)'s blog.

Dean Abbott posted this great comment to my recent post about Data Mining.

“Thanks for your provocative post (at least it is provocative to a data miner!) Data mining, applied well, though, doesn’t take the place of the experts.

When you write that those that rely on hard data and analytics say to you “we’re afraid of trusting our instincts”, I would say that one validates instincts with analytics. My usual experience in building predictive models is that much of what the model finds makes perfect sense, but there are usually additional insights that even the best experts either didn’t know, or didn’t (or couldn’t) express.

As a light-hearted example, which is true? “Birds of a feather flock together” or “opposites attract”? Well, both are, at least to some degree. Experts build intuition, but their intuition isn’t always general. So yes, we should be afraid of failing (because few of us have broad enough experience to be definitive in our assessment of customers). Is it not better to augment what we know from experience with what we can learn from the data?”

Thank you Dean, for picking up on this - I was hoping someone would! - and even more, for expanding upon it in your blog.

I want to ask you something. I agree that we can see value in data retrospectively - in other words, like you said in your post, when the data confirms what you think you know. But I have to wonder, is it really naive to think that I can manipulate any data to say what I want it to say? I mean, we see the mainstream media and politicians do it all the time. (Granted this may be a very typically Gen-x way of seeing the world, where we distrust “the Man” and any corporate or mainstream messaging, especially advertising messaging.).

But we (association execs) are often told that we need to know how to ask the right questions in order to not skew the results, and for this we need a “proper” surveying company to conduct membership surveys for us. Do you think that’s true?

I know not all data is survey data, but I am operating from the point of view of a very small association where we’ve only just begun to collect demographic and engagement data as part of our normal operations. So we do need to supplement that with surveys, and we have just completed a full comprehensive membership survey as part of our strategic planning process.

This also brings to mind an old debate on the Acronym blog about whether we are here to lead or to serve our members. Scott ended his post by saying:

“You know one of the seven measures (similar to one of the ways Collins says “great” companies distinguish themselves from “good” ones) is to be data driven. I love the principle but I hate how it’s described in 7 Measures and what it means to most people. Don’t use data to figure out what members want or how to serve them; use it as part of the discussion about what they need and how the organization can lead the profession/industry/interest forward.”

Kevin Holland also continued the discussion on his blog:

“Here’s the thing: You should know what your members want and need to know about more than they do themselves, because unlike them, you should have a treasure trove of data about the online behaviors of large numbers of people just like them. You should know what articles get read, what links get clicked, what files get downloaded. And you should also know what articles don’t get read, what links don’t get clicked, what files don’t get downloaded.

Most people think of “data-driven” decisions as those based on surveys or asking people “what do you want?” I’ve always preferred to rely on real data about real behavior. With e-newsletters and dynamic websites, we have more of this data than we ever dreamed possible — and many associations don’t even bother to use it! With a few years worth of this information under your belt, being able to tell what your members want becomes second nature. Until you know and truly understand what it is that your members want, it is simply impossible for you to push through the other side and begin deciding what they need without introducing biases based on your own passions and experiences (or the passions and experiences of a limited number of members).

But, if you understand what your members want, you can give them what they need, in a way that they want to get it.“

So - are we gathering data to confirm patterns of behavior (for example) that we already know about? Or are we collecting data to find gaps in information - or experience - or whatever future “need” that we could fill ? And yes, I suppose the answer is “both”, but that’s not very helpful. Because the real sticky point for me, is that is seems you can make the data say whatever you want. For example - at the meeting I went to, there seemed to be a case for predictive modeling software to be used in order to allocate marketing dollars to certain segments. Like “let’s focus on marketing our annual conference to those most likely to attend”. Which makes sense, on one level. But what if you used that same data to say, “Let’s focus our marketing efforts on those who need more convincing!” and specifically targeted those least likely to attend, then drew them in, and managed to get some newly evangelistic members because they had such an unexpectedly amazing time?

I guess what I am trying to say is that if you think data can be manipulated, and/or if you think data can show patterns of behavior, and/or if you think data can show gaps in behavior, isn’t that all just a lot of hard work and money involved, where the end result is that you end up doing whatever you believe is the strategic thing to do regardless?

I know this post in going in circles but that is kinda my point. : ) What do you think?

Read & discuss at Maddie Grant's blog.

I’ve been writing an AE e-newsletter for a long time that among other things includes info about who’s coming and going. One way I can tell who’s left my own industry is by reading the association executives job postings every week. Clearly if their job is posted, they’re gone (although I am aware of one situation where someone found out she was terminated when saw her job advertised.) And sometimes it even seems clear why they left by the language in the job posting (e.g., if certain features in caps when others aren’t like “HIGH MORAL STANDARDS”, or if odd sentences appear like “must get along with other staff and support leadership”, or even a clear notation like “he now works for (name) association” or “after a retirement”.)

Thoughts on what may or may not appeal to AE job applicants:

1. If someone leaves voluntarily, especially for retirement, I think good to include that. Makes it appear it’s a place someone wanted to stay;
2. Wouldn’t there be more applicants for a position when the salary range is actually noted? If salary is a detail that would be a part of a consideration anyway, why not just include it?
3. What’s the deal with the “include salary requirements” - does that mean there is no established salary range, or that it’s effort to see if they can get a reduction in a salary from what paid last person, or that want to establish which candidates might be “overpriced” to eliminate from consideration? I just don’t see how the applicant sending in “requirements” is good news for the applicant (… is that the point?)
4. It’s really clear when a posting is from a “way of life” location because they note positive things about the area too, not just facts from the position description. I’d think if a position is being posted on a site where there’s a national audience, that it should try to sell the location too?
5. When resumes requested to be sent to a generic email at the association office does it sort of scream to applicants “there’s no chance this is confidential”?

What do you find in postings that’s notable?

Read & discuss at CindyAE's blog.

Read & discuss at Tony Rossell's blog.