No more checkbook members
Am I the only one who thinks the notion of the “checkbook member,” i.e., the member who writes a check once a year so he or she can receive a magazine or other materials, is an unmitigated travesty that should not be tolerated in the association community? (Boy, that felt good to get off my chest. I do offer a sincere apology, however, if you now have to be irritated just so that I can feel better! Such is the nature of this particular beast, I’m afraid…)
Frankly, I find the whole phenomenon of the checkbook member–not to mention the matter-of-fact way so many association professionals speak of it–to be a genuine embarrassment for organizations in our community. In a time when tens of thousands of software developers are volunteering to create open source applications and so many of our organizations are struggling to find qualified contributors to our work, I regard the idea that we should call someone a member simply because he pays dues every year to be anathema.
So, let’s do a little math. Let’s say my organization has 20,000 members, of which perhaps merely 10% are involved in association activities. To my way of thinking, I actually have a membership of 2,000 and a subscriber base of 18,000 people. Why should I include in a membership count people who demonstrate no interest in making a meaningful contribution to the organization’s success? To enhance my clout in public policy? To satisfy my board’s desire to see the raw membership numbers increase every year? To burnish my resume? Membership should not be defined by the act of making payment, no matter what form that payment might take. Associations are supposed to be about authentic relationships. A financial transaction is not a relationship, no matter how much we might like it to be. A relationship can form only between people who are interested in it seeing it form and who are willing to work hard to sustain and strengthen it over time.
From a business model perspective, the end of the checkbook member would be a real plus. If they could reclassify their checkbook members as subscribers, I bet many associations today would dramatically increase their revenues very quickly. Freed from having to underprice valuable offers in the name of “good member service,” associations could charge subscribers whatever the market would bear. In fact, I think getting rid of the checkbook member would actually be a very positive development for the soul of the association membership function. Once the difference between members and customers (or members and subscribers) is absolutely crystal clear, it will challenge all of us to figure out what we really value and exactly how much we value it. That can only be a good thing.
I understand that what I’m suggesting here flies directly in the face of the association orthodoxy. Good. We are long overdue to be vigorously questioning the highly questionable assumptions that still drive thinking in our organizations. (Hence, this blog.) I, for one, say, “No more checkbook members!” Who will join me in this heresy?
I think the problem is more a structural issue for associations than it is a motivation problem for check book members. The only path to meaningful participation (meaningful to the member) is usually through serving on a governance body or contributing content such as an article or presentation. That can only scale up to a small percentage of members before there are no more opportunties.
I think what needs to change is that associations must create the ability for more members to make meaningful contributions using participatory models such as those being developed on the Web today. Just firing checkbook members because there is no capacity for them to participate is treating a symptom rather than creating a cure.
Jeff, until you define what you mean by “involved in association activities,” your argument simply won’t hold much water. Is it, “involved in governance,” as David suggests? That would be silly. Is it “attends our annual meeting”? Hmm, perhaps if most association annual meetings weren’t completely separate P&Ls — but even then, doubtful. Is it “buys our products”? Oh, wait, you called those people “subscribers.” Is it “participates in committees”? Gawd, I hope not.
In other words, you’ve attempted to define “checkbook member” without defining what you think the other kind of member is, and I’d be curious to see how you would define it.
God bless the checkbook member! Their check clears the bank just as fast as the active member. They represent 80% of my dues income. And they are low maintenance (not that there’s anything wrong with active members … to paraphrase Jerry Seinfeld). Heck, I’m active in some groups and a checkbook member in other groups, and darn happy!
[...] On balance, I agree with Kelley’s perspective. For example, so-called “checkbook members” may be loyal, but they have no demonstrable passion for the association. Unfortunately, their loyalty doesn’t help us move the organization forward and, as Kelley argues, may undermine our efforts. Their connection to our organizations is purely transactional, and I have argued that we shouldn’t count this group as members at all, treating them instead as customers or subscribers. From my point of view, then, a streamlined association business model consisting exclusively of engaged or “engageable” member-contributors who are passionate about creating new value, combined with a robust customer/subscriber base, would serve the strategic and financial interests of our organizations quite well going forward. [...]