Comments on: No more checkbook members http://www.alwaysdoneitthatway.com/2006/02/19/no-more-checkbook-members/ 101 Things About Associations We Must Change Sat, 06 Mar 2010 19:01:32 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.9.1 hourly 1 By: Principled Innovation LLC » More on loyalty vs. passion http://www.alwaysdoneitthatway.com/2006/02/19/no-more-checkbook-members/#comment-1717 Principled Innovation LLC » More on loyalty vs. passion Sat, 24 Feb 2007 16:02:23 +0000 http://www.alwaysdoneitthatway.com/?p=34#comment-1717 [...] 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. [...] [...] 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. [...]

]]> By: Chris http://www.alwaysdoneitthatway.com/2006/02/19/no-more-checkbook-members/#comment-323 Chris Thu, 20 Jul 2006 21:12:34 +0000 http://www.alwaysdoneitthatway.com/?p=34#comment-323 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! 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!

]]> By: Kevin Holland http://www.alwaysdoneitthatway.com/2006/02/19/no-more-checkbook-members/#comment-14 Kevin Holland Wed, 22 Feb 2006 02:54:23 +0000 http://www.alwaysdoneitthatway.com/?p=34#comment-14 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. 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.

]]> By: David http://www.alwaysdoneitthatway.com/2006/02/19/no-more-checkbook-members/#comment-13 David Wed, 22 Feb 2006 00:43:52 +0000 http://www.alwaysdoneitthatway.com/?p=34#comment-13 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. 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.

]]>