The Debate Over "Free" and VAP - Part Two

Posted by Bruce MacMillan on 7/6/2009 1:45:13 PM

Over the weekend I’ve been invited to offer further perspective on our decision to charge members and non-members for accessing WEC content on-line. And I’m happy to do so as part of our commitment to engaging and listening to our community of members in their Web 2.0 space:

(1) This decision is part of an overall initiative to make more and richer content available to members in order to Elevate the member value proposition. Specifically, we want to provide the MPI community and the meetings industry at-large with highly relevant and timely digital content, accessible 24/7 across geographies. Particularly as our industry goes through unprcedented shift. As part of this strategy, we recently offered new educational content (like our webinar series, which attracted thousands of members) for free and we continue to make research documents (EventView and FutureWatch) free as well with the support of partners and the MPI Foundation. The debate over the Virtual Access Pass to WEC cannot be isolated from the broader member-informed strategy for increased member value that management has been made responsible and accountable to execute.

(2) It has never been as important for as many people as possible to connect to the content, community and marketplace at WEC. We know the economy is making it difficult for all those that want to attend WEC in-person but cannot. But because of the shift that’s going on in our industry, we have invested significantly in making more educational content available live on-line than ever before. We’ve also invested in the content itself based on the most intense peer review process we’ve ever deployed.  Charging for on-line access is not a money grab. It is to help pay for the investment in the future of our members and our industry at a critical time.

(3) Pricing structures for on-line content currently have no hard and fast rules. Newspapers do it one way. Sport does it another. Entertainment another. These are consumer-fuelled enterprises, very much distinct from trade or professional communities in the breadth of their appeal and connections.  As has been pointed out, associations are just coming to grips with this. We recognize that associations are subject to this shift and so we are trying something new and do not claim to have the magic formula. We benchmarked other organizations and industries and consulted members and volunteer leaders alike to get guidance. I’ve seen a number of prices suggested and models offered and we will take a look at them and fold them in with our own experience and evolution of our pricing structure. There’s probably even a white paper or ONE+ article in formation as well so that our members, increasingly facing the same challenges, can learn from our experience.

And we will always be transparent. That is the true essence of web 2.0. Some good feedback has been provided quickly on our VAP. But we don't just use 2.0 since many of our members are still getting comfortable with it. We also hold town hall meetings. I visit 15-20 chapters per year as does our Chair. We co-create with members face-to-face through our committee and council structures, have blogs, use twitter, etc to gain additional information and pulse beyond the pure data that we receive from our members’ and chapters’ satisfaction survey research (almost 7,000 total submissions). I would encourage you to continue the conversation on web 2.0 platforms and beyond and you can be assured that we listen and assess all our members feedback and ideas against our strategies in order to deliver the most value for all.




View All Posts | Return to Personal Page

Comments (8)

Comments


Bruce, I fully agree with you and I think the current pricing is taking into account the various stakeholders as well as their level of engagement with MPI and the economic environment. WEC will be an interesting case study when it comes to defining a business model in which some of us are increasingly challenged to incorporate more “virtual attendees” because of reduced budget. As far as “free” is concerned, I wonder when Google will buy the New York Times for 1$ …
Posted by Eric Rozenberg on 7/6/2009 3:31:37 PM
I admit to being a lurker on recent blog posts and tweets about making content free and more specifically, about MPI’s not making its virtual access to WEC presentations free to members and non-members alike.
If MPI members wish to comment on any of MPI’s initiatives, including the VAP, then this is the appropriate forum in which to do that. You may not always like the answers you get but you will get an answer. At least that has been my experience. I have worked in the association world for more than 16 years, and belong to numerous associations (including MPI, ASAE, PCMA and IAEE) because I choose to. I attend national conferences and budget for them out of my own pocket. No one pays for me and I don’t ask them to. In those 16 years of managing associations, one fundamental principle has always been in the forefront: associations need to operate more like the businesses they are and proceed with thoughtful, strategic direction to better the organization for the members they serve. That’s all the members, not just the squeaky wheel ones.
Running MPI (or any other association) is where the “free to members and non-members alike” comes into play. Why free? Anyone who knows me also knows that both as an association exec and a nonprofit volunteer, there are two questions that are likely to come out of my mouth: (1) how much is it going to cost, and (2) how are you going to pay for it? Does anyone think producing an event like WEC is free? Yes, those of us attending WEC pay registration fees that offset costs but anyone who has ever produced an event such as WEC knows that in some instances, the cost of registration barely covers the expenses. That includes efforts to push virtual content out to members. Sponsorships can cover some of these costs but not necessarily all.
MPI, like any other 501(c)(3) organization, has certain constraints under which it operates. Its volunteer leadership and staff (particularly its CEO) have a fiduciary duty to manage the organization effectively. That means crunching the numbers, figuring out how to cover expenses on reduced revenues, and determining how, in a down economy, it can manage to keep the organization afloat, keep staff paid, and still roll out initiatives to keep its members engaged. MPI appears to be doing this.
So honestly, if the discussion is about whether content should be free, can it be discussed on a much higher plane and with full interaction as to legal and othe

Posted by MaryAnne Bobrow on 7/6/2009 6:18:30 PM
Bruce:

Thank you for posting a thorough response on the actions that MPI took regarding the Virtual Access Pass. I appreciate it and respect your position.

I still have many unanswered questions and will take a wait and see approach for these.

Posted by Jeff Hurt on 7/6/2009 11:42:13 PM
As usual, MaryAnne Bobrow took the words right out of my mouth, or I should say the thoughts right off the tips of my fingers.

I love "free" as much as anyone, but I also love the pricelessly unparalleled power of the live, in person, face to face experience. I don't want to do anything as a meetings industry professional to undermine that basis for our existence, nor do I want my professional association doing so.

What I most want from my professional association is for it to manage itself responsibly so it can continue to be my professional home, my community. From my view, that's exactly what MPI is doing. I appreciate the virtual opportunities offered.

Posted by Joyce Paschall on 7/7/2009 12:13:54 AM
I just signed up for the VAP OGS and am thrilled that I'll be able to get real-time connection listening to Ben Stein talk about isses on my industry. From his lips to my screen! Thanks MPI!
Posted by Janet Sperstad on 7/9/2009 7:17:25 AM
When talking about 'free' we also have to talk about 'value.' I just received another industry association's email about a 75-minute webinar on sponsorship pricing. It sounds like a good webinar but is it worth $169 to me as a member for a 75-minute webinar? How does this compare with VAP's pricing.

I suppose in the end, it all depends on what you value and what the market will bear.

Posted by MaryAnne Bobrow on 7/10/2009 10:49:37 AM
When talking about 'free' we also have to talk about 'value.' I just received another industry association's email about a 75-minute webinar on sponsorship pricing. It sounds like a good webinar but is it worth $169 to me as a member for a 75-minute webinar? How does this compare with VAP's pricing.

I suppose in the end, it all depends on what you value and what the market will bear.

Posted by MaryAnne Bobrow on 7/10/2009 12:44:23 PM
OK, weird that this posted twice in 2 hours. Sorry for the duplications.

One point I wish to bring out, I am very careful not to start comparing prices but only talking about "free" versus value. I don't want to enter into anything even remotely resembly antitrust violations.

Posted by MaryAnne Bobrow on 7/10/2009 12:46:24 PM


Leave Your Comment


Log in to post your comments