I was at a professional association conference recently and the topic of survival came up. Not the matches and foraging for food type, but the ‘what’s our future’ type. The attendees were asking if their association was going to make it. The economy was keeping folks away (they assumed) and their membership has been slowly shrinking for the past decade.

The following week, I was at another professional association event and the same question came up.

Was there something in the water bottles they were serving? Or is it perhaps something in the cosmic zeitgeist? It got me thinking…

Are professional associations dead and they just don’t know it yet?

Membership in most professional associations represents only 15-20% of total professional membership. And after years of behavioral research, there’s still no consensus on why folks join (or don’t join) professional associations.

We do know that most folks prefer to join groups that are narrowly defined around their interests, as opposed to more generally. That would dictate there’s a ceiling on growth for member-based organizations. History has shown us that sociopolitical changes (shifts in cultural values or public policy) have led to the downfall of some associations.

Most importantly, the association business model primarily rests on a precarious three-legged stool of member dues, conference attendance, and sponsorship/advertising, all of which are extremely susceptible to swings in the economy. A deficit in one revenue category negatively impacts the others in a downward spiral.

So where do we see growth in groups, independent of the economy?

Social networks, like Facebook, Twitter, LinkedIn and the like.

And what’s accounting for their astronomical growth? Here are some of the primary drivers:

Free. There are literally no barriers to entry for social networks and there seems to be no end to growth in sight. You don’t need an advanced degree or other credentials to participate. In fact, it’s the openness of these networks that have mainly contributed to their rapid rise. In the absence of a traditional dues model, some social network group owners are actively working on monetizing their membership. The rest will quickly follow their example. 

Narrowcasting. You can join any number of niche social network groups or the biggies if you prefer. Most individuals belong to a combination of both but I’d argue that the more focused the group, the greater the value it potentially provides to its members. The big tent days of the ‘one size fits all’ professional associations are over. Under normal economic circumstances, there is tremendous churn in both membership and attendance at national meetings, primarily because so little changes year over year. If members don’t receive immediate value and perceive ongoing value, they’re gone. There’s simply too much competition for people’s time and attention these days. These more nimble, responsive social niche groups, combined with the ability to tap into the collective intelligence of multiple niche groups, will trump joining the circus.

Connecting, not joining. Social media is a generational phenomenon. It’s mostly younger people who are engaged in it and that will continue until something comes along to replace it as a form of communication. Associations are also a generational phenomenon. They evolved at a time when opportunities for professional networking and continuing education were limited and they filled a genuine void. But today’s generations are not so interested in joining, which connotes a longer-term commitment with obligations, both financial and otherwise. They are, however, insatiable when it comes to connecting, which is more spontaneous, circumstantial, and yes, fun. You never know who you’ll meet. Also, connecting doesn’t carry the same baggage as joining. There’s less commitment (unless you want to) and you’re free to pursue your own self-interest (learning) wherever it leads you, not that prescribed to you by your official association. Connecting is required. Joining is optional.

Today’s associations are clearly trying to leverage social media to their advantage but I can’t say if anyone out there is doing it successfully. For most, it seems like more of a defensive move designed to show they’re hip and can appeal to a younger generation. I don’t think the intended audience is buying this as authentic. The associations themselves seem ambivalent about embracing social media. Few have social media strategies tied to their business goals and objectives. Few have dedicated financial or human resources to building their online presence. Both the association meetings I referred to above talk a lot about social media, but it was noticeably absent in their pre-meeting communications and at these actual live events. Not a tweet was heard. They’re simply not walking the walk.

Can professional associations wean themselves off life support? I don’t know. But I do know that they will not survive unless they innovate, and soon. And I’m not talking about innovation with a small ‘i’. What’s called for is more revolutionary, to mirror the times we’re living in, than evolutionary. Bold moves by bolder leaders willing to take the boldest of risks. This is an industry which isn’t exactly known as innovative. And we’re talking about creating a new world order from an old world model. That just doesn’t happen very often.

The stakes couldn’t be any higher.

This is not a time to play it safe and wait for the economy to rebound. You think the folks who run these social networks are waiting for anything? Do you think they care about whether associations survive or not?

Whenever people talk change, there are always those who argue for measured, thoughtful, tactical adjustments. “It’s a marathon”, they say. But I look around and see quite a different scenario.

I see a social media tsunami which is forever changing the landscape of how we define ourselves, organize around common interests, and choose to connect.

This is a question of survival. This is about change or die. Association executives are in the race of their lives - a race for relevancy - and it’s a sprint.