Re-inventing membership online and off

I'm going to spend some time this year on why we join-in activities, join-up with other people - and whether doing this online will drive big changes in civic institutions. If you've got hundreds of friends in Facebook, and plenty of other ways to learn, socialise and work online, what extra benefits do membership subscriptions bring you? There will of course continue be some benefits - but I suspect that  they will need to be rethought if organisations wish to retain online members.
I started thinking about this a while back, writing:

It used to be that you joined associations because it was a way of meeting like-minded people and getting help, facilities, information and other things difficult or costly to organise for yourself. These days it is much easier to find people and resources online, and to mix and match these assets into project teams, communities of practice, and informal networks.

Last year Matthew Taylor's ambitious vision to transform the 250-year-old RSA (membership 27,000) opened up a live test-bed for these issues: past posts archived here. At the core of Matthew's plan is an online platform, RSA Networks, that could help re-mix the best of traditional membership benefits with opportunities for RSA members, known as Fellows, to collaborate online.
Fellow Fellow (couldn't resist that) Simon Berry and I are using the platform to propose a wider exploration of the future of membership:

Membership organisations and associations are fundamental to civic life - but may be bypassed as online social networking grows. This project will invite organisations - and anyone interested - to join with RSA Networks to explore practical ways to meet the challenge.

You can register on the site to see more details and discussion, and see it here on the OpenRSA wiki.
We have been joined enthusiastically by our friends on the NCVO Third Sector Foresight team, Megan Griffith and Karl Wilding, and will get together with them and RSA staff in a couple of weeks. After that we'll organise an open meeting for anyone interested, and an open site. Meanwhile Megan offers their perspective on the 3s4 site, with reminders of previous investigations on their ICT Foresight report and recent seminar. Megan writes:

Here are some initial ideas we've thrown into the mix:
* Membership has been commodified – by which we mean that membership is increasingly viewed as a good or service that we buy and dispose of, rather than as a commitment. Have membership organisations been complicit in this, trying to buy members off with an increasing array of (useless?) discounts?
* 'Direct-debit citizenship' - the flip-side of this commodification is what has been described as 'direct-debit citizenship'; the idea that you can discharge your responsibilities as a citizen by paying £10 a month.
* The ease of online networking – aspects of membership that are based around mutualism, shared knowledge and friendship, have unsurprisingly migrated online.

Over on the RSA Networks site, Michael Ward has offered a simple yet compelling way to think about people's attitudes, which I used to categorise
a list of activities and services, started by Simon:

1. People who are members for what they can get out of it for themselves
* discounted/special products and services
* special events/places
* personal learning
* kudos from membership

2. People who share benefits equally with other members
* collaborative learning
* collaborative projects
* improved social/network capital (we not just me)

3. People who wish only to benefit others
* volunteering
* supporting campaigns

Under 1, we could put a lot of clubs and professional associations. I think Matthew Taylor hopes that RSA will develop under 2. Category 3 includes a lot of cause-related organisations.
As part our "re-inventing member" project I expect that we will be developing this classification further, and then looking where, and in what ways, operating online will make a difference.
If you are interested, do drop in a comment here or on the RSA site. However, don't expect a rapid response, because I'm on holiday in North Cornwall without a landline, where even a phone call involves driving to the top of the hill. Makes you appreciate the value of your neighbours.

Update:
Andy Gibson, who is one of the developers working on the RSA Networks project, has added his thoughts on reinventing membership, including a list of the possible reasons for paying to join an organisation

1. Access to resources: although information is infinitely replicable, access to physical resources is just as restricted as ever. Organisations offering access to physical space, or to events and services offered within physical space, this scarcity of availability can justify the membership fee. In other words, if only a few can get in, it’s often worth paying to be one of the few.
2. Personal prestige: if membership is awarded on some basis of exclusivity or personal merit, then becoming a member can act like a personal brand, a short-hand way of evidencing your quality. Rather like a qualification, but without all the hard work. As it becomes easier to meet new people, discriminating between them becomes more important - so this sort of membership may be a growth area in the future.
3. Formalising the relationships: you get what you pay for, they say, and so if you really need certain levels of interaction with people in your networks, sometimes it’s worth paying for someone to organise them. Organisations that can provide a solid programme of activities, opportunities, ideas and connections can charge for the work they do, and in many cases this can provide excellent value for money.
4. Pledge support for a cause: this for me is the most interesting one. As my friend Paul Youlten says of social networks, “what’s in it for me, and what of me is in it?” Increasingly we seem to be paying money to support the organisations which we’ve already joined. “Members” and “supporters”, at least for charitable societies like the RSA, are becoming more and more blurred. So perhaps membership organisations can increase their value by becoming more open?

Andy says he is considering an invitation from the RSA to become a Fellow.

Update 2
Our partners RSA and NCVO are providing some funding for us to develop an open process to design the project, and pitch for more investment. More soon on that. This is going to be a good one!

Technorati Tags: membership

Comments

[Megan Griffith]

Thanks for pulling this all together David. I'm really looking forward to taking this work forward with you.
Megan

[Paul Webster]

Oh David.... why do you always get me thinking when you raise difficult topics like this!!
You raise the very questions I am thinking about and that face organisations like mine (NAVCA) at the moment.
Do we feel threatened and even cheated out of memberships (money!) by Social Networking 'pseudo-membership' sites or do we re-invent traditional membership organisations to do new things for those who choose to align themselves with our stated values?
Will be interested to see how this develops and the discussions at the CR conference!

[David Wilcox]

Hi Paul - glad we have struck a chord! We'll open up a space somewhere after initial discussions with RSA, NCVO, Ruralnet ... which then raises the question of what's the best tool(s) to move this sort of discussion forward ... :-)
We certainly plan to discuss this at a workshop at the conference
Meanwhile you are welcome over on the RSA Networks site personally or bringing wider NAVCA interest. We plan to take an open, collaborative approach to this - of course!

[Paul Webster]

Have registered at RSA.
Also blogged to loosely tie together possibly similar themes from Laura, Paul Caplan and yourself at http://watfordgap.wordpress.com/2008/01/16/youve-got-to-be-in-it-to-win-it/
Lets see where this one flies to!

[Simon Cope]

Hi David, looking forward to seeing where this discussion leads, it's certainly something I think will be a major talking point over coming months. I'll maybe be posting some thoughts on the 3s4 site, but meanwhile here's some pithy responses from across the pond: internetartizans

[David Wilcox]

Thanks Simon - nice piece from Dan McQuillan, as you say ... though he is UK. I too was contacted by the journalist he mentions, who was researching the English Heritage Our Place site. I held off commenting at the time ... but will go and take another look.
I can see why organisations will want to create Our Places behind a login, but it does re-inforce the silos. One of the good things about the Net is the chance to cross sector/professional boundaries. I don't think we need more.

[Paul Webster]

Really want to have this discussion with you David (oh but the time pressures are so acute at the moment!).

My 'big question' though is...

"A small charity/support group/building preservation group etc. charges a joining/membership fee which gives members access to special news and information that non-members don't have and goes towards the upkeep of their building etc. Some members see the potential of Web 2.0 and set up an on-line community without a 'walled garden' approach and allow anyone to contribute to discussions but don't earn anything from membership fees. The original group loses membership renewals as those interested can get all the information they need from the 'open web' leaving little for those remaining to cover the original purposes of the charity. The original group struggles to continue with a dwindling membership to maintain the 'walled garden' and meet the original aims it was set up for.
They face a dilemma of either closing or having to diversify and look at other sources of income to generate the revenue lost through less in membership.

Thoughts?

[David Wilcox]

Hi Paul - interesting scenario and a great way to look into the realities (need more scenarios for the project!).
Top of the head response: Media of various sorts enables us to consume information, commune and communicate with others, create and collaborate. Social media and web 2.0 make consuming and communicating more open, so paid-for value disappears.
This should challenge the group to ask its members what they would really value ... more get-togethers, opportunities to do projects together ... then look at how to provide these services. They need to move up the spectrum. Where's the need/benefit?
What do others think?

[Paul Webster]

Thanks David.
I think I do know the answer, but the answer is a hard one. (Excuse my deliberate playing of the devil's advocate!)

Change confuses, Change hurts, Change is cold and scary!
They say "what is this spectrum". Why do WE need to change?
The membership organisation does need to look at its communication methods and its reasons for membership, but they are "traditional in outlook" and not yet at a point where everyone is on board.
(Could add they are on dial-up, in a rural village hall and ... and ... !!)
I say look at what the Government want to do - barcamp was innovative, forward thinking ... they say look at the CDs lost in the post and not knowing who we are talking to on-line.

I say - give me chance. The internet is a friendly place with lots of people trying to help.
I meet organisations like this every day! They know they should prioritise ICT, but the funder/stakeholder won't let them or the service to front line clients is more important.

It's a real toughie David!

[Bev Trayner]

Hi David, this question has added a new twist to my thoughts about designing for a sense of place in distributed communities.

There is a whole set of practices around designing your membership scheme - in the context of busy people with multimembership in many groups - to be explored.

You've got me on the track of thinking about the connection between membership, multimembership and managing your identity at the intersection of lots of memberships.