MPI and the WEC Virtual Pass - Much Ado about Nothing

[Steven G. Foster, CMP]

Following the blogs, Tweets and related www.com discussions regarding MPI's policy of charging for content from the upcoming World Education Congress in Salt Lake City this week, I have to ask - "what's all the worry about?

Before I jump right into the fray, let me state for the record, I am not a MPI employee and I don't play one on television. I am, however, a long-time dues-paying MPI member, and my first glance at the content-for-free discussions is this: I'm wondering how many of the bloggos ALSO are MPI members. I'm just asking.

OK, so MPI is charging for the on-line content from one of its marquee educational conferences. Apparently some think MPI should provide its WEC Virtual Pass at no cost. But here's the deal. All of this content is being generated through the sponsorship of the Host City - Salt Lake - and it's Host Committee, local MPI Chapter volunteers, WEC Sponsors, Exhibitors and Attendees. Each has made a decision to attend WEC in these tough economic times because they are invested in connecting face-to-face at the destination, on the tradeshow floor, via related networking events and in an on-site classroom environment.

Maybe this is just my Supplier Mentality getting in the way, but I don't see the problem. MPI can't give away WEC content (or the WEC experience, if you will) generated by its volunteer community who have already invested much time, talent in resources preparing to create the experience in Salt Lake City. Having co-chaired the the 2006 WEC in Dallas I can tell you there is enormous effort invested locally to produce a successful MPI Conference. If MPI turned around during the planning process and told our Host Committee "thanks for all your hard work, money and personal committment, but now we're going to give away the entire experience on-line for free," we'd have gotten a rope.

I understand. Not everyone can attend WEC. We're all doing the best we can in this financial reality. MPI's WEC Virtual Pass is an attempt on the part of the association to provide its educational content to ALL members while at the same time trying to honor the investment of its WEC community and marketplace. Perhaps MPI's mistake here is trying to be all things to all members - but I can forgive them on that account.

At least MPI is trying to engage ALL its members, and I think we should applaud that. What' I'm sure is not happening here is an atempt by MPI to create an environment of “fear of retaliation.

That's how I see it.

[Jeff Hurt]

Joan & Steven:

Great points and I do think it's about community. I agree that in a Web 2.0 world, the conversations are occuring outside of MPI's hallowed walls. I also don't think you can set-up outposts in social media sites like Facebook, LinkedIn, Twitter, ask people to connect with you there and then refuse to engage in conversation there. This is much bigger than being invited to serve on MPI or local chapter committees. You cannot be in the social space and refuse to engage in dialog or say it only happens through a specific process or channel.

This is much bigger than MPI and all associations are facing this issue.

[Joan Eisenstodt]

As part of the original and subsequent discussions, I am glad to see this continue.
Make note: This entire dicussion is and is NOT about MPI -- it is about web and live content and how we all view it. As a listserv moderator since '99 and active previously as well on the old MPINet, I know the difficulties in charging for previously uncharged for materials/access.
That said, and I think Sue Pelletier wrote about access to the TED conference -- I can access pretty much anything (except the f2f interaction) on the web -- at no cost to me. Other professions and organizations are offering web content w/o a charge.
There are no easy answers. The issues raised here and on Jeff Hurt's blog need to be explored further -- w/ in MPI and outside it -- in our profession/s and in those of our clients. We are still in the infancy of of 'all this.'
We also have to take into account the importance of community building and the economy. Maybe, as you wrote, Steven, MPI is not right for some but it is for many important professionally. In an economy when people have lost jobs, have no training budgets, and in many cases, are barely hanging on, even what some see as a charge for f2f or virtual participation may be too much.
We need to do this all better.

[Steven G. Foster, CMP]

Serenity: Thanks for weighing in here. As I stated in an earlier post to Jeff, I am probably one of MPI's best-known and most-vocal "critics." But here's the deal. You can spend your time railing against the machine or you can find a way to change what needs to be changed from the inside. I know far better than most the "not so pretty" history regarding those who have disagreed with past MPI leadership. I've been there.

But I'm still here, still active, still vocal. My experience tells me the current leadership is very interested and open to discussions, pro and con, regarding the operation of MPI. That being said, you don't have to look too far to find people who have an ax to grind on a variety of subjects - that's bound to happen in an organization of 24,000 members worldwide. 2+2 doesn't always = 4 if the mathmatician wants the odds set in his favor.

I would be less worried about not "being brave enough to start a constructive conversation" and more concerned about getting involved within the organzation and making change happen. It's easy to make excuses about no one responding to an email or to re-hash old conversations and concerns. I've been there.

What's more difficult, but ultimately so much more rewarding, is getting down to business and making the change you want a reality. I've been there too.

[Jeff Hurt]

Steven:

Thanks for the feedback. it is not my intent to discount any hard work by volunteers and if that is your take-away, I apologize sincerly. We agree that the face-to-face experience is rich and one of the most powerful things that exists. I don't think offering four online streamed sessions distracts from the hard work staff or member-volunteers at all. I actually think it enriches that hard work. (I've written two post about this and live streaming entertainment or sports events does not distract or discount the local experience or work.)

I think we both would agree that MPI's communication of VAP was too little too late. And I renewed my 2009 membership dues based on the fact that I would get access to free online education like that of meetdifferent.

One thing to remember, I worked at MPI so I totally get it. (I was there in 1998-1999). And, I've planned the education for conferences for events a lot larger than WEC or MeetDifferent for more than 20,000 people, so I know the hard work involved. I have more than 20 years experience working for associations and I completely respect other's points of view. As an association staff member, I respond to member requests within 24 hours, regardless where they post their comment, concern or opinion. It's a belief we have here at my work.

The ironic thing is I have repeatdly asked for a list of tangible benefits of my membership dues and everyone says, "We'll sit down and tell you. Or if you don't know that's a bigger problem." Tangible benefits, not intangible.

As for Jason Ware, I spoke directly to him at CLC2009, where ironically, I was a speaker for MPI. I will be at at Joan Eisenstod's workshop in July at DFW. She's right there encouraging me to speak up and speak out. If MPI thinks I'm burning a bridge, that's a different story. And I do know what happens to people when they speak out against MPI, I've seen and witnessed it for years.

[Steven G. Foster, CMP]

Jeff: I think you may have more issues than I can help with.

I certainly don't deny your "right" to question, comment, cheer or jeer about MPI - you pay dues, so knock yourself out. I would be more than happy to list the long list of tangible benefits I have received in the 20 years I've been active in MPI, but I'm guessing by your tone, you've already made your mind up on that account, so what's the point - more back-and-forth blogging?

Two thoughts:

1. Things Change. Just because MPI, or any other association for that matter, was able to offer a value-add earlier in the year doesn't automatically guarantee a return engagement. That's just the way it is. And as I stated in my post, I have actually co-chaired a WEC, so I am intimately aware of what is and isn't paid for, and I know the technology exists to stream on-line content free. So does my 8-year-old. But you miss the bigger point, which is the enormous effort of time, talent and resouces already invested by the Host City, Host Committee, local MPI Chapter volunteers, WEC Sponsors and Exhibitors to create the on-site experience. MPI has to honor and value those committments first and foremost.

2. MPI isn't for everyone, and it may not be for you. However, I know the President of the MPI D/FW Chapter, Jason Ware, is very membered focused, and, if I may speak on his behalf, I would invite you to attend the July 23 chapter meeting - it's our annual Committee Roundup, and you will have the opportunity to visit committee tables and learn about the various volunteering and committee opportunities the chapter offers. There's also a great program entitled "Focused Leadership in an Uncertain World" facilitated by Joan Eisenstodt. If you truly are interested in participating within our great chapter, this is the place to start.

Here's what ironic, although you probably can't fully appreciate it. I have spent a good part of my MPI leadership career as one of the association's best-known and most-vocal "critics." I get it and I support FULLY your voice and vote as a member of MPI. The trick is not burning a bridge you may need to cross back over somewhere down the road.

I wish you the best.

[Serenity J. Knutson]

Steven, thank you very much for contributing to this discussion. I appreciate your taking the time to share your viewpoint, and it has been fascinating to read the many, many different perspectives on this subject. Opinions on the base topic - charging for online content - have ranged all over the board, and the number of spin-off discussions that have been inspired is truly a force to be reckoned with. Thank you for adding another level to the conversation.

As you already know, however, my bone to pick is buried in a sub-level of the discussion. Therefore, I would like to comment on one of your last lines above: "What I'm sure is not happening here is an attempt by MPI to create an environment of 'fear of retaliation.'"

I'll agree in that I do not see the association attempting to create such an environment; my concern is that this environment might seem to already exist. When one listens and observes for a living, after a while, 2 + 2 = an issue that should not be ignored.

One of the very first responses to Jeff's initial blog post on this topic read, in part: "Most of us think the above but are not brave enough to start a constructive conversation." Further down in the thread, you will find the following: "I completely laud you for your courage in voicing an opinion here."

Yet further down, you will find a comment from Sue Pelletier, a fellow industry media representative who, I feel certain, has been privy to many of the same types of conversations and concerns that ruffle my feathers: "It’s funny how often frustration with MPI keeps coming up in e-mail chats, phone conversations, and now (finally!) in public here."

Scroll a bit further, and you will find a note from a current member who does not disclose his/her name alongside his/her comment. Now, why might that be?

I won't name names of those who have reached out to me in confidence, but I do wish to share the wording of a recent, private comment that I, personally, find to be troubling: "There is a history of those who speak up within MPI. It's not so pretty."

I completely recognize and understand that there is a very large contingent of members who love the association and who will champion to the death to protect it - and good for them. They are the members who are satisfied with what their association is doing for them. They are the members who are getting value for their money.

But please, let's not overlook those who speak in whispers for fear of repercussions. Let's not pretend it does not happen just because it has not yet drawn much public attention. I only ask one question: why does it happen?

I bring this up because it troubles me to hear otherwise vocal, influential industry professionals make reference to consequences for speaking their minds. Am I making something out of nothing? By all means, everyone is entitled to his or her own opinion... and I would love to hear it.

[Jeff Hurt]

Steven:

I'm the one that started this public discussion and I am a member. I have a right to a voice and a vote as a MPI member.

What's all the fuss?

Number 1 MPI changed it's mind and waited 10 days to tell me of a charge. Isn't that like a lie? They set a precedent by giving online content to me free in January and then surprise, our attendance is down, we're not going to meet budget so we are going to charge any of you that wants to watch online a fee. Wow, that's membership value for you.

Number 2, I'm questioning the value of $375 membership. What do I really get for that money? Can you tell me the tangible benefits you receive?

Number 3, online video streaming can be done for free. Ustream.tv is one example. So don't charge me for something that I know is now free.

Number 4, MPI does not pay speakers a fee. Speakers speak for free and marquee name speakers are ususally sponsored by the speaker's bureau that exclusiely represents them. Industry speakers get one or two free hotel nights and that's it. So what cost does MPI have for the content again?

Seriously, Steven, if MPI wants to continue to get my membership dues, they will have to provide more value than what they provide now.

Incase you want to accuse me of not working within the system. I have volunteered now for the past two years to serve on a committee at the local DFW chapter and no one responds. I've sent emails, spoke to people face-to-face and where has that got me? No where! And I've tried to talk to the powers that be and they do not respond. They do know how to get in touch with me because they called me this spring to speak to the CLC09 about social media strategy for events. Odd, right.

BTW, MPI is not conversing with it's members about this issue. They are taking a corporate top-down typical approach of saying they're listening. And at my last count, there have been eight bloggers, more than 50 online meetings and event industry influencers, more than 100 blog comments, more than 362 tweets and more than 800 unique global viewers engaged about MPI’s WEC09 virtual access pass debacle. That tells me that people are passionate about this.

I am supposed to have a voice and a vote but I'm really not getting either with MPI! (My vote doesn't count with I either get to approve or disapprove one slate of individuals for the Board. Could you imagine if the US political system worked like that?)