Is Your Association "Too Bureaucratic and Less Relevant in the Internet Age"?

A few days ago there was a front page article in the Washington Post about Fairfax County schools dropping out of the PTA. I happened to skim it and realized that it was really relevant to associations on the whole. The article is focused on the PTA, obviously, but the story really reads as a wake-up call for associations, even those with "golden handcuffs."

Facts the article details about the PTA:

• The national PTA has lost a million members in the past decade


• A past president of an independently-formed new Parent-Teacher-Student Organization stated that "the national group is too bureaucratic and less relevant in the Internet age, when parents have access to education-related news...and can get involved politically in other ways."


• The national PTA's mission "Every child/one voice" is at odds with what today's parents want--to focus on their individual school's needs


• Parents are finding new ways to get school-related information and organize online

The article detailed some ways the PTA is struggling to regain its footing--using social networking sites to connect with younger parents, reaching out to dads and immigrant parents instead of the stay-home moms who used to be the mainstay of PTAs. But if parents can connect online and in person for free and focus on their individual school's needs without paying dues, what is the motivation for them to remain connected to the national association?

Now insert your association here and ask yourself--could the same thing happen to us?

Definitely food for thought...

Best Buy Asks The Wrong Question On Facebook

Best Buy recently posted a benign enough question on its Facebook page: “What do you think about offering Bestbuy.com in Spanish?” Apparently it set off a firestorm of negative and even racist comments.

Some of the commenters on the post I linked to above wonder why Best Buy would be asking that question in the first place, especially directed to that specific audience--e.g. probably a predominantly English-speaking audience.

Here's the thing: who would have thought that an innocent-seeming question would provoke such a negative reaction? I certainly wouldn't have. I imagine the person who posted it is probably in the same boat a lot of community managers are in--e.g. tasked with coming up with engaging content on a daily basis without much--if any--input from upper management.

This is a perfect example of why social media/community managers need to be at the table with stakeholders within the company--execs in marketing, communications, operations, etc. Not that it would have prevented the situation--which, by the way, as far as "situations" go--is an enviable one--we should all be so lucky as to get hundreds of responses to any question. But I'm telling you--it's hard to come up with audience-appropriate, engaging comments on a daily basis in a vacuum.

Also, who says success is defined by only positive comments and accolades? Maybe success is defined as stirring the pot, attracting negative comments and inspiring blog posts and media coverage.


**Update**

Rather than re-write the whole post I'm adding this as an update even though I haven't published the post yet because I don't quite know what to make of it. After I wrote the first part of this post I clicked through to a post about Tracy Benson's (senior director, interactive marketing and emerging media for Best Buy) commentary about this incident. What did Best Buy do with this negative comment stream? Well, take it down of course! The social media purist in me is cringing and screaming "Wrong! Wrong! Wrong!" Who ever said that online community is only valuable if all the comments read like a commercial for your brand and how awesome it is?

What do you think--should they have left the negative comment frenzy up or did they do the right thing deleting it? Thoughts?

Have I Sold Out?

Yesterday Maddie Grant tagged me in a timely meme: The Gen X-er Meme--Have we sold out? Timely because I had just received a total spanking from the awesomely snarky blog, Ask And Ye Shall Receive. Actually, spanking is too kind a word; double penetration with a large blunt object is a more accurate description. But I digress...basically that review highlighted what I already know: I have sold out as a blogger.

I used to blog out of sheer passion for writing--I wrote about what I wanted and used whatever language I wanted. I didn't care who read it--even when that audience included my mother who would often call to lecture me that I shouldn't be revealing so much of my "personal business" to the world.

Then I started paying attention to the rules of blogging--the ones that say if you want to attract more readers you should stick to one topic. So I started a new blog--this one. I wrote about social media. I stopped using the "F" word--well, mostly. And I'm still writing about social media, along with about half the people on this planet who are doing the same.

In a way, this blog has turned into a job, and has also resulted in professional success. I've gotten speaking engagements, invitations to write for other publications and yes, even job offers--all as a result of this blog. At what cost, though? Well, read what Madame Belllicose wrote about me. Not that she's even remotely close when it comes to me as a person: if there's one thing I'm not it's bored with life or, in my personal opinion, boring. But she is 100% right about my blogging; I am boring now because I see blogging as a resume-booster and not the creative outlet it used to be for me.

Aside from blogging, though, have I sold out? Well, if you go by looks alone--probably. Me, my house and my family would have no trouble at all fitting right in on Wisteria Lane. Definitely not the look I was rocking back in high school and college. But if you go by career success, that would be a definite no. First of all, at the age of 41, the longest I've ever stayed in a job is 3 years. Second of all, the term "selling out" implies that you are actually in a position of some stature, presumably making big money. Neither is true for me--I am nowhere near the top rung of anything approximating a career ladder. Do I care? Sometimes. Money-wise, I certainly care, as braces and college tuition loom in my not-too-distant future. Career-wise do I care? Does it bother me that others my age and station in life are much further ahead of me in their careers? I'm honestly not sure.

Am I still the same person I was 20 (ok 25) years ago, when my hair was a different color every month and I was a creative writing major with a pretty awesome portfolio of poetry and short stories? I like to think so.

Ok--tagging the next victims.

1) Penelope Trunk. If you read this blog you know I'm obsessed with Penelope Trunk and I can't see how anyone who blogs about stuff like miscarriage, abortion and pubic grooming in the context of career advice would consider herself a sell out--but maybe she'll surprise us with a post.

2) Um, aside from the people Maddie and others have already tagged, I can't think of any other Gen-Xer who blogs and used to be edgy. If I think of more I will come add them to the list.

Stranded Evangelists Shouldn't Stay Stranded

I am breathing a sigh of relief today because Harvard Business has a name for what I am--"Stranded Evangelist." Sounds so much nicer than "Bitter," which is how I sometimes feel.

Jamie Notter blogged about this post and added his own tip to the 5 offered in the Harvard blog. I also propose adding another, or maybe it's just an elaboration on point #4: Get Un-stranded. While you may be the only one in your organization who "gets" social media or who is getting paid to be mired in it, there are--for better or for worse--others in your same shoes. Connect with those people. As in, directly--not just by commenting on their blog posts or re-tweeting their stuff. It makes all the difference in the world to have a group of like-minded people who you can both commiserate with and gain strength and knowledge from.

I recently did this--I bit the bullet and joined The Community Roundtable. Rachel Happe--one of the leaders--just wrote an awesome post that connects the whole Stranded Evangelist thing and the notion of "free"--a great read for both association people and community/social media managers.

Are You Hurting Your Career Prospects By Ignoring Social Media?

Penelope Trunk recently did an online discussion on Washingtonpost.com about online social networking. True, I am obsessed with her so I am biased, but I thought this piece of advice was particularly relevant and important:

Washington, D.C.: I am an ex-government employee, and very concerned about protecting my privacy. Should I be weary of joining Facebook, or Twitter?

-Shy person

Penelope Trunk: Get over your privacy. It's a new world. You are competing against people who are managing their personal brand online as a career management tool. You can't compete with those people if you are concerned about your privacy. ...

(bold mine)

I think this is really important advice and something people who are scared to set up profiles on social networks need to consider. What are you afraid of? What do you have to hide? I work with people all the time who are reluctant to use Twitter or Facebook because they don't want to use their real name or take a chance on "having their head photoshopped onto someone else's body" (my favorite fear quote ever) by posting a photo on an online profile.

Here's the thing: what they need to be more worried about is losing their jobs to people who know how to use these tools for what they are: essential elements of business today and in the future. Maybe not for everyone, but in certain fields I absolutely believe you are crippling your future career prospects and endangering your current job by keeping your head stuck in the sand and refusing to embrace online social networking. Are you in marketing or PR or advertising and think you can just sit this whole social media idiocy craze out? You seriously should think twice about it.

Seth Godin Is Totally Right About Nonprofits and Social Media

Ok, well maybe not totally right, but certainly not as wrong as the droves of bloggers who are taking issue with his post are expressing.

Seth says:

1. "Non-profits, in my experience, abhor change." I've worked in and/or with associations for almost 20 years now and it's been my experience that they do abhor change. Isn't the unofficial association credo "Because we've always done it this way"?


2. "It's easy to buy more stamps and do more direct mail, scary to use a new technique." It's not their fault, but many associations' budgets and staffs are very limited. When resources and time are tight, there is often both no room for error and no budget/time for ongoing professional development. The thought of doing something new and having to explain to the board why it didn't work IS scary. And finding time to stay current on new techniques when it's all you can do to do the work in front of you on a daily basis just isn't realistic for many nonprofit employees. Not an excuse, just a reality.


3. "The only reason not to turn this over to hordes of crowds eager to help you is that it means giving up total control and bureaucracy." For better or for worse, associations are built on the notions of control and bureaucracy. In associations, nothing is "turned over to hoards of crowds eager to help"; you have to wait months to put the idea of creating a new committee on the board's agenda, then they have to discuss it, then they have to vote on it, then a needs assessment has to be done about whether or not this committee is necessary, then the results have to be reported back to the board, then it's voted on again, then you have to put out a call for nominations for the new committee, then they need to meet...and so on. Is it the right way to do things? Of course not, but it's an unfortunate reality of associations.

Am I defending associations? No--I agree with Seth--I think that there are way, way too many associations staffed by people who couldn't care less about mission or members who are just happy to be sitting in the same chair they've sat in for 10, 20 30 or more years, not being held accountable for anything. And for each one of those people, there are probably two more who care deeply about the issues and people their association represents and would love to shake things up, be innovative, and be agents of positive change. And those are the people who ultimately get frustrated and move on when they realize that trying to change the world from inside one of these organizations is often an exercise in futility.

How Much Do YOU Make As A Social Media Professional?

I seem to be getting an increasing amount of traffic through people searching for information about social media salaries. Not at all surprising because there is precious little information out there about social media salaries. As I've blogged before, social media jobs in general are an enigma...titles are all over the place, from VP Digital Strategy to Intern to Community Manager. Now David Meerman Scott created a new one: Social Media Administrator. And my association friend Elizabeth Weaver Engel just came up with a great one: Chief Community Officer.

About the only definitive thing I've found recently regarding social media salaries is Forum One Networks' Online Community Compensation survey from 2008. You have to purchase the report to view it but can get a complimentary summary; basically the summary says that the average annual survey for participants was $81k. They just completed the 2009 version, which should be available within the next few months.

Granted, there is (or maybe not?) some difference between online community manager and social media what-have-you, so perhaps this data doesn't 100% correlate with the average "social media doer", as Jim Durbin calls it. To me, this is the main problem with social media jobs: there is no consistency with position titles, so how can there be any consistency with regard to salaries? There may be very little difference between what a VP, digital strategy and social media coordinator do, but you can bet the salaries are probably vastly different. I know--you're reading that sentence thinking "duh--of course it's a different job"--but actually, don't assume so quickly that it is.

Think that a social media "doer" is just leaving comments on Facebook or tweeting? Maybe in some cases; but in others they are doing a lot of the same things--if not the exact same things--as the people in the higher-level jobs. People assume that the lower the title, the less strategy the person is involved in, but that's not necessarily true at all. This is my exact point: title and what the position encompasses may well be two entirely different things with social media jobs.

As if it weren't already confusing enough--this whole mess with the titles and compensation--doing social media for an association adds a whole new level of ambiguity. The position is so new that ASAE has no benchmarks for it yet, thereby leaving the whole thing to the discretion of each individual association to decide which position they think most closely correlates with social media whatever they're choosing to call it. PR manager? Communications director? Marketing assistant? In my case, it was benchmarked against web content coordinator and PR representative. It remains to be seen what associations end up doing on the whole when it comes to staffing their social media initiatives.

I'd love it if anyone reading this would weigh in with any salary information they have, either for their own social media position or others they've heard about. Feel free to leave your comment anonymously if you don't want to reveal your identity.

**UPDATE**
To add to the confusion and fun, I've tracked down some more social media salary info to add to the pot:

SimplyHired average social media salary: $55,000
Indeed average social media salary: $79,000
Salary.com: no results for "social media"

Does A Social Media Job = Career Suicide?

Geez, talk about a downer of a blog post: according to Jim Durbin of Social Media Headhunter, I am in a total dead-end job. As a social media specialist, I am what he calls a "social media doer" and "A social media doer is not a position with career advancement."

He makes some very valid points--points I myself have blogged about before. And as depressing-ish as his post is (especially to current social media job holders), I admit it's sort of a refreshing change from the constant deluge of social media is the second coming stuff we read about all the time.

What do you think--is he right and I and others like me--social media doers--are ultimately going to be SOL for having chosen this career path? And, also-- do you think it's kind of counterintuitive that a social media recruiter is blogging about how you don't actually want the kind of job he can help you get?

Wait, Who's the Idiot?

Is it just me or is this rant by a stodgy old-guard communicator absolutely scary, crazy and hilarious--all at the same time? Or is it just crazy and/or scary?

In case you don't feel like clicking over to that post, I'll sum it up for you: a "a 20-year communications professional" is raging on "idiotic" companies who are using social media "to do something. I’m not sure what. On the face of it—to waste time, resources and budget." What the hell are companies like Coke and Ford thinking giving their employees "free and uncontrolled access to the media"? Every dinosaur--I mean, veteran--communicator knows that "you simply do not allow employees free rein. You don’t; that’s accepted."

Ok, if you didn't click over to read his diatribe yet you really need to--if for no other reason than so you don't miss his compelling conclusion: that he hopes that "there’s someone in both organizations (Ford and Coke) who remembers what the real role of a corporate communicator is and who is powerful enough to perform it."

Here's what I hope: that this guy's boss reads his rant and puts him out to pasture.