For the last ten years, I have worked for what most major event industry associations would classify as a “supplier.” Suppliers would include general service contractors, audio/visual providers, hotels, caterers, venues — the folks who make it possible for the “planner” to hold their events. It seems to me that suppliers need planners and planners need suppliers in order for both to survive.
Yet, many industry associations feel that they can charge suppliers more for membership dues and attendance at events. Why?
When it is time for an association to seek advertisements for their newsletters or website who do they turn to for support? Suppliers. When associations are looking for underwriters of a meeting or program, do they go looking to the planners to supply the needed capital? I don’t think so, so again it is the supplier to the rescue.
One national association that I belong to charges me an extra $125 because I am a dreaded supplier, bringing my dues total to $500. A membership in the local chapter is included, but attendance at each monthly event is an additional $20 over the planners cost. Heck, a non-member only pays $10 more than me. I could save my $500 in annual membership dues and get away with paying $30 extra per meeting and still save money.
Then there is another national association that it costs an additional $600 over the planner rate for a supplier to attend their annual meeting. Or we could talk about the groups which have been giving away annual meeting registrations for planners, but none for suppliers.
It may seem that I am unfairly targeting the associations of the events industry, but I have also seen these practices being done by other associations in other industries. The practice is widespread. In this economy, the smart associations need to realize that they need to possibly reconsider what membership fees they are charging to suppliers.
{ 7 comments… read them below or add one }
Greg, welcome to the world of blogging! Looking forward to hearing your thoughts and insights (in more than 140 characters).
Being on the supplier side as well, I could not agree more with this post. I have been in the industry for about two and a half years, and have a vested interest in joining and becoming involved in industry associations. Unfortunately, the membership dues of many of these are too high for my employer to fund my personal membership, and I am limited to participation in organizations that offer membership for my company…which, I have found, are heavily segmented with content for hoteliers working on property.
The current system needs to change, and I look forward to a time when I can become an active member of these communities.
-Ashley
The Ruby Blogs! Yahoo.
Greg, it’s about time Suppliers started speaking up, speaking loud and speaking their truths. Suppliers have the right to ask about the value of their dollar for associations. I agree with you 100%.
So many associations have used their members as bait to attract suppliers, as if the associations had a private stash the suppliers could only access if they were a member too. Those velvet ropes have been removed as social media has flipped that model on it’s head. Suppliers can now find their tribes and potential customers online, free! Unless associaitons start offering additional value to suppliers and making fees more equitable, they will see the start of a supplier exodus.
Great post Greg,
I am a supplier who is also president of a local association chapter and we just had a discussion about this at our board meeting last night. The goal of our org is to have a 60/40 split between corporate marketers and suppliers/agencies. We do not however have different pricing for suppliers vs. “regular” members. Let’s face it, suppliers don’t want to be a part of an org that has a member base of only other suppliers.
We all know it’s suppliers that often time start a professional chapter (in our case it’s 80/20 supplier vs corporate) it’s also the suppliers who as you said “pay for” the org through sponsorships and advertising. It’s also the suppliers who are most likely to volunteer for board and committees (at least early on).
The thought is, if there are too many vendors at events…corporate will be 1) afraid to attend because they see everyone as a sales person, or 2) they cannot find a peer to exchange ideas with and network with. AGain, myself as a vendor, I don’t want to go to events if my target customers are not there.
We, as the association, are solving this problem by simply focusing on programming that will attract the corporate marketer. If we create worthwhile programming they will come…and suppliers will follow (our focus is B2B marketing so our suppliers will learn too). We will also be treating our suppliers as valued members and professionals.
We are going to experiment with having all members sign a code of conduct specifying the purpose of the organization is quality marketing education, exchange of ideas and networking. It is not a forum for people to deliver sales pitches. Hopefully this will discourage the relentless pushy pitch agents from joining up or attending events.
I cannot for the life of me understand why a vendor/agency/supplier would be a part of an organization that treated them as second class citizens. I’m not a member of several orgs that I believe you were alluding to for just that reason. Perhaps we should start calling them and asking them to explain why we are penalized?
Greg, great to see you blogging! Nice inauagural post too!
I agree with you and have a few more ideas to boot:
- at some industry shows (like where I saw you last), suppliers need to pay additional fees if they want to participate in the education sessions. I think they’re nuts! One of the best ways to build relationships, is for suppliers to mingle with members and better understand their business. Why wouldn’t a supplier take advantage of the opportunity vs. waiting for people to visit their booth?
- with the rise in outsourcing, there are many hybrids out there. For example, 3rd parties are really suppliers, but are permitted to join our industry associations as planner members. Having worked for one of those companies for most of my career, I believe they are a hybrid and more supplier than planner. Planner classification should follow the money. If you are signing contracts and paying bills, you qualify as a planner.
- suppliers are permitted to be in sr. leadership rolls at the chapter levels at some of our industry associations. But they not permitted to be in Sr. leadership rolls at the national level. I’m not sure what’s the right model, but we all have to remember that the associations are responsible for advocating and advancing their profession. The suppliers are a part of that as an industry that has deep partnership roots. When in doubt, smart associations are going to err on the side of their members and help keep participation affordable by getting help from the supplier community.
Fun stuff! Keep on bloggin dude!
Dave Lutz – @velchain
Hello Greg,
It’s great to see you start your own blog. It appears that when we were trying to talk Christina into starting her own blog at the Tweetup at Expo! Expo! you were actually convincing yourself!
I think Traci hit the reason why suppliers are charged more dead on — if there are too many suppliers, it scares away the “regular” members. It’s just supply and demand: the members have less ability to cough up funds to be an association member than the corporations that want to sell to them.
To keep the rates the same for both groups, associations could raise the price on “regular” members and lower the price for suppliers, but then there would be even fewer regular members and then way too many suppliers. That would upset the delicate balance of the universe, knocking the earth off its axis, hurtling out of control and into the abyss.
I look forward to more gems!
Regards,
Michael
Dave, Thanks for your comments and you raise some good points. I’ve always been puzzled why more suppliers don’t attend some sessions at trade shows to mingle with clients and potential customers, especially when there are not additional fees involved. That is just another reason I am happy to see some suppliers take the time to earn the CMP and CEM designations and learn the client’s side of the equation.
Michael,
Thanks for the comments and you are correct about our conversation at the Tweetup.
I totally understand the concern of having a good mix of planners and suppliers at events. My rant was started by a local group that charged planner non-members less than supplier members. At the very least, all non-members should be charged higher fees than any member.
{ 2 trackbacks }