RESEARCH: Communication leaders pose sharp challenges to their associations - as they face a rocky environment

The world’s leading communication associations face formidable challenges if they are to recover from the pandemic and adapt to a rocky new environment.

In my recent survey, 50 communication leaders contributed more than 130 responses to the question: “What do you see as the three biggest issues facing associations and professional communities in the communication space?”

Some very clear lines of thinking emerged:

• Content relevance was the single biggest area of concern. Participants questioned whether the quality and quantity of content produced by associations was appropriate to their own needs or what they saw as the needs of fellow members.
• The next two most mentioned categories - addressing perceptions of value and credibility - raise questions which associations should see of existential importance, not only in terms of whether members feel they and their colleagues are getting value for money, but whether associations are even positioned to effectively represent the profession at all.
• Areas where “quick-win” opportunities present themselves include a return (where possible) to in-person networking, extended cross-disciplinary offerings, and improved industry advocacy efforts
• Longer-term opportunities including diversity and consolidation are of less immediate importance.

Key themes

1. Content relevance

The largest single category of responses, the perceived relevance of content produced by associations, is cause for major concern among communication leaders:

Relevance, in this case, is a broad category covering:

• ongoing quality issues (“lack of case studies and research”)
• format (“not everything needs to be a webinar”)
• direction (“sticking to their mission, doing what they do best"). 

There is also a very strong thread where comms leaders are seeking timely content that’s tailored to dealing with specific issues that communication professionals are dealing with at this particular moment, like:

“Equipping practitioners to operate effectively in a fast-evolving environment”

“Offering program / growth information that compels members to participate”

“Providing insights and resources to help communicators manage the pace of change and the types of conversations we should be having as a result”

“Providing training for the new ways of communication required in the new world of work (which are not yet fully understood)”

Comms leaders also note that they, their associations and networks do not exist in a vacuum. They want to be seen as “distinctive” and “premium” and are dismissive of association offerings that don’t match that ambition level.

“Standing out from the crowd - being distinctive”

“(Association) webinars cannot compete in quality and content with company webinars eg. Smarp, Poppulo”

2. Value

More worrisome for associations than the question of relevancy is whether communication leaders believe associations are providing sufficient value.

“As monthly subscriptions for many services (telephone, netflix, itunes etc...) are very low, are we now in a world where paying 300-500 euros/dollars yearly may seem too expensive for low perceived value.”

“Cost is an issue - cost of access.”

“I don’t see the deep value for them”

“Understanding and meeting the needs of a very broad membership base - those with big budgets through to a team of one”

“Top-heavy dues structures”

In addition, the changing competitive environment exposes some particular challenges:

“Ease of getting free content”

“Providing paid content that can be found (elsewhere) for free”

“Weak value propositions relative to free or fit-for-purpose alternatives”

3. Credibility 

Further compounding the challenge presented by weak perceptions of value are concerns about the institutional credibility of communication associations themselves.

Communication associations face credibility challenges from a variety of directions.

There are “competence” issues:

“Limited or disjointed support and knowledge on how to run an association successfully”

“Conversations are still at the Comms 101 (entry) level”

There are issues of intent:

“Not focused on the customer and what they can do for the pro. Rather, they want the pro to support their survival.”

“Too busy in a self-preservation mode - chasing dollars instead of running to rescue the communicator”

“Risk of believing our own spin”

“Tribalism and forced competitiveness”

“Trustworthiness”

Institutional conservatism is also seen:

“Stale thinking and nepotism in the leadership of the association”

“Repetition of concepts, repetition of experts”

“Not enough integrity or courage to swim against the current”

“Cognitive entrenchment”

“They don't engage professional communicators”

So, what do communication leaders want from their associations? 

As spelled out above, some leaders are clear about what associations want from their members. But what do leaders want from their associations?

A separate question asking participants where they rated the importance of common activities and priorities highlights areas of opportunity:

Online events: 8.27

Research: 8.16

E-Learning and Training: 7.73

Local events: 7.04

Global in-person events and conferences: 6.90

Publications: 6.49

Advocacy: 6.39

Certification/Accreditation: 5.80

Online Platforms (member only): 5.45

Administration and Recruitment: 3.19

Top opportunities

1. Go all-in on research

A pervasive theme here and in other discussions about the state of the communication profession involves the scarcity of research to underpin the value of communication investments, and arm communication professionals with value-based data to bring to the setting of their organizations’ priorities. 

Associations have disparate relationships with research. In the UK, the Chartered Institute of Public Relations (CIPR) is offering its members a chance to compete for grants to generate original research. The International Association of Business Communicators (IABC), on the other hand, has shifted the focus of its former Research Foundation towards providing grants to members for its own affiliated educational and certification programs.

But a renewed commitment to research not only directly addresses the desire seen for improvement in the rating numbers, it also addresses all three of the key issues mentioned by participants.

• Research can drive the production of relevant content - especially when the research needs of professionals are considered in its formulation.
• Research can strengthen organizational credibility, shifting from actions based on the organizational desires and inertia, to actions based on defensible data.
• Research can add tangible value to members and to the wider profession, particularly when it targets questions connecting communication investment and financial impact.  

A problem cited by associations is that research rarely produces differentiated benefits that favor members over non-members. 

But while the research itself becomes difficult to monetize, it may be possible to secure higher degrees of member loyalty and comparative attractiveness by strengthening their research brand. A strong research brand, in turn, can drive scalability as members begin to value their association’s contribution to the profession. This becomes an independent source of value, distinct from the direct benefits they accrue from membership.

2. Upgrade your partnerships

Compared to online networks, “brick and mortar” associations are claiming a premium positioning in the current market. 

But what screams “premium” more than partnerships with recognizably elite organizations and institutions that can provide resources, validation and preferential access?

Aside from the need for targeted original resources and communication leader-level content, top brand-name providers can address event and training needs - particularly on the academic side.

Such partnerships could become much more two-way. Just as associations can affiliate with academic partners for prestige reasons, communication associations can provide their academic partners with valuable distribution channels - making their services available to members and encouraging their members to share partner content with peers and colleagues.

The aftermath of the pandemic can also provide unique opportunities as academic partners expand the availability of online programs. For instance, an affordable, association-sponsored online PhD or Doctor of Business Administration program - once dismissed by many top institutions as impossible - could potentially become a viable option for senior association members seeking research and teaching opportunities.

3. Up or down on certification

The relatively low priority ascribed by communication leaders to certification and accreditation should be seen as a challenge - to either double down and make a compelling case for making certification a global quality mark, or to abandon their standalone efforts, perhaps seeking consolidation with the programs offered by “rival” associations.

A key case for certification was to provide a recognizable, global credential for communication professionals, in a similar vein to the certification of professionals in other fields, such as law, engineering or accountancy. To date, the investment has not been made in getting external embrace of such credentials. They have instead become mechanisms for recognizing seniority within individual associations, and most professionals have neither seen them worth the expense or the bother. 

As these programs consume considerable leadership and administrative bandwidth, associations need to assess whether the case for continuation is compelling or not, recognizing that communication leaders are currently prioritizing other needs and activities.

4. Open your governance now

Earlier this year, the IOIC held an open board election, with more than a dozen candidates in contention. Among that group were many of the most active and visible internal communication personalities in the UK and Ireland. The election was a good natured affair, with candidates encouraging participation and colleagues trumpeting the virtues of their favorite candidates, all aided by the magic of Twitter and LinkedIn.

This followed the open election of the CIPR Chair, which had a similar flavor, but added the element of tribal enthusiasm for specific candidates from different branches of the communication tree.

At a time when associations’ administration and recruitment costs, and dues structures are facing unprecedented scrutiny, an opening of the governance structure can give members an additional sense of ownership over the actions and priorities of their associations. It also can put the storytelling and advocacy around administrative and recruitment spend into the hands of leaders with established member credibility.  

Organizations that resist the move towards open governance leave themselves exposed when they need to make controversial decisions and their leaders are unknown and, effectively, unelected. While some associations find open governance a risk, does the limited latitude of closed governance represent a far bigger risk when gathering support for needed change?

5. Advantage: Advocacy

On the surface, and witnessed by its middling score above, advocacy does not seem a top improvement opportunity. But for associations that embrace it, it offers two significant advantages that can help associations scale and regenerate.

First, well-run and well-publicized advocacy campaigns reinforce an overall sense of member value, beyond direct personal benefits. Members want their organizations to promote their professions and to help them make the case for continued budgets and bandwidth from their organizations.  

Second, visible advocacy programs can offer an opportunity to introduce the association to non-members and to recruit them as partial participants, focusing their participation on the advocacy challenge (say a petition, a drive to get public funding for relevant research, or support or opposition to relevant legislation). At a time when associations are having serious member growth challenges, advocacy can play a valuable role in non-member outreach compared to peer-to-peer membership sales or attendance at events.

Conclusion

Communication leaders remain highly engaged with their associations and communities. But they have a clear sense of priorities coming out of the pandemic, and serious concerns about whether their associations are up to the challenge. While they recognize the need for their associations to stay viable, their priorities are becoming more urgent and focused. Whether their associations will pay heed will likely prove a decisive question. 

About the participants

It is worth noting that the participant group is highly engaged in the world of communication networks and communities.

• 36% are members of the International Association of Business Communicators (IABC)
• Leading UK-based associations, the Institute of Internal Communication (IOIC) and Chartered Institute of Public Relations (CIPR) had 25% and 17% of participants respectively
• 15% belong to the European Association of Communication Directors
• 19% belonged to other National PR and Comms associations, including the Public Relations Society in the US
• 67% belonged to online networks affiliated with the above associations.

About the author

Mike Klein is Principal of Changing The Terms, a communication and research consultancy based in Reykjavik, Iceland, and is founder of #WeLeadComms, an initiative to recognize and connect communication leaders around the world. Mike is a former Regional Chair of IABC in Europe-Middle East-North Africa, and has been a member of EACD and the Dutch national communication at various times.