Writing recently in The New York Times business section, media columnist David Carr reviewed the successful career of Oprah Winfrey, who has announced that she’s ending her popular daytime talk show in 2011. While at first blush, Oprah may not have much in common with the typical association executive (among other things, Forbes has estimated her net worth at more than $2.3 billion), there are lessons from her 25-year run that all managers can apply to the way they run their organizations. In Carr’s column, most of these lessons take the form of the things Oprah did not do in order to become a success:

Oprah never put her name on merchandise or licensed her name to be used by others. As Carr points out, these are things that many of her contemporaries such as Martha Stewart, Donald Trump and a host of other would-be moguls have done with decidedly mixed results. Association executives are also often tempted to put their organization’s names on products that may not be central to their group’s membership value proposition. As Carr points out, Oprah made her brand stronger by refraining to have it plastered in all the obvious places.

Oprah never made deals just for the sake of synergy, never made investments that put a strain on her core business and never let office politics boil into public view. In this list, Carr includes those things that have undone media power players such as Barry Diller, Sumner Redstone and Michael Eisner. Here, the lesson of bringing a high level of discipline to the management of an organization is something that association executives can take from Oprah’s experience.

Oprah never got involved in businesses she didn’t understand and she never rose past her level of competence. In this instance, Carr draws a comparison between Oprah and Edgar Bronfman, Jean-Marie Messier and “just about everybody else in the media world” who have violated what should be basic tenets of organizational management. Recognizing and playing to your strengths is just as fundamental for an association executive as it has been for Oprah.

Oprah never felt constrained by conventional wisdom. Carr points out that Oprah turned down numerous movie roles following her debut in “The Color Purple” because she “knew her talk show was the thing that would butter her bread.” Carr also points out that as tabloid television gained popularity, Oprah moved in the opposite direction and built an even bigger audience by promoting good books and providing an uplifting experience. In this instance, managers who think they can only move their organizations in directions that others expect should consider what might be accomplished if conventional wisdom is turned on its head.

Of course, while Oprah is ending her talk show while it’s still on top, she won’t exactly be fading from the media landscape. She has spawned several other talk shows now in syndication and she will launch her own cable channel, the Oprah Winfrey Network, in 2011. In concluding his column, Carr quotes Oprah as saying, “I don’t know what the future holds, but I know who holds it.”

On behalf of all of the people at Association News, best wishes for the holiday season. Here’s wishing you all the success you envision for yourself in 2010!

Tim Schneider
Schneider Publishing Company

1 comment

In the first part of this paper we looked at the numbers and duplication of associations, as well as the mounting pressures which may force consolidation and/or merger of associations. We also looked at my first involvement with attempts to merge two groups.

In another scenario a well endowed national organization made overtures to a successful regional group to consider a “merger”. This overture was encouraged and promoted by the outgoing president of the regional group who probably felt he could become active on a larger playing field.

The cultures of the two organizations were quite different. Although by numbers the memberships were about the same, the national group had mainly the big players, the regional group had mostly smaller, local members.

The national group focused mainly on lobbying while the regional group created many innovative programs on education and certification. The national felt the addition of the regional membership would enhance its lobbying ability.

After a number of somewhat contentious meetings the board of the regional group rejected the proposal because it appeared to be more of absorption than a merger.

A second attempt failed a few years later because again the regional group did not see how their members would be served as anything but stepchildren. This attempt too was promoted by an outgoing president of the regional. Egos always play a big part in these activities.

Just a few years ago the western regional group found a more suitable merger partner with an eastern regional who had grown and offered a more common base of interest. The two groups were more similar in the type of members as well as their culture.

The economics of a joint operation were appealing particularly as the industry began facing pressures of a squeezing business climate.

Another merger attempt in this arena occurred when I was the CEO of a local organization feeling the increasing pressure of government regulators, to curtail the efforts of our industry to expand or function.

There were three other associations in the state with similar memberships and programming. There was also a regional organization under the aegis of all the industry leaders.

My proposal was to have each of the four local groups operate as “chapters” of the regional group in order to have more authority with the antagonistic forces at the state capital. The regional group board would set overall policy and the regional staff would run the new larger state associations.

Wow. You should have heard the outcry. I was labeled as crazy by just about all concerned. Although we had the largest of the locals, the others thought they would lose all independence, although I’m not sure what they were going to do with that “independence”.

The regional didn’t want the work or the responsibility. Nobody could figure out my motive and that scared them. I saw the handwriting on the wall. They didn’t.

Two of the locals don’t exist anymore. The other two barely function and the regional is a shadow of its former self.

There are often benefits to merging, but it is not easy. It takes a lot of thought, patience and salving of egos.

There are a number of consultants available nowadays who can be brought in to do an evaluation of an association’s operations and effectiveness. ASAE offers a squad for their purpose as well. All of this is good when you need an objective outlook and/or you are trying to facilitate a merger.

You may be aware in the “charity” field these are two organizations Charity Navigator and the American Institute of Philanthropy who attempt to assess the operations of charities almost entirely based on the IRS 990 Forms they submit each year. It is a capsule view, sometimes helpful, sometimes a little misleading.

With the advent of the Internet and the voracious appetite of computers to gorge data, I don’t think it’s too far in the future to see one or more similar WEB sites develop to assess 501(c) 3 and (c) 6 organizations. Whether membership is individual or company based, a lot of many is spent in association participation. Big companies especially are going to be more and more anxious to assess the value of their expenditures.

The best way to predict the future is to create it.

What do you think?

No comments