What is the cost of “free”?
Jeff Hurt poked a hornet’s nest when he posted his dissatisfaction with Meeting Professional International’s Virtual Access Pass for its World Education Congress, coming to Salt Lake City in less than a week. The VAP lets people purchase online access to much of WEC’s educational content (or you can purchase just access to the opening general session). Go ahead, read his post and all the comments around it. I’ll wait.
Looks like he really touched a chord there, doesn’t it? I don’t really have a dog in this hunt, not being an MPI member and having never been to its conferences, but, as someone employed by an increasingly e-media company, I do have great interest in the whole conversation around “free” content and the Internet. Obviously, I’d love it if every word I wrote was so golden that people would pay hundreds of dollars to read them, but that isn’t the case–and wasn’t the case even pre-Internet. Most trade magazines, whether published by for-profit companies or by associations, have always followed a free circulation, paid-for-by-advertising model. Most association magazines provide conference wrapups and session writeups in their post-con issues. There’s nothing new with the concept of free content supported by advertising and/or sponsorship. The only thing that’s new is the media (Internet) and quantity (tons, and growing exponentially daily) of content that’s free for the taking.
I think MPI’s president Bruce MacMillan did his best to lay out the association’s reasoning behind charging for online access. But it’s not good enough, IMHO. I understand that the decision likely was driven by finances–or lack thereof–and good intentions. They wanted to bring the show to those who wouldn’t be able to make it in person, and to cover the production costs. Nothing wrong with that.
Instead, they ended up alienating and angering a lot of very vocal people. In my book, that makes it a bad move. If MPI offered a more limited access for free (or at least a lot cheaper), it could have reaped tons of goodwill, won over some members who maybe were thinking about dropping their membership, and possibly enticed some new people to join.
Plus, when it comes to conferences, all providing the free stuff does is get people wanting to go in person next year. TED is the example that keeps coming up, but I’d say it’s true for every conference that I’ve seen do it. It is the best promo you could possibly give, makes members feel valued, makes nonmembers want to join and come to the conference. The cost, while not negligible, would be less than a regular marketing campaign, I would think.
Instead, they get lots of negative PR, ticked off members, and probably won’t make enough to come close to covering costs anyway.
This debate won’t go away any time soon, methinks. Jeff has listed some great thoughts from great thinkers in his post, The Rise of the Gift Economy and Freeconomics that are well worth reading and thinking about.
If you think this won’t affect you, think again. Whether you’re a content consumer, a content producer, or both, the rise of “free” is reworking some fundamental aspects of society. This is not just an MPI issue. It’s an everyone issue, and let’s not be too hard on MPI for stumbling along the way. None of us know exactly how the Internet economy will shake out, and in the meantime, we’re all bound to do some things that, in retrospect, we may wish we hadn’t.
Email This Post
Related Topics: Business stuff, Industry association news, Meetings and conventions, Technology
July 6th, 2009 at 5:06 pm
Thanks for posting more about this discussion of “free online content.”
You’re right, this issue is much bigger than MPI’s Virtual Access Pass snafu and many associations and businesses will face this issue now and in the future. I agree that MPI’s decision was probably driven by expenses and potential revenue.
The question is how will associations (and businesses) address this issue in the future. These are unusual times indeed.
July 7th, 2009 at 7:29 am
Sue (and Jeff),
Well-written and thoughtful commentary on free content versus paid content in regard to MPI’s Virtual Access Pass. However, I wholeheartedly disagree with you both on this issue. Of course MPI should charge for access to its live content! The production costs associated with videotaping so many sessions and streaming the video online are enormous. And what about the costs of putting on the live event? Let’s say registrations are off by even just 200. That’s hundreds of thousands of dollars the association isn’t making. Yet the hard costs of putting on a live event aren’t reduced by nearly that amount. The same meeting space, speaker care, f&b, transportation, hotel and staff expenses, production costs are there whether the attendance is 2500 or 2000. Associations have to make money, too! I applaud MPI for extending its live content online to those who can’t make it this year to Salt Lake City. $299 is a totally reasonable fee. You get what you pay for.
July 7th, 2009 at 1:25 pm
Betsy, I understand completely about MPI wanting to recoup costs and provide a new member service. I think everyone understands what this economy is doing to association convention attendance, and the financial ramifications of that. It’s not pretty.
We’re having an interesting discussion on this over at Facebook (if you’re already a friend, check out this link. If we’re not yet friends on FB, look me up at http://www.facebook.com/sue.pelletier).
What it basically seems to come down to is value: If you’re offering something people think is worth $300, or $30, or $3,000, no one feels ripped off. If they think it’d be worth checking out for free, but not worth paying for, well, there’s your answer.
With a live conference, you get all those add-in intangibles that make it worth the money and time out of office (I hear the networking at MPI is, no kidding, life-changing) that can make up for content that may or may not be what you need. Unfortunately, on the Web, at least for now and social networking apps aside, what you’re mainly paying for is content. So it has to be perceived as worth it on its own merits.
As I said on FB, the more I think about it, the more I like the idea of individual sessions offered at a low cost, rather than a $300 bundled product. If it were more like an iTunes download, were you could buy the song/session for X, or the album/track for XX, I think it would be more palatable to people. Though I still think free and sponsored is a better option.
July 8th, 2009 at 9:23 am
I haven’t been part of all the discussions noted above, but as with many planners, I sometimes face the same dilemma. Do I offer content to people who couldn’t make it, so they are enticed to come next year? How do I do this without angering people who paid for the full ticket? I think the trick is to find the right balance and to know your audience.
BUT for MPI to do this, I don’t think it is a good idea. After all, what they are doing is progressing toward a virtual meeting and I have to believe that 99% of the association’s members have livelihoods which depend upon face to face meetings. Why is the association promoting a practice that could endanger the careers of its members?
August 7th, 2009 at 3:50 pm
This is the first year in over 15 or more years that I have missed both the PEC and WEC at MPI. Like everyone else, we are cutting back. It would have been nice to be able to pay for individual sessions at a reasonable fee, rather than purchasing the whole bundled product. Everyone has different interests and even if you do attend the meeting in person, you cannot attend every one of the workshops or even have a desire to.
Just my two cents!
Leave a Comment
Advertisement
Subscribe to Face2Face
To receive a daily e-mail digest of face2face posts:
Contact Sue
Recent Posts
Calendar
Categories
Archives
Your Account