90p Admin

Any nominations this year to move Oasis associates up to full membership???

All of them.

This is the year to get rid of Oasis. We are too big to keep explaining what it means - which now is nothing more than a reduced confusing fee schedule. Normalize the fees - everyone pays the same. Everyone from the member companies can attend events but those who are in Socialcast as community/contributor members would get a discount. I'm all on board for recognizing standout members with some other type of perks - either waive their membership, give them a hotel night or two at Summit or maybe waive MOTM, etc.

Adding onto Wayne's thoughts: if we don't move on from Fellows/Associates, then we also need nominations to demote folks from Fellow back to Associates.

And how are you going to track who are contributors and who aren't? How do you classify a ""standout"" member?

That's why I'm for dissolving the differing classes. Promotion doesn't mean as much if you can get promoted and stop participating and keep getting credit because you had a good year. For the specific perks, one way I can see that working would be to have a nomination form where someone nominates you for whatever perk. It would work a lot like the 212 program that DSD in San Diego is doing or like the STARS program they do at my wife's work. You get written up for doing something extra good and if it happens enough, you get a perk or a prize. This part of the concept isn't fully baked yet. It's just my first thoughts on it since Wayne's mentioned it today.

This should have been normalized two years ago.

I am leaning towards that same thing. There doesn't seem to be any differentiation anymore. I like the Rewards idea!! The tough thing it how to normalize the fee structure. I hate to loose all the per office revenue but c'est la Via

Is there a need for the differentiation? That's the real question. If it serves an actual purpose, that's one thing. If it makes people feel happy, I don't think it makes sense.

I agree with the need to eliminate the two classifications. At one time it did have a purpose; the mission of the group has changed and made an ""elite"" group needless and confusing. Plus the topic seems to be a hot button that when pressed each year, brings up tension. Here are my thoughts. Eliminate the two classifications as they are now. Everything is one. However, grandfather in the current fellow membership dues structure. Anybody currently paying the lower $150 annual fee continues to pay the lower annual fee. It isn't hard to track. I know who they are. ANYONE who joins is subject to the higher membership rate. The grandfather clause does NOT apply to a new joiner of company that has a grandfathered member. Grandfathered membership is NOT transferable if the member no longer qualifies for 90Minds membership. If a grandfathered member drops out then wants to rejoin, they join at the rate in effect. Simple, easy to administer and pain free. As far as kicking people out for not participating, I don't want to get into that. Who is going to develop the measuring standard and who is going to implement and police it. I'm NOT! My thoughts are the same for perks. Too hard to develop, implement, monitor and sustain. Once you figure out how to game the system, no one else wants to participate. This is similar to Blytheco winning all the awards at Sage. After a while, no one gives two cents about the program. So to recap, drop the two tiers. Anyone paying $150 continues to pay a lower rate. EVERYONE else pays the higher fee regardless of company affiliation.

Sounds like a reasonable plan to me.

I wanted to slip a crack about Pruet in there but couldn't get it to work.

I'm fine with whatever grandfather fee structure is used - we'll work it into the budget. The things we need going forward so we're not pouring admin time into resolving the same issues: a. Unified fee structure that's easy to explain - done (as above) b. Unified policy on who is eligible to attend events. I believe this is significantly easier for people to understand if we have the concept of a company membership. If Blytheco, DSD, ISM, SWK are members then anyone from those firms can attend events. I'd propose that events could have a pricing structure that rewards Socialcast members with a discount. So perhaps if MOTM is $599 and if you're in SC as a named user (non-transferable) you would be entitled to a $200 discount (or whatever the $$ is). No, you're never going to 100% police this and that's because the environment today and in the future includes many independent consultants who may not work full time for a firm but rather split their time between projects at various firms. I don't feel as if we want to run events at a loss for non-Socialcast members though I'm fine with all sorts of subsidy for the people who are active online daily helping others.

My thought on the events is to allow members a priority for enrolling (e.g. early bird rate only for members) Once the early bird period has ended, increase the price for everyone and open the second enrollment period for non members also. This is what we did for Vegas. Simple and easy. We know the members so it is not an issue to monitor.

That sounds good to me - I would like us to allow transfers at no cost for future events. If Michelle buys her ticket and finds she can't go I want her to be able to send another person from SWK without an added fee.

She can send another person from SWK without an added fee..... If the person is a member. If they aren't a member, then they have to pay the non member attendance rate. She doesn't have to pay a switching fee (as she would if she is transferring membership to another employee), she is paying the extra fee because her replacement is not a Mind. Now that may bring up whether or not being a platinum vendor member has any perks. In reviewing the vendor member package paperwork, group meeting and Meeting of the Minds sessions are included. What is the intention here? My take is that it is meant to include the San Diego meeting, not special education session.

That's my understanding @JeffSchwenk . I too checked the vendor membership info and saw the attendance at annual meetings. It did not specifically mention training sessions.