Committee Membership

Meeting Notes August 24, 2107. Next meeting September 14, 2017 at 1:30 pm PT/:30 pm ET. @WayneSchulz @ShawnSlavin please review these notes and comment on the pricing discussion, thanks.

I always felt the way to monetize the group is through sponsorships and not costly membership fees. Use the member fee to keep out the tire-kickers and the lazy/poor consultants. The key issue that's driving the cost question is the underlying tool(s) used to communicate (presently Socialcast). Through the growth of the group, I think we've all benefitted by bringing in new bright members. The more members the easier it has been to monetize sponsorship. I'm not sold that the majority of the members will actively participate in much more than break-fix Q&A. I think the best long term use of the group is as a ""lobbying"" arm to impress upon Sage the importance of fixing/improving/updating Sage 100. I think we have a ""market top"" in the # of Sage 100 consultants who want to join the group. Maybe there's 10-20 more consultants who join but look at the marketing -- Sage isn't appearing to put any money or attention into the Sage 100 line so it's highly unlikely more consultants will be joining the fold (please, if you have evidence to support a contrary view post it here and correct me - all I'm stating is observations from looking at their website, marketing, etc). I don't recall advocating for any type of special fee for founding/original/long-time members. Just opening a section for a new product isn't going to produce activity. I think you'll find a need to seed it with 5 to 15 regularly active members who post current topics about the product. Without that type of activity, you will see members log in and log out (See Sage 300). I am very concerned that the channel for most of the products you mention is going to become competitive which in turn could cause companies to pull back on their collaboration - but I could be wrong. Comparing to ITA and SLA is not apples to apples as those groups are organization/development/executive level. A better comparison is probably to the Microsoft user group fee structure (consultants pay a lot, customers very little). Before you grab a torch and pitchfork and hit reply with the flame war about how 90 Minds will never let in customers ----- consultants = pay lower dues as they are the customer in this model, --- vendors = pay higher dues as they are the consultant in this model. In my view what you have here is a great break-fix resource for consultants still active in Sage 100. Will it expand to Acumatica, Intacct and anything else that Sage might buy? Perhaps, however, think of it more of a ""build it and they will come"". Before you let in new members to another product section make sure it's active or the new members will leave as quickly as they came. Nearly everyone in the other products mentioned is still in startup mode and, in my view, very competitive. I question how much they will collaborate. That being said, I'd concentrate on how a group of 90 Minds size can monetize through sponsorships. To that extent, I think @DarcyBoerio has a lot more experience than any of us. I'd look to use the least costly back-end and give strong consideration to how much the typical consultant uses any of the tools beyond the ability to post and get a second opinion on a tech issue. There might be a big opportunity to get further into bed with Sage but only at the executive level (don't bother talking to the low leve). And lastly, keep an eye on what Sage may unveil for their new partner portal. They have talked about creating a new discussion area though we all know how the last portal compared (actual vs promised). Good luck!

I know I didn't contribute much on the call yesterday because I felt like my perspective is different as an affiliate member and I'm less qualified to comment. I understand both sides of the discussion - kind of quality vs quantity. However, after reading @WayneSchulz comments, I will add this: The size and diversity of the membership will impact future ability to monetize (if that's indeed the goal). When pitching a sponsorship to an ISV, the first question (after ""how much?"") will always be: ""How many attendees?"" Regarding the conversations around expanding the presence of additional ERPs, speaking from an affiliate perspective, I think there are some ISVs out there who would be more likely to participate if the focus went further beyond Sage 100. If they believe they are also getting in front of Acumatica and Intacct partners, they'll see added value. Avalara told me a few years ago that they choose to invest in ITA rather than 90 Minds because it encompasses all their ERPs. One of my clients has gotten a lot more love from the 300 partners than 100 in the past, so they're not sure about the investment, but if I was able to tell them that Intacct and Acumatica partners would also be present (which is already true in the case of existing Sage 100 partners who've picked up these ERPs) that would be a bigger draw. I don't know what the path is to do that or if it's even desirable by the membership, but on the topic of monetization, more ERPs would be a plus. Hope that's helpful!

@ShawnSlavin ?

Hey @MoiraGoggin . Where to start? I have to second Wayne's thoughts on two points: the value of 90 Minds (what it means to me as a member) and our difference from ITA. For my team at CS3, we value 90 Minds as an extension of our internal technical resources on all things Sage 100. We invest in reading postings throughout each day and contributing as often as possible because 1) sharing and being part of a larger ecosystem is a core part of who we are at CS3 and 2) it gives us access to potential resources should we find ourselves either short handed or treading on infrequently traveled terrain. As such, SocialCast is central to 90 Minds' value for us as it is the conduit for sharing. ITA and 90 Minds have always been two distinct value propositions for me. 90 Minds is a technical resource and ITA is for professional development as a business owner. ITA is product agnostic, it is a core value of the organization. Looking at the angst created within the 90 Minds community at the suggestion of adding Acumatica to the discussions group, that isn't what makes this group tick. ITA was founded as a way to bring like-minded business owners together to discuss ways to grow and improve their businesses. They don't discuss tech support issues. They discuss sales and marketing, project management, building corporate culture, human capital management, strategic market and technology changes, pricing, and exchange ideas on similar topics. I appreciate the input from @Darcy Boerio and think her words should be heeded. If you want to generate revenue from sponsorships, you have to make sure you are delivering value to the ISV's. They want to make contacts with resellers in order to make sales. Don't lose track of that, that is why they are part of any organization. Anytime CS3 picks up a new ISV product, we look to see how many products in our portfolio the new tool will work with. We want to avoid single-use products in our toolset as much as Alton Brown wants to keep them out of his kitchen. I suspect I'm not the only one in the group that carries multiple products and believes this. If we have that mind set, why wouldn't the ISV feel the same way about access to resellers?

I ran the price increase by Kayley to get her input from the business level, she said yes it would cause her to rethink who we add and remove those who do not participate or their role has changed within DSD since they joined 90 Minds. As we discussed on the call, this could be a good thing if participation is valued more than numbers. I know many struggle with letting the other products in, since the foundation of the group is Sage 100...... I really would love to see the Acumatica group be as active as the Sage groups here in 3 -5 years from now, as a user and Consultant of Acumatica, that was one of the main reasons I joined 90 Minds. There really is no other place out there to run ideas or get feedback for Acumatica, so I see the potential 90 Minds has to run with this. Also, I had a call with SLA last week and they are changing their fee structure this year. They are now basically including the fee (for 1 person) to attend their 2 yearly conferences along with a membership fee. It's around $2300 per firm. Additional conference attendees around $750. They also decided to offer monthly payments, which I found a bit strange.