jennifer, i think you’re right that people seek out these organizations in times of turmoil and job loss. the challenge is to make sure these organizations offer something that keeps new members once times and job markets improve.

paul, i really like the idea of monitoring trends and conversation, then sponsoring impromptu meetings. it’s very dynamic.

steve, i’m falling more and more into your camp. i enjoy, respect, and learn from those ccm and iabc members i’ve known over the years. i’ve now met even more through twitter, plus other comms professionals from the UK, germany, and farther afield. and the relationships are not shallow. we’ve connected by phone, video chat, and email. i’m positive that i’ll eventually meet some of them in person, much like i’ve met a small portion of ccm and iabc’s membership.

ben, hrevolution’s a great example of how we still want and create ways to meet face-to-face. (if you’re in hr and haven’t checked out hrevolution yet, do it: http://hrrevolution.wetpaint.com. sharp people are going to be there.)

garrick, i’m with you. when i was thinking about my opinion, i also thought that those who are new in their career or entering a new career get loads from a professional membership. it’s a surefire way to find a network of mentors and colleagues.

autom, you would’ve found me without my iabc membership! what you’re saying jives with what we at ccm talked about as our focus — sponsoring research, creating partnerships with learning organizations, and creating ways to commune.

mark, your handwritten notes are the talk of the town. honestly, they mean a lot to all who have gotten them. as paul will say, i’m a contrarian (i take that as a positive), so i will question your thinking that the only way to get face-to-face interaction is through a professional membership. ben’s example and my own experience suggest that we find ways to fill that craving, whether it’s done for us or we do it for ourselves.

thanks again, everyone. look forward to chatting with you more,
f

M

however, as with all emerging tech and offerings that enhance existing models, i think social networks *complement* formalized professional associations, if not provide leverage for their visibility.

there are vast resources offered by the IABC including access to online studies, opinions, papers, events, career listings, regular printed newsletters, etc., which while may equally be available on social networks may not necessarily offer certain info/feedback unique to content generated by a given association. also, social networks won't necessarily have that one-stop shop format—at least not yet, due mainly to the current fragmented nature of the social web.

besides, without my current membership with the IABC, i may not easily have encountered many of its brilliant members who i now consider as part of my 'organic tribe' on twitter and with whom i interact regularly and very much look forward to perhaps meeting in person next year [#iabc2010 Toronto] (i.e., you @bergerchris @jenfrahm @CoachKamna @archanaverma @IABC @marilynkeyes and others)

perhaps the next step for professional associations is to determine how—as a result of the added value of social networks—they can in turn maximize? enhance? transform? what they offer to members. perhaps a closer look at identifying redundant offerings, streamlining these to demonstrate how well they complement social networks and that their presence in fact serves to tangibly guide, lead and encourage members to be on social networks.

my 2¢ – a

When Prof Serv organizations started they were a way to aggregate, disseminate and engage a vertical of thought, point of view or niche. Those needs are now better fulfilled by some of the social media tools you mentioned.

I still think there is a need for Prof Serv groups – but they should now expand their “core” and look at what is missing from social media. To me it's the Face-2-Face.

IMHO The natural evolution of Prof Serv groups would be to monitor the social media stream and create opportunities for niche in-person meetings based on the trends. They would then become less about the “information” and more about the “conversation.”

Not sure if I'm making sense – but the net-net is that more connections – F2F – is good – I'd pay for that. Aggregation – not needed and not worth any money.