Ouch! Let me say first that even the greatest blogger will occasionally send out an invitation to discourse ("a post") that receives no comments.

But you're right about IABC. In trying to be all things to all communicators, IABC is fading into the woodwork, and all the stellar communicators who run IABC are forgetting everything they ever knew. IABC's best value has always lain in its local chapters. Maybe The Talented Mr. Holland will chime in on this theme, too.

I agree that a good organizational communicator ought to know what employees want and need, simply because they ought to want and need the SAME information. But what makes your example worse is that you're referencing a BLOG. The example you cite is a bad communication problem but a HUGE blogging problem. Blogging isn't about giving people what they want or need. It's about tossing out conversation-starters that THE BLOGGER finds fascinating and HOPES readers will, too. That's what gives a blog personality and differentiates it from the 70+ million others.

People who go to the IABC chairman's blog go there to read about what SHE is thinking, feeling, doing, planning, afraid of, and pissed off by, and enter into her conversation. If there's nothing in her head that she cares enough about to share with 14,000 members, why is she making the big bucks? Blogging regularly and with muscle and attitude ought to be her FIRST priority if she hopes o save IABC; everything else will run itself.

Jane, you had me at "muscle and attitude."

One quick clarification: Glenda Holmes doesn't make the big bucks; she's the volunteer chairman; her term is over in June. But the chairman has traditionally been the philosopher king or queen at IABC, and if anyone is going to speak out boldly on professional issues, it's going to be the chairman.

Also, I am not sure IABC is fading away. From what I hear, their International Conference numbers are good this year (despite or because of the New Orleans location). And their membership is growing at last report, albeit quite gradually. (I'm covering the State of IABC at the June conference this year, and I'll have a full report.)

But I do think the Web presence needs to be rethought (by leaders, not, primarily, by members).

I, too, noticed that no one had commented on the IABC Chair's blog for several days after Glenda's comment was posted. I tried to comment on that fact -- but alas, I received an "error message" and my comment did not post. Perhaps the IABC blog is suffering some technical difficulty. But even THAT would be just another embarrassment for IABC's erstwhile foray into social media.

There are so many things to say about this and so little time to say them. So I will cease and desist for now, except to say that I believe IABC is missing the boat on a number of fronts -- and they have certainly missed the "new social media" boat. In fact, as I've said elsewhere, as MyRagan sets sail, IABC is waving from the safe shores of cautious deliberation and consensus.

David,

You are right to recall my father's words. In fact, Dave, I remember my fathering getting booed in the 1980s when he debated the value of readership surveys.

You remember those surveys, the ones that asked readers whether they liked the design of their employee publication, or whether the editor should run longer or shorter stories?

Absurd, he would say, "do you think Readers Digest became the top publication in the world because it readers told the editors, `uh, yeah, got any stories on people surviving grizzly bear attacks? Can I have some more of those?"

No, editors know these things because they know their audiences and they know their beats. And if you don't know those two things, don't ask them to tell you--because they don't know.

Re: IABC. Too much caution kills spirit and passion. I respect IABC's need to be careful, to never stake out a spirited position on any topic because they run the risk of alientating some member somewhere. That is always going to be the case.

But then there should not be any mystery when the blogs aren't crackling with the sound of juicy conversation.

Speaking of cautious deliberation and consensus, Robert alerted me to this recent post, from Mike Zimet, leader of IABC's "Advocacy" group.

http://commons.iabc.com/advocacy/2007/05/23/taking-a-position/

It's a one-post seminar in wishy-washedness.

I don't blame IABC for not wanting to take stands and be muscular and attitudinous, as Jane would recommend.

I blame them for sometimes PRETENDING they do.

I do blame IABC for not being muscular and attitudinous. I believe the times call for that kind of professional association for communicators, but IABC's culture of inclusiveness and consensus and not-rocking-the-boat is a holdover from a bygone era.

Trying to gain consensus on issues and positions for advocacy is like an army general taking a vote before leading the troops into battle. Forgive the military analogy, but our profession has been under hostile fire for years now and we're looking for some leadership.

I'm a longtime IABC member, have been a volunteer leader, am accredited and want to support my association. But there's just too much "broke" there and the IABC culture is just too weak to fix it.

>>One of his most important notions was that it is not readers' job to tell you what they want to read--or even to have the foggiest idea what they want to read. It is the communiator's job to know what they want to read, and to give it to them.<<

I'm reminded of a quote attributed to Henry Ford regarding the first car he ever built:

"If I'd asked my customers what they wanted, they'd have said a faster horse."

I get your point, David (and Craig) and generally agree with it. And in this specific case re IABC, I certainly agree that the chairman of an international association doesn't need to gain members' concensus on what her communication vehicle should be.

Having said all that, though, let me make yet another plug for research as one way to understand the audience and its needs. Not to gain consensus or to "take a vote" on direction -- but to gain insight, to gain the knowledge that you seem to assume a good communicator just knows by "gut feel." Nobody is that smart.

In IABC's case, though, its leaders just ask the question over and over and over again without seeming to do anything with the input they get. That's lack of leadership.

Now, Robert, don't get all researchy here on us, dude! We're talking about blogging (or column writing) to an audience of peers. The IABC chairman should not need to conduct focus groups and surveys in order to write a compelling stuff for COMMUNICATORS (of which she is one).

She should be rubbing elbows with, having good conversations with, drinking with, e-mailing with, hearing the complaints of her fellow communicators every day. If that's not sufficient grist for the mill--and if she doesn't have faith that her own communication experience is somewhat universal--then she shouldn't have a blog.

Which is what Glenda, in her way, was saying here. Her blog entry might have been boiled down to: "Sorry I've been in the job a year and haven't said jack squat."

That's not a research problem.

Agreed.

I haven't commented on Glenda's post because I felt that the Cafe has been too "Tom-heavy" in recent months. I still am hoping that some of the other "guest baristas" will make time to contribute.

David, I don't disagree with the points you make. I do want to give some information that you and Robert wouldn't have known regarding the IABC advocacy initiative.

Although Mike Zimet would be the first to admit that the advocacy initiative has been a "deep, dark secret," work has been done behind-the-scenes.

I found that out recently, when I approached Mike about volunteering. IABC, and its "Be Heard" slogan can fit well into a social responsibility project, I thought. When Jane Greer asked on MyRagan, "What can we do besides bitch?", I commented that we can roll up our sleeves. Now, I'm raising my hand to help.

Look for more info from me and the social responsibility subcommittee of the IABC Advocacy group. I hope that you can find it in your heart to support whatever project we undertake--and also to cut Mike some slack.

Tom, I've been in touch with Mike every step of the way here (have written about this Advocacy project several times in The Ragan Report)--and have known him for many years. I think I understand his situation pretty thoroughly.

The Advocacy initiative reminds me of a headline I once read in The Onion, "Engineer invents inelegant solution to a problem that doesn't exist."

Who's clamoring for IABC to advocate things? Mike and a handful of others are. What do they want IABC to advocate? They don't know, so they ask the members, who not only don't know, but don't care.

This is Joseph Heller stuff!

As soon as somebody--and I hope you are the one--proposes an advocacy position/program that is remotely compelling, I'll passionately "support" it, in the way every journalist "supports" everything interesting.

David, perhaps the reason no one is clamoring for IABC to do anything is because nobody believes it ever will!

I don't believe most communicators think there's no need for an advocate for our profession. Read any communication-related blog, read the threads on MyRagan, read the comments on IABC's online communities and you will read example after example of how the communication function receives little funding and even less respect. It has been this way for years. We have had to scratch and claw our way into having any significant role in the lives of our organizations, for the most part.

And why is it important for us to be so recognized? For some, it's a matter of just wanting to make the big bucks that some other employees make for doing a lot less work. I'm not among them, but I can understand that motivation. For others of us, it's because we deeply and passionately believe that communication is vital to any organized society or enterprise, if it is to succeed and if it is to provide meaningful work for people.

But you know as well as anyone that trying to get most bean counters and executives to understand the tremendous value we offer is like trying to get a pulse from a potato.

Our profession is in need of an advocate, of an organization or entity that can articulate what we offer to the world of business. Yes, we need professional development. Yes, we need social networking. Yes, we need information resources. But we also need a champion. We need to be understood by the organizations that employ us and by the business community at large.

On the IABC Commons Advocacy blog, there is an excellent example of another missed opportunity for IABC to represent what we do. I urge your readers to read the response IABC gave to a media inquiry about the Don Imus flap and to Wilma Mathews' excellent revision of it. She gets it -- she understands how it would be very simple for IABC to say something of significance, to shed some light on what communication professionals stand for. But once again, IABC blew it.

I don't buy your argument that "they don't know and they don't care" about advocacy. Leadership is partly about helping people understand what is good for them and then providing it -- without waiting around for permission or consensus to do so.

Robert--

I don't disagree in principle; I just don't understand how this kind of program might work.

Who in the broader business world wants to hear Who from our profession tell them how important communication is to an organized society and to corporate profits?

Can you begin to describe the content/tactics of the Communicator Advocacy program you'd propose to IABC?

David

Agreed, indeed. The blog is about conversation, which is personal. I don't need to run a survey to come up with a topic on which I have an opinion, perhaps one not shared by others, but an opinion nonetheless, that then generates conversation. In this case, the conversation should ostensibly be about IABC's current, planned, or proposed activities, issues the communications industry faces, debates within the industry, important news from within the industry or within the association's membership...you get the idea.

Over the last 38 IABC Cafe blog posts, Glenda authored 10. Tom Keefe authored 12. The other 16 authored by Barbara Gibson, Todd Hattori, Scott Cytron. If this is Glenda's blog, I think she needs to do more than 25% of the posts. I don't have an issue, on the other hand, with a format that includes rotating authors.

And they did come up with some good topics that elicited some conversation (notably one on whether or not to establish a blogging code of ethics). If they want more, heck, just follow the issues on other great communications blogs like this one, Shel Holtz', Steve Crescenzo's (though that tends more to his personal strifes and rants than to strictly professional issues), Les Potter's, to name a few (Robert, do you have one?) to find new ideas.

Personally, I'd go to an IABC blog to find out what IABC is doing, your rotating authors being the committee chairs reporting on Committee activities, plans, quandaries. I'd go to see IABC responses to indictments (I think well deserved) like that found here about the association's failures on Web presence, advocacy, muscularity and attitude, and other similar indictments on prominent communications blogs.

Don't hold your breath waiting for IABC to address many of those things, Michael. It will take the association three months to ask members what its position should be, then another three months to get consensus on how to phrase it.

David, I can best describe my vision of IABC advocacy by giving a few examples. As one example, I believe Shel Holtz has done more individually to advocate for our profession than IABC as an organization has done. Through his blog, his articles, his books, his presentations and his podcast, Shel articulates the value communication brings to business and he does so by latching onto current events in the business world. Yes, many of his anecdotes and examples relate to the world of online communication and technology, but the point is that in that corner of the business world, Shel is an excellent advocate for all of us. And people -- not just communicators, but other business people -- listen to him. He knows what he's talking about. He has earned that kind of reputation. Even if you don't always agree with him, you know the principles he espouses about the value of communication are sound and will stand the test of time.

On a much smaller scale, I advocate for the profession through my weekly column on Richmond.com. It is written for a general business audience, not communicators specifically, and also uses current events and news in the world of business to demonstrate the value of communication. Similarly, I stick to the sound principles of good communication, ethical behavior and the best practices of our industry. And people read it -- not just in Richmond, but all over the place. I know because I hear from them.

Now, why should our profession rely solely on the generous efforts of individuals (or, God forbid, the giant PR firms) to articulate what our profession is about? Why can't our professional association do that, too? Shel and I and others like us -- the David Murrays and Les Potters of the world, for example -- have a certain reach, but wouldn't (and shouldn't) a worldwide association with 13,000 members have even a greater reach? Shouldn't IABC use its size and diversity of membership to wield even greater influence? Shouldn't IABC have some say in the curricula that are being taught in business schools (not just J-schools) when it comes to PR and communication? Shouldn't IABC be the go-to place for reporters who are writing about communication, not just in the daily papers around the world, but in Fast Company and Inc. and Fortune and The Wall Street Journal? And what about the incredible things that are happening in countries like former Soviet republics and China? Shouldn't we be telling that story, too?

This isn't rocket science, which is the most frustrating thing of all. IABC wants consensus -- well, I don't believe there is any argument about what constitutes sound PR practices.

The fact is that while IABC representatives do occasionally get quoted in the press and occasionally get the ear of influential business leaders, it's not what it should be. The association should be at the top of the call list of every writer who covers anything that touches on business communication. And once we're top of mind for reporters and writers, we'll soon be top of mind for business leaders who need to know the value we offer.

P.S. -- No, I do not write a blog. Why bother when I can comment on everyone else's? :-)

The first step needs, NEEDS, to be the development of a clear vision of who/what IABC is and what it stand for. And it can't be trying to be all things to all people.

A good place to start would be for staff to go on a hunt throughout One Halladie Plaza, checking every desk drawer, file cabinet, misc. box of papers, etc. and find the strategic plan Jeff Hallett and Dave Bassett help IABC craft in the mid-90's. I have never seen it but Jeff told me that he and Dave spent 2 - 3 days, on their own nickel, and led the staff in creating (in his view) a comprehensive vision and strategy for the future.

Now, since Jeff was the brains behind Naisbitt's "Mega-Trends" and went on to create 3 (or was it four?) hugely successful companies and ventures, you'd think IABC would be eager to apply some of this strategic thinking. Sadly, they simply shoved it away never to be seen or brought up again.

He and Dave started out with a compelling question for IABC - "Do you want a strategy that will get you to X size by year Y, or do you want to become the best communications organization on the planet?" Of course IABC chose the latter but then lacked the courage and fortitude to implement the aspects of the plan which would have required (if memory serves me correct):

* reorganization of the association (cost benefit analysis of overhead costs, cost of service delivery, etc.)
* changing the business model away relying primarily on membership dues and conference fees
* focusing on clearly defined segments of the profession (which would result in a membership downsizing) and creating new services to satisfy these segments
* become outspoken advocate on the issues directly of interest to these segments
* put teeth behind the "International" aspect of the IABC charter and not merely give it lip service
* embrace new technology and ways to deliver its services, reduce costs and create new channels of engaging with its members
* other provisions I can't recall

Does anyone really believe that IABC is able or willing to implement something on this scale (or something similar that is more updated) in order to transform itself for the future?

Craig and Robert offer some ways for IABC to move forward as an organization. My personal take on advocacy is how I can contribute as an individual.

David, sorry for not knowing how closely you have been following the IABC advocacy initiative. My bad. You commented that you are waiting for someone to propose "an advocacy position/program that is remotely compelling" before you will "passionately 'support' it, in the way every journalist 'supports' everything interesting."

Journalistic writing is nice; try doing something. As Jane Greer said on MyRagan, "What can we do besides bitch?"

I hope to work with other communicators to use our combined communication training and skills to improve someone's situation--someone other than ourselves. I don't need to build consensus, I'm starting to connect with other do-ers, and we'll get something done.

That can hold true for IABC as well. Rather than look at the small number of staff on Halladie Plaza to perform as we command, why don't we IABC members take ownership of this association?

Think of all of the opportunities that exist to not only Be Heard, but to Be Involved.

Tom, I agree with your sentiments. The "power" of IABC can be harnessed by any IABC member who's got an idea.

Sitting around wishing IABC was this and IABC was that (especially from those who KNOW the nature of the organization) seems to me to be silly.

Seems to me if I had an idea for accomplishing something for communicators (and I really DON'T have an idea that I believe in), I'd forget IABC as an ally. I'd figure out how to do it on my own, or I'd resign myself to its impossibility.

Waiting for IABC to adopt my idea and put the weight of its membership behind it? Nah.

The fact that this excellent discussion is happening here in Shades and not in an IABC blog speaks volumes.

Reading the muscular and attitudinous exchanges above fills my heart to overflowing.

Maybe MyRagan will be an impetus that IABC feels and reacts to courageously, with gratitude.

Maybe social media will give us that extra little oomph and ease of communication to make positive changes in our careers and the careers of other communicators, and thus improve The World As We Know It.

I think talking about this can only be good--especially if we reach a point where we know we're all talked out and the next step is to do something. I don't know what that something is--it'll be different for each of us--but after a long period of soul-drought on my part, this is finally starting to be FUN again.

David, I'm not sitting around waiting for IABC to do anything. I have tried to help IABC do things in the past and have grown tired of it. And I've waited for it to do things without my involvement and I'm weary of that too. The only reason I went on my rant is because the discussion arose and then you asked me to articulate what I thought IABC could advocate and how. I'm not much interested in fighting the fight any more. I have, in fact, figured out what is important to me as a member of this profession and have done some things on my own to achieve that vision, recognizing I'm just one small cog in a huge wheel of communication professionals. And I have resigned myself to the impossibility of certain other things, and also to the impossibility of IABC's long-entrenched culture of consensus and caution ever changing.

So, enough wind wasted on this discussion.

Robert--

Did not mean to imply you're sitting around, although it appears that I DID imply that. Sorry. Only meant to say: IABC, until it proves otherwise or is forced to become something else, is IABC.

Most members don't expect it to be anything more than what it is. Others have every right to their larger visions, but as you point out, not much reason to believe they'll be realized.

Anyway: Thanks ALL for a lively and fruitful exchange. Today was a good day to be a blogger.

Unaccustomed as I am to public lynchings, I thought I'd better add a few words to this conversation. (I haven't even had time to complete my profile!) I would have stopped in sooner, but I've been immersed in rush work for a major client, and as we all know, (s)he who holds the purse strings gets all the attention.

But I digress....

You're right, David: despite its warts, IABC isn't about to fade away... or to paraphrase Mark Twain, "the reports of IABC's demise are greatly exaggerated." What saddens me, though, is that we have plenty of critics (perhaps deservedly) but not enough people willing to step up to the plate and help effect needed change. It's all about what they choose to channel their energy. As for me, I can't change the past, but I'm very focused on the future.

BTW, for those of you who don't know me, I can only speak about IABC as an outsider. I'm not on the Executive Board, nor am I privy to most of what goes on behind the scenes. (And I like it that way!) But like many of you, I see a number of areas where IABC could be stronger.

That's why I volunteered to lead the Advocacy initiative (learn more by clicking on my name, below). Some of us believe there are plenty of opportunities for IABC to add value to our profession and, in the process, become an even better association. In fact, some of the people working on Advocacy (including me) were at least as vocal as you have been in this thread, but we decided it was time to put up or shut up -- so instead of criticizing and lamenting, we decided to do something about it.

And we are. I admit we were slow out of the gate, and a lot of that is my fault. I naively thought we do it all fairly quickly -- without understanding the magnitude of this kind of change effort -- and we were overwhelmed by just how many ideas and opportunities there are... too many for a very small group to tackle all at once. So we're regrouping into subcommittees that will each focus on smaller, more manageable pieces of the pie. We now realize this is a long-term effort -- and we're in it for the long haul.

So although there's not much we can point to as "completed" -- yet -- it's not for lack of trying or getting support. To the contrary, we have several different projects under way that will bear fruit in the near term. For example...

- We're participating in developing ISO 26000, a new global standard for social responsibility programs. Yes, communications has literally earned a seat at that table! But that's only the first of several SR-related projects to come. We're looking at additional programs that not only promote social responsibility (and causes), but in the course of doing that, showcase how communication professionals add strategic and tactical value to organizations' successes (whether they're corporate, nonprofit or government). Which is another facet of Advocacy -- promoting our profession.

- The recent episode about IABC "taking a position," which several of you have referred to, has actually turned into a catalyst for re-examining how we address this. Yeah, we blew it, and right now it's a top priority for fixing. I'm working on it with some other folks and hope to present some recommendations to the Executive Board soon. I feel comfortable saying that some real changes will result from this. (Isn't that how it should be?)

- And then there's our blogs. I can only talk about the Advocacy Commons, which I envisioned as a great way to solicit members' (and non-member colleagues') issues, ideas and feedback as we explore opportunities for Advocacy. It's my first pass at blogging; I'm a board-certified newbie, still very much in learning mode -- and I'm sure it shows (but hopefully not for long). Although the numbers may not be great (yet), the caliber of the comments -- and their candor -- are excellent. The New Orleans conference will give us an opportunity to raise our profile, and I hope to recruit some colleagues to join in posting, so this isn't a solo act. We want to keep it informative, timely and lively. And avoid obsessing over the numbers like network TV does.

I know, this sounds like the same-old-same-old. The naysayers will say it's all talk, but I can tell you that we're working on it. Working hard. And really trying to think out of the box.

The best part is that attitudes are changing. Big-time. Virtually everyone, at every level, has been genuinely receptive to constructive change, as long as it adds value in some way. It's no longer just building muscle -- it's tone and flexibility, too. And that takes time... but it's happening.

This thread reminds me of my days at IBM. Back in the early 90's, when IBM was as muscular as any company could be, a loud chorus of critics was writing it off as an old relic. While they criticized, IBM acted. It took years to turn that battleship around, but they did it by adapting to change in the industry, and today it's as formidable as ever.

So for those of you who want to write off IABC, go ahead and bet the ranch on its demise. I'm betting against you, because I only bet on sure things.

PS: In the interest of keeping this post under one gigabyte, I haven't addressed everyone's comments. But there are a few good points in here, and I'm going to address them (as soon as I'm over this time crunch) over at the Advocacy Commons (which, by the way, requires neither membership nor registration to access). (And no, that's not meant as a slap at MyRagan, which is quite cool. In fact, I'll link to this and other threads as appropriate.) I'll try to poke my head in here more often (if y'all will still let me), but if anyone would like to engage in some serious, constructive dialogue on Advocacy and change at IABC, your best bet is to join us there.

Michael,

You know I respect you greatly. That is one reason I initially accepted the invitation to serve on the Advocacy work group. I had to give it up due to the same circumstances you cite -- demands of work, and for personal reasons it would not be appropriate to discuss here.

However, I take great issue with the portrayal of IABC's critics as not being willing to do something to help. I've given a lot of my time to IABC over the years. As long as I agreed with the status quo, or with the prevailing opinions of leadership, everything was fine. But as soon as I began to point out when the emperor was wearing no clothes and tried to represent the views of many silent members of the association, it was amazing how quickly I became persona non grata.

And this, I believe, is one of the core problems that prevents IABC from moving forward significantly. There is no room for dissent. Or, if there is dissent, it is quickly brushed under the carpet.

Case in point: Critical comments on the Advocacy blog left by me and others have been removed -- as if they never existed. Is it any wonder IABC is losing the trust of many of us, if it will not allow dissent on a blog, which by its very nature is meant to stir up healthy debate?

Sorry, but I don't view my "writing off" IABC as premature. Rather, it is based on experience.

I do wish you luck, though. I think a lot of you and hope you will not be disillusioned through your leadership of the Advocacy initiative.

My comments to the IABC Advocacy blog appear to have been restored.

I didn't want you all to think that I was afraid to chime in, though it's been quite interesting just reading your comments--many of which I agree with, by the way.

I've also published a related post in the Cafe, for those who are interested:

http://blogs.iabc.com/chair/archives/2007/06/01/communication-lessons-learned-while-fishing/

I've been reading your comments with interest, and even actually agree with some of them, by the way.

In response, I've published another post in the IABC Cafe, in case you're interested:

http://blogs.iabc.com/chair/archives/2007/06/01/communication-lessons-learned-while-fishing/

There have also been a couple of comments on the original post, as well.

SO, thanks, to you all for the continued discussion.

Thanks, Glenda. I've commented on your fishing post, too.

David

Interesting that there is so much pent up feeling about IABC. Seems odd for an association of communication professionals...

Victor:

Evidence that: Communication doesn't solve every problem.

Or evidence that communication done poorly can't help solve any problem.

Or evidence that communicators aren't exempt from making communication mistakes.

Les, I noted the same thing. I felt like I was not helping IABC so much by just posting a comment here, off IABC channels -- like I was talking behind IABC's back. So as I finished my post here, I picked up some of it and posted there. Glenda has been good enough to respond.

Perhaps, though, that points out one potential hurdle...the average member perhaps does not want to be critical of its association or its volunteer leaders, just expects the association to be on top of things. Yet, those who are critical, perhaps, are viewed as the vocal minority present in many groups ("Oh, that person always complains" "That person loves to play devil's advocate") and so the issues raised are not given as much credibility.

The onus is on each of us as members of IABC to give our feedback -- both critical and praising -- directly to the association. Robert, clearly you have; more should. Certainly, this and other blogs featuring similar critical discussions are not difficult to find, and IABC leadership should be on top of those discussions anyway, but she did ask the question, and the answers seemed all to be playing out here, so thought I'd answer her more directly.

Michael--

Good post. This gets to one of the problems that IABC has, I think, generating lots of comments on the Cafe.

For an IABC member, engaging in a rollicking debate and expressing an unpopular opinion about IABC or any other subject ON IABC'S Web site seems like a BIG DEAL.

Though IABC isn't an official governing body, the bar association for communicators, it's as close as there is--they issue accreditation, they give out the big awards, they hold the most prestigious event in the industry, etc.

So I imagine there's a perception that one doesn't want to get "blackballed" by IABC because it could hurt one's career.

Not that IABC has ever done anything like that, but we're talking perceptions here, and they're tough to break.

Meanwhile, yukking it up or saying something intense on a Ragan blog or at MyRagan seems safer somehow.

That said, you're right: IABC members owe the association as much direct and honest feedback as they have the courage to give.

I agree. Members of IABC should express their views not only via external means, but also on the IABC website. I have and will continue to do so.

Please understand that when I criticize IABC, it's for the purpose (and with the hope) of stirring up a good, honest dialogue or debate about an issue that I believe to be significant. I also believe that my views frequently are shared by other members who are reluctant to express them publicly (or even privately) for whatever reason.

IABC is my association of choice and has been for nearly 20 years. As a member, and especially as one who has volunteered much of my time and energy to the association, I believe I've earned the right to be vocal -- whether it's in criticizing the association or promoting it, and I have done both.

If I let my membership expire, I won't be nearly as vocal because I won't have nearly the stake in IABC that I do now. (That $270 per year comes out of my pocket!)

What value a professional association?

I have been a member of IABC (NSW, Australia chapter) and I have been a member of NSAA (National Speakers Association of Australia, NSW chapter).

I gained accreditations in NSAA but decided not to invest the time in IABC.

My judgement (possibly flawed) is that professional associations serve the few and not the many.

Yeah, the conferences are ok, the cocktails are nice, but will it change my life? No. not unless I invest a significant portion of myself in the process. Not unless I become like the few.

I guess the world is what we make it.

Aye, Victor, the world...and our association...is what we make it. And no, IABC -- or any other association membership -- will not change your life unless you invest a significant portion of yourself in it.

Will the accreditation in IABC help? Well, I have yet to pursue accreditation because I have yet to find the driving value beyond my own pride. And that pride isn't paying the bills while I'm spending my work hours or family hours pursuing the accreditation. Perhaps Robert Holland can speak better to that.

The greatest value in IABC accreditation for me was in the process itself. It's an excellent way to gauge the strengths and weaknesses of your overall "skill set" (hate that phrase) in business communication. I discovered some areas in which I needed to gain experience and knowledge. Yes, there is a certain personal pride associated with accreditation, but it's what I learned through the process that I value the most.

I also believe the "ABC" behind my name has helped my resume' jump to the top of the pile a few times and has given my clients a degree of confidence in my abilities from the outset. Sort of like the "Good Housekeeping" seal of approval.

Is it worth continuing to pay $270 a year for IABC dues just to retain my accreditation? I'm not sure. I would love to see more compelling reasons to stick with IABC as my professional association of choice.

Communicator and humorist Dan Danbom once said the only consequence of his ABC was that sometimes people misread his nametag at cocktail parties and referred to him as "Mr. Abick."

And it's nearly impossible to get a drink at the bar if you have your ABC lapel pin on.