Michael LoBue writes: The most preposterous debate within the AMC community in 2008, in my opinion, centers around the average fee AMC-managed organizations pay for the collection of services they receive from their AMCs.
Of course, this issue of the AMC economies of scale value is perhaps the least interesting and least valuable of the benefits enjoyed by using an AMC, but it is the easiest to understand and quite possibly the benefit that will be most sought in 2009 while the economy is in the tank.
As recently as December 23rd a highly respected member of the AMC community wrote the following response to a question asked on the ASAE AMC List Serv:
Question: Could you please give us an idea of what the average percent of an association budget is the typical management company contract fee?
Answer: Frankly, I don’t think there is such a thing as average in this business. The range of services, output and work product are so varied in terms of necessary resources , human and otherwise as to make association management aggregated cost data fundamentally flawed when used to establish “average” . Even the ASAE ORR (with a fairly broad sample) falls apart as you slice and dice within scope and organization type. It really is like taking a chain saw to do brain surgery. You can look at subsets of organizational activity such as membership development but the useful analytics are, in the end, more about ROI, dollar based or otherwise. I think seeking average is the lazy way to avoid doing the hard work of establishing value.
First off, the above answer is an excerpt of the entire response, but it captures the respondent’s two major points:
- the average doesn’t exist
- even if it did, it would be too toxic for mere mortals to even posses, let alone use
Of Course An Average Exists!
The first point about the average not existing has to be an emotionally charged over-statement by an otherwise intelligent and highly responsible professional simply very concerned that an important piece of information will be misused, resulting in harm, much like his metaphor of using a chain saw to do brain surgery. Of course the average exists, even if proper sampling was not conducted to know the value, it doesn’t mean that it doesn’t exist.
This is where The Flat Earth Society comparison enters. According to recorded history, Aristotle was the first to present evidence that earth was a sphere (around 330 BC). Around a 100 years later Eratosthenes provided the first calculation of the earth’s circumference (Wikipedia).
Here’s my point, to deny the existence of something that so obviously exists is to look no less silly than about 3,000 people who align themselves TODAY with an organization that continues to deny a fact that was essentially settled science more than TWENTY FIVE CENTURIES AGO!
Wouldn’t it be more productive to collect useful information, disseminate it and educate practitioners about the accurate use of such data? Then, based on what’s learned, ask a new round of questions, go back to real organizations to collect more data to answer those questions, and so on? Last month I posted on what is lacking from ASAE’s Operating Ration Report (click here…).
We can do better than having debates about the shape of our industry; we should collect data to help define its boundaries and contours and learn to improve it.
This is cross posted at: www.AssociationVoices.org