This is part three of an ongoing series entitled “Tech Tips.” We’ll be sharing valuable tips and information about the importance and benefits of technology, as well as what to look for when selecting a vendor. The previous posts can be found here.

It’s hard to argue that cloud computing is less efficient than using Access, Excel or other similar system to keep track of your data. But what about the risks associated with trusting your organization’s information to an outside source?

Security. What happens if the outside server goes down? There’s also a concern about phishers, spammers and hackers. Be cautious about what kind of information you store — especially financial data.

Connectivity. Relying on the Internet can sometimes be dangerous. A sudden loss of connection can lead to the loss of data. And if the Internet connection at your organization is slow or unreliable, cloud computing can be a hassle.

Service. Your AMS provider should be reliable and transparent when it comes to downtime. No provider is perfect, and the service could go down at some point. But representatives should contact you quickly and let you know they’re experiencing some downtime. If they’re upfront and honest with you about the service levels, they’ll likely be upfront about other issues, as well.

Backups. Be sure you keep copies (yes, plural) of your data in case something happens. Make like a Boy Scout and always be prepared.

The benefits of cloud computing do outweigh the costs, but there are several important things to take into consideration when choosing an AMS provider. What other concerns do you have about using an association management system?

Happy Friday! Unfortunately, the weather is pretty dreary in Atlanta — I hope everyone else’s Friday weather is more uplifting!

To begin what I hope will turn into a recurring Friday feature here, I’m going to share a few of my favorite association-related links from the week.

Maddie Grant compiled some comments from people who couldn’t attend ASAE. Budgets seemed to be the biggest concern, which wasn’t too unexpected. Some people also said ASAE didn’t provide education for their core duties, which may or may not have been true. Regardless, I think the number of learning labs at ASAE was great, but there weren’t enough time slots. Offer fewer learning labs at a time, and the problem is (hopefully) solved.

Over at TechSoup, they discussed why small- to medium-sized organizations should care about cloud computing. This is basically what our membership management software provides, and we think technology can really help small organizations become more efficient and organized.

Peggy Hoffman wrote about how chapters can leverage social media, which I loved because this is one of my objectives. Every organization has different needs, but social media is a great tool to keep your members more engaged and recruit new ones, as well.

With what I thought was a great metaphor, Wes Trochlil compared new processes in data collection to the failed “Clash for Clunkers” program. Launching a new initiative can be difficult and time-consuming, and it’s important to do the right amount of testing and research.

In a comment on a previous post here, Robert Swanwick referred to one of his blog posts about a virtual meeting. There are some great tips and thoughts about hosting a virtual meeting on a tight budget that small-staffs can absolutely learn from.

Have a great weekend, and feel free to share more links below!

This is part two of a series exploring the value of virtual attendance following the Aug. 25 Association Chat (#assnchat) on Twitter. Part one can be found here.

It’s no secret the economy is flailing. And, though things are looking up, a trip to Toronto for ASAE and The Center’s Annual Meeting and Expo probably wasn’t in many organizations’ budgets this year. Creating a fulfilling virtual experience one year can drive “real-life” attendance for the following year, which should be ASAE’s goal.

I initially was going to rehash some highlights and quotes from the transcript, but I ended up retyping practically everything. Some key takeaways, though:

• Virtual attendees could pair up with exhibitors for sponsorship on blogs. For example, a blogger would host an ad for a certain exhibitor in exchange for them sponsoring the blogger’s virtual attendance. (@maggielmcg)
• Create a virtual event manager role to maximize virtual attendance. (@maggielmcg, @jmoonah)
• Charge for the edited package of video, audio, etc… There should be a revenue stream attached to valuable content. (Many participants shared this view.)
• What if virtual attendees had access to the live sessions and then paid what they thought it was worth afterward — otherwise known as the Radiohead model? (@dcoriale)
• “Virtual” could encompass a lot of items put together that could not be so easily replicated (i.e. professionally edited packages). (@spkrinteractive)
• Offer a “teaser” for free (perhaps of the general sessions), but have virtual attendees pay for other content. (@spkrinteractive)
• Most content creators want to be paid for what they create. (@busyevent) (My thoughts: Does it matter who pays them? It could be the association, the virtual attendees or perhaps the exhibitors.)
• Volunteers could tweet and take video from each session. (@ceosolutions)

The amount of interaction available to virtual attendees should determine the event’s monetary worth. Maybe it’s worth nothing. Personally, I like the idea of hiring official content creators to document each session — they could essentially function as reporters. (I think it’s the journalist in me really likes this idea!) At this year’s ASAE, it seemed as if the majority of active Twitter users went to the same few learning labs, which minimized the amount of possible coverage.

Jeff De Cagna (@pinnovation), the chat’s moderator, said he was concerned that “associations are looking for ways to make virtual attendees pay for value that should be free. [IRL attendees] pay for the actual value of experience.”

Although I agree with that statement, shouldn’t there be a certain level of experience and interaction that comes with virtual attendance? Of course, face-to-face interaction always trumps electronic, but virtual attendance is becoming more viable as technology continues to evolve.

Perhaps there wasn’t a huge capability for a stellar virtual experience at ASAE this year, and that’s OK — we should look ahead to ASAE 2010 and explore different options. At the rate technology is evolving, there are probably possibilities for next year we haven’t even thought of yet.

The chat’s transcript is available here.

This is part one of a series exploring the value of virtual attendance.

Should socially produced content be repackaged in a more “professional-looking” format to be sold to virtual attendees? Or should every session be live-streamed for free? What is the true value of a virtual experience?

Every week at 2 p.m. EDT, association professionals take an hour to discuss with each other issues facing the community. The platform? Twitter. Attaching the designation/hashtag #assnchat (yes, it’s horrible and attracts a few trolls now and then) to our tweets, we chat about technology, social media, membership and anything related to associations.

This week, the discussion was focused on takeaways from ASAE and The Center for Association Leadership’s Annual Meeting and Expo, as well as ideas to improve next year’s meeting. What began as a discussion about key learning points turned into a conversation about how to create a fulfilling experience for virtual attendees, and what it should cost — if anything.

As association professionals, do you pay conference fees for the interaction with your peers or for the content it provides?

This is a sticky situation, especially since a lot of content surrounding these conferences is now “socially created” through tweets, blog posts, podcasts or videos. Real-life attendees paid to be at the conference, and they supply other content to virtual attendees, who pay nothing.

I can’t help but be reminded of the news industry (whether it’s broadsheet, broadcast or broadband). Consumers have never truly paid for news. Advertisers have. And that’s the problem facing many industries (news providers, associations and more) today.

The business model is changing. And no one knows what to do about it.

The chat on Aug. 25 was one of the liveliest I’ve participated in in awhile. There were many, many opinions — some believe virtual attendance should be entirely free, some proposed different business models (for example, charging for edited content while allowing “raw” content to be free) and some thought event planners should hire content creators and charge for the work they generate.

Of course, every situation is different. Should valuable content be given away for free? Content creators obviously want to be compensated for their work, especially if it’s extremely time-consuming.

For starters, I don’t think the virtual experience at this year’s ASAE was too great. I’m sure everyone enjoyed following the tweets (hashtag: #asae09) and learned a lot, but there were very few live video streams of general sessions and learning labs. Jeff de Cagna streamed his session live and also took questions via Twitter, which I think is a great start.

But the majority of presenters — ideally, everyone — should do something similar. And what works for one conference may not work for another. I welcome any additional suggestions, thoughts and criticisms.

Part two will be available on Aug. 27, and will explore different options for associations, focusing on ASAE and The Center’s Annual Meeting and thoughts from the Aug. 25 #assnchat.

The chat’s transcript is available here.

Data management can be difficult for associations — especially small-staff ones. There’s the problem of not having enough manpower, not having enough time to learn the ins and outs of the association management system, having to deal with too many types of software and of course, budget problems.

After taking his annual (non-scientific) survey of nearly 150 association professionals, Wes Trochlil of Effective Database Management compiled his findings in “What’s Plaguing Associations- 2009.” All association professionals — no matter what size the staff — should read his article and take Trochlil’s thoughts and conclusions into account.

Twenty-three percent of respondents were most concerned with “data collection, management and integrity.” Members don’t always take the time to update their contact information or profiles, which, of course, is problematic when administrators need to contact people. This is a perpetual concern for associations and is something administrators will continue to face. It’s tricky to get members to realize the importance of an updated profile, but

Trochlil points out, “‘A directory is out-of-date the minute it hits the street.’” Just as a newspaper is out of date the second it hits the press, so too is your association’s directory. At meetings, do everything you can to impress upon your members the importance of keeping their profiles — especially their contact information — up-to-date. Perhaps offering small incentives to members who update their information would be a worthwhile addition. Associations should get rid of data that’s no longer usable.

With 21 percent of the response, the second greatest concern was how to handle “implementation and ugrades.” As more and more technology solutions for associations becomes available (and even more specialized), there are more options than ever — especially for small-staff associations. Sometimes too many options can be a bad thing (example: big restaurant menus freak me out), but more options and a thorough search can yield a vendor that’s the right fit for your organization.

Many vendors offer upgrades or additions to their product(s) several times a year, at little to no cost. Technology is always changing, and associations should take care not to let their software become even a little outdated. When considering a technology solution, take into account the amount, quality and price of upgrades and new releases. The fewer software tools you have to use (i.e. the more quality features your chosen technology solution has), the more effective your organization will operate.