Ben and Matt both recently posted on the idea of groups, both of which are great reads, which got me thinking about the topic.
With all the discussion about the ease of groups, thanks to web2.0, I simply ask - what constitutes a meaningful group? This builds off of my last post about social networks enabling, not creating conversations.
Because a group forms, does that make it meaningful to its users or its respective industry/movement?
I, for one, have joined many online groups and then forgot about them. Usually these groups are the brainchild of one - 5 leaders that can only grow the group so large before volunteer time isn't enough. Once it attempts to get into mid-level items or higher such as website development, etc it catches a snag. From what I've seen, these natural web2.0 groups haven't yet cracked into the macro level yet.
Associations, however, live at this macro-level - they go behind just networking into larger areas of the industry such as education and advocacy. Associations have impacts larger than just the group of members itself. And I think as long as associations are providing value to its members as well as making significant postive impacts in the larger field its involved in, I believe associations will always have a place. They will need to evolve, but as I've said before, the type and speed at which it evolves has a lot more to do with the industry and upcoming members than with the technologies available.
A group is incredibly easy to form, but making that group produce the results of an association is a whole other story.
Thanks for reading and have a nice holiday weekend,
Bob
