Annette Wren’s Western Output discusses the Construct Show (Informa) and SCIP for the year.
Key quote:
“In October, at the Construct trade show, Informa notified SCIP that they are no longer welcome at Construct.”
I have one thing to say: Proverbs 16:18.
Matthew 10:14
Amen
Matthew 23:27
There is no discussion of SCIP or SCIP members being “thrown out” of CSI. There is no discussion (as far as I know) of SCIP members being barred from participation in CONSTRUCT.
As I understand the situation, INFORMA does not want to compete with SCIP for manufacturers’ attention so they are attempting to make it difficult for SCIP to have a meeting at the same time as CONSTRUCT (or just before or just after CONSTRUCT).
It is also my understanding that CONSTRUCT will not offer a free exhibit booth to SCIP.
I believe these decisions are being made by INFORMA with very little meaningful input from CSI.
You may want to make your views known to the people at CSI (elected board members as well as staff). Although I do not think it will do much good, you may also wish to make your views known to INFORMA.
Oh, and my feedback to INFORMA may be found in Ps. 50:9a (RSV).
Dewayne. Good point. If we start our own convention someday, we’ll make sure not to kick our core group of people out of it.
Peter: LOL re. 50:9a!
My opinion, which I will express to CSI, is that if we are a group founded by spec writers and with specifications in the name, we should require Informa to not use the CSI name or logo on anything, since they have no connection with CSI anymore. And we should begin plans to hold the CSI National Convention as in times past.
Although, since they even talked about taking specifications out of the name, I do not have very high hopes for this organization anymore. Have we lost our heart? If so, what even keeps it going?
Mark 9:23
9:24b
We can continue to quote scriptures, but I know we all saw this coming years ago. What happens to your members once you start allowing pieces of your identity to be sold slowly piece-by-piece? You lose control. Then, when the organization talks about changing the very title of the organization? You lose your organization’s identity. So, seasons passed. Those who remember either got lost in the recession, retired, or they passed away. Time has changed a lot of things. They say that the organization must change to stay relevant to the needs of the industry. A lot of people worked a lifetime in/for the name of CSI. There are those of us who did go through some tough times, and fought our way back to this industry because of the love they have for our people. I have not lost hope yet that the wolf that swallowed us up years ago might still listen, but we slowly allowed the wolf to bite at us a little at a time until we have prove our brand worth and relevancy to such industry.
That is just my two cents.
Psalm 133:1
I like your spirit, Melissa!
If all things are possible, what would happen if we band together various Specifier Share Group type events and info sharing, as a unified group that is truly about specifications?
http://discus.4specs.com/discus/messages/2195/1199.html?1093015550
A little Old Testament
Exodus 13:14
If we were bitten and swallowed up, what is left but to become digested food, assimilated into the wolf? And if so, why would the wolf listen?
How about Jonah, chapter 2?
I do understand the current bite is simply not being allowed to co-locate, and they are not saying we cannot attend. I do not think anyone misunderstands that. But we could list many other bites as well, some recent.
If we did form a national share group group, or grow SCIP to something that they fear more than is already evidenced that they do, then it is not far-fetched that they would try to disallow us using MasterFormat as I mentioned in another thread (or pay a hefty fee). Some people have already gotten flack like that, as Colin can attest. However, it was developed by volunteers a long time ago.
We do need to dwell together in unity somehow. How do we do this?
The underlying organizational identity crisis described in these posts bears an uncanny resemblance to what I have seen in some other not-for-profit groups in the same time period (2008-2018). The organization in question is a little too big to serve its members the way it used to (an unrealistic expectation anyway), yet it is not quite big enough in membership at the current dues level to feed the demands of its overhead. (Dues and exam fees are too cheap). Increasing dues substantially and migrating to a cheaper office location (Prime waterfront office space in Old Town Alexandria - really???) to lower overhead appear to be immediately necessary to solve the money/service-to-members problems. This would initially cause more members to leave, but it would attract different ones who are willing to invest in a healthier organization.
Each situation is different, and I realize I am over-simplifying here, but the current state of things is clearly not sustainable.
Many good organizations fail by growing too much, which seems counter-intuitive. It is certainly not what organizations want to hear and it is not what consultants want to tell them. Hence, we do things like re-brand, re-write the mission statement, change the logo - all kinds of expensive yet superficial maneuvers that don’t address the real problem. Unfortunately, examples of this exist all over the place.
SCIP is a great model for a right-sized not-for-profit organization whose work is performed by volunteers. It has no paid staff that I know of, no real estate to maintain, and it is small enough to serve its members very well. I’m not sure, but this is probably what CSI was more like in the 1950s and early 1960s.
SCIP and CSI have mutually-compatible aims. CSI has incredible intellectual property that we all benefit from whether or not we are members. SCIP is the cream of the profession and has a very altruistic image. All of the ingredients of great success are there - if only big attitude could be successfully eliminated.
Well said, sir.
I don’t understand Informa’s logic of killing the offspring to protect the family.
I estimate about 98% of the people attending the SCIP meeting this year also attended CONSTRUCT. I also estimate about 95% of the exhibitors also exhibited at CONSTRUCT. So explain to me how SCIP is a “threat” to CONSTRUCT? They are quibbling over a measly 5%? I can understand Informa being upset if a majority of exhibitors only participated in the SCIP event and did not participate at CONSTRUCT…but that did not happen.
What about all the attendees and exhibitors that showed up because they can go to two separate events back to back? That is a big reason why I, and probably many others, attended both events this year.
If Informa locks SCIP out of nearby hotels and forces SCIP to have a separate meeting elsewhere, this will cause many people to have to choose between the two events. This will not increase attendance to CONSTRUCT and will most likely decrease attendance. The law of unintended consequences strikes again!
David, you are mistaken about the SCIP sponsor participating in CONSTRUCT. Less than 40% of SCIP sponsors had a booth at CONSTRUCT. So yes SCIP is a threat because manufacturers are recognizing the place to find the most valuable contacts.