REI is a great case study to consider. Do people shop at REI vs. Dick’s because it’s a co-op and not a for-profit company? No, they shop there because it’s a better place to shop: great products, passionate employees, a corporate philosophy that resonates, etc. I would bet that most first-time customers don’t have any idea REI is a co-op. The membership aspect is a reason to keep shopping–a benefit to being a repeat customer–not the basis upon which to do business with them. It’s just a variation on relationship pricing.

As far as ownership/control goes, I’m a member at Truliant FCU, which has more than 100,000 members. The idea that I can exert any more control over how the organization is run vs. a local community bank doesn’t pass the smell test. Sure, I can vote for the Board, but if you look at member voting turnout (and the age and average tenure of our board), there is no way you can tell me members see it that way. And my share ownership doesn’t offer any tangible benefits to me individually; I hear over and over that our “cooperative structure” means I’ll get better rates, but I can easily find better savings and lending rates by searching the internet.

The only real way to exert control at a medium- to large-sized CU is as a customer (i.e., feedback to employees). Which is no different than it is with a bank.

My vote–time to be more like REI…

X means nothing these days. A $5 par share requirement for a family that makes $40,000/year means as close to nothing as it possibly could…especially if it’s at a goliath credit union. My comment isn’t to criticize large credit unions – they got that way because they are great at what they do. My purpose is to point out that a member at a, say, 100,000 member credit union has .000001 voting power, .000001 influence on operations, and only $5 to lose if things don’t go well. No wonder folks don’t understand the power of member-ownership.

We need to find a way to make membership mean more even as our collective size increases. This means partnerships with community groups and retailers to leverage collective buying power. This means serving members as consumer advocates on various levels of community, government, and commercial interests. This means making the members and staff have more “skin in the game” (higher par value requirements, annual membership fees, etc). This means, perhaps, giving members actual equity ownership in their credit union.

Just some thoughts.

To the topic at hand, I apologize in advance if my comments are too US-centric, but here, membership no longer has its privileges, to paraphrase something I heard somewhere.

William is spot-on to suggest that membership should mean something, but more and more, its harder for CUs to deliver on that.

First of all, I think it’s important for CU people to remember that often a new “member” simply wants superior products/service/customer experience, which has nothing to do with “membership”.

But there’s something else going on here: The great selling point of membership — “ownership” or a “voice” — has been devalued. Thirty-five years ago (in the US), a small minority of consumers directly owned stock in a company. Today, it’s a majority. As consumers, we have much broader experience in “ownership”, and have found, quite frankly, that it’s not quite what it’s cracked up to be. So this big push on the part of CUs to showcase the ownership aspect of membership isn’t having the impact it might have once had.

I would also remind William that one of the more successful co-operatives in the US — REI — allows people to buy from the store without first becoming a member. As a member myself, the benefit I get has nothing to do w/ ownership, but in getting discounts and early access to sales.

Here’s the deal. Membership SHOULD mean something, it is at the very core of being a co-operative. The problem is that, in most cases, it doesn’t mean anything. It is a hoop to jump through to open an account at a smaller ‘bank’. The meaning isn’t communicated in many cases, and it usually isn’t well understood by the joining member.

In Bologna it occurred to me that perhaps if membership were optional, it could be sold as a way to deepen a relationship. You can be a customer of the credit union, but if you really believe in us, want to help direct our future by voting (and voting for more than just the board) and share in our profits, we suggest you JOIN. Then the conversation takes on meaning and the meaning is conveyed and understood by both parties. When people buy a share, they are buying something that they really want to buy.

Whether or not that is possible/legal is another issue. On that I have no idea.

And I’ll echo Tim: “Had Gene Blishen been able to make it, with his Yoda-like comments and wisdom, BCBBC2 would have been exceptional!” We missed you!

You know I’ve never been to Santa Fe in the summer now that I think about it. We always stayed away because of tourists. Hmmm……..

I hear you. It’s maddening. I seldom use my iPhone for important calls for that very reason. I was on a call last week in Dallas, Texas – talk about flat – and it dropped three times. AND, I wasn’t moving and it always said I had all my bars. Whatever.

That’s the biggest mistake Steve Jobs made, IMHO, partnering with satan for coverage.

Other than that, sounds like your Santa Fe trip is wonderful and PLEASE don’t be hesitant to use our Land Line.

Cheers!