The most successful offline networks I’ve known have been dependent on someone to lubricate the connections. In most cases these networks had a coordinator who was generating revenue doing what they loved to do. Many times the network petered out when that person found better paid work. The trick seems to be minimizing the identification of the network with an individual and managing the transition from one coordinator to the next.

Joel has done an amazing job building the tools on OWC and coaching members on how to use these tools. The question is how does OWC grow to the next level, and what is that next level? Arthur has proposed some transformative goals which are pretty exciting, but coordinating a group of 4,500 sneezing members to act on these issues takes a significant effort.

This is a feeling I’ve had for many charity organizations as well–the organizations which benefit most from certain individuals are the ones whose “issues are closer to home” for those individuals. There are many things vying for your attention in the world, charities, wine communities, and otherwise. You need to rank highly on that meter of “closer to home” to incur any mobilization.

I appreciate Joel’s efforts and don’t expect more of him.

If members want a board of directors, certifications, articles, etc. then do it. I’m sure Joel will take care of the software to facilitate member’s activities.

- jim

I dunno if it’ll help, but yesterday, I started an affiliate program that would give bloggers an 18% share of my subscription revenue …

This link talks about it generally: http://wineindustryinsight.com/?p=6081

and this one specifically:
http://vip.wineindustryinsight.com/affiliate/

I’m certainly open to changing/adding things if they help bloggers etc. All ideas welcome.

Contrary to my email, I do have soemthign to say on this matter.

This situation points to one major problem with social networking: if it’s not a revenue-producing phenomenon people working or administrating on their own time will inevitably have to give it less attention. It’s like any volunteer organization, analogue or digital.

It’s a fine thing to create a place where networking is possible–or leveraging, as you guys like to call it–but if that clearinghouse is not a revenue-maker, it quite possibly has a predictable life span.

It’s the same question as the one for blogs: how does one make the Internet into a revenue stream?

Until new media is viewed as a revenue producer and not as a free exchange of ideas or marketplace, it’s probably not going to be a revenue producer for any but the large, capitally-invested players. Nothing new there–all the media that I’ve been involved in have followed that path.

However, Arthur does have good points. The potential of the OWC is untapped. That wouldn’t be a big deal if that potential wasn’t very, very big.

Perhaps OWC needs an active Board of Directors that will drive initiatives. Yes, they’d do it voluntarily. And it would take time and effort. But this might be the solution.

4,500+ members is nothing to sneeze at. But just imagine what could happen if they all sneezed at the same time.

I also appreciate your thoughts and comments.

I know you work hard and, as a past admin of the OWC, I know just how hard and time-consuming this work is.
The infrastructure you have created is admirable – but it is not being leveraged. This is not really a shortcoming for which you alone should be burdened. Still, you and I can probably agree that there is much potential for the existing community and infrastructure to do a lot of good. Perhaps what is needed is a different approach to how the OWC community is organized and motivated. So I a gree that OWC need not be top-heavy, but it needs a handful of strong voices to serve as rallying points.
And the latter statement of mine answers the question you bring up in your second comment.
I think you will acknowledge that I worked with a good amount of zeal as an admin of the OWC. But as you say, one person cannot carry the weight of 4600.
So this post was not meant to denounce OWC (or your efforts) but rather to exhort its membership to action.

Thanks for commenting.

You are right that the image I have for this post was derived from the WBC logo. I played with the OWC logo, but it just was not working.

The WBC logo is about energy and zeal and being vocal about wine. The altered image I put up represents the antithesis of that.

If you think the industry needs a way to address the issues to bring up, what’s your plan to address those issues and how can the OWC community help in that effort.

The communication infrastructure is there connecting 4600+ industry people to affect the change you allude to. How can you implement that change on this open infrastructure?