Posted by
A number of members have expressed their view on the subject of exclusive vs. open membership categories. The majority still prefers to keep their business categories exclusive – meaning that we can only accept one business per category, e.g. one mortgage broker, one insurance agent, etc.
However, one of our guests at the last meeting suggested a compromise solution, which would, I my humble opinion, satisfy both those ‘for’ and ‘against’ exclusive membership.
Here it is: why not leave it to each member to decide if his or her business category should be open or closed!?
Since some members feel that their ‘competition’ can bring more to them and the group, they would like to be able to invite people in the same, or closely related, business category to join our group.
What do you think? Please comment bellow.
If you have any other comments on our new membership ‘rules and regulations’ please feel free to address them here as well.
We’re trying to create a unique group and your input really counts!
Thanks.
I am for allowing individual members to decide.
There’s no real competition if you position your business properly. Also, this will give members a choice of one or more people to refer their clients and friends to.
Leave it to each category to decide whether they can benefit from more than one person in their particular category
I think that is a great idea!
I don’t mind if there is 2 per category, but I think that should be the limit. I agree it is up to us to communicate our value proposition and work with people that we like and share common values and investment philosophies.
We need to control the size of the group, if it becomes too large, it is not a referral group it is a social network and difficult to get to know people on a deeper level.
Thanks for addressing this. I like the idea of having each person decide whether their category is open, with a maximum of 2 per category, for group size control.
One more thing: there should be no pressure on members to open their categories, if they feel it wouldn’t be in their best interest.
I agree, we should probably limit it to 2 per category.
I don’t think it’s a question of competition or proper alignment of your business. I think the concern should be the size of the group.
If we decide to open categories, we very well could end up with 50 members, 10 of whom offer exactly the same service. Think of how unstimulating and dull that will be during infomercial session!
My opinion is to stick with the idea of exclusivity. Not only will this give people more of a reason to attend the meetings, it will provide us with a richer, more diverse group and better networking experience.
I agree with the proposal to let each category decide upon whether or not to allow more representation/competition.
I think everyone should be exclusive,If we open more the one catagory we might as well not have a group.
I think it should be 1 per catagory, if more it defeats the purpose of the group
I would like to stick to one per category for the time being, as we build the group and see how big we get. We are getting amazing representation from many different sectors which is making it easier to provide referrals on a regular basis.
I am willing to allow another from my category come in. I can not only share what i have to offer but I can also learn and have referrals from that other person.
What a great way to build a networking group! I remember, years ago, when I joined BNI I was given a rule book and was expected to follow them, and ask no questions.
Regardless of what we decide, I think the fact we’re talking about issues and making decisions that will shape this group surely must be one of the best reasons to be a member of this group and not some other.
I think I will go for exclusivity. Sometimes it’s awkward that there is someone competing within the group with similar business.
There should be a need of a screening committee to accept who’s or not before letting the new company come in to avoid clashing and select the one that you are comfortable with to refer. Just a thought.