No doubt Henry Ernstthal and Bob Jones are correct that an organization can be invigorated when a substantial number of its members gather to attend educational programming, to participate in governance mechanisms and transitions in leadership, and to network. In addition to these benefits, ASAE’s 2000 Operating Ratio Report states that income from annual meeting/convention registration fees alone constitutes, on average, 8.9% of total association revenues. This does not include the average 9.6% for educational program fees, the 7.4% for exhibit fees and the 1.7% of meeting sponsorship revenue.2 In the 1998 Bar Activities Inventory, 81% of participating state bars reported breaking even or making a profit on their annual meetings. Of local bars, 68% broke even or reported a profit.3 Bar meetings are clearly valuable, but are associations relying too heavily on an activity that, in ten years, may be unsustainable?

The NABE/DBS Meeting Attendance Survey was designed to track state and local bar association experiences with their meetings over the last three years, and to establish benchmarks that could be compared with meeting trends across the association community broadly. After compiling and analyzing the results of the survey, one can make some useful generalizations, but the uniqueness of each bar association was thrust into greater relief, as was the uniqueness of the bar association community within the association world. Very little about the survey results can be considered conclusive, and it is clear that nothing in this report can substitute for a bar regularly surveying its own membership. Bars reflect the communities they serve, and the cultural variations between regions, between size and types of bars, are numerous and must be taken into consideration when using this report.

Of the sixty-eight state and local bar associations that responded to the NABE/DBS survey, 94% indicated that they traditionally hold at least one major meeting per year. ASAE’s profile was similar with 95% of associations holding one or more conventions or annual meetings. Only three bars associations (one state, two local) reported holding no annual or midyear meetings. Of the responding state bars, 42% hold two meetings per year as compared with 21% of local bars who hold two meetings. Only one state and two local bars reported holding more than two major meetings per year.

The approximate average length of state bar annual and midyear meetings fell at 2.8 and 3 days, respectively, whereas local bar meetings were shorter with averages of approximately 4.5 hours and 7.5 hours for the annual and midyear. Most state bar annual meetings are a mix of social activities, continuing legal education and bar business, such as elections, installation of officers and award ceremonies. Many of the local bar meetings are organized around an event – luncheons and dinners were frequently cited – and are therefore shorter. Local bar meetings are more focused on the social component and bar business, though about half of the local bars reported offering some kind of continuing education at their meetings.

Hotels, resorts and convention centers were the most frequently cited locations for bar meetings. Ninety-seven percent of responding state bars hold their meetings there, as do 67% of the local bars. The smaller local bar meetings did enable meeting planners to explore other options: restaurants, courthouses/bar buildings, country clubs, a park and a bar member’s home were other venues mentioned.

Growth in state and local bar meeting attendance, by contrast, was quite modest. Of the state bars that responded to the NABE/DBS survey, 60% indicated that attendance at their annual meetings remained the same during the past three years. Of the remaining state bars, only 14% reported actual growth in annual meeting attendance while 27% reported declining attendance. With midyear meetings, 14% again reported gains, but only 50% were able to maintain their numbers so that more than a third of state bars saw a decline in attendance.

Forty-four percent of responding local bars reported that attendance at annual meetings remained the same through the past three years. Local bars saw better growth with 39% reporting increased attendance and only 18% reporting declining attendance at annual meetings. Because so few of the responding local bars hold midyear meetings (7), the results are more polarized with 67% reporting attendance staying the same. One bar reported an increase and one a decrease in midyear meeting attendance.

Readers may be surprised by the optimism of the ASAE report, and relieved to see that slightly more than half of the responding bars reported no substantial change in meeting attendance for the past three years, possibly undermining the impression that meeting attendance has taken a downturn. Local bars may have greater reason for optimism since more than a third of the respondents (39% for annual meetings) are sustaining growth, whereas only 14% of the state bars reported growth at annual and midyear meetings. Nevertheless, bar association membership is growing (among voluntary state bars, by an average of 0.86% annually; 0.95% for metros),5 so it appears that for that large percentage of bars whose attendance is flat, member participation seems to be slowly eroding.

How does one explain the discrepancy between the ASAE report and the results of the NABE/DBS survey? One minor factor may be that about half of the organizations that responded to the ASAE survey are trade associations. Trade associations reported holding more and slightly larger meetings since 1995 than individual membership associations. It is likely, however, that the bar community’s struggle with meeting attendance has more to do with the pressures at work within the community. Bar staff are all too aware of the saturation of services and the remarkable competition between state, local, minority, women’s and other special-focus bars not just for members’ money but, of course, for their equally precious time. Bars cannot overestimate the increasing demands being placed on lawyers’ schedules. And because annual and midyear meetings are frequently so tied up with an organization’s identity, staff and volunteers may be reluctant to consider partnerships or joint functions, which can be so effective in leveraging monetary and volunteer resources and neutralizing competition.

versus Section Meetings
Larger organizations typically have an advantage in attracting members to their meetings; they can leverage meeting costs over more people and seem to do more with less, and they tend to have larger staffs who can organize and market more sophisticated programs. If this is true, why, then, are state bar associations struggling to increase meeting attendance, while more than a third of the local bars reported gains? In addition to the external competition mentioned above, internal competitors may be drawing members away from general-purpose functions.

Seventy-nine percent of responding state and local bars (81% state, 78% local) indicated they hold some section meetings apart from annual and midyear meetings. The NABE/DBS survey also asked these bars whether sections experienced attendance trends that were similar or different from general membership meetings. Membership surveys undertaken by bar associations over the years have found that members repeatedly rank section activities high in value. The question enabled us to ascertain if meetings are in favor or disfavor generally, and how much attendance is contingent upon the type of meeting that is being held.

According to the responses, state bar section meetings are well attended – as well or better attended than general meetings. State bars that reported increasing attendance among annual and midyear meetings also reported those increases within the sections. Similarly, nearly all state bars that maintained their numbers in the past three years reported holding steady with section meeting attendance as well. By contrast, nearly all state bars that reported declining attendance at annual and midyear meetings reported that section meeting attendance had either remained the same or had increased. (However, several bars did note that all sections are not created equal; that is, some sections may be quite active while others are not.)

Nevertheless, local bars present us with a considerably different view of sections, though several bars, again, note that attendance very much depends on which section is holding the meeting. Overall, local bars reported that section attendance was the same or worse than annual meeting attendance. Of nine bars that reported the same or increased attendance at general meetings over the past three years, section attendance mirrored that in only four cases. The remaining five bars reported declining attendance at section meetings. Of five bars that reported declines in general meeting attendance, three reported similar declines and two reported that declines in section attendance were even more dramatic than with general meeting attendance.

It is not too surprising that local bar sections do not compete with the association as they do at the state level. In many cases, local bar sections are not as fully developed as they are at the state bar. Many local bars did not institute sections until relatively recently; a smaller entity will not be as well funded as a larger one, and may have fewer devoted staff to develop and market activities. In addition, well-developed sections are especially crucial to state bar associations, where a sense of community is more difficult to establish with thousands upon thousands in the general membership.

All in all, local bar annual meetings still appear to be viable community gatherings that members value (possibly because, in part, they require a smaller commitment of the members’ time). State bars may have a harder sell. On the one hand, state bar sections have made themselves a priority among members by providing more targeted services to members in their practice. In addition, members may have to travel to a state bar meeting; the registration fees for state bar meetings are $100-$150 more expensive, on average; and the meetings are longer, so that unless there are flexible registration options, bars are asking members to give up more of their time.

According to the survey responses and the ASAE report, there are bar associations that are making meetings work. The New York State Bar Association and the Oklahoma Bar Association both reported growth of over 20%, as did the Santa Cruz County Bar Association (CA), the Boston Bar Association, Northampton County Bar Association (PA), and the Milwaukee Bar Association. It isn’t a coincidence that, in a recent membership study, the NYSBA, Boston and Milwaukee also reported among the largest growth in membership among voluntary state and metro bars in the last five years.6 These bars have been able to successfully identify what motivates and attracts their constituents.

Are bars regularly asking their members for input to guide the formulation of meetings? Because general membership meetings can lack a natural focus and be just that – too general – it is all the more necessary that the bar solicit member input. Are bars taking initiative and asking for input before they experience a serious decline in attendance? According to the survey, in the last three years slightly less than one quarter of the responding bars (9 state, 6 local) surveyed its members for feedback.

Those bars that surveyed their members about annual and midyear meetings were asked to share their findings. Below are selected responses from the NABE/DBS survey, which fell into two major areas (see Appendix 3 for the full text of bar association responses):

• Location/timing matters ("majority wanted annual meetings at the beach each year instead of moved around;" "resorts would be a better draw, hold during the summer;" "attendance depends on location, free time activities, conference dates;" "one annual meeting is enough;" "[the bar holds] monthly dinner meetings, members requested mixing in some lunches and breakfasts.")

• Are your bar’s activities on members’ "Can’t Miss This" list? ("[they] always have conflicts;" "scheduling conflicts, increased demands on members’ time;" "conventions are a thing of the past, since they can get CLEs anywhere.")

The survey also asked for bar staff observations, which echoed these comments, and expanded on them. Here are some of the recurring themes:

• Again, the Triumvirate: Time/Cost/Location ("firms no longer paying;" "lack of time major factor depends on location and cost;" "people are busy – [we have] two active sections and six active specialty bars, judges don’t attend because of all the events they’re invited to;" "busy lifestyles, [members] don’t want to spend money on bar functions.")

• Relevance ("So many CLE programs available in specialty areas that a general convention is obsolete.")

Staff also commented on strategies that were successful, that is, ways in which bar associations maintained or increased attendance:

• Cultivating Volunteer Loyalty ("same group [attends], tried and true;" "people like to support new president;" "personal contact;" "depends on slate of officers, awards being given (large firms bring many associates);" "1999 location didn’t attract, new president (a judge) encouraged attendance, and it went up.")

• Meeting Format/Marketing ("9% of in-state members attend, meeting at a resort – family-oriented;" "moved the focus to CLE in order to retain current attendance;" "changes in CLE format, change in location, exceptional convention chairpersons;" "annual meetings are free – 48% of active, in-state members attend;" "high quality CLE and banquet speakers, traditional venues and first-class social events, together with strong marketing effort;" "better subjects, eliminate sit-down dinner, replaced with roving appetizers/buffet, gaming, raffle;" "special centennial dinner increased attendance;" "aggressive marketing, good keynote speakers, keeping event short;" "local attendance is convenient, seminars are free and superb, combined with Law Day;" "provide CLE, dinners, meetings free, interesting programs;" "better marketing, flexible attendance options;" "luncheon program v dinner, brief program."

• "Corresponding growth in membership"

While many of these anecdotal observations are very useful, they may not entirely get to the heart of the matter. The DC Bar generously shared an in-depth report from its Winter Convention Review Committee that addressed the decline in attendance at its midyear meeting during the 1990s. While the committee ultimately recommended that the bar continue to hold a midyear meeting, it made specific recommendations to modify the meeting based on the primary factors it discovered motivate the attendance of its members:

• The opportunity provided by the Convention to hear from prominent speakers in the legal profession,

• The opportunity to learn about specific areas of the law or types of practice,

• The opportunity to network,

• The opportunity to enhance professional skills, and

• The opportunity to participate in discussions about the DC Bar and the legal profession and about community issues.7

Primary factors discouraging attendance were:

• Conflicts with work schedule or other obligations

• Relevance (or lack thereof) of the Convention’s program topics

• Monetary costs to attend the Convention.8

Forty-eight percent of responding state bars indicated that they offer flexible registration options (see the text of the responses for details). A smaller number of the local bars (23%) offer these options, though for many of the local bars whose annual meetings are short lunch or dinner meetings, this question was not applicable. Of the state bars who responded affirmatively, a quarter reported that there had been a discernable impact on attendance as a result of these options. For the local bars, 29% noticed an impact. These numbers are perhaps not as stunning as one might expect. However, the authors of the DC Bar report made the point that these options need to be more effectively marketed: members responded that the flexibility was valuable, but many did not seem to be aware that these options were available.

Let’s say, hypothetically, that the bar has surveyed its members. The format and content of the meeting have been altered to address the needs that were identified. The bar as marketed aggressively, and the number of attendees is still down. Were the changes a failure? Member feedback may suggest that the changes did not hit the mark. However, if the bar is experiencing a decline in attendance, it may be unreasonable to expect a turnaround after one meeting. If members have come to expect a certain kind of meeting, it may require repeated efforts to communicate the changes that were made. A bar may want to consider committing to a new format for a few meetings, to provide members with an opportunity to adjust. In addition, bars should plan to engage in systematic follow-up (program evaluations, focus groups, individual interviews) that will register any progress that may have been made (but that may not be reflected in the number of meeting attendees).

Some bars have found that not enough of their members find general meetings valuable to warrant sustaining them. Eliminating the meeting is one solution. Fourteen percent (3 state, 6 local) of responding bars indicated that they had eliminated a major meeting in the past three years. (Not included in that figure was the Washington State Bar Association that reported eliminating its meetings in 1992, and the State Bar of California that eliminated a meeting during the crisis of 1998, but eventually reinstated it.) In addition, the 1998 BAI shows two state bars eliminated a meeting: Massachusetts eliminated its annual meeting due to lack of attendance and, as of 1998, Oregon moved from an annual to biennial meeting schedule.9 No bars added a major meeting, though a few indicated they had expanded the number of smaller meetings, such as CLE seminars. In the NABE/DBS survey, all of the meetings that were eliminated were midyear meetings, and member response to eliminated meetings fell into two groups: members who never noticed the meeting was gone; and members who may have voiced concern initially, but who supported the decision once aware of declining attendance and cost factors.

Nevertheless, bars may be surprised to discover the depth of member support for annual and midyear meetings. Should the bar conduct a survey, consider asking members whether the bar should continue to hold the meeting. The DC Bar committee found that despite plummeting attendance in the 1990s, more than three-quarters of attendees and a significant minority of those who identified themselves as "non-attendees" indicated the bar should continue to hold a Winter Convention. If a bar can avoid a net loss of revenue, it may want to consider holding the meeting for as long as is financially viable. Clearly, there are still groups within bar associations – in many cases, these may be older members who have attended for years – that still find value in assembling for such a meeting. The challenge for the bar is determining if the time and money expended results in a worthwhile return on investment.

The survey asked bars about their experiences using alternative methods of delivering CLE. Twenty-four percent indicated they had used some kind of alternative technology (teleconferencing, videoconferencing, Web cast, etc.), but it is unclear how this may be affecting attendance at bar meetings where CLE is a primary draw. At this time, none of the respondents from bars that use these new technologies believe this has affected meeting attendance positively or negatively.

The ASAE Meetings Outlook report speculated that technology is the area in which associations will see the most dramatic changes in their meetings. An ever-rising number of associations use the Internet, e-mail to supply meeting information to potential attendees, and to deliver programs at meetings. Electronic discussion groups are also on the rise – meeting attendees are using listservs with greater frequency for networking and discussion purposes.10

On the other hand, as our lives become more structured by technology, bars should be poised to take advantage of the possibility of a resurgent value in their social function. As two bars indicated, technology cannot completely replace in-person meetings; sections that have moved toward teleconference or videoconference meetings have experienced a decline in attendance, while the in-person meetings remain strong.

The ASAE Association Meeting Trends report concludes that in the current business environment it is possible for associations to sustain annual meetings, expect rising attendance and generate revenue from them. However, the kind of growth reported there seems the exception and not the rule in the bar association community. And do we perceive a problem in meeting attendance that is static because we’re defining it as a problem? To enlist a cliché, bigger may not necessarily be better. Why should a bar association try to force one meeting to appeal to a potentially diverse membership? Is this not a continuation of the one-size-fits-all theory of membership, which destines bars to irrelevance? And is it really so unthinkable that annual and midyear meetings appeal more to leadership than to the average dues-paying member? If a meeting continues to be valuable to10% of the membership, the meeting may be a viable way to target one segment of the bar’s market. But, the question remains – what does the bar provide for that other 90%?

Appendix 1:
Summary of Survey Responses

Appendix 2:
Responding Bar Associations

Appendix 3:
Meeting Attendance Survey Responses

Appendix 4:
Meeting Attendance Survey Instrument