A thread on the techpodcasts google group and Todd Cochrane

There's a thread started over at the Techpodcasts Google Groups. I wanted to bring this to Andrew and Spencer's attention and maybe you guys can weigh in and let us know what Todd Cochrane with RawVoice means by what he said below:

"I do not let other businesses speak on my business behalf, unless there are very strict guidelines and policies in place that prevent that group from causing my business harm. With no charter, and or policies in place by being a member anything they say or do, is fully attributable back to your show.

They spoke at BlogWorld on behalf of their members, do you know what was said? I do...

Todd.."

Hi Donovan,

This is my take on the situation as it currently exists in the Internet Broadcasting community. Andrew and Spencer put together the IAIB as a free to join community where all of us Internet Broadcasters (IB's) can discuss issues that we are having along with get a single voice to talk to vendors of hardware and software to educate them about our needs as IB's that need to be addressed. Things like changes to product roadmaps along with potentially reduced prices on hardware and software or demo/evaluation units.

I do have a feeling that there are going to be others that have concerns about the IAIB primarily because they may have wanted to create the IAIB themselves as a for profit organization and collect dues. I do understand that some people may have concerns but from everything I have seen so far of Andrew and Spencer they are both doing exactly what the industry needs now. Also, they are honest and trustworthy. As always, no one is forcing anyone to join up with the IAIB but I am sure that you will find that being involved with the community is much better than not.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by brianmonroe

Hi Donovan,

This is my take on the situation as it currently exists in the Internet Broadcasting community. Andrew and Spencer put together the IAIB as a free to join community where all of us Internet Broadcasters (IB's) can discuss issues that we are having along with get a single voice to talk to vendors of hardware and software to educate them about our needs as IB's that need to be addressed. Things like changes to product roadmaps along with potentially reduced prices on hardware and software or demo/evaluation units.

I do have a feeling that there are going to be others that have concerns about the IAIB primarily because they may have wanted to create the IAIB themselves as a for profit organization and collect dues. I do understand that some people may have concerns but from everything I have seen so far of Andrew and Spencer they are both doing exactly what the industry needs now. Also, they are honest and trustworthy. As always, no one is forcing anyone to join up with the IAIB but I am sure that you will find that being involved with the community is much better than not.

---

I personally think that by creating this they have given us something very valuable. That was my concern with what Todd said. I was just curious what Andrew or Spencer had to say about it.

Well, membership in the IAIB comes with a money-back guarantee. If you don't like what the group does and what it stands for, request a refund. Oh, wait.

My guess is that Todd had a bad experience with a prior organization. He's just being cautious, which makes sense. It sounds like the IAIB is not a good match for him or his associates.

Let's face it Andrew is trying to take over the world. There is no denying he has an agenda. I wouldn't trust him as far as I could throw him. Those New York dudes can't be trusted. There are two many secrets and now enough answers. And don't get me started with that Spencer guy. He takes the cake! Put those two guys together and nothing but trouble came come from it. They are only in it for the money, I tell you! Get out while you still have your wallets....

I did it for the lulz ;-)

Thanks Donovan for posting this! We’d like to address not only what you have posted here, but some of the inaccurate points that Todd and Angelo are making to their group.

First of all, we certainly apologize if Todd was somehow offended by the fact that we did not consult him prior to forming the IAIB, however, it is unclear to us why he would find it necessary for us to consult with anyone other than who we chose to consult with. Just to be clear, since our soft launch in March, we have consulted with several of the most well known and extremely powerful industry insiders and companies in the field who, by the way, have openly embraced the IAIB.

The IAIB was founded, in part, to act as the collective voice of this industry and as the only voluntary trade association in the field that does not and will not charge membership dues, it’s sometimes difficult for the status quo to fully comprehend our organizational model.

As far as Todd’s claim that we “spoke at BlogWorld on behalf of our members” it’s difficult to know exactly what he is referring to, however, the way in which he is presenting this to his Google group is quite curious and frankly very disappointing as it insinuates that whatever he is referencing can somehow negatively affect our membership, which with all due respect is ludicrous.

The below statement is also curious since it not only nonsensical but could never apply to our organizational model.
“I do not let other businesses speak on my business behalf, unless there are very strict guidelines and policies in place that prevent that group from causing my business harm. With no charter, and or policies in place by being a member anything they say or do, is fully attributable back to your show.”

It’s important to note that there is more than one way to run an organization, and perhaps Todd is right when he states that we should look more closely as to why ADM was unsuccessful. The IAIB is not interested in titles or charters. We like to consider our “board” as a collective consisting of the entirety of our membership.

The good news is that our organization is growing exponentially and as the comments made before this post indicate, there are many internet broadcast professionals who truly understand the importance and value of the IAIB.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by andrewzarian

Just to be clear, since our soft launch in
March, we have consulted with several of the most well known and
extremely powerful industry insiders and companies in the field who,
by the way, have openly embraced the IAIB.

---

And I appreciate your having consulted with me :)

Even though you obviously didn't, nor did you need to, I feel that my
input, suggestions, and/or questions have been met with a reciprocal
amount of respect from everyone that is a member and associated with
IAIB. As part of NetcastStudios, I have chosen to work with internet
broadcasters that have a sense of family and community. I have chosen
to become a member of IAIB for the exact same reason. I feel that this
organization does have the potential to become "the voice" of our
community and if, down the road, membership dues became something that
was discussed, I would not be opposed to paying them.

Thank you for all of your efforts on behalf of us small guys :)

Jim Meeker (@CTRLALTDELIVER)
http://www.netcaststudio.com/ctrl-alt-deliver/

--
Listen to the CTRLALTDELIVER Podcast at*http://netcaststudio.com/
www.ctrlaltdeliver.com
@ctrlaltdeliver on Twitter

It is terribly unfortunate that some of internet radios "pioneers" have resorted to speaking ill of the IAIB behind closed forums instead of actively approaching and learning from their fellow peers. If their organization failed maybe it was because of timing or poor leadership. The IAIB is a welcome asset to internet broadcasting due to he wealth of information being exchanged and all for the cost of $0. Learning how to fine tune my on air product as well as sharing my info has been one of the tremendous benefits of being a member and it is something I am grateful for. Hearing that the IAIB spoke for its members is a silly thing to say considering I am a member and I spoke for my brand. On the contrary I touted being a member of the IAIB because it is something I believe in and I honestly would not stand behind a brand if I didn't believe in it. These guys should work on evolving the medium instead of tearing down those that are bringing a fresh approach to the table. I have met and broke bread with various members of the IAIB and feel honored to have my brand embraced and supported by this group. No one has or ever will speak for me and if they would have spoken up they would have seen that. Antiquated ideas from antiquated dudes!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MyTakeRadio

It is terribly unfortunate that some of internet radios "pioneers" have resorted to speaking ill of the IAIB behind closed forums instead of actively approaching and learning from their fellow peers. If their organization failed maybe it was because of timing or poor leadership. The IAIB is a welcome asset to internet broadcasting due to he wealth of information being exchanged and all for the cost of $0. Learning how to fine tune my on air product as well as sharing my info has been one of the tremendous benefits of being a member and it is something I am grateful for. Hearing that the IAIB spoke for its members is a silly thing to say considering I am a member and I spoke for my brand. On the contrary I touted being a member of the IAIB because it is something I believe in and I honestly would not stand behind a brand if I didn't believe in it. These guys should work on evolving the medium instead of tearing down those that are bringing a fresh approach to the table. I have met and broke bread with various members of the IAIB and feel honored to have my brand embraced and supported by this group. No one has or ever will speak for me and if they would have spoken up they would have seen that. Antiquated ideas from antiquated dudes!

---

Well said. I am really confused as to where this whole idea that the IAIB is currently speaking for it's members is coming from. I have not seen or heard Andrew or Spencer ever say "The IAIB says..." sort of thing.

The good thing about the IAIB is that members can assist one another and share ideas about Internet Broadcasting along with get help from fellow members that have a lot more experience than they do. Some members have decades of experience in the radio and broadcast industries and are not asking for any money at all to assist the new IB's with setting up hardware, software and websites. There is a LOT to know about if you want to do a good job and attract many listeners or viewers. There is so much to know and it is great to not have to feel like you are on your own when you run in to problems or are looking to expand or just want to optimize what you are doing. I know for a fact that many IB's can learn a lot from what works and what does not from those that have experience from the "old media" as many of the same issues still come up.

Now with Apple just releasing it's "podcasting" app for iOS it is going to get even more important that as more new listeners and viewers come online we show that the content and quality provided by IB's is just as good and in some cases better than what they are getting when they watch TV or listen to the radio. I do feel that more and more listeners and viewers are ready to start checking out the whole Interent Broadcasting. There are just way to many ads on TV and Radio along with being to many stations that when you subscribe to cable or satellite get bundled in that you never watch and you are forced to pay for.

I have to apologize, but this topic got way blown out of proportion both on my own twitter account and in the Tech Podcasts mailing list.

In the past there was a true trade association for our industry called the ADM (Association for Downloadable Media). The IAIB resembles nothing at all of an association like the ADM. The ADM was filed as a 501c non profit organization, it's actions were recorded and made public to comply with US and State laws. It had nearly all of the companies in the space as members, as well as thousands of independent podcasters. We had elections, all members were able to run for board and committee positions and all members were able to vote for those members running. There were annual/monthly meetings, both for the main board as well as for appointed committees. All meetings were held publicly, even non-ADM members were able to call into meetings. It was a true association in the sense. The organization followed the Robers Rules of Order, like all organizations are supposed to.

If you look on archive.org and read some of the last postings that were made to the ADM web site you can see why it fell apart. One person used the ADM to promote their own business agenda. Understanding the history of this Association for Downloadable Media you can see why we're both reserved about anything else being labeled as an "Association".

Since this association is not a 501c and does not have the structure of an organization ran by the Roberts Rules of Order, it's hard for a business burned in the past by the ADM to accept a privately owned Association as a better alternative. Even with the ADM being filed as a 501c, it was abused, so you have to look at this from our perspective in that how can someone trust an association that is not a public, transparent non-profit organization.

If this was an Association filed as a 501c (which we first thought it was because of the title), you better believe we would be extremely upset that no one reached out to us (RawVoice) to join. From our perspective, if someone was setting up a replacement for the ADM, everyone who was ADM members should have been invited to the new association. My impression now is this association was created without any past research or knowledge of the ADM.

As I see it now this is a community with a forum to help fellow broadcasters/podcasters. I don't see the IAIB trying to put out standards for HTML5 players, or download measurement standards, or pre-roll/post-roll advertising standards. The infrastructure (aka board and committees) for doing anything ambitious like that is just not here. I think as a forum for podcasters to get together this is great, and I and Todd don't have a problem with it.

I was wrong that having "Association" in the title meant that the entity has to be filed as a 501c and be an organization ran by Roberts Rules of Order. Anyone can create a company or business with the word "Association" in the title and it has no legal binding to whether or not it's an actual non-profit organization.

As an internet broadcaster, the IAIB has done nothing but helped me. As a result of the ridiculous response from TPN, i'll be having absolutely no more involvement with it.

We have reservations because of the past Association called the ADM. If you want to take that as some sort of anti-IAIB then I apologize that's not what we intended.

A lot of people put a lot of unpaid work, time and money into the ADM and it went down in flames because someone used the ADM web site to advertise they were going to take their patent for podcasting and start litigating podcasting companies to compensate them. It ruined the ADM and yes it makes us extremely reserved with anything called an "Association".

IAIB has helped me greatly. I was at the point I am not going to lie that I was going to give up on this industry. This is due to the fact that I have mentioned in the past that the podcasting and new media industry can be a selfish business. This is exactly what people want us to do to argue and have traditional media to treat us like a joke. If there were more people who wanted to work with each other instead of being selfish then I think that the industry would be taken more seriously. Just from being on IAIB for the time that I been here so far I have finally met some nice people in the industry. In the past, I was dealing with mean people who didn't want to work with the younger generation. But here, it is different. I can say for the first time in my life that I finally have a Internet broadcasting family. I love you guys! You have make a difference in my life and I am so grateful for that.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by angelo

In the past there was a true trade association for our industry called the ADM (Association for Downloadable Media). The IAIB resembles nothing at all of an association like the ADM. The ADM was filed as a 501c non profit organization, it's actions were recorded and made public to comply with US and State laws. It had nearly all of the companies in the space as members, as well as thousands of independent podcasters. We had elections, all members were able to run for board and committee positions and all members were able to vote for those members running. There were annual/monthly meetings, both for the main board as well as for appointed committees. All meetings were held publicly, even non-ADM members were able to call into meetings. It was a true association in the sense. The organization followed the Robers Rules of Order, like all organizations are supposed to.

---

I just want to add my two cents here since I do have extensive experience and knowledge in working within the nonprofit sector since 2004. Whether the association is nonprofit, unregistered or other, many successful associations in the United States are no longer run by parliamentary procedure. There are several states where only a single board member is required for a 501c3 nonprofit corporation. To state as fact that the IAIB is not a "true" association is completely inaccurate based on law and both yours and Todd's criteria.

Here is a great excerpt that was posted on GuideStar from the book, "Great Boards for Small Groups: A 1-Hour Guide to Governing a Growing Nonprofit" concerning "Robert's Rules of Order."
http://www.guidestar.org/rxa/news/ar...rts-rules.aspx

It is important to note that 501c3 status has nothing to do with being a true association. It seems to be an inaccurate point that both you and Todd ( I heard his Saturday podcast where he discussed this ) are beating into the ground. Don't take my word for it, you should do your own due diligence and consult an attorney on this matter, which I believe is what you should have done before taking to Twitterland to state this misinformation as fact.

Having said all that, I do think it's good you joined the IAIB Community to at least attempt to set the record straight and perhaps move forward in a more positive manner.

----------
Going for Consensus, Not Robert's Rules
February 2008

Excerpt from Great Boards for Small Groups: A 1-Hour Guide to Governing a Growing Nonprofit

In my work with nonprofits, I'm always mystified by the pervasive use and abuse of parliamentary procedure, also known as Robert's Rules of Order.

Many, many board members believe that their discussions and decisions are somehow more valid when they make motions, second those motions, call the question, and hold formal votes that are recorded in the minutes

Furthermore, people who know the rules—or think they know the rules—often use their alleged know-how as a way to exercise power within the group. "That's out of order," bellows the board bully. "You need to raise a point of order if you're going to reopen discussion on that motion, and you can't do that because we've already accepted an amendment to the original motion."

In response, everyone else feels sheepish, looks confused, and refuses to speak. All sorts of petty arguments arise from the ignorance or abuse of parliamentary procedure.

There is no law mandating that nonprofits must make decisions using Robert's Rules. After all, you're not a parliament. You're an animal shelter, or a sports league, or a theater, or an advocacy organization.

By way of comparison, imagine you're sitting around with a group of friends, trying to decide on a place for dinner. You discuss the options; people advocate for one restaurant or another. Perhaps you reach a tentative decision. At that point, someone opts out, saying, "I had Thai for lunch, but if that's what everybody wants, please go and enjoy yourselves." Maybe the rest of you decide to go, but more likely you return to the list to try to identify another option that will work for everyone.

The decision-making model you're using is called *consensus, and it works something like this:

1. Someone presents an idea. It could be a formal proposal, but most of the time it's just an idea, not yet fully formed.

2. The idea is passed around and the pros and cons are discussed.

3. As a result of the discussion—the more input, the better—the idea is often modified.

4. If a general agreement seems to be emerging (this is where good listening and facilitation skills are helpful), you can test for consensus by restating the latest version of the idea or proposal to see if everybody agrees.

5. If anyone dissents, you return to the discussion to see if you can modify the idea further to make it acceptable to everyone.

Unlike parliamentary procedure, which results in an up-or-down, yes-or-no vote, the consensus process allows for (and even encourages) a continuum of responses. At one end is strong endorsement: "Great idea. I love it!" At the other end is strong disagreement: "It's a horrible idea, and I'll do everything I can to block it."

The consensus spectrum allows for more subtle reactions: "I like it pretty well" to "I don't like it, but I can live with it" to "I disagree, but if you're all in favor, I won't stand in the way." This is an intuitive way to make decisions, since it reflects how most of us make shared choices in our daily lives.

In the traditional consensus model, one person has the power to block the decision if they strongly disagree. If the board is unable to create a compromise to satisfy the blocker, they may call for a majority vote as a last resort. This is sometimes known as "modified consensus," and for groups that want to try out consensus, it may be the best way to begin.

Be aware that consensus decision making is often time consuming and requires patience and persistence. On the other hand, it creates a more informal and equitable environment where everyone's voice is valued. From my perspective, this is an excellent trade-off.

Andy Robinson
© 2006, Andy Robinson. Excerpted from Great Boards for Small Groups: A 1-Hour Guide to Governing a Growing Nonprofit.*Excerpted with permission of Emerson & Church, publishers.

Andy Robinson provides consulting and training services to the nonprofit community and can be reached at andyfund@earthlink.net. He is the author of Great Boards for Small Groups, Big Gifts for Small Groups, Grassroots Grants, and Selling Social Change.


*

Go ahead and replace the word True with Classic if you wish. I know what I'm saying: There was an association, it was setup with the best known intentions as a non profit and followed parliamentary procedures, in the end it had malicious results, it failed.

I had no intention to garnish such response. I am merely explaining why we had the reaction that we did initially.

Angelo,

I am with Common Law on this one. I really do feel that with any organization it really does depend on the people at the top and their character. This is also true for corporations too. You will see companies fail, not because they have dummies working for them but because the people at the top do not see the larger picture and are able to guide the company forward. I really do not see it making much of a diference if you are following parliamentary procedures, are a 501c, 503c or whatever. What matter is the people at the top.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by angelo

I am merely explaining why we had the reaction that we did initially.

---

Angelo, why aren't we seeing Todd here explaining that? I thought HE was Mr. TPN, and you were the tech guy( am I wrong?). And when you say 'We' I sure hope you mean You and Todd, and not TPN!

For what it's worth, I completely understand where Angelo and Todd are coming from. I too had a very similar experience a few years ago with a company, and certain individuals that screwed me over big time. It's for that exact reason I am leery of all message boards/forums, and new businesses.

It's perfectly fine for someone to be apprehensive about the IAIB due to their past experiences. However, it comes across as Todd taking it out on the IAIB with his actions and attitude, and goes beyond being bitter over such past experiences.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by sunkast

For what it's worth, I completely understand where Angelo and Todd are coming from. I too had a very similar experience a few years ago with a company, and certain individuals that screwed me over big time. It's for that exact reason I am leery of all message boards/forums, and new businesses.

---

Leery is good. We learn from our experiences in life and go forward. We use these experiences to our advantage, and we know how to look out for such in the future. What is wrong is to insult and accuse a person who wears a black suit of wrong doing, just because you had a bad experience in the past with another person who wore a black suit :-)
I would still like to see Todd join the IAIB and participate, it will be beneficial to both him and the IAIB members.