On the heels of Tuesday's email from Cindy Currie regarding dues, Sarah O'Keefe used her blog to offer her thoughts on what makes STC a value for her and others. Highlights include:
- “cold, hard cash”
“During an STC conference a few years ago, I was approached by representatives of a government agency to discuss a major project. … That meeting resulted in a new customer and over $250,000 in revenue for Scriptorium.”
- networking
“And let’s assume that networking inside STC can help you get a job just a few weeks faster than you would on your own. If you make $60,000 per year (for easy math purposes), that’s $5000 per month or about $1250 per week. Five years of STC dues is around $1,000.”
- avoiding commoditization
“The mission of STC is to ‘advance the arts and sciences of technical communication.' How does this help you, the member? If STC succeeds, you are more likely to find jobs that pay well because your work is respected.”
Read everything she had to write on her blog, Scriptorium.
Many of the naysayers need to stop asking “what am I getting out of STC?” and start asking “what am I putting back into it?” Each builds upon the other.
For now, the STC needs our membership dues and our brain power.
So, given that there’s no STC community where I live, none of the above apply and I have no particular reason to remain a member? Particularly as the one benefit I do enjoy, being a member of SIGs that I am interested in, is no longer an automatic benefit of society membership.
I have been active in STC, albeit at a distance: taking part in SIGs, voting in elections and providing feedback. However, the fact remains that there is _no local organisation_ where I am, so there is little more that I can do. I cannot afford to attend the conference and I cannot afford to remain a member at the new prices.
If the subscription for Intercom is reasonable, I would like to become a subscriber, but from the threatening tone of the dues announcement, I assume that it won’t be.
You’re either with the STC or you’re against it, seems to be the message.
Okay, I read Sarah’s blog, too: “A mercenary view of STC” (http://www.scriptorium.com/blog). Let’s break it down:
1) STC offers less for more this year. Check. No disagreement. $175 to $215 and no chapter included.
2) Cold hard cash: I can see how a technical writing consultant can benefit tangibly from the STC and Summit. However, this does not apply to full-time grunts, like me. Do these arguments apply to you? Perhaps only if you are a full-time grunt at a Tech Comm Consultancy? Anyway, nope.
3) Networking: I can see the argument but how does it translate? How has the STC helped you find jobs? Me? It’s gotten me one part-time gig. But, on the whole, free online communities have been much more worthwhile. Everyone’s story will differ, but on the whole, nope.
4) Avoiding commoditization: “If STC succeeds, you are more likely to find jobs that pay well because your work is respected.” Seems very circular to me. In any event, the STC does not influence whether employers view technical communication as a commodity. Consider large governmental organizations that hire consultants rather than their own FTE talent, or large international companies who offshore their outsourcing …. Circular. Nope.
So, I’m still looking for the compelling argument in favor of STC. Or am I off track here? Lemme have it …
Cheers,
Sean
Okay, in the interests of furthering discussion and perhaps heading towards an answer to how to better meet STC members’ needs, perhaps I should consider that I am not Sarah and should not expect Sarah’s motivations to work for me?
For a moment, let me consider a type of convention I do go to: emergency medical services (EMS). Why? Because I work in the field part time. Because classroom sessions on quick assessment of spinal injury, the pros and cons of IV therapy versus PASG, and discussions on how to deal with psychotic angry drunks is all relevant and applicable tomorrow, if not today. Additionally, I can kick the tyres on demo ambulances and physically see the differences between an $80,000 one and a $160,000 one, I can test and try the new Stryker stretcher with the power lift and see if it’s worth it, and I can hobnob with folks I’ve trained and worked with over the years but no longer see regularly.
Okay, armed with that understanding, let me hypothesize that the Summit and STC are not aimed at full-time-employed experienced technical communicators, but instead are aimed at students and consulting technical communicators.
Why think that? Well, unlike consultants (like Sarah), FTEs are in a fairly static environment. The scope of the job changes little, the types of projects remain predictably constant, and if a need for something new comes up it can be addressed efficiently through targeted training or hiring a consultant. (For example, if the PHB decides to switch from FrameMaker to Word, the best ways to do that can be learned in a focused class or a consultant can be hired to do the conversion.) Even if the employer believes they want a tech writer to expand into project management, a focused course is more efficient (in-depth, comprehensive,) than a membership in the STC or attendance at the Summit conference.
Notice, this train of thought is limited to experienced technical writers. I firmly believe that those new to the profession (and students) would benefit by seeing a shotgun-blast-overview of everything, as presented at a conference, like the Summit, or discoverable through STC membership. But what do the experienced FTEs want to know? Well, nothing really. They’ve already got their work environment sorted, nothing is changing much there, and if it is, a targeted class would be more efficient, so what do they gain by the Summit or STC? Well, they can hook up with friends and network, but they could also do that on Facebook, Techwr-l, HATT, Twitter, and a variety of free online resources and not have to pay $215 or conference fees.
What about out-of-work technical writers or those looking for jobs? Well, these sorts of thing are not a reason for employers to fund STC membership or trips to Summit, and FTE technical writers cannot deduct costs and really have no business reason for spending their own money, so can we assert that being an STC member, attending the Summit, or both, are efficient ways to look for jobs? I have already acknowledged that STC membership and Summit work for consultants, but what about FTEs? What networking, what access to job information can be found exclusively through STC and what is the quality and quantity of those job listings and contacts versus networking with people you know already, networking on HATT, techwr-l, Twitter, and using job resources such as monster.com, dice, and even using a head hunter?
So I am back to my hypothesis that the Summit and STC are not aimed at full-time-employed experienced technical communicators, but instead are aimed at students and consulting technical communicators.
So my next question is, do we want the Summit and STC to appeal to full-time-employed experienced technical communicators? Then, if so, how do we do that?
My local chapter has struggled for years to get technical writers at a local large defense-industry company to join the STC, attend meetings, or both. My local chapter has failed. The reason for the failure is the technical writers at the local large defense-industry company say they do one particular thing all the time and nothing in the broader scope of the STC is useful to them. So, my question is, how do we make the STC and Summit useful to full-time technical communicators in general?
Well … let me leave the discussion there, as I don’t want to Bogart it (too late?). What are your thoughts about my hypothesis? Given my statements about full-time technical communicators, how do you think the STC can proceed to make STC membership and the Summit more attractive, or should the STC not bother?
Cheers,
Sean
Sean, I haven’t the time to respond to everything you said. But I was brought up short by one line: “But what do the experienced FTEs want to know? Well, nothing really.”
If that’s really the way that they feel, then they should expect to be out of work very soon. Technical writing is fast becoming a commodity whose price is dropping. Smart FTEs know that they have to look outside that “static environment,” stay abreast of what’s happening in the profession, and update their skill sets — no less so than independents like Sarah. STC can put them in touch with the world outside their cubicles.
Thanks Larry.
I appreciate your perspective, as I did write a lot. However, taking one segment out of context really creates a side thread. For example, you have not indicated why they should be out of work soon, why you think they are not in tune with their job, and why you think you can better predict the changes in their environment better than they can. Take my current job: where will it be in two years that I have not predicted? What have I missed about the company, our products, and our environment? Where will my ability to control my technical writing environment break down and catch me unaware? While, like you, I can make a strong case for consultants to need a broad skill set, I cannot do so for a full-time employee at their current job.
Cheers,
Sean
You got me there, Sean. I don’t know enough about your current job to say whether you’re missing something. I do know that a lot of traditional tech-writing jobs that existed five years ago have been eliminated through attrition or sent somewhere (usually overseas) where they can be done for far less money. And the trend is going to continue.
It’s not a question of writers being unable to see what’s going on in their specific environments. It’s a question of the environments themselves being in peril. The writer may never need to update her skills for her current job, but so that she’ll have someplace to jump should that job go away.
So, I would argue, the issue is not what full-time-employed technical writers know, or do not know, based on STC membership or attendance at Summit. The issue is that some employers are commoditizing tech comm and to survive tech communicators need to reduce their salary requirements, not gain new skills.
Cheers,
Sean
What’s being commoditized is the traditional role of the tech writer — not the broader discipline of technical communication. The tech writer can lower her salary expectations….Or she can develop new skills like content strategist, info architect, and so forth.
STC has little to offer to people who choose the former. It has much to offer to people who choose the latter.