Evolution and Natural Selection

The Incentive Manufacturers and Representatives Alliance (IMRA) will hold its annual Marketing Conference starting on 3/30 in sunny San Diego. It's a chance for suppliers and reps to sit down, teach, learn, and get a handle on where the market is going and how we can be in front of the curve.

IMRA is part of IMA, the Incentive Marketing Association. IMA has one of those Mission Statements that takes 2 minutes to read--and I'm pretty sure nobody can recite. But in that verbiage is this blurb:

the premier educator and information source in the incentive marketplace.

A noble cause. And as members of IMRA we all pledge allegiance to the Mission Statement. Which brings me to today's question:

Is it possible that the IMRA and IMA models are in conflict? IMA is making increasing strides to be visible in end-user markets--by creating a publication to address end-user needs, by exhibiting at "vertical" trade shows where end users are the only attendees. By providing education at the Chicago Motivation Show and other shows where end-users congregate.

Again, all fine and dandy, except there's something of a disconnect for many (not all, but a solid majority) of IMRA members--we don't sell end users. A survey of the supplier faction of IMRA would probably reveal that most suppliers derive between 70 and 80% of their "incentive" business from resellers. In my neck of the woods it's more like 90%. And most reps will be closer to 90% than to 50% as well.

I don't see as much enthusiasm for educating the resellers as I do for educating the end-users when I look at IMA's activities. We seek to be legitimate in the eyes of end-users, and I have no doubt that many IMA members will benefit from that. Even us--a rising tide does indeed float all boats.

But I'm concerned that IMRA is increasingly isolated from the direction IMA is heading in. I wonder if our model is closer to PPAI than to IMA, since PPAI dedicates almost all its activities to strengthening the tie between supplier and distributor. Might our resources be better served aiming at an audience where most of us get most of our income?

Now before everyone gets all huffy let's be pragmatic--nobody's advocating anything. To use a phrase younger people use--"I'm not sayin', I'm just sayin'..." IMRA leadership needs to make sure IMA is addressing the reseller community because most of us cannot handle the workload of selling lots of end-users. They're way too needy for my taste for sure.

IMA's leadership needs to be sure they are considering that there are models for each constituent base and those models are in opposition in some instances. Finding a "one size fits all" approach is not productive--but a concession or two to the reseller community would be productive.

It comes down to this--as IMA evolves it becomes less homogenous--and as the membership changes certain groups will be co-opted and others will ascend. The anecdotal evidence makes me question whether IMRA's model is aligned with the strategic direction of IMA. Leadership from both IMRA and IMA hold the key to the next phase of this evolution. I challenge the best and brightest in both groups to work together to find mutually beneficial solutions.

One last thing--the IMRA Conference has always been primarily a venue for sales meetings, where reps and suppliers discuss product, policy, and marketing. It may be me, but it seems like there are fewer suppliers there this time, and many reps are also not attending. Is it possible that the Marketing Conference needs a re-tooling? Just sayin...


Pete