Perhaps it is time to bring in new leadership that has vision if the organization is to survive?

Jay, maybe Pam can adress that when she finally gets off the plane.

The next argument will be that the reason to be closed is so people feel more comfortable to talk with each other. One guesses that’s because they’d share dire secrets (I think we’re going to die!) or great ideas (eureka, we’ve got it!). But, of course, that doesn’t happen at these sessions – one member said in a tweet to me there were no secrets unveiled after I left – because these people see each other as competitors. As another member said in an email: The Wall Street Journal isn’t going to reveal trade secrets in a room with the New York Times and Business Week just because I’m not there. So that’s a fallacy.

But even if one accepts that there is a benefit in talking with the group, I ask in the next post: What’s the group? Members? Professionals? Practitioners? Customers? People in what we used to call the audience? People who care? I say the group must be larger to get more ideas and inspiration. But that’s antithetical to trade-group economics: The benefit of being a member is talking to members, I suppose. These people could just as easily arrange a lunch date (or, as I volunteer in the next post, a meeting at CUNY). But then they wouldn’t need an organizer, an association, would they?

I don’t think who said what when to whom is terribly telling. I was clear with them about my plan to be there all day. They changed their mind and obviously weren’t clear enough with me. He said. she said. So what? We learn what we need to know about the attitude of the organization in any case. To someone in the room, my presence there was seen as a danger, though not because I was going to blog – as this was happening, I said so the room could hear that I wasn’t blogging. Still, what the action said is that I wasn’t trusted and that’s insulting because I work with many of these people and I keep their confidences. But I don’t think it was me. It was my status: I was an outsider.

As I say above, the real problem here is the definition of inside – It’s way too small – or even the notion that these people are the ones inside. That was the very debate that led to my book, or at least its title. At an event held by this association in London two years ago (where – full disclosure – they paid my travel expenses) Jeff Rayport and Andrew Heyward urged the group to bring the outside in. I agreed with the spirit of their advice but argued that it was still a mistake for these media people to think of themselves as inside. (That inspired these diagrams.) I urged the group – for the first time in public, I believe – to ask, “what would Google do?” That led to a debate with my friend and one-time employer Martin Nissenholtz – founder of this trade association – that Rafat Ali caught on video. And that inspired my book.

The London event was public. It was terribly valuable for me because by hearing the press people talk about their business, I could better understand their world – its challenges and opportunities – and their view of it and that helps me come up with new ways to express myself – a book, even. You taught me that, Jay, with the title of your blog: Press Think. That’s the value I get out of coming to these meetings – and staying all day. That’s why I agreed to speak at this week’s event, even though being provocoteur sometimes feels like playing the rodeo clown, forced to take a few gores from the bulls (or at least bull from the gorers). It’s worthwhile to me because I learn a lot. You’d have to ask the members where my attendance is worthwhile to them. So there were my economics to this event: what I expected to get out of it. I wanted to listen. But after I spoke, I couldn’t.

Note that I did not say what the association this was when I posted about it. I respected still the off-the-record assumption (it was never stated, but I did assume it). Other members revealed the group when they posted here and on Twitter in response to the event. And then there was speculation that one company wanted me out of there, which is what led to your reporting, Jay. I do not believe that’s true and have no reason to think so. (The exec who supposedly said something also told me earlier that we’d talk later in the day; he knew I was going to be there.) So to set that straight, I’m now more specific. But it’s not the specifics that matter here. It’s the attitude of the association – which may not reflect the attitude of its members; indeed, I don’t think it does, at least not anymore. And that’s what led to my post above about the fate of such associations and the closed industries they represent. They are torn apart … turned outside-in.

And so, like you, I wonder in the next post not just about the unassociation (holding a gettogether at CUNY) but also about the unindustry. Is media really an industry anymore when everybody’s in it?

Wrinkle: When asked if anyone from the Wall Street Journal said anything like, “hey the ground rules were that Jarvis would not be here, so what gives?” which would not be asking for Jarvis to be booted but rather that the ground rules be enforced, triggering said booting, the spokesman would not say and directed me to the statement, ““Any suggestion that someone from the Journal asked Jeff to leave is inaccurate.” Make of that what you will.

It’s possible that Pam Horan thinks I am going to forget about this; if she simply doesn’t call me back it will go away. It’s also possible she was too busy traveling Friday and will phone me Monday. And it’s also possible that I will have to start calling her board to get her to reply. Which I will do, if necessary.

You and Jeff need to pursue this to completion. Nothing disinfect like sunshine. Make them admit why they did what they did.

Jeff, the dinosaurs are never going to like you and they’re scared to death of you. But you can make them respect you because you know what you’re talking about.

Atleast some of non-involved participants had the balls to come here and apologize or give support. As it happens, John Byrne also twitters and gets social media – coincidence? I think not.

Basically, I’d like to know if there was a perceived threat or if it was just a matter of “Jeff’s not involved in this next bit, so 86 him.”

WSJDig shouldn’t have been given the final word, anyhow. Craziness, but there’s plenty of it to go ’round.

It’s fear, Jeff. These people thought they could control events; they are beginning to realize they can’t, and are now embarrassing themselves and the industry they no longer represent.

At the New Business Models for News Summit, one of the parting questions you asked was “what else should we be doing that would help the industry?” You got some good ideas. Here’s another one that you could help on both technically (though that’s the easy part) but more importantly using your bully pulpit. That is, create an open wiki that captures the best practices, lessons learned, etc. of how to build a successful news site. I’d argue that it’s needed most in the local arena but perhaps the national sites would benefit as well. Your bully pulpit could encourage a lot of people to participate.

On the revenue side of the ledger, I’d be willing to open source the high level 13 phase process my consulting firm goes through that has worked very well for a bunch of companies in optimizing their sales process. The details that would be filled out underneath that could be super valuable just as the ideas Mel willingly shared with me. No doubt, the same thing could be done for content development and audience development and would be just as useful. If people think it has merit, I’m happy to jumpstart the process.