But I don’t believe it’s guided by greed. It’s about a misguided desire for innovation. When you think about it, TED is a canvas for world-changing ideas by the world’s greatest innovators. It’s only natural that the conference organizers themselves would feel the need, or perhaps the pressure, to make TED the institution as innovative as TED the idea stage. Unfortunately, live viewing is devolution from the clearly successful podcast model rather than any kind of innovation.

I’d be curious to see some psychographic data on those who do buy the “B-list” ticket. Something tells me it’ll be people who care more about the badge of TED exclusivity (and the accompanying bragging rights of having all the TED watercooler scoop the day after) than about what TED really stands for – because, really, isn’t it much more in the spirit of TED to donate the $995 to a charitable cause and just wait for the free podcasts a couple of months later?

First, not a reason, but a observation – this is just one good example of the darling freemium model in which the cross-subsidy of our small numbered premium (associate members/actual attendees) users helps to subsidize the large number of free viewers.

As stated previously, the main benefit for taking advantage of the new Assoc. TED tier is the fact that getting together with like minded folks to experience the sessions (early and together) is key – the offline connections and conversations in such settings can matter as much as the gleaned content. Towards this end, the 10 person audience cap could certainly be increased, but is reasonable and understandable for this first year.

Also, let’s not forget our lovely parting gifts: including great early release reads and listens, the DVD box set, and other promised ’surprises’.

With the obvious value, tremendous potential and stated intent of increasing the TED audience, I’m be all for having several cities, including Chicago host satellite simulcasts. And, I’ll toss my hat and (those who’ve helped me host other successful conferences) in the ring for helping to make that a As one of those “idiots” who sees the value in this new Associate designation, I’m compelled to explain the rationale.

First, not a reason, but a observation – this is just one good example of the darling freemium model in which the cross-subsidy of our small numbered premium (associate members/actual attendees) users helps to subsidize the large number of free viewers.

As stated previously, the main benefit for taking advantage of the new Assoc. TED tier is the fact that getting together with like minded folks to experience the sessions is key – the offline connections and conversations in such settings can matter as much as the gleaned content. Towards this end, the 10 person audience cap could certainly be increased, but is reasonable and understandable for this first year.

Lastly, there are the lovely parting gifts: including great early release reads and listens, the DVD box set, and other promised ’surprises’.

With the obvious value, tremendous potential and stated intent of increasing the TED audience, I’m be all for having several cities, including Chicago host satellite simulcasts. And, I’ll toss my hat and (those who’ve helped me host other successful conferences) in the ring for helping make that happen.

- Kit
@kitmueller

It’s the next logical progression to monitize content.

Here are others:
- BYOS Speakers (Bring Your Own Sponsor)
- The TEDDY Series (a co-promote with Hooters)
- SuperSized TED (A TED Speech with every Value Meal)
- Did I heard Steve Jobs say, “TED is the new MacWorld”
- The Congressional TED Bailout

Piers, consider yourself TEDless.

I stand by my comments – I feel that there is a common negative feeling about the TED ‘brand’.

And just a quick note: About the Associate Membership, the press release read “include all of the benefits of the free TED.com membership” while Tom wrote “provide many of the benefits of a $6,000 membership”. Kinda confusing, no?

I am a huge supporter and past attendee of TED so largely agree with your comments.

However, as you’re a speaker for 2009, perhaps you might have noted this as conflicting interest.

I would also say that just because TED is nonprofit doesn’t mean they might not be tempted to make poor commercial or “greedy” decisions. While no single individual might walk away with millions, these same individuals might decide or be tempted to get greedy in the name of TED. If that is what’s happening here than that’s too bad for TED. You only need to look at e3 or Comdex and see that even massively successful events can come crashing down if the culture is mismanaged or misaligned with its audience. I seriously doubt that will happen to TED but then alot of black swans keep popping up all over the place these days.

HK

The whole “Associate Membership” thing feels a little too much like Pay Per View to me, like when I was 10 and would go over to my friends house to watch the super hyped WWF matches. TED is more complex than that, because they are spreading ideas, and for me, the best part is the online video archive which allows millions of people to hear new ideas and have access to incredible presentations they could never experience otherwise. Though it is important to remember, these serve as a marketing tool, and are sponsored. I am just about to graduate and it’s safe to say none of these solutions are very viable to me, and if the goal is to spread ideas, these solutions should be much more affordable, or accessible to the general public.

TED = Big Ideas (to) The Masses (creating) Conversation

So perhaps a more appropriate solution would be, as andy suggested, to hold viewings in cities across the globe, but instead of charging 5000, and supplying cushy seats, find a sponsor and make it public. Maybe cities like Chicago would sponsor and hold a huge event with projectors and mammoth speakers and screens in Grant park. That’s spreading ideas.

For me, being allowed to bring 10 friends over to watch TED isn’t going to reflect the nature that is TED, which andy hinted on as being one of connecting with people more so than watching presentations. Perhaps this is an experimentation stage for TED, and I’m sure the intentions are to allow more people into the conversation, however, in the overall scheme of spreading ideas, with as much progress we have made in such a short time, it seems unambitious and perhaps, as Piers suggests, a bit regressive. I mean, if they fear losing attendance, they should realize that people pay $10k a ticket for the audience as much as the presentations.

Thanks for your recent post about TED’s Associate Membership Program. I’d like to comment.

1. Expansion and Palm Springs

We’ve been expanding at a thoughful, deliberate pace. The Palm Springs simulcast, priced at $3750, is our second year after a successful launch in Aspen. I strongly disagree about your characterization of Palm Spring’s attendees as B-listers. Rather, they are people who signed up after the conference in Long Beach was sold out, prefer the more affordable price or who enjoy the more intimate setting. The Palm Springs experience has its own unique elements including speakers, music, hosts, and events that happen only there.

2. TED.com free videos
TEDTalks are and will continue to be free on the website, including those that take place at TED2009. TED2009 Videos actually start on the Friday of the conference with the posting of the TEDPrize winners’ talks and continue with a talk every business day after that both of the recent conference and of previous conferences. Our learning from our last two years has motivated us to invest MORE into the free Talks for 2009. Right now TEDTalks cost TED far more to produce than we receive in sponsor revenue. At TED this year you will see a major new initiative to bring TEDTalks to millions of people who haven’t yet been able to enjoy them.

3. Associate Memberships
One year after the introduction of our simulcast conference, The goal of Associate Memberships is to provide many of the benefits of a $6,000 membership for those who may not be able to attend the conference, or may find our main conferences out of financial range. The membership is far more than a stream of TED, but rather a year round membership. For example, in January, Associate Members (and TED Members) will receive a book club mailing of 2009 TEDPrize winner Sylvia Earle’s Atlas of the Ocean a beautiful coffee table book that conveys the latest in Oceangraphic research, and Jill Sobule’s new album, two months before its release to the public. The book retails for $65.00, and the album for $18.99. Last mailing included three books plus an Aliph Jawbone 2 bluetooth headset. The bookclub alone is a valuable, 5x/year annual benefit. We also include the conference archival DVDs, a six DVD boxed set within three months of the conference, and a couple of surprises members will discover in early 2009. The goal is to make what could have been a virtual experience as physical as possible.

4. Our motivations and elitism
The characterization of our intentions as “greedy,” is disappointing, and moreover, inaccurate. We are a non-profit whose mission is Ideas Worth Spreading. The paid options make possible providing our talks for free to everyone in the world. The TED Associate Memberships will contribute only modestly to our revenues. As far as “elitism,” we are at once elite and massively populist and democratic. A truly elitist organization would not share the conference content at all.

5. Criticism and Invitations
You are always invited to criticize TED without fear of reprisal. We appreciate constructive suggestions of all kinds. And critics, including you, are welcome to apply to attend TED . Membership is by application, not by invitation.

I welcome your feedback.

Tom

Few things:
1. TED is a non-profit. There’s no incentive to cash out, cause no one in charge gets the cashh.

2. More important, it’s hard to overestimate the desire of people to be part of the TED community, because it represents a chance for them to find and connect with fellow travelers. The physical constraints make it impossible to do that in an intimate setting. I think that the Palm Beach gig makes a lot of sense, and I’d love to see them run twenty cities… there are certainly enough great people in those cities to make it work.

For me, TED works when you meet people, not when you see the speeches. So, if the virtual program is going to work, it’s going to be because of the online connections, the chat rooms, etc.

I guess it comes down to this: if you don’t want to do it, don’t. But don’t criticize the folks that are seeking these connections. Good for TED for trying to make them happen.

My two cents… I’m not an official, just someone who likes TED.

I agree they seem to be in a tizzy to monetize, but hey, it’s their brand and it offers quite a bit of value, so I doubt their efforts will chase away many fans.