The purpose of CRI is this... to find ways to assess fees, and create a member-dues-structured budget, that pays for projects, committee "busy-ness", and administrative positions.
It's no different than other bureaucracies - they grow (like a Chia Pet) - requiring more "funding" to keep people in positions that ultimately create no tangible results or value to the end-users... only for buddies within the bureaucracy.
They are no different than DC - spending without being tied to results. People hired because of who they know - or who they owe - instead of because of any inherent "talent."
Not unlike the food chain of management through
IICRC.
The biggest problem with CRI, besides being run by corporate robots instead of entrepreneurial talent, is that they do not understand their market (consumers) and they don't know how to speak to them. There is not a savvy marketer in the organization. They put out press releases about sustainability and recycling and the "cool" rug made for Obama - which carpet cleaners barely pay attention to, much less consumers with money.
When businesses are small they are VERY in tune with the market because if they do not deliver tangible immediate value, they don't get paid, and they don't eat.
When they get bigger - as big as the CRI members, like Shaw, etc. - they lose that ability to be innovative and take risks and grow sales. They play it "safe" to keep salaries of figureheads going, instead of being a trailblazer. And they put more effort into lobbying for political clout and favors instead of worrying about trying to serve consumers better.
You can't expect bureaucratic sloths like CRI to do anything trackable or innovative. At least that's my opinion... and if anyone has some examples of truly valuable innovations or communications or examples of them doing otherwise - I'd love to know about it.
Otherwise they are about as exciting to study as a business model as the DMV. "We're not happy until you're not happy."
Lisa
