Are Dues Dead? Rethinking the Membership Model

For more than a century, membership organisations have run on a familiar formula: collect annual dues, issue a renewal notice, deliver a set package of services, and hope members stay loyal. It is tidy, predictable, and administratively convenient. But is it still fit for purpose in 2025?

The short answer: no.

The “dues model” isn't dead, but it is dying. Organisations that cling to it risk watching their relevance wither, while those willing to rethink how members engage and pay stand a chance of building loyalty, value, and financial resilience for the future.

The problem with annual dues

Annual renewals suit staff teams, not members. They align with accounting calendars and administrative ease: send invoices in bulk, process payments, tick the box, and move on to planning the conference. But for members, the model creates friction.

Membership becomes a transaction with a built-in expiry date. Each renewal is a conscious opt-in or opt-out moment, prompting members to weigh value against cost. Too often, that moment exposes insecurities in the organisation: Did I get enough? Was it worth it?

Worse still, the annual model fosters stagnation. Members receive one bill per year rather than experiencing a steady flow of value. That cadence is out of step with today’s consumer expectations, shaped by Netflix subscriptions, micro-transactions, and tailored packages that flex with individual needs.

From belonging to opting in and out

Research continues to show that the strongest driver of membership is belonging: the sense of being part of a professional community or shared cause. Yet the dues model undermines this ethos by conditioning people to see their membership as temporary.

Imagine if joining were a once-only decision. You join for good. The relationship is perpetual unless you actively sever it. That shift from a transactional opt-in to a cultural belonging could transform how members perceive value. But belonging alone is not enough. Members are also consumers. They demand clear, customised benefits. They want the equivalent of “I only pay for what I need.” Insurance companies market this relentlessly; associations can learn from it. The balance is delicate: belonging gives purpose, but value keeps people engaged.

Trade associations’ double bind

Professional bodies and trade associations face different membership dynamics. For individuals, joining is often a matter of personal identity and development. For organisations, it's a complex equation: a single subscription has to deliver value across every employee, from CEOs to apprentices.

Trade associations wrestle with B2B subscriptions that are, in reality, about reaching the end consumer: the employees. Delivering differentiated, role-specific value across a diverse workforce is difficult. Many associations undersell the depth of what they offer or fail to quantify the company-wide return.

This complexity partly explains why organisations flirt with alternative models: “Netflix for membership,” “software as a service,” “Patreon for professionals.” These metaphors reflect a craving for innovation but also reveal a sector stuck in endless debate.

Innovation paralysis

Talk of new models isn't new. Before COVID-19, the sector buzzed with talk of subscriptions, micro-payments, and modular benefits. Then came the pandemic, which forced experimentation but also prompted many to retreat to safe ground once events resumed.

The result is paralysis. Organisations know they need change but fear the perceived risks. Adjusting the business model means rethinking the very systems that underpin income. It feels dangerous, even existential. Yet risk is not optional. Members’ expectations continue to evolve, technology continues to disrupt, and competitors (including free online resources) chip away at relevance. Doing nothing is the greater danger.

Beyond events and box lunches

If associations are to lean into their greatest advantage - community - they must deliver experiences that go beyond convention centres and networking receptions. Belonging today means:

• Ongoing relationships through mentorship, coaching, or peer-to-peer groups.

• Curated experiences where members build a portfolio of learning and achievements.

• Personalisation driven by data: understanding what members actually need rather than treating them as homogenous categories.

Above all, it requires associations to answer the most basic question: why do we exist? If the answer is simply to provide services at a price, then perhaps we are just service providers. But if the answer is to convene, to connect, to give collective voice, then exclusivity matters. Not everything should be available to non-members at the same price.

The distraction of non-member income

Some organisations rely heavily on non-member sales, i.e., higher-priced tickets, publications, or online courses. At first glance, it looks like a smart model: subsidise member benefits by charging outsiders more. But it is not sustainable.

If non-members are willing to pay for your services, shouldn’t they be members? If your income depends on people who do not value belonging, then you are essentially running a commercial shopfront, not a membership body. Worse, focusing on non-members diverts attention from the very community you exist to serve.

Planning for 2030 and beyond

The conversation is urgent. Membership declines reported in sector surveys are not just about economic shocks or industry consolidation. They reflect individuals and companies deciding: I don’t need to join. We can no longer blame Brexit, COVID, or temporary turbulence. The clear water between those events and today’s financial realities leaves no excuse. If organisations want to be fit for 2030 and beyond, planning must start now.

Scenario planning is the next logical step. Associations should map multiple possible models:

1. Subscription model: regular, smaller payments that smooth the relationship and reduce opt-out moments.

2. Tiered modular model: base membership plus optional add-ons, so members pay for what they use.

3. Perpetual belonging model: a once-only joining decision with ongoing engagement until resignation.

4. Hybrid funding model: membership combined with diversified income streams that align with mission.

Each option requires careful phasing. Transition may take 24–36 months or longer, involving new systems, communications campaigns, and cultural shifts. But waiting until 2029 to act is not an option.

Experiment, fail fast, adapt

The days of five-year strategic plans are gone. Instead, associations must adopt the mindset of experimentation. Try new pricing models. Pilot a subscription option alongside traditional dues. Test modular benefits. Analyse results, adapt quickly, and learn.

This doesn't mean reckless risk-taking. It means calculated courage: redefining purpose first, then aligning the business model to serve it. Only organisations confident in their mission can be brave in redesigning revenue.

So, are dues dead?

Not quite. But they are outdated, restrictive, and dangerously misaligned with modern expectations. Membership cannot survive as a once-a-year invoice. It must evolve into an ongoing, personalised relationship built on belonging and value.

The challenge is not simply how to charge but why you exist. Associations that confront this honestly will build the resilience to thrive beyond 2030. Those that cling to dues as usual may find themselves relics of a bygone era.

The question is not “are dues dead?” but “what comes next?” The answer lies in re-imagining membership as a living relationship, fuelled by belonging, customised value, and brave governance. It is time for the sector to stop talking and start building.