Partnership or Purchase Order?

Associations talk confidently about “partnerships” with suppliers. The word is everywhere. It signals collaboration, shared purpose, progress. In practice however it often means something far simpler: sponsorship, but with a warmer handshake.

That’s not cynicism. It’s observation, earned over years of working inside this sector and paying to support it. I believe in membership organisations. I spend my days helping them strengthen governance, strategy, and leadership. I see the good they do and the pressure they face.

Still, there is a persistent flaw in how many approach supplier relationships. Too often, “partnership” is used as branding for a revenue line, not a genuine strategic relationship. Suppliers are invited to help “shape the future” and then handed a rate card. Collaboration quickly reveals itself as a package price.

It’s not hostile. It’s habit. A legacy model that hasn’t evolved fast enough; and the intention isn’t bad, but the execution is lazy.

The familiar dance

Anyone supplying the sector will recognise the routine. It goes like this:

We’d love you to be a strategic partner. Fantastic. Let’s discuss priorities and how we can contribute. Of course. Here are the sponsorship packages.

And there it is. Partnership by invoice.

I have stood on exhibition floors with pop-up banners and branded literature. I’ve been warmly thanked for “supporting the community”, then funnelled toward another paid opportunity. And I’ve smiled through it, because that’s the script.

But the script is dated. Members expect more. Suppliers expect more. And the sector can deliver more if it chooses to.

The cost of keeping things easy

Selling sponsorship space is simple. It’s tidy and it fits a spreadsheet. Real partnership is harder. It requires clarity, alignment, capability, and time. It demands questions like:

• What problem are we solving together? 

• What value does each party bring? 

• How will members benefit? 

• How will we measure success?

Many associations don’t yet have the structures, skills, or incentives for that level of commercial thinking; and many suppliers aren’t bold enough to insist on it. So we all slip back into tradition. Booth. Logo. Lanyard. Repeat.

Meanwhile, opportunities for genuine impact sit untouched.

Suppliers in our sector hold expertise that can materially strengthen member value through research, capability-building, digital innovation, leadership development, and policy insight to name a few. When associations keep suppliers at arm’s length, everyone loses. Members get fewer ideas. Associations get weaker value propositions. Suppliers get transactional relationships disguised as strategy.

It’s not good enough anymore.

A better model exists

The alternative isn’t complicated. It just needs discipline and intent. When supplier relationships are designed as genuine collaborations, outcomes look different:

• Co-developed programmes that build skills and capacity.

• Thought leadership shaped around member needs, not sales cycles.

• Innovation shared across the ecosystem, rather than boxed by budget lines. 

• Real evaluation, not vanity metrics.

As an association CEO I encouraged this approach and as a supplier to associations I have experienced it, and it works. It delivers substance, credibility, and long-term value. It also strengthens trust. Suppliers stop feeling like revenue targets. Associations stop fearing commercial engagement. Members see benefits that exceed event menus and branded notebooks.

That’s what partnership looks like. Everything else is just fundraising.

The sector is at a crossroads

This isn’t a call for associations to abandon sponsorship. Revenue matters. Events matter. Visibility has its place. It is a call to stop pretending that every paid opportunity is strategic.

If we genuinely want the membership sector to mature, we need to modernise how we think about external expertise. The line between supplier and partner should not be defined by the invoice, but by the impact delivered, and that requires a shift in mindset:

Suppliers are not pay-to-play participants. We are part of the value chain.

Treat us like contributors, not chequebooks. Challenge us. Involve us early. Ask what we know, not just what we can underwrite. And yes, expect commercial transparency and good behaviour in return. Partnership goes both ways.

The organisations already doing this are moving faster. They’re building capability. Innovating. Serving members in ways others can’t yet imagine. They aren’t selling space. They’re building ecosystems.

Time for a grown-up conversation

So here’s the provocation, delivered plainly: stop calling it partnership if what you’re selling is sponsorship. And here’s the constructive path forward: design supplier relationships with intent, curiosity, and alignment. Start small. Test models. Build trust. Create value before extracting revenue.

Partnership is not a slogan. It’s work. But it will and does pay.

This sector doesn’t need more sponsors. It needs collaborators. The kind who bring ideas, challenge assumptions, and deliver capability members can feel. I stand ready to do that work, and many, many others do too. The question is whether associations are ready to meet us there.