In Order to Save PASS, We Need to Fire C&C

Spread the love

Let’s talk through the current situation PASS faces. Your business has had its main revenue source devastated by a raging pandemic. To raise revenue from other sources you plan to announce a new online learning and networking service. Except your website is down for five hours on the morning of the rollout, and even after that, there’s still no mention of the new service on the front page of the site. It seems like the term “botched rollout” is used quite frequently when it comes to our community organization, more often than not in fact. In normal times, we can laugh, but when the organization is facing financial peril, execution and decision making are absolutely critical. In this post, I’ll talk about PASS, their new service offering PASS Pro, and my vision for saving the organization.

Let’s Just Talk About Economics

Before I talk about my opinions on the Pro membership offering and how it could work, let’s talk about basic economics of the PASS organization. PASS’ major source of revenue is Summit—in 2018 revenue was about $9MM USD, and Summit made up about $8.9MM of that revenue (thanks to Steph Locke for her excellent research into the budget). Summit isn’t happening in 2020—the conference is going virtual. However, given the reality of a global vaccine distribution process and depressed business travel budgets, even if it happens in 2021, revenues will be likely be down. Which likely places PASS in the awkward situation of trying to run a conference that may have costs which significantly exceed revenue.

Focusing on 2020 for now, PASS Summit is virtual, as are VMWorld, AWS reInvent and Microsoft Ignite. Ignite and reInvent, which are typically around the same cost of the physical Summit, is free as in beer, and VMWare is using a freemium model which only costs $299. Virtual PASS Summit costs $599, or $999 with precons. I’m not pointing out these differences in cost to be petty—those other conferences are subsidized by the vendors who run them, and you won’t get the deep level of database content you’ll see at PASS Summit. However, those other conferences present headwinds that could slow the number of attendees that attend virtual PASS Summit. If PASS were to have 2000 attendees that attended precons, they would only have $2MM of revenue. I think having 2000 attendees is probably optimistic given Zoom fatigue, the fact that other events are free, and the depressed economy, but we’ll run with that number.

The Other Problem

As Steph mentions in her post, and I’ve mentioned before, C&C is a for-profit consulting firm that performs event management and community management services for PASS. There is no meaninful difference between PASS and C&C. PASS Board members have stated that C&C has hired staff just to work with PASS full-time (which brings into question labor laws about contractor status both in the US and Canada, but I’ll leave that to lawyers). In fact in that same post, C&C is referred to as PASS HQ. C&C, in a typical year, charges PASS around $4MM in services. You should also note that there are no PASS board meetings that happen without C&C representation. C&C has a non-voting seat on the PASS board, in the form of their CEO, Judy Christensen.

For those of you who are math majors, or are Business Intelligence specialists, you’ll note that $2MM Revenue <  $4MM Expenses. PASS does have some cash reserves, but they aren’t sustainable forever, and frankly why should our community continue to subsidize a private firm as we are losing money. The search for other revenue sources is a good idea, but is six months late, and millions of dollars short.

PASS Pro Membership

Yesterday PASS announced a new Pro Membership model. I know a lot of work went into this effort, over the course of many months and the mission is noble. I have colleagues who are developing excellent content for the platform that I think is quite good. However, there are a few problems. First, I know of a few community members who in recent months who were asked to host community networking events without being told these events were associated with a paid service. As someone who speaks and writes for part of his living, I’m fine with doing something for free to help a community organization (I’m receiving no compensation for speaking at PASS Summit), but when something is to purely support a for-profit effort (even community leaders have to pay for access to the new offering), to quote a wise man, “#$%@ you, pay me”. The bigger ethical issue is these community members were not informed that these “Community Connects” events were for a paid service. This changes a community organization into a for-profit business (which is mainly what it was before, however this makes it explicitly clear).

Beyond those issues, I just can’t see this working as a successful business (and I hope I’m wrong), PASS Pro is both on price and mostly business model competing with Pluralsight and LinkedIn Learning (formerly Lynda, disclosure: I have training videos on LinkedIn Learning and DCAC is compensated for them). PASS also faces competition from other folks in the DBA space who have their own successful private training services. However, those organizations have a wide base of training offerings, and a steady pipeline of content, and more importantly are both public companies with large coffers to help them pay content creators to build a continuous pipeline of content. While, PASS is paying content creators for the new service, this model is likely unsustainable over time without major capital investment to fund content creation.

With all that being said, let’s just run some numbers. While PASS always talks of the 350,000 people on their email list, that number is just a dream. The data quality is awful, and everyone who is involved with the community knows that the actual number is an order of magnitude less. I’m going to be generous as say PASS has 50,000 active members. (I personally think the number is closer to 10-15k). If they get a 20% adoption at $120/year, that represents revenue of $1.2 million/year. This would be a significant revenue enhancement, however in a crowded marketplace, I just don’t see 10,000 people signing up for the service, nor do I have faith in C&C to build a service that’s attractive to a broad audience. In my decade plus long of working with PASS, while Summit has been successfully run, nothing else has.

To the Botched Rollout

The website going down on the morning of the launch was bad luck. However, it’s part of many systemic failures that we’ve seen throughout the years of C&C’s leadership of PASS. Computers break, but not having monitoring and automation in place to repair your website is just poor form for an IT professional organization. However, the bigger failure is that PASS hasn’t clearly defined what the benefits of the Pro membership are. From the blog post the following benefits are defined:

  1. Download access to PASS Summit 2019 Learning Pathways
  2. Exclusive partner discounts
  3. PASS Community Connects networking sessions
  4. A PASS Pro Member badge

I received a copy of the email sent to community leaders announcing this service—there are a number of “we aren’t sure yet” or “this service is new and we’re figuring things out” in the email that tells me the business model and the service were not fully thought out. There’s also mention of new features including an educational series, but no clear definition of what that is going to look like, and a PASS Training Record (which is based on surveys I’ve taken, probably leading into a certification of some kind, which is exceptionally hard and expensive to execute well, especially in a cloud world where exams need revisions every few months). This is a pretty limited set of benefits compared to Pluralsight, which already has a fully featured offering, with certification preparation and an excellent website/mobile experience.

I like the idea of diversifying revenue streams, however this offering is not fully baked, and in my opinion is unlikely to be successful. (I hope I’m wrong). Additionally, this offering was only introduced in a blog post, is not on the front page of, and as of 24 hours after the announcement, has not been emailed to members.

You Talk a Lot, What Would You Do?

If I were on the PASS board (and I’m thinking about running for the PASS board) I would do everything I could to reduce costs dramatically over the medium term. I would pursue termination of the contract with C&C, and probably look to downscale Summit in 2021, to be more at the level of a SQL Rally event. I just don’t see conference attendance returning to pre pandemic levels in 12-14 months. At that point, you are reducing costs to the level of hosting the websites for SQL Saturday and Virtual Chapters, other properties. I start planning for a Summit in 2022, to be back at the level of 2019, and look at all other opportunities to reduce overhead. These are desperate times for the community org, and I care far more about preserving the organization than propping up a for-profit consulting firm.

12 thoughts on “In Order to Save PASS, We Need to Fire C&C

    1. jdanton1 Post author

      I would, when you are ready to have another conference, hire a full-time executive director to manage the relationship with the event management company who was running our event. I would try to transition as much as possible to SaaS services like Sessionize to reduce overhead.

      1. John Sterrett

        Thank you for answering the question that I thought several people would want to ask. It would be interesting to see what the budget would look like with C&C not on it. I am sure there is opportunity to get more value as well especially with what we have seen with their IT efforts in the past.

  1. Kendra Little

    Thanks for writing this post, Joey.

    I think your example — of the practice of engaging speakers and volunteers to run sessions under a misleading assumption about the goal and cost of the session — is only one example of a larger problem:

    A significant portion of the speaking and volunteer communities has been alienated by the way the organization has “managed” us over time.

    This has occurred over a number of years. It’s not the fault of a single person or single Board of Directors.

    There are, however, deeply engrained bureaucratic patterns within the everyday operations of the organization that are focused on complete control of community activities, as well as a massive practice of denying responsibility for ANY shortcomings on the part of the organization — ever.

    This constant practice of “control-and-defend” has stifled creativity, learning, and sharing of information among volunteers, event organizers, and speakers. And it has led many to an intense fatigue with the organization and a lack of trust. That lack of trust appears to be reflected from all sides.

    For this reason, as well as many of the other reasons you mention, I agree that major changes are needed if PASS is to carry on.

    1. jdanton1 Post author

      Excellent points Kendra. I too have felt that way–something that has bothered me in recent years is that Summit speakers aren’t notified of acceptance at one point in time. It’s a rolling notification, which is fine for announcement and marketing purposes, but keeps speakers guessing and is disrespectful to them.

  2. mfal42

    Once again, Joey says a lot of what I wanted to say, he just does it better.

    The one point I would disagree on is this idea that we can save PASS. I don’t think we can. I think PASS as an organization is so tied to C&C, that there’s no real way to separate the two. I agree that C&C is the problem (for many of the reasons outlined here), but because of the close relationship and our inability to separate PASS from C&C to date, I can only think that PASS must be completely replaced with something more community oriented.

    I understand that this is a non-trivial task. Recreating a global professional association for SQL Server is a huge undertaking. However, what works in our advantage is that PASS is not the same thing as the SQL community. The SQL community is a living, vibrant group that doesn’t need PASS to sustain itself. Conferences like SQL Grillen, SQL Bits, 8kb, and New Stars of Data (plus other efforts not immediate in my mind) show that we can successfully share and collaborate on Microsoft’s data platform without PASS.

    Do I have the a definitive answer or plan on how to solve this? No, I’m not sure I’m that smart. I do care and I do want to help, I’m just not sure how. Maybe we can save PASS, but not in it’s current state because of the current C&C partnership. That much I am sure of.

    1. Kendra Little

      Sorry to hear this happened to you as well. I had been invited to do one, also with no indication that it would either be a for-profit session, or a direct promotion for a for-profit session.

      I turned down the opportunity to do mine with the response that I thought PASS should instead spend the time and effort focusing on doing more Diversity and Inclusion events and highlighting more diverse speakers than myself — a single panel is a *start* but there’s so much more that could be done by a community organization.

      Even though I turned it down, finding that the intent was to “monetize” me without my knowledge was not the greatest feeling.

      I know we aren’t the only two people this happened to, but not sure how many may be in store for an unpleasant surprise.

  3. whatever ...

    Thanks to local content and the interwebs, the big yearly Summit, while fun, has become totally redundant. Life will go on without PASS. Worst case scenario, the people who run C&C (and the board members who receive kickbacks, my only theory to explain that particular parasitic relationship) won’t be able to buy quite as many nice cars. The organization is a dinosaur. Good night and good riddance. Long live a fully independent and PASS-free SQL Saturday.

    1. jdanton1 Post author

      Baord members don’t take kickbacks, I’ve seen what they drive. My concern with losing the broader PASS umbrella is to be stuck in a distributed state like INETA for the .NET community, which hasn’t been the same since.

  4. justansqlserverdba

    Well, since there’s opinions that it would be hard to divide the seemingly juggernaut that is CC/PASS, maybe it’s time to advocate another free platform for trainings such as

  5. ✨💫Kellyn Command Line 💻✨ (@DBAKevlar)

    I have to admit, I’m reading through the comments and I’m part of the group that is leading a day behind the PASS Pro paywall, but was completely unaware, too. This should have been handled in a more open manner, as many have stated here.
    PASS, as so many user communities, are facing an unprecedented challenge with the pandemic. Many of them were previously dealing with uncertainty due to ongoing changes in how technical professionals get access to knowledge area content and network, so many of them were already in the danger zone.
    I believe the most important thing, beyond stating there is a problem, is discussing options. Complaining won’t move the needle, but discussions on what it will take to move forward and then doing something about it will. I’ve been part of, as well as observed a number of user communities initiatives to do more with less, (including what you describe above- going without a management company.) What seems to make the difference is the heart and drive of the community. Who will pick up the pieces and find the solutions when the management team is no longer there to do everything?

    Thank you for building the discussion and as always, I love this community and the passion everyone has for it!


Leave a Reply

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.