My conversation this week was with Richard Millington, founder of FeverBee and probably the person who has studied online communities more closely than anyone. I had a selfish reason for the invite. Years ago I spent three years trying to build an alumni community and got crickets, and at the time I wrote an article asking whether the failure was us or the platform. Richard has watched that same story play out at hundreds of organizations, and his answer is bracing.
Listen to the full-length version on YouTube (57 mins)
It was almost never the platform. The mistake, he says, is that we build “for them instead of with them.” We pick the software, set it up exactly how we want, blast everyone with an invitation, and then wonder why the room stays empty. What works is the opposite, and much less glamorous. Start with five or ten people and one real need, then grow from there. He compares it to tending a fire, you have to keep feeding it, and the payoff is the day someone starts a conversation without you. I loved that he treats this as a genuine craft, closer to sales than to posting, full of small persuasive moves most of us were never taught.
It left me with some uncomfortable questions for our field. If a decade of alumni platforms failed, why do we keep reaching for a new tool instead of a new approach? What would we build if we started with ten people and one need instead of a launch? And are we willing to staff this like the skilled, patient work it is? What I appreciated most is that Richard makes community feel less like a technology purchase and more like something human and earned. That, I think, is exactly what our field needs to hear.
Big Themes This Week
It was almost never the platform. Communities fail when we build for people instead of with them.
Skip the big launch. Durable communities start with five or ten people and one real need, then grow.
Community management is a craft that has to be owned and staffed, not run as a quarter-time afterthought.
Team Discussion Questions
Are we reaching for a new platform when the real gap is our approach?
What could we build if we started with ten committed people and one clear need?
Who owns our community work, and are they set up to do it as skilled, patient work?
