My Management 3.0 licensing terms are quite fair and easy.
I don’t certify trainers because there’s no fun in judging other people’s courses. I have noticed that students are much better able to evaluate the performance of a trainer than I can. And besides, it’s much more scalable.
I don’t require trainers to use all my materials in their classes. I know that ideas and content must be customized for a local context. Trainers can reach more people if they are allowed to tweak the courseware. Plus, it’s scalable.
I don’t protect my games and exercises. Instead I allow people to copy them, and to improve on the ideas. I’m even happy to link to those other versions, believing they can help to spread the message. And it’s more scalable.
I don’t squeeze trainers, shaking thousands of euros or dollars out of their pockets, for the privilege of being associated with me. I know some writers charge ten times the annual fee that I’m charging. But my approach scales.
True, profitability is nice. But only as a side-effect of scalability.
You can’t change the world with only a handful of partners.
I have started licensing the Management 3.0 course one year ago. And now there are 34 trainers in 20 countries, organizing (roughly) 15 courses per month, with an average rating of 8.7 out of 10.
Try that with protectionism. :-)
I find it baffling that some people sell Agile courses using pure command-and-control licensing and certification schemes. That’s like promoting a healthy life style with a fast-food franchise. If you ask me, I think some people in the Agile community are selling a lot of bad salads.
I believe a licensing approach that really espouses values such as trust, respect, and transparency has the potential to reach many people and enrich their lives. A controlled and restricted approach will only allow some people to enrich their wallets.
And who knows? Maybe I earn even more, because I don’t focus on it.
BTW, I skipped the fast food at the airport today, because I refuse bad salads.