engagenomics: member engagement drives satisfaction
DESCRIPTION
Presentation with Marketing General Inc. Topic: Our study showed that associations which have a higher level of engagement are trending an average of 5% better retention. Andy Steggles, President, Higher Logic Reggie Henry, CIO, ASAE Erik Schonher, Vice President, Marketing GeneralTRANSCRIPT
Engagenomics: How Does Your Member Engagement Drive Satisfaction?
May 19th, 2014By Andy Steggles, Reggie Henry and Erik Schonher
Top Membership Goals
Increasing member engagement
Increasing membership retention
Increasing membership acquisition
Increase understanding of member needs
Increasing dues revenue
Increasing non-dues revenue from members (attendance at conferences, purchase of services/education, etc.)
Increasing member diversity
Other
67%
64%
60%
28%
27%
25%
11%
3%
2014 (n = 784)
Methodology• Analyze 2013 Engagement Data from:– 400+ Associations– 150,000+ Communities– 15 Million Members– 54 Engagement Variables– Plus Ratios Between Variables
• Perform Correlation Analysis• Create a Composite Engagement Score (CES)• Compare with 2014 MGI MM Benchmark
Goal is to Identify:
• Best Practices for Engaging Members• Quantify Benchmarking Metrics for Different
Sized Organizations• Engagement Potential• Correlation Between Engagement and
Satisfaction
Bios and Photos
• Do Bios/Photos = Increased Engagement?• Will Bios Grow Organically?• Which is More Important? Photos or Bios• Does a Bio AND Photo = > Engagement?• Audience Ideas/Recommendations?
Do Smaller or Larger Organizations have Better Engagement?
Size Matters• Set appropriate expectations based upon the
# of Members.• Metcalf’s Law Holds True for Online
Communities:– Associations with higher ratios of members
subscribed to at least one discussion group, rank higher in overall engagement.
– Less Segmentation is Better for Broader Membership
Size Categories by # of Members*
Small 0 to 1,499 Small/Medium 1,500 to 5000Medium 5,000 to 19,999Medium/Large 20,000 to 49,999Large 50,000 to 99,999X Large 100,000+
*Members are defined as those individuals which are designated to receive member benefits.
Shared Files Per Member RatioSize_Category
0.0500 0.1000 0.1500 0.2000 0.2500 0.3000 0.3500 0.4000 0.4500 0.5000 0.5500 0.6000 0.6500
Library Entries Per Member
Small
Small_Medium
Medium
Medium_Large
Large
X_Large
0.5920
0.0042
0.2047
0.0938
0.0085
0.0633
Shared Files Per 100 Members• Small: 59• Small/Medium: 20• Medium: 9• Medium/Large: 6• Large: 0.8• X-Large: 0.4
Blog Posts Per Member RatioSize_Category
0.00 0.01 0.02 0.03 0.04 0.05 0.06 0.07 0.08 0.09 0.10 0.11 0.12
Blogs Per Member
Small
Small_Medium
Medium
Medium_Large
X_Large
Large
0.0066
0.0012
0.1107
0.0275
0.0115
0.0011
# of Blog Posts Per 100 Members• Small: 11• Small/Medium: 2• Medium: 1• Medium/Large: 0.6• Large: 0.1• X-Large: 0.1
Mentee/Mentors to Members Ratio
Note: There was not enough mentoring related data to provide a significant analysis at this time.
Discussion Based Email Open Rates
• Average Daily Digest Open Rate: 26.9%
• Average Real Time Open Rate: 34.13%
Discussions Related Metrics
• 51% of Members Subscribed• 1.37 Group Replies Per Thread• 0.33 Replies to Sender for a Thread
“For each thread created, there were an average of 1.37 replies to the thread and 0.33 replies directly to the sender.”
Ratio of Engagement to Total Membership• Legend:
– % of members subscribed to at least one discussion group
– % of group replies– % of threads per
member• Example:
– For every 100 members, there were 57 replies
– For every 100 members, there were 40 threads
Composite Engagement Score Algorithm
Total member authors of new threads or group replies/Total Members * 0.7
+Total members who have posted more than one group message/Total Members * 0.3
* 100
Email Subscriptions Matter
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.20
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.7
0.8
CESLinear (CES)
Ratio of Members Subscribed at Least to 1 group
Com
posi
te E
ngag
emen
t Sco
re
Average CES by Size Category
Size_Category
0.00 1.00 2.00 3.00 4.00 5.00 6.00 7.00 8.00 9.00 10.00 11.00
Avg. CES Index
Small
Small_Medium
Medium
Medium_Large
X_Large
Large
10.50
7.52
3.19
4.27
1.13
1.91
Average CES by Size(Top 25% of Orgs by Members to Messages Ratio)
Size_Category
0.00 5.00 10.00 15.00 20.00 25.00 30.00 35.00 40.00 45.00
Avg. CES Index
Small
Small_Medium
Medium
Medium_Large
X_Large
Large
17.10
43.19
1.64
5.46
8.52
2.61
CES Variability by Size of Organization
0 50000 100000 150000 200000 250000 300000 350000 400000 450000 5000000
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.7
0.8
f(x) = 2.42660786749164E-12 x² − 1.11606779000913E-06 x + 0.0770435866334104
Number of Active Members
Com
posi
te E
ngag
emen
t Sco
re
0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 60000
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.7
0.8
f(x) = − 1.91340863884627E-08 x² + 9.26518941299019E-05 xR² = 0.225436644396224
CESPolynomial (CES)
Number of Active Members
Com
posi
te E
ngag
emen
t Sco
re
CES Variability for Small/Small-Medium Orgs
The highest engagement achieved by orgs with 2k to 3k members.
CES Variability for Medium-Medium/Large Orgs
0 10000 20000 30000 40000 50000 600000
0.05
0.1
0.15
0.2
0.25
f(x) = − 1.01141276154429E-10 x² + 4.59935474293966E-06 xR² = 0.437726240751163
CESPolynomial (CES)
Number of Active Members
Com
posit
e En
gage
men
t Sco
re
The highest engagement achieved by orgs with 20k members.
Review of the 2014 Membership Marketing Benchmark Report
• Total participation–2013 691–2014 894
• Increase of 28%
Health of the Industry
• 53% grew over last year• From a low of 36% in 2010
Key Indicators: Member Acquisition & Member Retention
• Member Acquisition– 58% reported an increase over last year
• Member Retention– 31% of associations reported an increase in
renewal rates (down from last year)
Correlation of Renewal & Engagement
Associations by 2014 MGI MMBR & Associations with an Engaged Online Community who Agreed to Participate in a Blind-Comparison
IMO TRADE
2014 MGI Membership & Marketing Benchmark Report
76% 85%
Associations with Engaged Online Community
79% (+3%) 92% (+7%)
% of Improved Retention Correlated with Online Engagement 5%
Example: American Society of Association Executives (ASAE)
• Use Net Promoter Methodology• 21,533 members• 13,272 subscribed to Collaborate• 3016 Completed Survey• 81.6% (2462) of the Respondents were
Collaborate Users
Analysis Findings
• Net Promoter Scores:– 22 for Collaborate Users– 0.1 for non-Collaborate Users
• Members with a bio, photo (or both) had twice as high NPS rating.
• Members who were subscribed to a section had higher NPS scores for all sections, except the technology section.
• The more money a member spent, the higher their NPS (except for a slight dip for those who spent between $560.01 to $1355.00).
• NPS increased as the number of orders increased.
ASAE cont.
• Types of Collaborate Postings Categories:– Did not post– Initiated post– Replied– Both
• If a member replied, they had a higher NPS than a member who initiated a post.
• Members who did both had the highest NPS of all.
Example: American Society of Health System Pharmacists (ASHP)
• Use Net Promoter Methodology• 34k Members• 1359 Respondents have an active discussion
subscription• 1112 Do not have a subscription
Those who have an active subscription to a discussion group are 35% more likely to recommend ASHP to a friend or colleague.
Top 5 Reasons Members Join Their Association
2014
(n = 863)2013
(n = 693)
2012 (n =
684)
2011 (n = 641)
2010 (n =
400)Networking with others in the field 21% 24% 22% 25% 24%
Access to specialized and/or current information 20% 13% 12% 14% 13%
Advocacy 8% 8% 12% 10% 11%Discounts on products or meetings 8% 4% 5% 5% 6%
Learning best practices in their profession 6% 8% 7% 7% 9%
Continuing education 5% 7% 8% 7% 11%
Areas of Engagement
n Increased Stayed the same Decreased
Attendance at Conference/Trade Show 696 48% 38% 14%
Volunteerism with your organization 669 31% 62% 8%
Attendance at your professional development meetings 575 44% 45% 11%
Attendance at webinars 493 62% 30% 8%
Participation in your private social network 470 65% 30% 5%
Participation in your Young Professional program 248 63% 31% 7%
Participation in your mentoring program 206 41% 51% 8%
Top 3 Reasons For Not Renewing
2014
(n = 802)2013
(n = 691)
2012 (n = 687)
2011 (n = 639)
2010 (n
= 400)
Lack of engagement with the organization 17% 15% 14% N/A N/A
Could not justify membership costs with any significant ROI
12% 11% 11% N/A N/A
Budget cuts/economic hardship of company 11% 18% 17% N/A N/A
Increased Support for Member Engagement:Budget Changes
30%
62%
8%
IncreasedStayed the sameDecreased
Summary
• Top Reasons Members Join: Networking• Focus on Providing Value in This Area (in-person
and online)• Curate vs. Create• Membership Professionals: Work Smarter vs.
Harder• Size Matters: Understand Implications with
Respect to Setting KPIs.• Auto-Subscribe Members.
Thank You
• Andy Steggles, President, Higher Logic, [email protected]
• Reggie Henry, CIO, ASAE, [email protected]
• Erik Schonher, Vice President, Marketing General, [email protected]