Revitalizing CES Membership


Published on

A Rationale to Pilot New Categories in Ontario. Feedback being obtained from conference participants.

Published in: Business
  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

No Downloads
Total views
On SlideShare
From Embeds
Number of Embeds
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide

Revitalizing CES Membership

  1. 1. Revitalizing CESMembershipRationale for piloting new categories in OntarioNikhat RasheedVice-Chair CES-ON Board & Chair, Membership CommitteeTuesday, June 11, 2013Main Mezzanine, Algonquin room
  2. 2. AgendaWhat did we do? Our Process 5 minWhy change membership categories? Drivers for Change 15 minProposed new categories…Description, Benefit, Risks andMitigation Strategies20 minWhat we’re thinking about…Assumptions, Constraintsand Limitations5 minIt’s your turn…Group feedback sessions 25-30 minReport back from groups 10-15 min
  3. 3. What did we do?Process Map
  4. 4. Our Process (June 2012-May 2013)Retained expertise, went through strategicmarketing review and approved a planMet with CES National President atOntario AGMCategory rationale clarified, internaldiscussions and prioritizationData gathering and analysis, limitationsand gapsPrepared draft rationale and shared withCES National and CES members
  5. 5. Why change membershipcategories?Drivers for Change
  6. 6. Drivers for Change• Membership at the Ontario Chapter isstagnating at 375-400 members peryear (as measured since 2008).• Members currently lapse at a rate ofapproximately 20% per year (asmeasured since 2008). Mainaddressable reasons are:• Lack of perceived benefits inmembership• Cannot take advantage of event• Not enough PD choice• Toronto-centric• No promotion of evaluation ormembers• Can no longer afford to pay the feeor employer no longer willing tocover to the fees (particularlywhen the employer is a not-for-profit)• Both of these reasons are directly tiedto a cost/value equation problem
  7. 7. Strategic Marketing ReviewStrategic Goals Strategic Actions Tactics1. Reduce the lapse ratefrom the current 20%per year to 15% by theend of 2013, 10% by theend of 2014 and 8% bythe end of 2015Review and realign membershiplevels with National to reducelapsing and to offer betteropportunities for membership forthose associated with evaluation.1. Full member2. Associate member* (individualmembership for those interestedin evaluation or whose job haschanged to include lessevaluation).3. Retired member4. Student member5. Student transition member**6. Corporate member based onemployee numbers**7. Fellow/Honorary lifetimemember ***2. Increase newmember rate by 5%each year for threeyears (2013-2015) froma three-year average of82 new members peryear to 95 by the startof 2016Develop multi-year memberships ata discount.Work with the Nationalorganization. Multi-year discountsnot reduce costs for members, butalso helps reduce the “forgot” factorand encourages commitment.
  8. 8. Competitors – Canada and IntlEvaluation Orgs Market Research Orgs Research/ Sector Orgs1. The Canadian EvaluationSociety (CES) (Canada)2. The European EvaluationSociety (EES) (CzechRepublic)3. The American EvaluationAssociation (AEA) (USA)4. The AustralasianEvaluation Society (AES)(Australia)5. The U.K. EvaluationSociety (UKES) (UK)1. Market Researchand IntelligenceAssociation (MRIA)(Canada)2. Market ResearchAssociation (MRA)(USA)1. American EducationalResearch Association (AERA)(USA)2. Ontario Public HealthAssociation (OPHA) (Canada)3. The Canadian Association forHealth Services and PolicyResearch (CAHSPR) (Canada)4. Association of EducationalResearchers of Ontario(AERO) (Canada)5. Ontario Non-profit Network(ONN) (Canada)
  9. 9. Competitor Analysis1. Most associations have student discounts2. Australasian evaluation organizations provide multi-yeardiscounts3. European evaluation associations have organizational feestructures whereas Canadian, American and Australasianorganizations do not. Could that be because evaluation isa more established discipline in Europe?4. Market research organizations have organizationalmemberships as does the Ontario Non-profit Network,funded by the public sector5. AEA has a hardship provision for one-year
  10. 10. Competitor Analysis: Fee $1659515013060407565123.7575 75020406080100120140160180CES AEA AES UKESRegularStudentJoint (Regular)
  11. 11. Proposed new categories…Category DescriptionDataBenefits, Risks and Mitigation Strategies
  12. 12. Lifecycle ApproachStudentNewPractitionerAssociateMemberFullMemberRetired orSeniorMemberLifetime orHonoraryMember(byinvitation)
  13. 13. New Practitioner Category• Recent graduates will be eligible for the New Practitionercategory for 2 calendar years after graduation at a reducedfee of $90 per year (the same as currently paid by ‘Senior’members).• New Practitioners will be required to provide proof oftheir graduate status which will be validated bysubmission of a dated transcript or credential to allowthem to access this category.
  14. 14. New Practitioner Category - Data• Students make up 13% of Ontario members (approx. 45 intotal in 2012-13). The current fee for students is $60 andthe full fee once they graduate is $165, an increase of175%.• Focus groups with students conducted• NPS committee feedback• Initial spot analysis done on student members from 2009to 2012 shows very poor conversion rate – 13% (select2009 and 2012 dates)• Calculations being worked on.
  15. 15. New Practitioner CategoryBenefits Costs/ Risks Risk MitigationRetain more studentmembers as theytransition from school towork with lowermembership feesStabilize membershiplapsing rateIncreased retention wouldlower the costs ofrecruiting new membersCES Ontario is not able to increase itsstudent population over the timeperiod to break evenThe Assumption that cost affectsmembership retention does not playout• The NPS committee and the marketingcommittees will make specific efforts to attractstudents in evaluation by leveraging theconference 2013, and dedicating resources to afull student and faculty engagement strategy• The NPS committee is committed to deliveringsupports to New Practitioners through onlineforums, discussion groups, social media, meet-ups/ cafes and new events geared to studentsand new practitioners• CES-ON takes measures to deliver increasedvalue to membersThe current membership system isunable to handle the proposedchanges• CES Ontario and CES would have to work outthe pilot options and arrangements• A more thorough risk assessment and projectmanagement plan would have to be preparedOthers to be identified Others to be identified Others to be identified
  16. 16. Associate Member Category• This category was suggested by our strategic planningconsultant as individual membership for those interestedin evaluation or whose job has changed to include lessevaluation. However, because we do not have an ability toexclude or distinguish benefit structures betweenassociates and full members, the board has not pursuedthis category.
  17. 17. Lifetime or Honorary Member Category• The Board has not spent much time looking at thispotential category. However, it seems to make intuitivesense, as in, patronage can be a way of garneringcredibility.
  18. 18. Organizational Memberships• Organizations receive bundle discounts in membershipsdepending on the number of employees they register withCES-ON.• Memberships are transferable between differentemployees.• Memberships are for one calendar year January 1 toDecember 31, and are pro-rated.• Calculations being worked on.
  19. 19. Organizational MembershipsBenefits Costs/ Risks Risk Mitigation• Create positivepressure fororganizations totake advantage ofcheapermembership• Increase awarenesswithin anorganization ofCES-ON as morepeople can becomemembers• Increase flexibilityfor organizationse.g. membershipscan be transferredwithinorganizationsGovernments arecutting back spending Strong promotion of evaluation strategy togovernments at all levels tied to their platforms ofaccountability, transparency and evidence-baseddecision making Providing discounted memberships by volume wouldbe particularly attractiveOrganizationalmemberships may costus lost revenue Suggestion to pilot organizational memberships forat least 2 years to study the effects on ourmembership Lost revenue is a possibility, however, given most ofour members come from the broad public sector, amarketing strategy promoting organizationalmemberships within this sector might help limitrevenue loss
  20. 20. Organizational MembershipsBenefits Costs/ Risks Risk MitigationAs in previous slide Non-profits lapse themost CES-ON should become an active memberof the Ontario Non-profit Network (ONN)to promote its mandate and training/PDservices to non-profits Most non-profits that apply for, or hostgovernment funded projects, have toprovide some sort of evaluation of theproject. CES-ON could launch a campaignto encourage them to build the cost ofmembership into their budgets or intotraining budgets for their staffOthers to be identified Others to be identified Others to be identified
  21. 21. Multi-year Memberships• In order to retain members for longer periods, and toreward our most loyal members, CES could offer themmulti-year discounts when they register or renew theirmemberships.
  22. 22. Multi-year MembershipsBenefits Costs/ Risks Risk Mitigation• Identify members whosufficiently value CESand intend to be loyalmembers for a time-period• Provide financialincentives to members• Stabilize revenues overtime periods• Reduce lapsing rates• Governments are cuttingback spending• Individuals may bereluctant to sign-up formore than one-year Strong promotion ofevaluation strategy togovernments at all levelstied to their platforms ofaccountability,transparency andevidence-based decisionmaking Strategy to understandreluctance or low uptakeand then mitigate thatOthers to be identified Others to be identified Others to be identified
  23. 23. We’re still planning….AssumptionsConstraintsLimitations
  24. 24. AssumptionsIt is assumed that: Effects on investment: Reliability Level:Assumption 1Many people are not joining CES orretaining their memberships due tothe prohibitive cost of membershipIf there are other factors thataffect retaining or applying formembership then the revisedstructure will not makemembership more attractiveBased on dataAssumption 2The revised membership categorieswill meet potential member needsIf effective, the revisedcategories will increasemembership numbers.Based on dataAssumption 3The CES-ON and CES will promoteawareness of the revisedmembership categoriesMarketing will contribute tothe high number of newmembers needed to join orrenew (when they wouldotherwise lapse) to ensurestable membership revenueBased on data andtesting
  25. 25. Constraints• While there is some survey data to support the hypothesisthat a revised membership structure will attract or retainmembers, there are significant gaps in hard data,including:• What is the lifecycle of a member? How many students do we reallylose in the transition from student to individual membership?• How many organizations would be attracted to organizationalmemberships?• We know memberships lapse for certain reasons (cost, evolution inwork, consultants versus employees) - however, what additionaltrends in lapsing can we uncover?
  26. 26. LimitationsWe have…• Utilized strategic marketing consultant expertise, membershipdata, spot analysis, competitor analysis• Gone on our experience and “gut” to some degreeHowever….• Accurate life-cycle data not tracked• Membership processed nationally• Membership data is static – monthly excel listsWe realize…• Limited ability to develop full cost estimate of the proposedchanges• Need to finalize technology, human resource, capacity costs
  27. 27. Now over to you…Q1: Benefits & Risks of Proposed CategoriesQ2: Considerations & Challenges Moving Forward• NEW PRACTITIONER MEMBERSHIPS• LIFETIME/ HONORARY MEMBERSHIPS• ORGANIZATIONAL MEMBERSHIPS• MULTI-YEAR DISCOUNTS