This document contains a marketing report for the third and fourth quarters of 2014 that analyzes key performance indicators (KPIs) for the Go Global and Go Exchange programs. It summarizes goals versus actual results for several KPIs related to information sessions, sign-ups, matches, and promotions. It identifies gaps between goals and results and proposes explanations. It also maps out stakeholders in the OGCDP marketing process and directions for the marketing team moving forward.

1. MARCOMreality report
A-bao Yang
Marketing Manager, CTLC
jiunyi.yang@aiesec.net
1415
half-term

2. 1415 Q3Q4 OGCDP MARKETING
KPI of GG/ GE
Communication
Stakeholders
Feedback for
OGCDP
Marketing
GOAL vs ACTUAL
KSF or
BottleNeck + Sol.
GAP Analysis
Structure of
Stakeholder
Difficulties
+ Sol.
Divided &
Dig Deeper
Position
Direction
ME

4. KPI of GG/ GE
# of info-session participate
-- 9all
GOAL ACTUAL
--
ACTUAL / GOAL
GG
GE

5. KPI of GG/ GE
# of info-session participate
60 22-41st
2nd
40 15-5
3rd
15 10
GOAL ACTUAL
30%
25%
66.7%
ACTUAL / GOAL
GE
GG

6. GE
GG# of info-session participate
GAP ?
1st gap
2nd Recruitment caused TIMELINE DELAY, lack of preparation
on Product Packaging, Product Marketing and INFO design.
2nd gap
(Goal set too high.)
Based on VP’s experience, but this year was the highest 2nd
INFO.
3rd gap
(Fine.)
The highest 3rd INFO also.

7. KPI of GG/ GE
# of sign up
-- 14all
GOAL ACTUAL
--
ACTUAL / GOAL
GG
GE
VP
5
INFO/
9

8. KPI of GG/ GE
# of sign up
40 81st
2nd
20 6
3rd
5 7
GOAL ACTUAL
20%
30%
140%
ACTUAL / GOAL
GE
GG
VP
12
INFO/
9

9. GE
GG# of Sign Up
GAP ?
1st gap
2nd Recruitment caused TIMELINE DELAY, INFO design wasn’t
precise enough for persuading students to sign up; Especially those
who had shown off autumn recruitment.
2nd gap
(Goal set too high.)
Based on VP’s experience, but this year was the highest after 2nd
INFO.
3rd gap
(Goal set too low.)
Based on VP’s experience, but it’s also the highest so far which
occurred after 3rd INFO. And VP directly explain the Project
Content while INFO definitely helped participants know more and
drive themselves to sign up.

10. KPI of GG/ GE
Where the 35 Sign-ups came from?
18 17all
INFO VP Approaching
GG
GE

11. GE
GGWhere the 35 Sign-ups Came from?
K e y
Findings?
INFO and VP approaching was almost the same.
Although we couldn’t get the information about how
many students had been approached by Sonja;
we can guess that in the same period of time, the
amount of students should be less when using one on
one approaching.
In case that students who had engaged with our
program, INFO is more than VP approaching,
then we can have the conclusion that VP approaching
created higher percentage on “Sign-ups / students
had engaged with the『Go Exchange』program” .

12. KPI of GG/ GE
Info-Session~Sign Up conversion rate
-- 100%all
GOAL ACTUAL
--
ACTUAL / GOAL
GG
GE

13. KPI of GG/ GE
Info-Session~Sign Up conversion rate
66.7% 11.1%1st
2nd
50% 20%
3rd
33.4% 50%
GOAL ACTUAL
0.17
0.4
1.50
ACTUAL / GOAL
GE
GG
from VP
--
INFO
23.7%

14. GE
GGinfo-session~Sign Up conversion rate
GAP ?
1st gap
INFO design wasn’t precise enough for persuading students to sign
up; Especially those who had shown off autumn recruitment.
And we hadn’t had great use of follow-up-calls yet, such as delays,
unclear definition, or unbuilt conversations strategies.
2nd gap
Didn’t make good use of customers’ characteristic.
If he/she show off because of classmates, roommates,
friends…next time we can persuade them through their key person.
3rd gap
VP directly explain the Project Content while INFO definitely helped
participants know more and drive themselves to sign up.
And they have become friends with VP after INFO, which made
communication easier.

15. KPI of GG/ GE
Sign Up~Match conversion rate
14 8all
SIGN-UP Match
57.1%
CONVERSION RATE
GG
GE
VP
5
INFO/
9
VP
3
INFO/
5
VP
60%
INFO
55.6%

16. KPI of GG/ GE
Sign Up~Match conversion rate
21 15+5all
SIGN-UP Match
95.2%
CONVERSION RATE
GE
GG
VP
12
INFO/
9
VP
6+5
INFO/
9
VP
91.7%
INFO
100%
2/2/5 3/2/12/2/5 6/4/2 VP
50%

17. GE
GGSign Up~Match conversion rate
K e y
Findings?
AIESECers of GG hesitated more frequently after
signing up than customers of GE.
Where the opportunity is close to you, you are more
likely changing your mind. (Customer’s mindset)
In GG,
INFO and VP approaching was almost the same. INFO
wasn’t the main factor that AIESECer take the program
or not.
And in GE,
Those who have participated INFO and signed up after
that all matched without an exception, but if it’s VP
approaching, it only got half of it during the semester. It
probably related to capacity which it’s not enough to
handle diverse characteristics.

18. KPI of GG/ GE
Degree of (Self-)promoting – FB posts per EP
5 /EP 3+ /EPall
GOAL ACTUAL
++ %
GOAL / ACTUAL
GG
GE

19. 2 /EP 0.5+ /EPall ++ %
GE
GG
KPI of GG/ GE
Degree of (Self-)promoting – FB posts per EP
GOAL ACTUAL GOAL / ACTUAL

20. KPI of GG/ GE
Degree of (Self-)promoting – # of Promotion-cooperated EPs
8 ++all
GOAL ACTUAL
++ %
GOAL / ACTUAL
GG
GE

21. KPI of GG/ GE
Degree of (Self-)promoting – # of Promotion-cooperated EPs
10 ++all
GOAL ACTUAL
++ %
GOAL / ACTUAL
GE
GG

22. KPI of GG/ GE
Degree of (Self-)promoting – NPS
9 ++all
GOAL ACTUAL
++ %
GOAL / ACTUAL
GG
GE

23. KPI of GG/ GE
Degree of (Self-)promoting – NPS
7.5 ++all
GOAL ACTUAL
++ %
GOAL / ACTUAL
GE
GG

24. Communication
Stakeholders

25. LCP EXTERNAL
(partnership)
MB
MS
TL/ Mgr.
EB
team
(External)
Students
OGCDP
MKT TL
OGCDP
VP
MARCOM
VP
TM
VP
OGCDP
LDT TL
MARCOM
Mgr.
LDT
team
MB
MKT
team
MB

26. LCP EXTERNAL
(partnership)
MB
MS
team
EB
team
MARCOM
MKT Mgr.
OGCDP
VP
MARCOM
VP
OGCDP
LDT TL
MARCOM
Mgr.
LDT
team
MB
MKT
team
MB

27. Feedback for
OGCDP Marketing

28. Position
1 4 1 5
M A R C O M

29. Direction
M A R C O M
1 4 1 5

30. ME
M A R C O M
1 4 1 5

31. ROCK
Y O U
I N
2 0 1 5
WNCF