Download to read offline
Uploaded byHigher Logic
Engagenomics: Member Engagement Drives Satisfaction
The document analyzes membership engagement strategies across various associations to improve member satisfaction and retention. Key insights include the correlation between engagement metrics and member satisfaction, the importance of understanding member needs, and how different organization sizes impact engagement levels. The report also highlights top reasons for joining and not renewing memberships, emphasizing the need for effective engagement practices.
More Related Content
Similar to Engagenomics: Member Engagement Drives Satisfaction
Engagenomics: Member Engagement Drives Satisfaction
- 2. Engagenomics: How DoesYour Member Engagement Drive Satisfaction? May 19th, 2014 By Andy Steggles, Reggie Henry and Erik Schonher
- 3. Top Membership Goals 67% 64% 60% 28% 27% 25% 11% 3% Increasingmember engagement Increasing membership retention Increasing membership acquisition Increase understanding of member needs Increasing dues revenue Increasing non-dues revenue from members (attendance at… Increasing member diversity Other 2014 (n = 784)
- 4. Methodology • Analyze 2013Engagement 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
- 5. Goal is toIdentify: • Best Practices for Engaging Members • Quantify Benchmarking Metrics for Different Sized Organizations • Engagement Potential • Correlation Between Engagement and Satisfaction
- 6. 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?
- 7. Do Smaller orLarger Organizations have Better Engagement?
- 8. Size Matters • Setappropriate 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
- 9. Size Categories by# of Members* Small 0 to 1,499 Small/Medium 1,500 to 5000 Medium 5,000 to 19,999 Medium/Large 20,000 to 49,999 Large 50,000 to 99,999 X Large 100,000+ *Members are defined as those individuals which are designated to receive member benefits.
- 10. Shared Files PerMember Ratio Shared Files Per 100 Members • Small: 59 • Small/Medium: 20 • Medium: 9 • Medium/Large: 6 • Large: 0.8 • X-Large: 0.4
- 11. Blog Posts PerMember Ratio # of Blog Posts Per 100 Members • Small: 11 • Small/Medium: 2 • Medium: 1 • Medium/Large: 0.6 • Large: 0.1 • X-Large: 0.1
- 12. Mentee/Mentors to MembersRatio Note: There was not enough mentoring related data to provide a significant analysis at this time.
- 13. Discussion Based EmailOpen Rates • Average Daily Digest Open Rate: 26.9% • Average Real Time Open Rate: 34.13%
- 14. 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.”
- 15. Ratio of Engagementto 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
- 16. Composite Engagement ScoreAlgorithm 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
- 17. Email Subscriptions Matter 0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 00.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2 CompositeEngagementScore Ratio of Members Subscribed at Least to 1 group CES Linear (CES)
- 18. Average CES bySize Category
- 19. Average CES bySize (Top 25% of Orgs by Members to Messages Ratio)
- 20. CES Variability bySize of Organization y = 2E-12x2 - 1E-06x + 0.077 -0.1 0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0 50000 100000 150000 200000 250000 300000 350000 400000 450000 500000 CompositeEngagementScore Number of Active Members CES~Active Members Regression
- 21. y = -8E-08x2+ 9E-05x -0.1 0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 6000 CompositeEngagementScore Number of Active Members CES Poly. (CES) CES Variability for Small/Small-Medium Orgs The highest engagement achieved by orgs with 2k to 3k members.
- 22. CES Variability forMedium-Medium/Large Orgs y = 5E-06x -0.05 0 0.05 0.1 0.15 0.2 0.25 0 10000 20000 30000 40000 50000 60000 CompositeEngagementScore Number of Active Members CES Poly. (CES) The highest engagement achieved by orgs with 20k members.
- 23. Review of the2014 Membership Marketing Benchmark Report • Total participation –2013 691 –2014 894 • Increase of 28%
- 24. Health of theIndustry • 53% grew over last year • From a low of 36% in 2010
- 25. Key Indicators: MemberAcquisition & 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)
- 26. 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%
- 27. Example: American Societyof 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
- 28. Analysis Findings • NetPromoter 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.
- 29. ASAE cont. • Typesof 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.
- 30. Example: American Societyof 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.
- 31. Top 5 ReasonsMembers 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%
- 32. Areas of Engagement nIncreased 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%
- 33. Top 3 ReasonsFor 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
- 34. Increased Support forMember Engagement: Budget Changes 30% 62% 8% Increased Stayed the same Decreased
- 35. Summary • Top ReasonsMembers 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.
- 36. Thank You • AndySteggles, President, Higher Logic, andy@higherlogic.com • Reggie Henry, CIO, ASAE, reggie@asaecenter.org • Erik Schonher, Vice President, Marketing General, eschonher@marketinggeneral.com
Editor's Notes
- #3 Engagenomics: How Does Your Member Engagement Drive Satisfaction? Speakers: Reggie Henry, CAE, CIO, ASAE: The Center for Association Leadership Erik Schonher, CeP, MBAVice President, Marketing General Incorporated Andy Steggles, President & Chief Customer Officer, Higher Logic Music City Center 104C 11:10am - 12:10pm Are your members engaged? And more importantly, does this equate to a greater level of satisfaction? Is online engagement the digital version of "old school networking"? What is engagement and how does it relate to your more traditional volunteerism model? Attend this session to hear the exclusive results of a joint engagement and member satisfaction benchmarking initiative. Attendees will get to see the highlights of the actual engagement data from approx. 400 associations which has been then tied into Marketing General’s Membership Satisfaction survey. Be the first to hear about the fascinating insights from this initiative and how it can and should change the way you perceive the value of member engagement. We’ll also have two association exec panelists who will present their more detailed report and how they have interpreted the data. Hear about how they have implemented a Net Promoter initiative to quantify the satisfaction levels of those who are engaged vs. those who are not and more importantly, how this data is being used to help make strategic decisions on where to focus resources. Learning outcomes: Gain a solid understanding of various ways to measure member satisfaction using the Net Promoter framework. Understand how to score and measure engagement from a simple to a more detailed level. See how to tie member satisfaction into engagement to quantify success and ultimately how to tie it into retention. Obtain a detailed understanding of what quantified success looks like for other types of organizations and walk away with numbers which can be used to benchmark against.
- #7 Bios or Photos means members are more likely to post a message. Presence of bios has a strong positive impact. Bios explains a 10% more variation in engagement than photos. Ideas/Recommendations? --Campaign around profile completeness --Better onboarding process --Shamification and Gamification --Completeness Bar --Make profile completeness a KPI for membership People who have both a bio and photo do not differ in their engagement from those who just have a bio. User Bios and Photos Matter Does having user bios correlate with higher engagement levels? In fact, it does! Bios have a significant correlation with higher levels of engagement metrics. In particular, if someone has a bio, they are more likely to post a message (such as a new thread, reply to a sender, or group reply). Will my community users eventually complete their bios? Unfortunately, getting users to complete their bios is not appearing to be an “if you build it, they will eventually create a bio” situation. Site tenure, or the length of time your community has been up and running, does not affect the ratio of members with bios. In other words, bios do not grow organically. This suggests ongoing communications and/or some form of incentive should be put in place to encourage members to post bios. What about photos, does a user with a photo correlate to higher engagement levels? Yes. Photos also have a significant correlation with higher levels of engagement. Individuals with a photo in their profile are more likely to post group messages (new threads, replies to group and replies to sender). Which is more important…users with bios or with photos? While both bios and photos show a positive correlation with the engagement, the presence of bios has a stronger positive impact. On average, the presence of a bio explains 10% more variation in engagement than the presence of a photo. What about people with both? Interestingly, individuals who have both bios and photos in their profile do not significantly differ in engagement than those who only have bios. This suggests that given a choice between encouraging bios or photos, bios should be given priority. Recommendations: Promote bio completion. Getting people to complete a bio is important, it’s a sign they are more likely to get engaged. Unfortunately, users don’t just login over time and complete their information. Therefore, develop a communication strategy that encourages your members to complete their bios and track the completion rates. As an additional consideration, you will most likely want to also track if any changes to the bio are made as that may be an indication of “continued engagement.”
- #9 Metcalfe’s Law states that the value of a network is proportional to the square of the number of connected users of the system (n2).
- #16 # of subscribers to at least one discussion group % of group replies % of threads per member Average 2013 Ratios of Engagement to Total Membership – All HL Clients By Quartile Note: Quartiles were determined by the messages per member ranking of organizations in 2013; Q1 contains the top 25% organizations in terms of the ratio of messages per member.
- #17 The 0.3 and 0.7 weighting in the algorithm is designed to rank organizations with more members who are engaged, higher than organizations with a few members who engage a lot. In other words, the distribution spread of engagement carries a heavier weight than frequency.
- #18 The CES increases with the number of members subscribed to at least one discussion group.
- #20 Key Finding: There is significant variation of CES (Composite Engagement Scores) between all organizations and the Top 25% ranked by the Ratio of Messages to Members in 2013, as well as by Size of Organization. In order to explore this finding further, the following section provides various regression models using CES and other HL engagement metrics to show variations by Size and Level of Engagement.
- #21 As the size of the organization increases, the level of organization engagement tends to fall. Size explains a 20% to 40% of variation in engagement scores. More specifically, it roughly follows a cubic polynomial model that is fitted above.
- #22 →Observation: as the size of the organization increases, the level of organization engagement tends to fall slightly among the small organizations, but the decrease is very slight compared to large size organization. In fact, the plot shows that organizations with 2000 to 3000 members may have the highest engagement propensity among the small size organizations. The highest propensity for engagement is identified by the highest point on the curve of the polynomial model fitted above.
- #23 →Observation: medium size organizations show a much stronger inverse relationship between organization size and the level of engagement. This can be seen from the sharpness and the angle of the curve above when compared to the small organizations model curve. In the case of medium size organizations, size has a much stronger effect on engagement. As with the small size organizations, medium size organizations have a "sweet spot" where they have the highest propensity to engage, which is at roughly 20,000 members according to the model curve.
- #26 Given these results it appears that Member Acquisition is driving growth.
- #29 Members who are Collaborate Users seem to have higher NPS scores compared to those who are not with a NPS of 22 being a Collaborate User versus a NPS of 0.1 as a non user. When it came to having a photo, a bio, or both a photo and bio on their Collaborate profile, members who had one of the three had higher NPS ratings, approximately twice as high, with members having both a photo and bio having the highest NPS rating. These members also rated their satisfaction, importance, and investment of their ASAE membership the highest. For the most part, it seems that if a member was part of a section in Collaborate, they would have a higher NPS rating. This is true for all of the following sections: Executive Management, CEO Network Online, Membership, Meetings and Expositions, Marketing Section, Small Staff Association, Finance and Business, and Communications. The only section it was not true for was the Technology Section. People who were not in Technology had higher NPS than people who were. A variable “PersonOrderTotal” was created into categories to indicate a member’s spending with ASAE. NPS increased as the money spent increased except with a minor dip at members who spent between the $560.01-$1355.00 section. NPS also increased as well as satisfaction, importance and investment with ASAE membership as the # of total orders a member made increased. Members who were in any community yielded a higher NPS than members who were not in any community. Members who were in a committee were also more likely to have higher NPS than members who were not in any committees. In fact, as the number of committees increased, NPS also increased.
- #30 Type of posting done in Collaborate was broken down into four categories: Did not post, Initiated post, Replied, and both. If a member replied, they had a higher NPS than one that initiated post but the highest NPS of the group were members who did both. After breaking down the posts to see where the cut off was, to see if there was any significant dips in NPS within the number of posts members posted on Collaborate, it seems that there is no specific points but definitely some fluctuation. NPS increased as well as satisfaction, importance, and investment with ASAE membership as the number of meeting orders increased.
- #31 Member of Connect: 1359 (NPS 55%) Not a member of Connect: 1112 (NPS 25%)