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, andy@higherlogic.com

• Reggie Henry, CIO, ASAE, reggie@asaecenter.org

• Erik Schonher, Vice President, Marketing General, eschonher@marketinggeneral.com