One of the key findings in our 2013 EIA study was that “developing new methods of member engagement” is now cited as a top priority for respondents. This makes sense, as during the most challenging days of the recent recession, associations were prioritizing acquisition and retention efforts. Now that the economy has stabilized, focusing on engagement is the natural next step. In our research, we almost always see strong correlations between member engagement and other positive outcomes such as membership renewal, satisfaction and loyalty. So working to ensure that members are given ample opportunities to engage is a smart choice for most associations.
But getting beyond the surface level on engagement strategy is a challenge for many organizations. This quote, which I’ve pulled from a recent client email, really sums it up perfectly:
“…we’ve really struggled with what is ‘engagement.’ So many things roll up into a person’s engagement or experience with us. We’ve considered an engagement index, but never were able to decide what that contained.”
The individual who wrote this email is an extraordinarily savvy, data-driven professional working for a leading society. I think that in an honest moment, this is exactly what you would hear from most association executives if pressed on what is “actionable” around member engagement. While we have seen several different philosophies and approaches to member engagement over the years, there are more cautionary tales than success stories. I know many of our colleagues have poured countless hours into coding individual member records based on survey research, establishing reports that flag records based on transactional history and developing custom modules to track volunteer involvement. Layer on the buzz we hear from database vendors about various forms of member relationship management, social analytics and other techno-speak and the general sense one gets is that member engagement is being reduced to a technological pursuit. Call me skeptical, but I just don’t think it’s that simple.
To try to make more sense of the engagement question, we have started thinking about the topic within an interconnected framework of the most common types of association activities: cause, community, content and communications.
I realize that this deconstruction is somewhat half-baked, as we still need to figure out how to reconstruct this into a workable model. However, I’m thinking that we may be able to make more headway by looking at engagement not as a monolithic concept, but rather as a series of discrete opportunities to add value through interaction. We will keep you posted…