April 24, 2008
What’s Your Sweet Spot?
Posted by Kevin | Print This Article
You’ve got a “sweet spot.” EVERYONE does.
I know, as associations, we represent a whole industry or a whole profession. But the fact is, trying to be equally pleasing and equally valuable to an entire large group can be a recipe for madness. You’ll waste precious moments and resources trying to make everybody happy so they’ll join or renew, and at the end of the day, only certain types of members will find you pleasing or valuable enough to not only “belong” but also participate in programs and invest in other services and products …. while you desperately try to get other types to do the same thing.
We finally figured out last year, through a variety of data mining projects, exactly what our sweet spot was. A type of company that provides the biggest return to the organization, both through participation in programs and purchasing of services and products. It is luckily a sweet spot with plenty of room for growth.
When you evaluate your members with a hard nose and solid data, it will become quite clear to you that not all members are created equal. When you stop looking at members as “people who pay dues” and start looking at them as “people who participate and engage and purchase other products and services,” you’ll find a remarkably clear path to new services, products and benefits that will make those members happier — and bring in more of the same.
To get there you must have the courage to say, “THESE are the members we want … and THOSE are the ones we don’t.” But first you have to figure out which is which.
UPDATE: Just want to make sure you read the comments to this post if you’re coming here from somewhere else, as several people have had some very interesting insights and clarifications on this topic.
Trackbacks & Pingbacks
- Pingback by We Have Always Done It That Way » More on Not Pleasing Everyone on April 25, 2008 @ 9:53 am
Great post (as always), Kevin! I think associations often struggle with the last piece of advice you give–having the courage to identify that they don’t want certain members. Admittedly, I come from a professional society background, where I think there may be more desire on the part of volunteers to serve absolutely everyone in their profession, no matter what they bring back to the table as customers. (Or maybe that was just the associations where I’ve worked.)
Do you think trade association volunteer leaders have a better understanding of the need to make hard-nosed decisions like identifying certain groups as “members we don’t want”? Have you ever experienced pushback when you advocated making decisions like that?
Thanks, Lisa. While on the one hand an association of business owners may be more easily swayed by data and sound analysis, I think all association leaders are naturally expansive. This isn’t what they “do” and when they come to their association what they would really like is for everyone to be happy. You really have to put this in terms that the leaders understand, in much the same way that they work with their own marketplace in whatever it is they do.
To clarify, despite the dramatic flourish at the end of my post, what I’m really suggesting is that we figure out who we really want as members and go after them. The “ones we don’t” are implied based on that. I’m not suggesting that we actively discourage or reject membership from anyone in our sector. It’s just that when you figure out your true BEST market, it can lead to a real clarity (and energy and creativity) because you no longer feel like everything has to please everyone.
Yes and yes. From a product and benefits development perspective–indeed from an organizational design perspective as well–this makes perfect sense. I think it’s the natural marketer in us that bucks your sentiment. Why not expand and broaden? The answer is simple. Because being broad is not the value in your organization’s existence.
That said, from a marketing perspective, bringing “everyone else” into the fold has tremendous word-of-mouth potential–especially if your sweet spot is hard to find. The trick is to figure out a way to engage the broader audience without over-committing your resources.
Is your thought process related to Chris Anderson’s speech at Digital Now?
http://blogs.asaecenter.org/Acronym/2008/04/there_is_no_average_member .html
Thank you for clarifying! I have read about companies “firing” customers in the for-profit field, but never in the association world, so I was curious about what associations would do with the customers they don’t want. But I see what you mean now–finding a real focus on your best market, which doesn’t necessarily mean “firing” customers, but does mean accepting that some members outside your sweet spot may drift away.
And you’re absolutely right about association leaders wanting everyone to be happy. There’s an article in that, definitely …
Lindy, I’m familiar with Anderson’s work but hadn’t looked at that particular post about his remarks from DigitalNow. It’s interesting and runs somewhat parallel to my thought here.
Focusing on the BEST market makes it easier to create, serve, and attract them. But as associations we have a “long tail” of our own and as we create those innovative services for our market we will attract the attention of niche customers who may be interested in some things but not others (or some things, but not membership).
The question is, are we letting that tail organically grow, or are we walling our products and programs off within a “membership” fortress? How much of what your association offers is accessible without requiring membership?
Kevin, I think you may have just made the important distinction between members and customers. Associations have and need both. But they are very different.
We are still saddled with the legacy-membership model and mantra, ie, members uber alles. We really need to get beyond that to a 21st century perspective. This becomes even more of an imperative when we consider that the younger demographics, who will increasingly become the life blood of associations, appear much less inclined towards the “blind loyalty” of Boomers, and much more inclinded towards “dropping in-dropping out”of membership and volunteer activities, depending on when they see a personal or career benefit or interest.
Associations, particularly IMOs, may be facing a future where long-term dues-paying member may be replaced by “in-and-out-and-in-and-out” customers, who may or may not pay dues, but still seek the value, community and adovcacy offered by a non-profit relevant to their interests.
Thus, foward-looking associations might be better served by giving more attention and priority to a “voice of the customer” process, rather than either a legacy membership model or the long-tail model. Just who are the desirable customers of the future, and what is it they want and need?
I wish there was interest in an article in this, since it may be a paradigm shift in legacy membership models underlying non-profit associations. It may also be the successor to “Reason to Join”, ie, reason to be an (association) customer.
Just a thought.
Virgil, wise words as always. In an earlier post on “new rules” for association growth I mentioned that we have to stop thinking about customers as potential members. Membership has already changed and associations need to start thinking less like “magazine” and more like “TiVo.”
Part of this may require rethinking what we “sell” in terms of membership and whether or not it really is as valuable as we think it is.
In a brainstorming session with colleagues earlier this week I noted that it is easier to sell a relatively-high-priced monthly subscription for one valuable thing than it is to sell a relatively-reasonably-priced annual membership for “a portfolio of benefits.”
Kevin — Yes, serve your current market. BUT be sure to watch your data mining for emerging markets. Life nor markets are stagnant. They are dynamic and changing. So over time — for example — you may find that companies outside the US might become candidates for membership. If your industry becomes global and you miss this trend by focusing just on the US, you may miss the boat. Just a thought. Tony
Tony, I agree. Our markets continually change and we need to change with them.