Archive for September, 2007
September 12, 2007
The Real Problem with Growth
Posted by Kevin | (7) Comments | Print This Article
The real problem with membership growth isn’t that it’s an unimportant metric — it’s very important. The real problem is that too many organizations forget that a metric is exactly what it is, not an end in and of itself. Membership numbers are a measurement. That means that ultimately they are measuring something else. (A cup of water is measuring the water, not the cup.)
Too many organizations have an unhealthy Membership Obsession. We’ve all seen these organizations. You can smell their desperation from a mile away. Their appeals get more and more frequent, their offers more and more convoluted, their postcards glossier and glossier. These are the ones whose marketing flyers have screaming headlines like “Join XYZA Today and Save $100!” (As I’ve written before, these are nothing but a lost opportunity, since I can obviously save even more by not joining at all.)
They launch things like “Member Get a Member” campaigns and wonder why so many members don’t respond. (As Scott McKain said at ASAE in 2005 — we later brought him to our organization’s conference — “Customers want reciprocal loyalty, they get endless prospecting.”)
They itch and twitch over every fluctuation in monthly membership recruitment and retention figures. They have focused their entire being on membership numbers — and lost sight of the well-known business rule that the worst thing that can happen to a mediocre product is a good advertising campaign.
Because that, all too often, is what the issue really is. A mediocre product.
The solution to a declining or stagnated membership is almost never a marketing campaign. I suppose there might be some organizations that offer enticing programs, stellar service, and rock-solid value whose only problem is that they’ve been too quiet about it. But far more likely, the best thing a declining association can do to grow its membership numbers is to stop caring about them — and start providing the types of programs and services that its customer base actually wants. (As opposed to what its always done, or what certain volunteers want done, or what certain departments want done.)
Do that, and growth — if that’s what you want — will come.
Sure, it’s simpler to say than it is to do (let’s face it, it’s a lot easier to send out postcards touting 3 free months of membership than it is to continually develop and launch new programs for your members) — but based on my experience, it’s actually not nearly as hard as some associations seem to think it is. And ultimately much more rewarding.
September 9, 2007
“Your Money or Your Life!”
Posted by Kevin | (1) Comments | Print This Article
Scott Briscoe posted an interesting piece at Acronym last week that generated a little discussion, particularly with some insightful comments from Virgil Carter and Jeffrey Cufaude. I was going to write a comment there as well but thought, what the heck, why not post it here as my first full-length post in a year?
Scott asks, “Why does growth always seem to be a strategy?” and it’s a good question. (The problem is that he then undercuts his argument by saying that growth is important — just not, you know, certain kinds of growth.)
I think Scott is dead on when he says that there are other possible numbers beyond membership growth that can be meaningful to an association’s success, such as the “growth in participation” which he suggests.
The difficulty comes in defining what those numbers are — because they will vary not just from association to association, but from member to member. Members join for different reasons.
In a comment to his original post, Scott defined “time” as the metric he may be striving to measure. Yet not everyone has an interest in giving time — as Virgil and Jeff note in their comments, the much-put-upon “mailbox member” is generally only interested in receiving certain tangible (or semi-tangible) benefits in exchange for their dues. In most cases, these sorts of members make up the majority of an association’s members (this is certainly the case of trade associations).
As I’ve written before, I am a mailbox member in certain organizations. I belong for specific reasons, and have little interest in being badgered into “participation.” I am very selfish with my time. So are most of your members.
A successful strategy is one that views the association as a whole. Simply looking at membership growth alone provides a lopsided view of the organization. But I think that simply coming up with an “engagement index” and looking at that alone would be just as dangerous.
Most associations offer “services and programs” that fall into two categories:
Knowledge & Intelligence. This is exclusive knowledge or intellectual property that members of the organization’s industry or profession can use for their professional benefit. It’s information and/or data they can use to get a competitive or personal advantage.
Community & Connection. These are ways, be they meetings or online forums or peer groups or whatever, that associations can use to help members connect with other members – so they can get a competitive or personal advantage.
The problem, as I see it, is that the notion of “time” only measures a member’s willingness to engage in one of these areas.
If your association is providing knowledge or intelligence resources that are worth a damn, then you will attract members who are “mailbox members.” If you keep introducing new resources that meet their needs, they will continue to renew.
If your association is providing a place for community or conversation, dependent on participation among the membership for value, then you will attract members who are willing to give “time” in cultivating these relationships. If you continue providing innovative opportunities for these connections, and make them easy to take advantage of, they will continue to renew.
In some cases, these are the same members. In many cases, they differ. I’m curious as to why associations should feel compelled to choose one or the other? Why can’t we have a strategy that includes both? And why can’t we value metrics that measure both?