Day 6 of idea a day: Engagement index
Today I was clearly in a vulnerable state. I didn't really like my post yesterday, so I sheepishly asked one of the magazine editors for an opinion.
An awkward pause.
"It was a good MLK post." Pause. "I didn't really see much of an idea."
That's not a staff person who knows how to get the biggest bonus is it? (Anybody who knows me, knows that's very much a joke — as if I controlled such things anyway.)
I think I have something better for day six. It's a topic that I've been talking about with whoever would listen to me for the last two years.
Here's the setup: I don't like two measurements of association health that are near ubiquitous in the association sector: number of members and member retention. Don't get me wrong, I don't think you completely ignore those numbers. But I think associations need to get over the notion that they are anywhere near effective measures of how well an association is doing on its mission. I haven't seen a mission yet that has increasing membership in it. As a mission measurement, it's a shadow of a shadow of effectiveness. Once upon a time, maybe that was about the best we could do. But not anymore.
I propose that associations establish an engagement index. Take a look at all the information you collect on your members and rate and sort it and score it. And I do mean all the information — volunteering, board service, book purchases, education attendance, leading education sessions, articles authored, listserver participation, use of a call center, grassroots participation, and on, and on, and on. Cast as wide a net as you can bear to track. Assign points or ratings so maybe board service counts as 100 whereas attending a conference is 5, purchasing a book is 3, etc. This where you'll find out how many people actually care about your association. Now instead of using the bottom line as the primary driving force, with membership a close second, behind your planning, make the primary driving force increasing your engagement index, with the bottom line a close second.
The engagement index still only measures a shadow of your mission, but it's a step closer than membership. When number of members is a proxy for measuring mission, you are assuming that all members (or most members?) are finding something valuable in your organization. The engagement index makes a safer assumption. It assumes that time and effort is a scarce commodity, and that if someone engages with your organization on a number of different levels, then they are finding something of value. It's still a leap to assume that the value is making them better at what they do — which is the heart of most missions — but you're closer.
A final point: Even if you don't have the means to measure much in the way of engagement, this idea is not lost. If you buy the notion that such an index, if you had the means to track it, would be a good measure for you, you can still use the notion in your planning. How does a publication change if your primary goal is to increase engagement? How does your annual meeting change? Your website? And on, and on.
(Full disclosure: Last year, the ASAE & The Center boards and planning, led on staff at the time by Scott Steen and Sarah Varner, had developed some really forward-thinking ideas of measurements that go beyond the typical number of members and butts in seats. I'm sure what I've described here is somewhere in those still-developing planning activities, but I don't recall it being as explicit as what I've laid out here. If I've missed giving credit where it's due, let me know.)
| | Permalink |
Comments
Your scoring creates a long tail of member engagement. Board service is a hit at one hundred but only a few can do it. Commenting on a list is easily done by most members but is valued very low. However, the largest mass of value is created down the tail (if it follows the same principles as Chris Anderson's book). This kind of tracking would allow an association to help monitor and grow their tails. :)
Posted by: David Gammel | January 17, 2007 8:22 AM
Do one better: Make the score for each member public and part of their online member profile (eg, via the member directory).
Showing scores will help drive engagement and put members into a "meta game" of "leveling up" their score. You could have an engagement index "high score" board and even base some kind of annual award/recognition around the scores (highest, fastest rising, etc).
Since we're an association of game developers, one of our board members thought of this kind of scoring scheme over two years ago. We've just not had the resources to attempt to tackle the technical challenge of implementation...
Posted by: Jason Della Rocca | January 17, 2007 11:21 AM
Your idea hit a sweet spot with me, Jason. In fact, this is how I was about to respond:
That is a neat idea Jason. That would get your top two or three percent of your members really working hard to participate.
But then I read what I wrote and I wasn't quite as sure. Am I the only one that is a little scared by that? Could the top three percent working to muscle each other around actually work to diminish overall participation? I think it very well could, so, while I still think it's an interesting idea, the key would be putting it into practice in a way that builds on the overall experience.
Posted by: Scott Briscoe | January 17, 2007 4:48 PM
Hmm, right good point. Best to leave the "rewards" intrinsic/intangible.
For example, the Xbox 360 added a very subtle thing called "Gamerscore" (earn points within each game you play for reaching certain achievements). The Gamerscore has no inherent value and there are no rewards provided or anything.
The value and interpretation of the score emerges organic from the community at large. And, way more than ~3% pay attention to and care about their Gamerscore.
Here's an nice overview article:
http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/hr/content_display/features/columns/playing_games/e3i905026bcaa187b31cf6beffe4df27d9a
Posted by: Jason Della Rocca | January 17, 2007 10:34 PM
I think member engagement is definitely a metric worth using. How we define engagement is a question that each association will probably need to consider in greater detail. Mailbox Members might see themselves as 100% engaged based on the level of engagement they desire. A heavily involved volunteer might see herself as somewhat disengaged if ultimately she feels she has more talent and time to contribute than what the association allows her to do.
Regardless I think those on the association side can really benefit from looking at each association program and service and ask, "what might increase the level of engagement our members (acknowledging the diversity among them) associate with this effort?" Increasing engagement will probably require shifts in both WHAT we do and HOW we go about doing it.
Posted by: Jeffrey Cufaude | January 18, 2007 11:46 AM
Membership and retention numbers are what I would call 'lagging indicators'. They are what happens as an end result of the sum of all the engagement opportunities.
The art will be selecting the engagement metrics. The Mailbox Member is someone to think about. For some, attempts to increase their engagement beyond a threshold they are comfortable with can be a detriment. Joe Member might read every listserve entry and every e-newsletter, but as soon as I bombard him with all the other engagement opportunities (buy this book, write us an article, be on a committee, etc.) does he start to tune-out?
Another variable is connectivity. It's the multiplying factor that makes things stick. Is that listserve post getting forwarded to twenty people? Is someone inviting 15 people to our next event?
Posted by: Doug Bladecki | February 16, 2007 9:45 AM