Narrowing the membership focus
I encourage folks to read Noel Capon's article in the October issue of Associations Now: "Picking Markets That Matter." (And while you're there, please give it a rating and/or review -- we'd love to know what you think.)
Here's a small quote about one of the things he says membership organizations have a tendency to do wrong:
They stretch themselves too thin. The organization tries to satisfy too many diverse needs but has insufficient competencies to do so. As a result, rather than serving some defined set of needs very well and having satisfied customers, it gives the same lousy service to all and no one is satisfied.
I think it's similar to my growth post from a few weeks back, I get concerned when associations pursue increased membership roles by defining their audiences more broadly. I'm sure it's been done in the past with great success, and can still be done. But I see a serious danger of diluting your message by broadening your audience. I like the idea of being absolutely the best in a niche. It may not lead to astronomical member numbers, but I bet you'd find a highly engaged membership that truly values what you do.
| | Permalink |
Comments
Yes! Yes! Yes! I just concluded a strategic planning/goal setting session with several volunteers and staff. At the outset of the exercise, I brought up a powerpoint slide that showed three quadrants on a grid. Each quadrant had one of the following statements:
All things to all people
All things to some people
Some things to all people
Some things to some people
I asked the group where on the graph did we belong as an organization. The responses varied, but the answer (I argued) is "Some things to some people." We used that as the theme for defining who those SOME people are to us, and then what those SOME things should be. With limited resources and time, it is paramount for us to have a relatively narrow, focused agenda.
It worked. We have our mandate and marching orders (vision, goals, etc), and they are aggressive and progressive enough for everyone to feel excited about the future, but few and narrow enough for the staff and board to feel that we can accomplish those things.
Posted by: Jay Karen | October 9, 2007 10:17 AM
I won't comment too strongly until I read the article. However, the strategy known as "market expansion" is a legitimate marketing focus. Michael Treacy -- who spoke at a Great Ideas Conference -- outlines five strategies to grow. Two of them are to: "take business from your competitors" and "invade adjacent markets". Tony
Posted by: Tony Rossell | October 9, 2007 11:46 AM
I think Jay's approach is a good one. I was told once that every consultant has to have his or her four-quadrant chart. Sounds like you may have found yours.
I also agree with Tony that market expansion is a legitimate strategy. My experience is that associations don't need to be told that--it seems they're continually looking for that opportunity. What I was hoping is that people who read the post won't blindly follow that strategy without at least questioning why. I hope you'd agree, Tony, that narrowcasting is just as legitimate a strategy. It's goes back to looking at your goals and your mission. It's quite possible you'll find the two do not fit well. Your goals may dictate more members and a market expansion approach while your mission may dictate a richer experience, narrow approach.
Posted by: Scott Briscoe | October 11, 2007 11:47 AM
Scott -- I did get a chance to read the article. I actually think that he makes a pretty good case in the article to expand your markets, not narrow them. Look at his case studies for Purell and for Progressive Insurance. Both of these are cases for achieving extraordinarly growth by leaving your current narrow market. I will try and get a full post of this up next week on the Membership Marketing Blog.
And, yes, I LOVE four quadrant charts. Tony
Posted by: Tony Rossell | October 19, 2007 4:09 PM