Acronym

This is a really interesting issue Lisa. If we match messages to channels, it means members have to follow multiple channels to "stay in the loop" completely.

I wonder which is more prevalent, the member who follows multiple channels closely and might resent the redundancy , or the member who follows only one or two channels and might miss out on a valuable message?

One of the greatest problems facing associations today is the tendency to over-communicate and under-inform. There are more channels to stuff than ever before, more reasons for members to feel talked to but not listened to. The real challenge is achieving balance.

I think the typical association (much smaller than ASAE!) struggles with how to balance multiple platforms. It's critical, as Chris says, but it's often badly done. When we benchmark & of contacts for specific purposes, such as conference/event promotion, we find that moving into a new channel means often cutting back on or eliminating an older and perhaps more expensive one, when ideally we could still track personal preferences and communicate a message using the media that the member/reader prefers and uses. Email has been a great cost-cutter but when you look at undeliverable and opt-out rates, it's no wonder that we hear in focus groups and interviews (even among younger people) that they appreciate and place more value on mail!

Most marketing & communications plans I see will address message and audience, but not message/audience to offer guidance on how to match messaging's length and content to maximize impact with specific constituencies. And of course if it's not planned, it is rarely executed.

Other niceties that don't occur with many marketing programs is systematic suppression of people who have already taken an action: for example, messages supporting early registration continue to come to those who have taken the desired action. Most of us do this because it's easier than carefully managing our contact database for campaigns, and most of our audience doesn't overtly complain about it.

Christopher, thank you so much for your comment! Can you explain to me a little more about what you mean by "overcommunicate but under-inform"? What do you see as the difference between communicating and informing, and how can associations do better at the latter?

Associations often think that one contact in one venue is enough to get a member's attention and cause that member to act. Those who think that way are wrong.

Multiple contacts, through multiple venues are necessary. A second or third contact may reinforce the first - or the first may have even been ignored. A direct mail piece may remind a member of an e-blast they saw (but didn't save).

It's also not always possible to know what venue a member will be most likely to respond to. Many, many people want direct mail notices even though they'll register for programs online.

I wonder if perhaps we need to be open with our members and say we're hitting multiple channels with key messages and we know that sometimes it means "over messaging." It still comes down to though measuring whether the message was understood and whether the member in even engaging in the conversation. A good data system that takes member's temperature and that tracks all ways a member engages can give us insight.

And I do like the idea Lisa about a cheat sheet - that's something I'm going play with at my shop.

I like the cheat sheet idea or developing a "plan of attack" as you put it, Lisa. I think this also will cut down on the under-informing I think Christopher is getting at. By planning out what will be said and maybe combining the message with other relevant information the message can be of a high enough quality each time to be worth reading. We get alot of calls and e-mails complaining about the amount of messages received from our organization and when I explain that we don't ever want to have someone contact us and say "I wasn't informed" most agree that would be worse than fielding the message multiple times.

I like the plan of attack idea Lisa suggested. One of the issues I've run into while marketing a conference is when a member has opted out of e-mail then complains when they do not receive notification of another conference they may want to attend. The opt-out language is so small at the bottom of any e-mail and oftentimes is not read thoroughly causing confusion by the membership.

Also, if I'm reading correctly, are you suggesting varying the messaging via the different channels to reduce the redundancy? If that be the case, what Peggy stated "By planning out what will be said and maybe combining the message with other relevant information the message can be of a high enough quality each time to be worth reading." seems to be the most feasible scenario to achieve success.

One thing I'd like to add is suiting the channel to the message as well. Not all channels are appropriate for all messages or the way you craft that message might be different depending on the channel. A small example of what I mean is if you create a Facebook event for something to remind people, you can then tweet it out. The information you provide in these two channels is coming from the same place, but because of the restraints and best practice tactics of each channel, your messaging is slightly different.

And the cheat sheet is something I'm definitely going to employ to let others know about how to use each channel and which channel is appropriate for what type of messaging. Awesome idea!