2015 Community Benchmark Report
•Download as PPTX, PDF•
3 likes•1,350 views
Higher Logic, the leading cloud-based community platform, hosted the second 2015 Higher Logic Learning Series session called: Prove Value with Analytics, Benchmarking and Engagement Reporting on Tuesday, June 30. Higher Logic's President and Chief Customer Officer, Andy Steggles, discussed the results from the 2015 Community Benchmarking Report Highlights included the: - 50+ engagement metrics you can use to find trends and opportunities - New ways to measure engagement and benchmark your organization - What the highest scoring organizations are doing to grow engagement - How and where to use this year's report to make an impact
Recommended
Recommended
More Related Content
Similar to 2015 Community Benchmark Report
Similar to 2015 Community Benchmark Report (20)
More from Higher Logic
More from Higher Logic (19)
Recently uploaded
Recently uploaded (20)
2015 Community Benchmark Report
- 2. WELCOME! Andy Steggles President & Chief Customer Officer Higher Logic www.higherlogic.com/andysteggles 2
- 3. ABOUT HIGHER LOGIC • 7 Years Old • Private • 300,000+ Communities • 30m+ Members • 500+ Clients • Inc 500|5000 - 3 Years in a Row • Top 50 Places to Work” (Washingtonian Magazine) 3
- 4. Goals are to Identify: • Best Practices for Engaging Members • Quantify Benchmarking Metrics for Different Sized Organizations • Identify Trending Over Time • Connect Engagement with Retention • Make Recommendations based on Findings • Demonstrate a Strong Correlation Between Engagement and Satisfaction
- 5. Methodology • Perform Correlation Analysis • Compare with 2014 MGI MM Benchmark and last years Engagement Benchmarking Report • 70+ Engagement Variables (plus Ratios Between Variables) • Create a Composite Engagement Score (CES)
- 6. Success is Subjective • Most Common Discussion Success Metrics • Number of Discussion Messages (Activity) • Percentage of Members Subscribed (Reach) • Number of Responses per Thread (Value) • Number of Authors (Distribution) • What is Important to Your Organization?
- 7. Composite Engagement Score (CES) •Subscribers to Members •Messages to Members •Responses per Thread
- 8. Summary Stats • 16m Users (+4m from 2014) • 5m Members (+ 1m from 2014) • 2.3m Subscribers (+0.5 from 2014) • 318 Orgs (+65 from 2014) • Median CES: 25x 8
- 9. Timeframe and Assumptions • Point in Time Data for Some Elements • Focus is on Subscribers vs. Members • Date range is 2014 (where applicable) • Size Categories by Number of Members
- 10. Inclusion Criteria • Org must have ALL of the below to qualify. Greater than: • 50 members • 50 subscribers • 50 messages • 0.005 Message per Member Ratio • Must have been launched for the majority of 2014.
- 11. Email Metrics and Frictionless Content • Full Email Support/Least Friction • Partial Email Support/Less Friction • Least Email Support/Most Friction
- 15. YoY Difference with Email • Least Friction: • 37% Increase in Messages • 16% Increase in CES • Less Friction: • 25% Increase in Messages • 16% Increase in CES • Most Friction: • 1% Increase in Messages • 6% Increase in CES
- 16. YoY Email Threads and Replies • 150% Increase in Replies via Email (8% to 20% of all replies are via email) • How are Members Using Email? • 4.7 Email Replies per Email Thread vs • 1.09 Web Replies per Web Thread • Breakdown based on Friction • Least Friction: 1 Thread to 1.6 Replies • Less Friction: 1 Thread to 1.15 Replies • Limited Friction: 1 Thread to 0.9 Replies
- 17. Conclusion • Remove Friction and Increase your Thread to Reply Ratio • Members are significantly more likely to reply to a thread via email vs. start a new thread via email.
- 18. 18 Online Engagement Works best forPhoto credit: jepoirrier
- 19. 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 Australia Canada UK United States CESScore 2014 CES by Country Average CES
- 20. 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 Advocacy Networking Training CESScore 2014 Primary Community Objective of Organization by CES Average CES
- 21. 0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 CESScore 2014 Size of Org by CES Average CES
- 22. 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 NumberofOrgs CESScore 2014 Industry by CES Average CES Number of Orgs
- 23. 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 0 20 40 60 80 100 120 NumberofOrgs CESScore 2014 Type of Member by CES Average CES Number of Orgs
- 24. 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 0 0.1-0.5 0.6-1 1-2 2+ CESScore Number of Online Community Managers - FTEs FTE / CES Comparison AVG CES
- 26. Correlation of Renewal & Engagement Associations by 2014 MGI MMBR & Associations with an Engaged Online Community who Agreed to Participate in a Blind-Comparison IMO TRADE 2014 MGI Membership & Marketing Benchmark Report 76% 85% Associations with Engaged Online Community 79% (+3%) 92% (+7%) % of Improved Retention Correlated with Online Engagement 5%
- 27. Case Study: ASAE Personalized Benchmark Report
- 28. User Metrics and KPIs 2013 2014 YOY % Change Description ASAE Avg. Org ASAE Avg. Org ASAE Avg. Org Total Number of (Active) Members 22,244 16,226 21,950 15,480 -1.3% -4.6% Total Number of ~Subscribers 13,165 7,418 13,125 7,441 -0.3% 0.3% Subscriber to Member Ratio 59% 46% 60% 48% 1.0% 5.1% Percentage of Subscribers with a Photo 15% 4% 15% 4% 1.1% -3.8% Percentage of Subscribers with a Bio 31.3% 8% 33% 8% 5.9% 3.3% Percentage of Subscribers with a Photo OR Bio 33.9% 9% 36% 9% 5.2% 3.3% Percentage of Subscribers with a Photo AND Bio 12.6% 3% 12.8% 3% 2.0% -5.9%
- 29. 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 2013 2014 %MembersSubscribed Subscriber to Member Ratio 2013-2014 ASAE Average Org 0.0% 5.0% 10.0% 15.0% 20.0% 25.0% 30.0% 35.0% 40.0% 2013 2014 %withPhotoorBio Percentage of Subscribers with Photo or Bio ASAE Average Org
- 30. Message Related KPIs 2013 2014 YOY % Change Description ASAE Avg. Org ASAE Avg. Org ASAE Avg. Org Total Number of Group Messages 14,647 2,308 16,892 2,269 15% -2% Total Number of Messages 19,002 2,779 21,669 2,683 14% -3% Total Number of Authors 925 204 881 225 -5% 11% % of Subscribers who are Authors 7.0% 2.7% 6.7% 3.0% -4% 10% Avg Messages per Author 6 6 6 5 4% -12% % of Authors who posted more than one thread 119% 62% 136% 54% 14% -13% Subscriber to Message Ratio 1 3 1 3 -13% 4%
- 31. 0 5,000 10,000 15,000 20,000 25,000 2013 2014 Messages Total Messages 2013-2014 ASAE Average Org 0.0% 1.0% 2.0% 3.0% 4.0% 5.0% 6.0% 7.0% 8.0% 2013 2014 %Authors Percent of Subscribers who are Authors Your Org Average Org
- 32. Thread Related KPIs 2013 2014 YOY % Change Description ASAE Avg. Org ASAE Avg. Org ASAE Avg. Org Total Number Of Threads 6,141 969 6,882 933 12.1% -3.7% Authors of Threads 1,879 252 1,975 256 5.1% 1.7% Avg Threads per Author 3.27 3.85 3.48 3.65 6.6% -5.3%
- 33. 0 1,000 2,000 3,000 4,000 5,000 6,000 7,000 8,000 2013 2014 TotalThreads Total Number of Threads 2013-2014 ASAE Average Org 2.90 3.00 3.10 3.20 3.30 3.40 3.50 3.60 3.70 3.80 3.90 2013 2014 AverageThreads Average Threads per Author 2013-2014 ASAE Average Org
- 34. Replies Related KPIs 2013 2014 YOY % Change Description ASAE Avg. Org ASAE Avg. Org ASAE Avg. Org Total Number of Reply(s) to Group 8,506 1,339 10,010 1,336 18% 0% Authors of Replies 2,379 343 2,705 385 14% 12% Avg Replies per Author 3.58 3.90 3.70 3.47 3% -11%
- 35. 0 2,000 4,000 6,000 8,000 10,000 12,000 2013 2014 TotalReplies Total Number of Replies to Group 2013- 2014 ASAE Average Org 3.20 3.30 3.40 3.50 3.60 3.70 3.80 3.90 4.00 2013 2014 RepliesperAuthor Average Replies per Author 2013-2014 ASAE Average Org
- 36. ASAE MEMBERS WHO ARE ENGAGED IN THEIR ONLINE COMMUNITY ARE: •30% more likely to renew •23% more likely to recommend ASAE to their peers
- 37. Discussion Activity by Quartile
- 38. Of those who Replied to Group, percentage who:
- 39. Average Composite Engagement Score (CES) by Quartile
- 40. Example: American Society of Association Executives (ASAE) • Use Net Promoter Methodology • 21,533 members • 13,272 subscribed to Collaborate • 3016 Completed Survey • 81.6% (2462) of the Respondents were Collaborate Users
- 41. The Hall of Fame Organization TNOM TNOS TNOT TNORTG TGM CES Size Category Alliance of Comprehensive Planners 242 236 1,808 4,056 5,864 2195.70 Small National Employment Lawyer's Association 2,146 1,998 4,874 6,230 11,104 476.74 Small/Medium American Society of Ophthalmic Administrators 2,640 2,562 3,181 7,731 10,912 386.85 Small/Medium Piano Technicians Guild 3,579 3,377 2,970 11,543 14,513 379.67 Small/Medium Veterinary Hospital Managers Association 2,170 2,036 1,240 3,796 5,036 223.57 Small/Medium International Association of Rehabilitation Professionals 2,661 2,570 2,000 3,949 5,949 215.90 Small/Medium National Society of Accountants 9,438 9,525 3,027 14,997 18,024 186.88 Medium Avectra Users Group 1,095 547 788 1,136 1,924 167.83 Small Higher Logic Users Group 2,837 1,235 1,272 2,849 4,121 142.86 Small/Medium University Risk Management and Insurance Association, Inc., 2,178 2,546 1,156 1,920 3,076 140.41 Small/Medium The ALS Association 392 381 205 269 474 120.25 Small The American Association of Nurse Assessment Coordinators 13,553 13,567 6,735 9,065 15,800 116.65 Medium
- 42. VOLUNTEERISM. Act of Engagement | Social Learning| Community
- 43. TASK-BASED VOLUNTEERISM •Focus on Expertise vs. Availability •Time Commitment: Hours to Days
- 44. Volunteer Metrics Comparison Traditional Association | Result: 100 Member Volunteers • 10 Committees | 10 Members on Each Emerging Association | Result: 1610 Member Volunteers • 5 Committees for 1 year term, 10 members on each (50) • 10 Task Based Opportunities per month (120 per year), average 3 members per opportunity (360) • 200 Micro-Opportunities per month, 0.5 member per opportunity (1200)
- 45. 3 KEYS TO VOLUNTEER SUCCESS Frictionless | Increased Opportunities | Enjoyable 45
- 47. How to Improve Your CES?
- 48. AUTOMATION
- 49. MEMBER JOURNEY MAPPING Where to Start?
- 50. Help Members up to Engagement Ladder
- 51. Community can Positively Impact Every Department
- 52. It’s not just one department • Conferences and Events (Grow Meeting Attendance) • Training and Education (Social and Blended Learning) • Advocacy (Transparency) • Marketing and Communications (Media Enquiries) • Human Resources (Intranets)
- 53. Popular Engagement Strategies & Opportunities • Frictionless Content (make it easy) • Gamification (recognition & accountability) • Shamification (profile completeness) • LinkedIn Integration • Chapters/Components • Mentoring • Volunteer Management • Knowledge Bank (wiki) • Abstract Management 53
- 54. 54
- 55. Common Traits of an Expert Bureau Personalized URLs, Private Library, Restricted Demographics, Languages, Locations, Endorsements 55
- 57. Recognition…
- 58. 58
- 62. THANK YOU Andy Steggles President & Chief Customer Officer andy@higherlogic.com Signup for the report: higherlogic.com/2015cbr
Editor's Notes
- I’ve always been passionate about Volunteerism which is what has driven my research in the area. 7 Years ago when I wrote the book on social networking for non-profits, the catalyst for doing so was the changing dynamic of members and their expectations with regards to peer-to-peer networking, education, conferences or other events and advocacy.
- Why Higher Logic? We care and we want our clients to be successful. The Higher Logic client community has 24/7/365, anytime – anywhere, access to Higher Logic’s Users Group (HUG), SNAP Training, Live Chat and hundreds of resources uploaded by clients for clients. Annually we host our Users Group Meeting, affectionately dubbed The HUG Super Forum.
- The Composite Engagement Score (CES) formula is designed to help organizations benchmark their discussion related engagement data amongst each other.
- Median Message per Member Ratio: 0.16 (Avg: 0.45) Median Message per Subscriber Ratio: 0.31 (Avg: 0.85) Median Member to Subscriber Ratio: 0.84 (Avg: 0.74)
- when comparing 2013 to 2014, I've removed any org which wasn't in both and also had a greater than 15% increase or decrease in subscriptions. and where 2013 total messages was less then 500
- When analyzing organizations which have more than 5% of messages posted by email in 2014 and have at least 200 email postings in 2014 with a similar amount of qualifying data in 2013, we found: 17 Fully Support Email: avg 37% increase in YoY total messages, 16% via email. Subscriptions increased by 2% and CES by 16%. 28 Partial Support Email: avg 25% increase in YoY total messages, 12% via email. Subscriptions increased by 3% and CES by 16%. 22 Plain Text support email: avg 10% increase in YoY total messages, 16% via email. Subscriptions increased by 1% and CES by 6%. Of all the emails generated, 40% were new threads vs. 60% were replies to threads, resulting in a x to y ratio. However, when just looking at the bread down of those who used emails, 16% are new threads vs. 84% are replies to threads. This indicates that most users which use the reply functionality tend to reply via email but when they are going to start a new thread, then tend to navigate to the web to post their message.
- With the understanding that most online communities are not successful… what does a successful online community look like? http://www.polleverywhere.com/free_text_polls/cxFF7EcGqT9Cs7a
- ASAE recently did a survey of their membership and found that their members who are engaged in their online community are 30% more likely to renew their dues than those that are not engaged. Further, they found that these engaged members are 23% more likely to recommend ASAE to their peers. So clearly member engagement is a key to success for our association clients.
- Now we have looked at the overall discussion related statistics, it’s interesting to see how the more engaged organizations compare to the less engaged organizations. To do this, we have broken out the organizations by Quartiles. The Quartiles are computed using a Composite Engagement Score (CES). The CES is a method to measure how well an organization is doing with its only engagement. The formula is detailed later in this report.
- Percent of Responders to a group who responded more than once decreases significantly with the Quartiles. Organizations in the first quartile (which corresponds to the highest engagement level) tend to have fewer subscribers who respond once and more subscribers who respond multiple times.
- Act of Engagement = Volunteerism For most associations one of the main purposes of the organization is to give members meaningful ways to volunteer. This can be done with their peers or with the organization. This often results in “social learning” but also has the added benefit of helping build not just a community but a “sense of community” focused around a common area of interest.
- Smaller, less time intensive tasks. Examples: Writing a Newsletter Article (4 hours) Judging Award Entries (half a day) Speaking at an Event (1+ day) Proof Reading a White Paper Mentoring Hand out bottles at conference Audience Question: What are Examples of Task-Based? Typical Result: More volunteers, fewer structured committees, more nimble association, greater output. Role of a committee evolves into orchestrating vs. creating content.
- 1. Frictionless: Make it easier to engage. A recent study by CMS Wire found that about two-thirds of online shoppers said they give up or shop elsewhere online when they encounter difficulties Similar results are found when using mobile devices. In a recent survey Google found that mobile users are 5 times more likely to abandon the task they are trying to complete if the site is not optimized for mobile use. So making it easier for your members and customers to engage, across multiple platforms, can have a significant impact on their level of engagement and how much value they get out of that engagement. 2. Increased Opportunities: Provide more opportunities to engage. Does it mean add more features to the platform to give people more things in which to engage? Does it mean add more prompts, like notifications, to bring people back to the platform to engage more frequently? Does it mean add more ways in which people can engage? The answer is YES! All of those! We want to add features that make sense in a community platform. Features that would give more members more reasons to engage. We want to add more notifications, and more ways to be notified so that people have a reason and a prompt to come back and engage. And we want to make sure people can engage the way they want to engage. For example, on a mobile device. Via Email. Via a Smart Watch. 3. Enjoyable: Make it a pleasure to engage! Not just, yeah, its usable. Or yeah, its easy and straight forward. But YEAH, I love using that! This also has many aspects. The two we are focusing on now are that it feels good to use it. Like an iPhone or a TiVo. You just like using it. And its little things like subtle animations. A clean colorful interface. Speed. Fun. Etc. And secondly, that it gives them what they want. Answers to their Questions. Recognition for their Contributions. The COMMUNITY they are looking for.. So for every suggestion that we receive, idea that we have, service that we offer, or partner that we bring on, we run it through these three tests. And it has to move us forward on at least one of them, without detracting from the others, in order to be considered.
- Examples of community…
- The old quote “You get out of life what you put into it” really sums up a member’s relationship with their association. The more engaged a member is, the more they get out of their membership. Volunteering is a great way (maybe the best way?) to get involved in the organization and has worked well to the benefit of the volunteers, the organizations, and the industries they serve for hundreds of years. As I said our primary mission is to get members more engaged. To date we have largely focused on “Online Engagement”, through our online community platform. Enhancing Volunteer Manager is critical to this mission by encouraging and tracking “Offline Engagement.” There are three main goals we hope to accomplish with the Volunteer Manager product: Encourage Volunteerism at All Levels Track Offline Engagement Help Manage and Automate the Volunteer Process The picture here shows what we call the Volunteer Commitment Curve. The idea is that newer members, or those newer to volunteering should be invited to start small, but over time, move their way up to larger and larger commitments. So something like just saying “I want to be a volunteer” is an easy thing to get a new member to do. Serving as chairman of the board come MUCH later in a person’s career, and typically after volunteering for a lot of other things along the way. We use the Commitment Curve as a way to measure a member’s progress in their level of commitment to the organization. But it also serves as a roadmap for how to move members to greater levels of commitment. Volunteer Manager 2.0 is designed to do just that.
- Over the years our Personal Profile page has grown to include more and more about the individual member as it relates to their experience in the industry that the organization represents. We have the standard stuff you’d find on a LinkedIn profile, like Name, Photo, Bio, Job History, education history, Social Media sites, etc. And we have added Industry specific things like Industry Demographics – Specialties, disciplines, and areas of expertise Certifications Honors and Awards Professional Licenses Related Associations Committee/Council History Past speaking engagements and presentations given The idea is to make the association’s profile the member’s true professional profile for the industry. On LinkedIn you are “friends” with ALL of your professional acquaintances: Doctors, Lawyers, Accountants, Neighbors, Family and Friends. On the Association’s Community site, the people viewing your profile will understand and appreciate much more detail about this industry specific experience. And it will become THE place to go to learn about one’s experience in the industry that the association represents. On the roadmap we are looking to add to this profile: Uploaded CV Integration to Job Boards Connection to Journal Publishing systems to include publishing history for scholarly papers Integration to standardized badging systems to be a publisher of Certification badges Volunteer History – both with the organization and external A Personal Url, or PURL, that lets member have their own address on the community site that they can publish
- By Andy Steggles Presented on 6/24/2015 2015 Central States Conference, Beaver Creek, CO