Intermedia

Step away from the analytics tool

I love analytics. Show me a graph or chart of how a particular campaign, site, or any type of effort is performing over time and I'm happy. I also love personalization. At this point, I think we all expect a certain level of customization with targeted marketing efforts. These are good, useful tools that can help build relationships... unless they fall into the wrong hands.

A few days ago, I received a solicitation from a company offering some type of service that I didn't quite understand from the description. So, I moved on. Today, though, I got this message (details on the company removed because, well, that would be mean):

Follow Up

I noticed that you had looked at the email that I sent you.

We you able to go to our site, xxxxx and have a look around?
Was there something that turned you away?

If you have any questions about what we do or how we can help you please let me know.

Thanks

Ick.

"I noticed that you had looked at the email that I sent you." This is a textbook violation of the creepy rule. There's a fine line in the personalization world between "I know you" and "I'm watching you." People want to feel respected as individuals, particularly after they've shared information with by filling out a form or making an inquiry.

Following up based on what your stats package is telling you is a good idea, and the text should recognize that you're making a fresh contact -- but it has to be done in a way that still asks permission since there hasn't been any kind of positive response yet. Going beyond that crosses a line.

Use the tools wisely, young marketer.

Godin nails it on engagement and giving

Seth Godin just made a great post about his thoughts on modern philanthropy that I just had to include here as it's relevant to this blog's most recent thread on engagement. He makes great points about the declining role of direct marketing and the proper place of the Internet (beyond transactional) which you can go to the post to read. One section in particular, though, blends so nicely with the current conversation that I wanted to post it here:

"The big win is in turning donors into patrons and activists and participants. The biggest donors are the ones who not only give, but do the work. The ones who make the soup or feed the hungry or hang the art. My mom was a volunteer for years at the Albright Knox Art Gallery in Buffalo, New York, and there's no doubt at all that we gave more money to the museum than we would have if they'd sent us a flyer once a month."

This all goes to the point that people tend to invest in the things that they help build. The first link in the chain is engagement. That means real engagement -- not just a handshake. He makes the good point that you have to let people get their hands dirty in the work, trusting that you'll end up in a better place than you began even if it means letting go a little. It's the whole we are better than me thing, right?

Measuring alumni engagement

I've spent a lot of time thinking about how best to measure alumni engagement, which I've found to be trickier than it might seem. Coming from a media relations background, though, makes one used to the concept of measuring the immeasurable.

I used to think of alumni engagement as a straight line, from disengaged to engaged -- pretty simple. Too simple. There are all kinds of engagement -- some visit regularly, some volunteer, some give financially, others glow with pride and spread the word, as it were. Each of these, and many others that I didn't list, are important elements of engagement and impossible to stick at the endpoint of a single straight line. For that reason, I'm not starting to think of engagement as an inverted pyramid (again with the media relations, I know).

The bottom point is disengagement. The top line represents the many points of measurement of engagement that are specific to an institution. Here's an example:

Once categories are established based on institutional priorities, you could then map individuals or groups based on their participation, drawing lines from disengaged to fully engaged in each area. Are certain class years or eras highly engaged at reunion but not giving financially? Are certain groups of graduates giving generously but not engaging with campus life? This diagram, I think, could help us get to some answers.

The next logical question, then, is what to do with it. That's the fun part. Talk with people. The pyramid and any other measurement is a good way to mine data, but the only real way to get to good answers and potential solutions is through conversation. See if you can draw some dotted lines between trends based on what you're hearing. Show folks what you've found and see if they can help you figure it out.

I'm going to keep thinking about the pyramid and other models for measuring engagement, as I'm fully aware that there is no silver bullet. I'd love to hear what you're up to.

Update: Jan. 2
Well, it's a new year and I already have a lot more to say about this particular post and topic. Most of my new observations and thoughts come as a result of a great exchange I've had with Andy Shaindlin of Alumni Futures. I'll paraphrase our back and forth here:

Why can't you do this with a regular graph?
Good point. This comes from how I was thinking that the relationships grow -- which is outward. I think there is a zero point for engagedness -- the point at which people just don't care, or think about you, at all. From there, they can get more engaged along a specific line (say, they start volunteering for admission), but it's important that you have the ability to separate that single element of engagement out from the others (say, reunion attendance or annual giving). Again, each institution has to decide what is the most important part of engagement.

Still not convinced it needs to be a pyramid (actually, Andy points out it's a triangle).
Well, I also like the triangle because you can define how broad of a band at the top you want each element to have AND you can rank the elements of engagement, left to right. So, ideally, you're moving people to that upper right point of engagement. "What?" Okay, that was a little much for one thought. Lemme 'splain.

In reality, though, it should be a radar chart -- the "zero" point in the middle and progress toward each point going out from there. When you have enough data, you should (remember this is all hypothetical) be able to generate some examples of what types of charts do and don't produce results for particular people or groups. This allows you to do some basic modeling of your programs AND see what is worth pulling back on and what is worth investing in more significantly.