In surveys, we often questions like:
“On a scale of 1 to 5, with 5 being the highest, how satisfied or unsatisfied are you with your community experience?”
“On a scale of 1 to 5, with 5 being the highest, how relevant or irrelevant do you find the information shared within the community?”
This is a useful measure as it gives a simple score for the community you can improve over time.
When we worked on this project, this was the benchmark we were using.
You can use the following weighted averages to interpret the results:
- Above 4.5 – Excellent
- 4.2 to 4.5 – Very Good
- 3.75 to 4.2 – Ok
- 3.3 to 3.75 – Poor
- Below 3.3 – Extremely poor
I’d recommend undertaking the survey every 6 to 12 months and tracking changes over time.
(p.s. This is also a good way to measure the impact of a major platform change).
There are probably three tiers to this:
1) Tier One: Anyone can ask questions. In this scenario, anyone can join a community and ask a question. The upside is this is good for engagement. The downside is you might get a lot of spam and poor-quality questions. It requires extra work to filter the good from the bad.
2) Tier Two: Only Customers/Registered Members Can Ask Questions. In this scenario, only those using an email domain that is recognised as a customer can ask questions. The upside is this prevents most spam and improves the quality of questions. The downside is it might lead to a lot of poor quality questions and the person asking the question might not have knowledge or permission to fix the issue they’re addressing (this is especially common in B2B SaaS communities where the software users, admins, and buyers are different people).
3) Tier Three: Only Key Contacts Can Ask Questions. In this scenario, only the key contact (typically the technical contact) can ask questions in the community. This drastically improves the question quality and community satisfaction (the poster can utilise the answers themselves). Superusers also tend to like higher-quality questions. But it comes at a heavy cost to engagement, it’s; harder to reach a critical mass of activity, and often requires time to validate each person who joins the community to ensure they’re assigned the right permissions.
In most cases, tier two is the best answer with a private group for key contacts to get unique support from top members.
Ideally, members reply to each other’s questions.
You and your support team would be left with questions that are especially complex, unique, or involve the exchange of personal data to solve.
Sometimes that doesn’t happen. Most frequently, it’s because too few people have the expertise to answer the questions. Okta, one of our clients, is an example. Most responses come from staff today.
So if it’s still staff answering most questions, why not just ditch the community and continue with other support channels?
The answer is simple; search. Other people might find the answers being posted.
One good answer from a staff member might help just the original poster or it might help thousands of others looking for an answer to the same question. This in turn helps visitors get the answers they need faster, reduces support costs, and attracts more people to the site.
If a gamification system is poorly designed, the same force which motivates members initially will demotivate them eventually.
In the beginning, it’s usually quite simple to quickly rise up the levels/collect new badges.
For example, let’s imagine each answer is worth 3 points, with a typical point system like that shown below you can see how people can rapidly advance:
- Level 1: 5 points (2 answers)
- Level 2: 10 points (4 answers)
- Level 3: 20 points (7 answers)
- Level 4: 40 points (14 answers) etc…
Answering 14 questions will probably only take a couple of weeks.
The danger here is people rapidly reach the maximum level (Salesforce, for example, allows a maximum of 50 levels). Therefore, most gamification systems make it increasingly difficult to advance to each new tier. At the higher end, this often means a system like:
- Level 44: 20,000 points (6,667 answers)
- Level 45: 25,000 points (8,331 answers)
- Level 46: 31,000 points (10,333 answers)
Each new level becomes increasingly less achievable (see the exponential curve). Advancing once took weeks and months. Now it might take years.
Sometimes, there simply aren’t enough questions in a community to make achieving a new level viable. I’ve seen communities with 20 to 30 questions per week have levels that are thousands of questions apart.
Worse yet, levels have less meaning. Do you really care if you’re level 47 or 48? Would advancing from level 94 to 95 have a big impact?
Due to our laziness and determination to ensure not enough members reach the top level, we design systems that eventually demotivate some of our previously most active members.
There are two better options here:
1) Power-ups. These enable members to accumulate points faster as they advance up levels. For example, being an MVP, attending events, or completing training courses might allow people to earn hundreds of points per month/attendance.
2) Points for beginners, badges for veterans. Use levels with far smaller increases until members reach the highest possible level and then use badges to reward members past the top-level (i.e. level 50). You can often create an infinite number of badges and missions that can be tailored towards the needs and desires of top members. This is far more scalable and sustainable. It’s also clear levels are to get newcomers up to speed quickly, badges are for top members.
Choose at least one (with care).
The answer probably isn’t what you think.
90% of the activities we find most people working on to increase engagement won’t have a lasting impact.
I’ve spent the past decade achieving extremely strong results for clients by focusing on sustainable processes to improve engagement.
This means zeroing in on the handful of things which really matter (i.e. the handful of critical ‘leverage points’) and then apply the best possible processes to optimise these zones.
On Sept 28th, I will be participating in a webinar hosted by Tribe to share the best approaches we’ve used over the years to keep members highly engaged in a community
Date: Sept 28, 2021
Time: 12.00pm EDT (5pm BST)
Registration link: https://tribe.so/webinars/community-engagement (sign up to get the recording too).
A quick warning here. If you’re looking for simple tweaks or ‘quick wins’ you’re probably going to be bitterly disappointed. But if you want to look at engagement as part of a bigger system and learn how you can influence that system, this might be the right webinar for you.
I spent a year working with Sephora to develop a new community strategy.
A major plank of this strategy was integrating authentic community content into the product pages. This includes reviews, photos etc…
All that content you see at the bottom (questions and answers, images, and reviews) is community-generated content. It’s managed by the community team.
Community-generated content isn’t like content created by a marketing team or top influencers. It’s not professionally created and refined. It’s raw, authentic, and breeds trust. It showcases real people doing real things and sharing their real opinions. This in turn has a huge impact upon product purchase conversions.
For sure, it’s not easy to do and you often have to corral lots of different technologies to work with one another. But if you can make it work, you’ll find creating genuine, authentic, content which shows up in the buyer journey is an astonishingly powerful benefit of nurturing a brand community.
Note too, that once you have a goal like this, your metrics begin to shift. It’s no longer the level of engagement or participation that matters, it’s the quantity and quality of authentic content which has been created.
The common belief is you can grow a community by improving the community experience.
For example, you might add new features, improve the experience, make members feel better connected etc.
Improving the community experience does help (it can reduce churn), but it doesn’t drive more people to visit the community in the first place. Long-term growth and sustainability in a community requires you to find eternal sources of new members.
That eternal part matters. A big promotional push can be great for getting a community going, but it’s not an eternal source of new members, i.e. there are only so many times you can send a mass email to your audience to persuade them to join.
To make a community thrive, you have relatively few sources of eternal community growth. These are (by order of importance):
1) Search traffic. For most communities, search is by far the biggest source of growth. However, it comes with risks. Sudden changes to the Google algorithm or Google keeping more traffic for itself is going to make this harder. If you’re a private community, you’ve lost 80%+ of potential visitors before you begin.
2) Customer/topic journey. This is when the community is naturally integrated with the customer or topic journey. As part of being a customer or becoming engaged with your organisation (or the topic) people are naturally introduced to the community. How and where the community is featured on the homepage/product/support really matters here.
3) Platform recommendations/referrals. This is when a major technology platform naturally recommends or drives traffic to your community from others (most common in Facebook Groups, LinkedIn, StackOverflow, Reddit etc…).
4) Links and partnerships. Getting links and referrals from major websites/publications can be a huge win. Community.co built an entire business doing this. If you reach out to others in your sector and persuade them to drive people to your community, that can be a sustainable source of new members.
5) Staff/member advocacy. By far the most underutilized asset is advocacy from existing staff and community members. If members and staff share posts on their social media profiles, you can attract a large number of members quite easily.
The best way to grow a community is to build the relationships, processes, and incentives to make each of the channels which are relevant to you work as best as they can.
Sure, other things can help, but these are the big wins.
Two organisations I’m working with are dealing with the same intriguing challenge; customers have already launched successful communities for their brand!
On one hand, this is a great sign. It shows the audience cares and wants to engage with one another. They’re helping each other already and the organisation doesn’t have to do anything. It’s a free bonus.
On the other hand, it presents several problems. The information shared in member-hosted communities is often poor and outdated, it attracts troublemakers (self-promoters), and there’s no way for the organisation to build a process to support those who don’t get help (i.e. in a hosted community, unanswered questions can be automatically redirected to support teams after [x] hours).
This also raises another dilemma. Both clients need to launch communities on platforms that integrate with existing systems, have adequate security measures, and provide access to data. By nature, that means it will be less convenient for members to use than the platforms hosting existing communities (Facebook Groups, WhatsApp, Slack, Subreddits etc…). Why would members use your community when a more convenient option exists?
You have two broad options here.
The first option is to engage with existing hosts of member-created communities and try to develop a relationship that will enable you to respond, correct false information, and gather what information you can. This can work well, but it’s rarely a long-term solution by itself. You’re at the mercy of people whose primary objective may not align with yours.
The second option is to build your own community, but offer a value proposition so strong it overcomes the convenience problem. This usually means a combination of:
1) Access to staff. Members can engage in member-created communities or get trusted advice from staff and validated members in the brand-hosted community. This requires staff to be heavily engaged in the community.
2) Personalisation. Design the community to be integrated into accounts with members receiving the news, information, and updates that are relevant to them. Free social media tools can’t share the latest product updates, top five known issues, progress on reported issues, and a list of relevant discussions – but your community can. Likewise, members can’t vote on ideas or see unanswered questions immediately escalated in other tools.
3) Unique features. Zero in on the specific features members want and show these in the community. This might include searchable documentation and knowledge base articles, leaderboards and badges, or the ability to contribute to the community in a unique way.
Whatever you do, don’t select a similar platform and try to compete against existing, established, communities. That’s a loss for you, your new competitors, and your members.
Analysing the data from two new clients recently.
Let’s begin with this graph here.
When you see a sudden drop like this (or major drop compared with data from the year before), the cause is almost always a major external event. If you want to grow a community, you first need to determine what the major event was.
The most common examples (by order of frequency) include:
- Changes to the registrations process (often a new SSO system)
- Changes to the company homepage design.
- Changes to the community design.
- Changes to the Google algorithm.
- A ‘black swan’ event (given the date of the drop, this might be our first hunch to explore).
Typically here, you can ask around and find what other changes occurred in each of the above until you find the source. You can play detective here and ask around each of the above to determine what’s happening.
A sudden drop is bad, but not disastrous. It can usually be reversed if you can identify the cause. The interests of members haven’t fundamentally shifted.
Now consider this graph:
When you see a more gradual drop like this, the cause is social in nature. A slow decline is far more likely to be fatal than a sudden drop. The needs and motivations of members are fundamentally changing and you need to change too.
The most common explanations here include:
- You have fewer potential people to engage (fewer people interested in the topic / fewer new customers).
- Members have fewer questions to ask.
- Rising competition from other channels.
- Declining community experience drives people away.
Before you can reverse the trend, you need to gather a few metrics to identify what the problem is. This usually includes comparing the trend against :
- The number of visitors to the company website.
- No. new customers the organisation has attracted.
- Search traffic to the community.
- No. of support tickets being filed from support teams.
If any of these are also declining, you have usually found your cause.
For example, if there has been a comparable decline in support tickets filed, you know the drop isn’t community-centric. It’s part of a broad shift of either attracting fewer customers or customers having fewer questions to ask.
Before trying to change any metric, you need to understand what’s driving it. Solve that and everything becomes a lot easier.
Last week, I hosted a founding member workshop with a client community.
We guided a few dozen participants to answer some questions about what they wanted from the community, forged connections between members, and helped members make the key decisions about the community.
Once the work is complete, the client was keen to send out a ‘thank you’ note. Instead, we suggested sending out a ‘next steps’ note.
The difference here is important. Thank you notes feel like the right thing to do in these situations. The problem is people tend to give them little time or attention. The moment they see ‘thank you’ in the subject line, they know what to expect. A thank you note is the final message. It ends the discussion. It feels good to send (and sometimes good to receive). But it doesn’t really achieve much.
But listing out the next steps a member can take drives more activity. It shows the recipient you want to keep them involved. It shows the recipient you think they have more to give.
It sounds counter-intuitive perhaps, but I’ve found in communities the best way to thank members is to give them more things they can do to be more involved.
We do a lot of work with Salesforce communities. It’s clear that the smallest design tweaks often have a big impact on participation.
If you spend much time browsing Salesforce communities for example, you might soon notice something odd. In many communities, a member will post the entire question in the subject line like this.
Now compare this to what a good question should look like:
Notice the difference? The subject line is clear, the context is included within the body of the email, the screenshot provides everything someone needs to provide an answer. It’s also cleaner and easier to read.
So, what’s happening in these situations? It’s more simple and important than you might think.
In the former community, when members click the ‘ask question’ button they are shown this screen:
Naturally, they click the category at the top and then assume they only have 255 characters to ask a question.
In the latter example, when members ask a question they’re invited to use this screen:
You can probably spot the critical difference here. By showing the ‘details’ option without having to click the word, members are naturally more likely to assume the context belongs here and the question actually means ‘subject line’.
It’s staggering how big of an impact this simple tweak can have. It can change the entire community experience from one with questions filled with long subject lines and not enough context to respond, to one filled with good-quality questions which top members enjoy replying to.
Note: Of course it would be a lot easier if Salesforce simply turned ‘question’ into ‘subject line’ and ‘details’ into ‘question’.
In about half the projects we work on, members complain about the navigation of the site.
The story here is often the same. Instead of following data and asking members what they wanted (and identifying the terminology they used), the organisation made assumptions and created their own navigation menus.
This is the primary cause of the navigation problems today.
A recent example proves the point. Looking at data from HotJar, Google Analytics, and speaking with members, less than 1 in 100 visitors clicked on 2 of the 7 navigation tabs in a client’s community.
So we removed them. There hasn’t been a single complaint about their removal yet.
This is your regular reminder that the best way to improve the navigation of most communities is to reduce the number of roads people can take.
Here’s a more extreme example.