The Forrester model you adapted is complimentary to the work I did in Maximum Engagement. Two ways to look at it.

With respect, I think your definition of engagement is too subjective and limiting and doesn’t sufficiently capture the complexity of engagement.

Associations need a much more robust definition of engagement. Forrester Research produced an outstanding analysis of how engagement is defined in 2007 and has continued to build on it. They posit a 4 step process (with Association Laboratory’s modification to associations) that is particularly applicable summarized below.

Involvement – the “touches” between a person and the organization

This component of engagement is the basic approach of a person to the association. Common measurements would be web page views or requests for information. At this point there is no “back and forth” or purchase transaction.

Interaction – the contributions or back and forth between the person and the organization

Interactions represent the common “transactions” between a member and the association. Interactions would include becoming a member, purchasing a book or registering for a conference. Interactions go both ways though, so this area also includes volunteering or writing an article for the newsletter. Interaction is not only when the person requests and receives something from the association but also begins to contribute to the association.

Intimacy – the sentiment (likes or dislikes) of the person regarding the organization

Intimacy represents how the person “feels” about the association. Potential measures might include satisfaction or net promoter scores or “likes” on the association’s Facebook. Intimacy is indicative of a person’s emotional commitment to the association.

Influence – the likelihood and strength of a person’s promotion or advocacy for the organization

The influence stage is when the member (or other stakeholder) begins to actively promote the association, for example, through a member-get-a-member campaign.

When taken together, these four components represent a model of engagement that can be measured, tracked and used to guide business strategy. The leadership imperative is to define engagement for your own association and develop specific strategies to lead people through these stages as they desire.

We discuss this issue in more detail on our blog here http://associationlaboratory.com/education/blogs/march12.asp and presented on how to apply it at the AVECTRA Users and Developers Conference. The Forrester Report can be identified here as well as a great blog that continues the discussion. http://blogs.forrester.com/sean_corcoran/11-04-12-revisiting_the_meaning_of_engagement

I think we need to start advising associations that “engagement” is a much more complex and thus useful thing to identify and measure. It is also not a mysterious thing, a great deal of time and energy have gone into understanding this concept, and we don’t need to reinvent the wheel – we need to simply attach it to our car.

We’re in agreement on your second paragraph.

The short-term trend looks to be later retirement ages at the same time that older populations are growing. That is a tremendous opportunity for associations.

When you cite your stat about 25% in 2050 — isn’t that growing population the younger generation of right now that Deirdre was talking about needing to bring in? Where do your 50- and 60-somethings of tomorrow come from if not today’s 20- and 30-somethings?

But that’s not what I wanted to pick on though. Mostly, I just think too much is made of generational differences. Know what you are as an organization and what your strengths are — then make them stronger. If that happens to coincide with developing products/services for early-career folks or any other particular market segment, great, do it, but do it amazingly — that’s the part that really matters.

Chasing bad RFPs in the hope you’re one of the few crazy enough to bid on it is insane and a sign of poor sales talent.

I do agree that if you already have a strong relationship with the issuer or can otherwise short circuit or improve the process, go for it.

One of my other favorite stories is regarding my town of Northampton MA that had space they wanted to develop in the center of town. They issued a RFP and only received 2 proposals, one from a hotel developer (who was going to pay $1 for the space) and one from an office building developer (who was going to pay a whole lot more). The hotel developer won… but then the locals got upset that they didn’t have enough options and that the city didn’t negotiate the best deal.

I’m in no way saying that you should chase every RFP (as my previous link stated, not all are worth a proposal), but what I am saying is that you shouldn’t simply throw out a RFP because it’s written like crap. How’s that saying go? If you’re not the leader of the pack the view from behind never changes?