Comments on: A Framework for Engagement - Implementation http://blog.jimnovo.com/2008/02/04/framework-engagement-implementation/ Moving from a Low Accountability to a High Accountability Business Model Fri, 5 Sep 2008 18:10:36 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.5.1 By: Theo Papadakis http://blog.jimnovo.com/2008/02/04/framework-engagement-implementation/#comment-17682 Theo Papadakis Tue, 05 Feb 2008 13:21:22 +0000 http://blog.jimnovo.com/2008/02/04/framework-engagement-implementation/#comment-17682 By benchmark i mean set a threshold 'average degree of engagement'. Although it is a engagement/disengagement is a proces it seems necessary to set an average, a point, over or under which the customer is engaging or disengaging. By benchmark i mean set a threshold ‘average degree of engagement’. Although it is a engagement/disengagement is a proces it seems necessary to set an average, a point, over or under which the customer is engaging or disengaging.

]]> By: Jim Novo http://blog.jimnovo.com/2008/02/04/framework-engagement-implementation/#comment-17679 Jim Novo Tue, 05 Feb 2008 13:03:23 +0000 http://blog.jimnovo.com/2008/02/04/framework-engagement-implementation/#comment-17679 Benchmarking? Perhaps, but there already is a universal standard measurement for dis-engagement - "time since last engagement action". And dis-engagement is not typically an event, it's a process. So the measurement is really not about over / under, it's about degree and likelihood. What is likelihood customer is still engaged? This drives voice, how you speak to the customer. So, for example, the campaign by Steve Jackson and his "Inactive Registrant Index”. Customer registers for the MMS program but takes no action, or takes action but then stops. The longer you wait to address that inactivity, that dis-engagement, the less likely it will be you can re-activate the customer. You can set a threshold (Latency) "if they don't re-engage within 2 weeks we will send a coupon" or you can scale the message and effort based on behavior (Recency), if they don't re-engage within 1 week we will send an e-mail, those who don't re-enage after another week will get a coupon, those who don't re-enage after a 3rd week will get 2 coupons". The point is to make the message and offer more relevant to the state of the customer based on their behavior while at the same time optimizing the cost side. Act only when you have to and always at the point of maximum impact.  There might be benchmarks for different industries but it's much more likely - as is the point of this whole strategy - that these "time since" metrics will be different for different industries, and most important, different for different customers.  You have to test and optimize.  Once you find the optimal re-engagement point from a response / cost perspective for each segment, it tends to remain stable for that segment.  If you want more on the details, see: http://blog.jimnovo.com/2007/04/25/measuring-engagement/ Benchmarking? Perhaps, but there already is a universal standard measurement for dis-engagement - “time since last engagement action”. And dis-engagement is not typically an event, it’s a process. So the measurement is really not about over / under, it’s about degree and likelihood. What is likelihood customer is still engaged? This drives voice, how you speak to the customer.

So, for example, the campaign by Steve Jackson and his “Inactive Registrant Index”. Customer registers for the MMS program but takes no action, or takes action but then stops. The longer you wait to address that inactivity, that dis-engagement, the less likely it will be you can re-activate the customer.

You can set a threshold (Latency) “if they don’t re-engage within 2 weeks we will send a coupon” or you can scale the message and effort based on behavior (Recency), if they don’t re-engage within 1 week we will send an e-mail, those who don’t re-enage after another week will get a coupon, those who don’t re-enage after a 3rd week will get 2 coupons”.

The point is to make the message and offer more relevant to the state of the customer based on their behavior while at the same time optimizing the cost side. Act only when you have to and always at the point of maximum impact. 

There might be benchmarks for different industries but it’s much more likely - as is the point of this whole strategy - that these “time since” metrics will be different for different industries, and most important, different for different customers.  You have to test and optimize.  Once you find the optimal re-engagement point from a response / cost perspective for each segment, it tends to remain stable for that segment. 

If you want more on the details, see:

http://blog.jimnovo.com/2007/04/25/measuring-engagement/

]]> By: Theo Papadakis http://blog.jimnovo.com/2008/02/04/framework-engagement-implementation/#comment-17655 Theo Papadakis Tue, 05 Feb 2008 10:31:28 +0000 http://blog.jimnovo.com/2008/02/04/framework-engagement-implementation/#comment-17655 Very interesting. According to what you say, it is therefore imperative to clearly define how and when a customer has begun dis-engaging. This requires to benchmark website or industry performance and define what an average degree of engagement is. Anything below this number is dis-engagement and anything above it - engagement (which of course can and should be further refined and segmented according to progressive degrees of greater engagement/disengagement). Very interesting. According to what you say, it is therefore imperative to clearly define how and when a customer has begun dis-engaging.

This requires to benchmark website or industry performance and define what an average degree of engagement is. Anything below this number is dis-engagement and anything above it - engagement (which of course can and should be further refined and segmented according to progressive degrees of greater engagement/disengagement).

]]>