Aaron Wolowiec

Full disclosure: I’m not a marketing professional. But that’s not to say I haven’t written plenty of interesting copy or designed plenty of successful print and web-based collateral in my time. (Once in a while, I’ve even had the occasion to impress myself!) And, over the years, I believe I’ve become savvier, more member-focused and more results-oriented when it comes to marketing a new program or signature event to a designated audience.

It starts with knowing your audience and framing a message that speaks to the shared needs, wants and desires of this target group (while at the same time remembering that this group comprises individuals with distinct attributes/demographics). Ultimately, it is these individuals who will approach your marketing materials with their own unique set of circumstances, experiences and lenses, thus informing their specific response to your promotional piece.

In my opinion, “good marketing” attempts to outline real deliverables that will be gained as a result of having participated in your next big program or event. These deliverables—either tangible or more theoretical—promise in some way to improve life for your members (and, ultimately, for those individuals who use their products or services). I feel strongly that it’s important to consider both constituent groups when developing a successful marketing strategy.

Now, to my point (and I’ve been stewing on this topic for a couple of months now). Like many of you (I’m sure), I receive a dozen or so e-mails a day from various clothing and accessory retailers trying their best to sell me the latest and greatest when it comes to suits, ties, jeans, jackets (but not jean jackets, please), watches and more. For you, the categories likely vary depending on where it is you frequent most.

One company, in particular, continues to puzzle me when it comes to their marketing efforts.

Fossil, founded in 1984, claims to be “the first American brand to bring value and style to the watch category.” And, over the years, I’ve definitely purchased my fair share of watches from this budget-friendly alternative to the more costly watch brands I can only afford in my dreams. Lately, however, I’ve noticed an important marketing flaw in this international brand: The weekly e-mails I receive feature only women’s products.

For the last couple of months, in particular, my in-box has been filled (by-and-large) with pictures of totes, cosmetic bags, handbags, women’s watches and more. Only on the very rare occasion have I actually been presented with a sleek men’s watch.

In an age of mass customization, this seems a bit behind the times (pedestrian, even). Surely my impression of the brand has been impacted by this messaging flaw. While I know I could—at any time—click on one simple, hyperlinked word—Men—and be transported back to Fossil’s website where I’d be free to scan and select from dozens if not hundreds of products, that’s not the point.

While I know the website will always be there—and I certainly don’t need an invitation or a weekly reminder to prompt a visit—I generally engage in “website shopping” when I’m looking for something specific for myself or for a gift. I would call this “active shopping.” More passive or “impulsive shopping” is best encouraged—at least for me—by these weekly e-mail messages. And if no products of interest are featured for me, the likelihood of me (and just about anyone else for that matter) impulsively shopping is significantly reduced (if not eliminated altogether).

Let’s consider what’s happening here for just a moment. For starters, I’ve not been presented with products that speak to my needs, wants or desires. This impacts not only my decision—in that moment—to read or delete that e-mail, but it—at least in some small way—impacts my long-term confidence in and loyalty to the organization’s brand. If they don’t know me or they don’t get me, then why should I shop with them? When it comes to the next message that dons my inbox, I might be a bit less likely to even open it.

This is true of our members, as well. Stop for a moment and consider the last marketing piece your organization disseminated. (A few rhetorical questions to get you thinking…) Did it speak to the needs, wants or desires of your members? Did it consider the need of their constituents? Did it assume that each individual member needed, wanted or desired exactly the same thing or did it leave some room for diversity of thought and opinion? What could have been changed to make this piece more effective?

As an education professional that is extremely passionate about professional development, I urge you to build print and web-based collateral that focuses on learning and community. Identify how your members will grow and develop as a result of your learning/networking opportunity, and how that change will positively ripple into the community (think: pay it forward, especially as it relates to those individuals benefiting from the products and services your members provide). And maybe then will you see more results (e.g., higher open rates, increased registration) from your marketing efforts.

So, my question to you is this: What other marketing “rules” or “recommendations” would you add to my list? What strategies have you found most effective when it comes to marketing a new program or signature event to your members? What strategies have you found less effective? What new or innovative social media strategies are you employing this year to breathe new life into your marketing “experience”?

In my experience, the information age—characterized by the ability of individuals to transfer information freely and to have instant access to knowledge—is making it increasingly more difficult to market education programs to my association’s core clientele (a laundry list of individuals, both members and non-members, with a variety of professional interests—all related to the long-term care industry).

Ultimately, I’ve identified two problems:

1. Information overload. Professionals today are literally bombarded by dozens of e-mails each and every day. They are having difficulty discerning which e-mails to read, which to respond to, which to forward and which to discard. Important association messages, including marketing materials and call to action pieces, which may at one time have been given a high priority are now receiving less and less attention. With the sheer volume of messages delivered each day, principles like the Rule of Three seem unrealistic, outdated and ineffective.
2. Accessible knowledge. At least in my field, professionals are more connected now than ever before. If they seek training or professional development opportunities for their staffs, these individuals have the means to personally secure a knowledgeable consultant who will customize a curriculum to meet their unique needs. This was not necessarily the case even 10 years ago. (Although this does not hold true when it comes to large-scale conferences featuring nationally-recognized speakers and dozens of local content experts, it is certainly having an impact on smaller one-day events.)

Additionally, I believe my target audience is particularly unique in the following ways (further compounding these problems):

• Generally speaking, they are not technologically savvy. It’s not unusual for e-mail to be checked once a day or once every other day. Furthermore, it’s highly unlikely these individuals will carry smart phones or access e-mail from home.
• When asked earlier this year their preferred communication method, YouTube videos landed high on their list of recommendations. Added to our regular e-mail, fax and hard copy promotions, we’ve only generated marginal interest from this new (read: innovative) marketing channel.
• For the most part, they also do not open their own mail or remove their own faxes from the fax machine. Much of these messages are therefore filtered by paraprofessional staff members who have little knowledge of our association or how we benefit their employer.

Finally, there seems to be a disconnect between what is most effective (personal contact by way of phone calls or site visits) and what our limited resources (including staff time and budgetary constraints) will allow.

So, my question to you is this:  How are you overcoming these challenges? In your experience, what’s been most effective for marketing education programs (or other core association products/services) to your members/clients this year? What does/should marketing look like in the information age?