Engagement Statistics

Enterprise Engagement

  • The Engaged Company Stock Index (ECSI) outperformed the S&P by 29.9% over the last 4 years, or an average of 6.2% per year (based on McBassi’s Good Company Index). (ECSI)

Customer Engagement

  • “Fully engaged” customers (those with a strong attachment to the brand, or brand ambassadors) deliver a 23% premium over the average customer in share of wallet, profitability and revenue (Gallup)
  • Frequency of interaction builds loyalty and advocacy: 87% daily, 64% weekly, 49% monthly and 33% few times/year (Strativity)
  • 8x more likely to “feel a connection with others who are the brand’s customers” (Rosetta )
  • Companies that engage their customers well were 2.2 times more likely to have experienced an increase in market share in the past year. 86% of these companies also reported that they saw an increase in the previous year’s revenue. (Rosetta)
  • 6x more likely to believe “this brand is worth more than I pay for it” (Rosetta )
  • Primary driver of repeat business according to small business owners: established relationships with customer base (57%) & loyalty programs (10%) (Braun Research)
  • Engaged consumers buy 90% more frequently, spend 60% more per transaction and are five times more likely to indicate it is the only brand they would purchase in the future. (Rosetta)
  • Engaged customers spend 300% more over the course of a year. (Rosetta)
  • Engaged customers are four times more likely to say they “appreciate when this brand reaches out to me” and seven times more likely to “always respond to this brand’s promotional offers.” (Rosetta)
  • Engaged customers are six times more likely to say they would “try a new product or service from the brand as soon as it becomes available.” (Rosetta)
  • More than 8 in 10 executives believe their companies lose sales each year because of failure to create engaged customers (EIU)
  • Only 13% of business leaders acknowledge the important relationship between both brand and customer. These results suggest that most of today’s business leaders struggle to clearly define customer engagement, how to achieve it, or how to measure its value. (Rosetta)
  • 66% of brands believe a loyalty program is for consumers to show loyalty to brands, but 73% of consumers believe a loyalty program is for brands to show loyalty. (Kitewheel)
  • 1 in 10 executives estimates insufficient engagement accounts for 50 to 75 percent of lost sales (EIU)
  • Executives believe more customer engagementwould translate into improved customer loyalty (80 percent), increased revenue (76 percent) and increased profits (75 percent). (EIU)
  • 79 percent of executives surveyed say that engaged customers are very important because they recommend products and services to others; 64 percent say they are frequent purchasers; 61 percent say they provide frequent feedback on products and services; and 55 percent believe they are less price-sensitive. (EIU)
  • Just 13 percent of executives believe their customers are very committed to their company’s products, while 44 percent believe their customers are only somewhat committed. (EIU)
  • 49 percent of executives estimate that insufficient customer engagement accounts for up to 25 percent of lost sales each year, while 26 percent believe that it costs them between 25 percent and 50 percent. 11 percent place the contribution to lost sales somewhere between 50 percent and 75 percent. (EIU)
  • Top-performing brands (i.e., brands where 15%+ of their customers are identi ed as highly engaged) showed an impressive average NPS score of 41%, as compared to others brands who scored an average of 14%.(Rosetta)
  • Increased engagement on community sites can result in up to 25% increase in revenue (MSI).
  • 94% of highly engaged consumers state they are loyal vs. only 19% of others. (Rosetta)
  • Highly engaged consumers are: 5 x more likely to state, “this is the only brand I would choose”, 2x more likely to spend extra time and effort to be a customer, 2x more likely “to purchase their preferred brand even when a competitor had a better deal or lower price”, 4x more likely to advocate to colleagues and acquaintances, 2x more likely to upgrade or purchase additional services from the brand (Rosetta)
  • It costs 80% less to retain a customer than to acquire a new one. (CIM)
  • Increasing customer retention rate by 5% can increase profits by up to 95% over the long-term (HBS).
  • Depending on the industry, reducing your customer defection rate by 5% can increase your profitability by 25 to 125% (Book)
  • Advocate recommendations are the number one influencing factor in purchase decisions (Brand Advocates).
  • 92% of consumers trust Word of Mouth / recommendations over advertising (Nielsen)
  • 84% of consumers say they either completely or somewhat trust recommendations from family and friends about products – making these recommendations the information source ranked highest for trustworthiness. (Nielson)
  • Typically only 4.7% of a brand’s fan base generate 100% of its word of mouth (EngageSciences)
  • 86% of buyers will pay more for a better customer experience.(Forbes)
  • Only 1% of customers feel that vendors consistently meet their expectations. (Forbes)
  • Only 37% of brands received good or excellent customer experience index scores this year. 64% of brands got a rating of “OK,” “poor,” or “very poor” from their customers. (Forrester)
  • 89% of consumers began doing business with a competitor following a poor customer experience. (RightNow)
  • Only 26% of companies have a well-developed strategy in place for improving the customer experience. (Econsultancy)
  • Even in a negative economy, customer experience is a high priority for consumers. 60 per cent say they often or always pay more for a better experience. (Harris Interactive)
  • If B2B buyer has a high brand connection with your company they are 5 times more likely to consider buying from you, 13 times more likely to purchase and 30 times more likely to pay premium. (CEB)
  • Authentic characteristics such as communicating honestly about products and services (91%) and environmental impact and sustainability measures (87%) are more important to global consumers than product utility (61%), brand appeal (60%) and popularity (39%). (Cohn & Wolfe)
  • 63% of global consumers would buy from a company they consider to be authentic, over and above competitors. A further 59% would recommend an authentic organisation to family and friends; 47% would be happy to work for them; and 23% would invest in a brand they believe to display authentic qualities. Those in fast-growing economies are twice as likely to invest in authentic brands as respondents in slower-growing countries (31% vs 15%). (Cohn & Wolfe)

Employee Engagement

  • A 1% increase in employee commitment can lead to a monthly increase of 9% in sales. (IES)
  • Engaged organizations grew profits as much as three times faster than their competitors. They report that highly engaged organizations have the potential to reduce staff turnover by 87% and improve performance by 20%. (Corporate Leadership Council)
  • If organizations increased investment in a range of good workplace practices which relate to engagement by just 10%, they would increase profits by $2,400 per employee per year. (IES)
  • Companies with high levels of employee engagement improved 19.2% in operating income while companies with low levels of employee engagement declined 32.7% (Towers Watson)
  • Increased employee engagement was accompanied by a 12% increase in customer satisfaction and significant double‐digit revenue and margin growth over the past three years. (Serco Study)
  • Higher levels of engagement are strongly related to higher levels of innovation. 59% of engaged employees say that their job brings out their most creative ideas against only 3% of disengaged employees. (Gallup)
  • 75% of leaders have no engagement plan or strategy even though 90% say engagement impacts on business success. (ACCOR)
  • Only 1 in 5 Britons are actively engaged in their work (Gallup)
  • 58% say opportunities to use skills and abilities in the workplace are very important, but only 34% are satisfied that they do (SHRM)
  • Worldwide, only 13% of employees are engaged (Gallup)
  • From 1998-2010, companies listed on Fortune’s ‘100 Best Companies to Work For’ returned three times the value to investors as the rest of the stock market. (Russell Investment Group)
  • 72% of millennials would like to be their own boss. But if they do have to work for a boss, 79% of them would want that boss to serve more as a coach or mentor. (Forbes)
  • 88% of millennials prefer a collaborative work-culture rather than a competitive one. (Forbes)
  • 74% of millennials want flexible work schedules.(Forbes)
  • 88% of millennials want “work-life integration,” which isn’t the same as work-life balance, since work and life now blend together inextricably.(Forbes)
  • The “100 Best Companies to Work For in America” subsequently beat their peers by 2-3% per year over a 26- year period. (LBS)

Community Engagement

  • Disconnected communities cost the UK £32bn  (Eden)
  • 64% of millennials say it’s a priority for them to make the world a better place. (Forbes)
  • Social connectedness correlates more strongly with wellbeing than social or economic characteristics such as long term illness, unemployment or being a single parent. (RSA)

Content Marketing and Thought Leadership

  • 85% of marketers say establishing thought leadership is the main objective of content creation (Sprint)
  • Customers see thought leadership as the most important driver of B2B brand value (CEB)
  • Two thirds of the content in the ‘digital universe’ is created by consumers, not corporations (EngageSciences)
  • Brands that use UGC have: 11% increase in web traffic, 10% reduction in bounce rates, 300% increase on dwell times on pages that have social content, 66% increase on click throughs on calls to action compared with other web pages (EngageSciences)

Events / Face to Face

  • 77% of B2B marketers use in-person events as part of their content marketing strategies (Marketing Profs)
  • 67% of B2B marketers view in-person events as highly effective, more effective than any other tactic (Content Marketing Institute)
  • 87% of executives believe the tangible business benefits to in-person, face-to-face meetings that outweigh the cost savings of alternative, technology-based meeting methods such as webconferencing or videoconferencing. (Forbes)
  • 87% of business professionals believe face-to-face meetings are essential for closing a deal (CT Business Travel)
  • 47% say that have lost a client because they didn’t meet face to face enough. (CT Business Travel)
  • 91% of executives believe face-to-face meetings are the best to affect persuasion, 87% for leadership, 85% for engagement and 71% for reaching a consensus. (Forbes)
  • 85% of executives say face-to-face meetings build stronger, more meaningful business relationships (Forbes)
  • 81% of meeting professionals say their CEOs have witnessed events/meetings yield tremendous value for companies. (MPI)
  • 48% of event attendees say face-to-face interactions are more valuable today than two years ago (Centre for Exhibition Industry Research)
  • 95% is the percentage of respondents to one survey who said face-to-face meetings are essential for long-term business relationships. (MPI)
  • 40% is the proportion of business prospects who are converted to new customers as a direct result of face-to-face meetings…
  • 75% of customers prefer or require face-to-face contact (Oxford Economics)
  • Executives say face-to-face is key to : Long-term relationships (95%) , Negotiating major contracts (82%) , Interviewing key staff (81%), Listening to important customers (69%) (Oxford Economics)
  • More than 50% of millennials do NOT prefer LinkedIn, Twitter or blogs for communication. (PCMA)
  • Only 5-7% of what attendees learn in meetings/conferences is retained and acted upon after 2 days. (PCMA)
  • 93% of millenials like education with entertainment (PCMA)
  • 88% of millennials most highly value career networking as the driver to attend events (PCMA)
  • 86% of millenials want structured meetings and conferences. (PCMA)
  • 78% of millennials would choose to spend money on a desirable experience or event over buying something desirable, and 55% of millennials say they’re spending more on events and live experiences than ever before. (Harris)
  • More than 8 in 10 millennials (82%) attended or participated in a variety of live experiences in the past year, ranging from parties, concerts, festivals, performing arts and races and themed sports—and more so than other older generations (70%) (Harris)
  • Nearly 8 in 10 (77%) millennials say some of their best memories are from an event or live experience they attended or participated in. 69% believe attending live events and experiences make them more connected to other people, the community, and the world.(Harris)
  • For communicating with colleagues, both generations (Millenial and Gen X) overwhelmingly chose face-to-face meetings as the top choice (80 percent and 78 percent). (Marshall School of Business)
  • over 80 percent of both generations said that communicating through face-to-face meetings is critically important to maintaining relationships at work – the highest rating of all, and greater than phone, email, instant messaging, texting, social network sites and video chat. (Marshall School of Business)
  • Tradeshows and events are the second most effective tactic in a marketer’s mix, after their company website. (Forrester)

 

The Four Fields of Engagement

Over the last 8 years that I’ve been studying engagement, I’ve spoken to hundreds of people about the subject, and during that time, I’ve seen that there are 4 types, or scenarios, or fields, of engagement.

You can see them in this handy 2×2 matrix (the consultant’s most used tool!) Continue…

How to Engage Stakeholders

small-PEOPLE-CHESS-AGES-845x559

Of all the engagement scenarios in the world, stakeholder engagement is notoriously one of the hardest.

It is a massively tricky process because when it comes to having a stake in something, people are rightly precious about it, and have their own desires and intentions for the project or entity at large.

Essentially, everyone has their own patch. And they don’t want their patch to be ruined!
Continue…

More is not more

f87f1c42d0_csm-more-more-more-website-header-2-4669ba317e

  • More followers does not equal more value.
  • More activity does not equal more result.
  • More stuff does not equal more contentment.

It might, but it doesn’t necessarily. By walking the essentialist lifestyle I have discovered all the more (!) that more is not more.

In the words of the author Greg McKeeown, I’m on the disciplined pursuit of less. Indeed, I always have been, but it’s great to have words that explain it.

The way I have found I like to function as an essentialist is to gather, and then eliminate: I’m ok getting more, but I know it’s not more. I then cut down to the essence.

Ever heard of essentialism? I’m keen to know if you’ve experimented with it.

How to ask for, and get, the right amount of participation

hands-in-air-use-1024x414

If you want people to engage with you, you will need to create opportunity for participation; it’s how engagement is ‘paid’ for. As I like to say, participation is the currency of engagement.

However, a recurring mistake with participation is to expect too little or too much:

  • Ask for too much participation, and fatigue quickly sets in. (I call this the overestimation of participation, and it’s a perennial problem.)
  • Ask for too little participation, and a low opinion sets in. (This is akin to something being so cheap it’s not valued.)

All engagement begins with an invitation, so what would be helpful, then, is to have an invitation that is adaptive and dynamic, showing those who want low participation a low involved option, and those who want higher engagement a higher option, and so on.

Buttons, dots and containers is a simple framework for inviting participation, each level building on the previous:

  • Buttons. You either push a button, or you do not push it. It is a request for a binary yes / no response, normally in an “if…then” statement. This is low participation. E.g:
    • “hands up if you are…”
    • “put in your email here if you want to receive…”
    • “arrive at this room at this time if you want…”
    • “say yes if you’d like to…”
    • “click here to indicate…”
    • “like this on Facebook if…”
  • Dots. You join dots! This is a request for a series of actions, often with a definite end point. This is medium participation. E.g:
    • “do the survey, and then do this homework”
    • “attend the meetings on these dates”
    • “give me three examples of”
    • “train the staff in these four areas”
    • “fill in questions 1 to 5, and then submit”
  • Containers. You fill containers. This is a request for free thinking or action, within set boundaries. This is high participation. E.g:
    • “suggest how we could achieve…”
    • “create your own version of…”
    • “lead this team to achieve…”
    • “submit an idea for…”

What we can do with our dynamic invitation to participate is weave in buttons, dots and containers, so that the recipient with whom we want to engage can self-select their participation level, often by the very next action they take.

Examples of Buttons, Dots and Containers

Let’s use the example of a classroom. A teacher is seeking to engage the class. They must ensure every student can participate at the level they are motivated to. By not offering a range of levels, motivation is lost for those who wanted a different option from the default one provided.

Thus our teacher offers a button, dots, and a container. Let’s say they are looking to see if students know about the subject of growth mindset:

We’re going to do some work on growth mindset now. Could you tell me three examples of where you’ve used growth mindset [dots], or even you could suggest how growth mindset could help us in this class right now [containers], or if not, could you simply say yes if you know what growth mindset is [buttons].

So obviously what’s going on here is they first ask for dots (“three examples”), then a container (“suggest how”), and then lastly, the button (“could you simply say yes if”).

The reason they are in this order is because the dots aren’t too scary for anyone: they are a bit above the button, and a bit below the container. We then build up to the top level of container, and then finish on the simplest level so that the last thing in everyone’s mind is at the least the easiest way to participate (and because we’ve already offered the dots and container options, anyone keen for those levels doesn’t even hear the last line, because they are busy at work in their mind already!)

Here’s another example, this one for volunteers:

We’re looking for volunteers who’d like to get involved in different ways, and all of whom are passionate about ABC. We’re looking for people who might have XYZ skills [dots], or people who can contribute to the planning [containers], or people who can just help out on these dates [buttons].

What’s going on here is much the same. The first sentence primes people by getting them to think “yes” twice (I can get involved, and I’m passionate), while priming them to know there’s going to be different levels, so listen out for your one! Then we offer the dots option, “might have XYZ skills”, emphasising the might to leave room for people who don’t have those skills to not be alienated. Then we go onto the container (“can contribute to”), before wrapping up with the buttons option “people can just help out on these dates.”

Thus, in both examples above we’ve created one invitation that is dynamic and adaptive to a range of participation options.

A button for you, a container for me

To flesh this idea out, comment below with your own scenario, and I’ll help you create a dynamic buttons, dots and containers invitation for it :-)

Engagement Is About Maximising Value

Marketing or hiring is about getting new relationships, but engagement is about doing more with the relationships you already have.

That’s engagement: it’s about maximising existing relationship, to get more value out of them. It wholeheartedly seeks value over volume.

A few implications, then:

  • A brand knows that engaged customers are worth 300% more, for instance.
  • An engaging public speaker isn’t engaging because they draw big crowds. They are engaging because they maximise the relationship they have with the audience when they are speaking, which as a result, draws the crowds.
  • An engaging brand Facebook page maximises the value of the relationship it already has with its followers. Hence, Facebook separates between metrics of reach and engagement.
  • A consultant can only up sell more to an existing client if the client is engaged!

Engagement is belief in human synergy. It’s a bit like ice. Ice is sturdier and stronger than steam or water because the atoms in a solid object are tighter and more closely knit together than they are in liquid or gas form.

Engagement is maximising value by being better together.

The power of an invitation

Engagement literally means a bond. Well, you can only create a bond if both people play their part in the process, and you can only play your part if you’re invited to do so.

The opposite of an invitation is information. This is where you are not invited to participate, but instead expected to understand.

Many engagement efforts fail because they are not an invitation, they are information.

  • A great presentation, for instance, is an invitation to go on a journey together through the talk. A poor one is simply information, and thus death by powerpoint, while the only thing the audience is actually engaging with is their phone.
  • A great employer invites the staff to engage with the company’s mission. A poor one simply informs the staff what to do.
  • A great stakeholder initiative invites those same people to co-create the project. A poor stakeholder initiative tells people what is going to happen with leaflets continuing information.

Communication is what the first stage of engagement is about. Organisationally, it’s about the discipline of messaging and communication, through the various human, digital and offline channels: it is the outbound part of engagement.

If your engagement efforts are failing, it’s possible that you aren’t inviting people, you’re just informing them.

To turn it around, try this simple tip: ask a question.

Did that work for you?

In with the Old, out with the New

How do you keep up with it all? I mean all the content, the blog posts, the ideas, the formulas, the “must-read” articles and “must-watch” videos.

My answer: I can’t.

But for a long time I tried. It was a stark revelation to me when I was a minister, doing what I felt was my duty before God, and I realised I simply couldn’t read all the books on any given subject, and thus I could never be sure I had considered every point and was teaching what was definitely, certainly, totally true on any scripture.

It’s the same in my work. I was trying to read about psychology, sociology and anthropology to fill in the gaps on my engagement theory, but I couldn’t do it. There’s just too much content to consider.

This was a particular struggle when I was trying to solve my own faith-wrestle with the existence, or at least the common expression, of God. So many people had written so much about it: how could I ever come to a conclusion?

I realised that, as I wrote in my journal in 2015:

I cannot have it all, know it all, or do it all.

The solution, I have since decided, is to focus on what is essential.

And I have come to believe that what is essential is that which has stood the test of time. The Old.

Accordingly:

  • I gave away around 2/3rds of my library.
  • I am buying no new books for 2017, and possibly beyond.
  • I am not entertaining any new ideas.
  • I’m still not watching TED Talks, or listening to sermons, or the like.

Instead, I’m embracing the old.

For instance, one example of the Old is Jesus saying love your neighbour. Do we really need more than that?