My company set up a new social media strategy at the beginning of the year. Indeed, we felt that our previous configuration no longer corresponded to our new business ambitions and wanted to bring more freshness to our networks.

6 QUESTIONS TO REVIEW OUR SOCIAL MEDIA STRATEGY

To do this, we asked ourselves the following questions:

• What messages do we want to share?
• What resources should be allocated to our strategy?
• What are the profiles of our community?
• What type of content to share?
• What KPI’s follow?
• When to publish?

This last issue, which is our topic of the day, is one of the key success factors of a social media strategy. Even if your posts are tailored to your audience, they will underperform if you do not publish them at the right time.

Based on this assumption, we have carried out several test publications on our accounts and measured their performance. Then we crossed these statistics with the data of the clients we manage, in order to determine with greater precision the best moments to publish on each social network.

LINKEDIN, THE ALLY OF YOUR INBOUND MARKETING STRATEGY

First of all, let us explain why we have prioritized Linkedin in our reflection. Unlike Facebook or Twitter, the timeline of the social networking professional is, for now, lighter and therefore more readable in terms of the amount of information. Even if this tends to change, on Linkedin you are not forced to multiply the publications to be visible. Sharing has a much longer lifespan than on other networks. It is common to see a publication several times, from the moment it reaches a certain level of interactions (like sharing, comments).

Aware of this strength, we automatically integrate Linkedin into the social media strategies we develop for BtoB activities, whether they are buying space or publications targeting organic traffic.

In addition to the visibility offered by Linkedin, this social network fits perfectly into an Inbound Marketing approach. Instead of “bothering” your prospects as they try to forget their work for a few seconds, like Facebook or Instagram, you offer them professional content just when they are looking for it. It is indeed a particularity of Linkedin, which is mainly used in a professional (curation, networking …). This directly impacts the connection peaks.

THE LINKEDIN USER IS EARLY

The results of our tests allowed us to draw several conclusions. First, we noted that our publications were given higher visibility when published in the morning (between 6 am and 9 am). An observation that seems logical because many professionals have the habit of doing their watch before arriving at work or failing, on the first hours of office.

The other observation we made is that the publication days are of particular importance. Indeed, only the most involved users are active on weekends and to a lesser extent on Friday. Linkedin is a social network aimed at professionals which are in fact, less used in the “off” periods.

To summarize, for my company, our best publications are from Monday to Thursday, from 6 am to 9 am. Of course, this is not a miracle recipe. Depending on your community and the targeted population, you may have different ideal publishing hours. The best advice we can give you is then to test yourself different schedules and compare the performance of your publications.

The reflection my company has had around Linkedin is far from being an accessory in your digital strategy.

This article was originally sourced from Business 2 Community. 

A new survey says that membership renewal can be one of an association’s biggest challenges. And a quick study of respondents’ renewal tactics can help membership pros fine-tune their renewal process.

Membership renewal doesn’t always come easy. From the moment a member joins, your association needs to establish a connection that makes the individual feel valued and engaged. Otherwise, you face the much-dreaded membership churn.

If you’re an association leader who agonizes over the renewal process, you’re probably not alone. According to the recently released 2017 Membership Association Survey, conducted by MemberZone, membership retention is one of the biggest challenges facing associations right now.

While many associations are focused on renewals, almost half of survey respondents (49 percent) said their renewal rate has remained unchanged since last year. Meanwhile, 26 percent said they saw an increase in renewals, and 16 percent reported a decrease.

“There are clearly associations that are doing membership renewal right, but then there are those that still need a lot of help,” says Amy Gitchell, marketing specialist with MemberZone. “Respondents who saw strong membership renewals also saw strong membership growth in general. What we’re seeing is that there are consistent methods for improving your entire membership strategy.”

In its second year, the survey gathered responses from 1,071 association leaders, both membership teams and CEOs from North America. While the general findings indicate that membership rates continue to hold steady, some data nuggets on tactics used by membership departments are particularly useful for associations thinking about fine-tuning their renewal strategy.

Pick up the phone. The MemberZone survey found that the majority of respondents use email (68 percent) to get members to renew. No surprises there. Email is one of the most cost-effective and mobile-friendly ways to prompt renewals, Gitchell says. But many associations reported that phone calls were nearly as effective: 66 percent of respondents picked up the phone to get a member to renew, and it’s not just the membership team that’s calling. Nineteen percent of associations involved their board of directors, and 15 percent said they used calls from other members to spark renewals.

Test new digital tools. Associations are still comfortable using traditional communication methods, such as snail mail and newsletters or magazines, to remind members to renew, but Gitchell says there are savvier methods. Some associations (16 percent) are using social media to target members for renewal. Platforms like Facebook and Twitter allow associations to “micro-target” audiences with social campaigns, Gitchell says. And a small percentage of associations are testing other technologies: 5 percent of respondents reported using push notifications through a smartphone device to reach members. “It’s nice to see that associations are changing how they reach people,” Gitchell says. “Technology is always advancing, and it’s really a question of if an association can keep up.”

Talk to lapsed members. While it’s impossible to retain all members, Gitchell says it’s important to follow up with your “gone-but-not-forgotten” members. Asking why a member did not renew can lead to valuable lessons. Top answers from survey respondents on why members did not renew included low membership value or return on investment, cost or budget, lack of engagement or interest, and limited time or attention.

Finally, it’s interesting to note that associations still aren’t entirely sure about the duration of or need for grace periods. While the largest group of respondents (40 percent) stick by the conventional two- to three-month grace period, some go longer: 15 percent said they have a six-month grace period, and 12 percent reported a year or more.

As Joe Rominiecki noted on this blog last year, simply keeping members onboard after their membership has lapsed doesn’t mean they’ll be more likely to renew, and some respondents to the MemberZone survey seem to subscribe to that view: 13 percent had grace periods of only one month, and 16 percent reported no grace period at all.

Regardless of its length, “if you’re not getting renewals by the end of your grace period, you have to find out why,” Gitchell says. “Following up with your members to ask why they did or did not renew is a critical step.”

This article was originally sourced from Associations Now. 

Recently I had a short Twitter conversation about whether valuable and important are equivalent when it comes to websites.

I do not think that they are. Of course most organizations know it is important to have a website. But I’ve come across very few who find their website truly valuable.

Let’s start by looking at the definition of the two words, then we’ll go into how I see the difference and ways websites can become more valuable to the organizations they serve.

important adj. marked by or indicative of significant worth or consequence.

valuable adj. 1. having monetary value. 2. of great use or service.

Technically, yes, they could by synonyms. But the thesaurus I consulted does not list them as such. The difference is subtle, but significant (which is* a synonym for important).

Websites are important

The internet has become vital to operating a business. Most of our customers now go straight to something online for information, directions, recommendations, and entertainment. Often that something is a website. And increasingly, people start at Google to find what they are looking for. If you do not have a website, it’s like you don’t exist.

This isn’t new. It’s been over a decade that websites have been considered essential to running a business or organization of any type. One of the first things most businesses or non-profits do is create a website. That makes websites important. A website puts you on the digital map. There is a consequence of not having a website.

Because of the importance of having a presence on the world wide web, websites get an annual budget. Someone is hired (as a consultant or an employee) to run the website. All the staff know that the things they produce need to get put on the website. Lots of time, energy, and money go into the creation and maintenance and redesign of a website (or websites, as is often the case). All because they are important.

Is your website valuable?

However, things change when you ask a CEO or Executive Director, “What is the monetary value of your website?” Not how much does it cost, but how much is it worth? You’ll get less certain and more varied answers, if you get one at all.

Ask how the website is of service to the business and you’ll get even vaguer answers.

A website should be valuable. It should be worth something. So valuable that every CEO should know what it’s worth is, and if that worth is more than the cost. And what would happen to the balance sheet if it were to go down or disappear? Therefore, every person who is responsible for the website should be able to furnish these numbers. And those numbers need to be tied to business goals. Yes, website owners need to learn a bit about corporate finance. The website should not be just a cost center. It should have some sort of return on investment.

Traffic, page views, and bounce rates are just vanity metrics. We need to figure out what the website is worth. What the website doing to grow the business. Google Analytics is capable of telling you how much a visit earns or costs if set up right. It’s not all that hard with the right measurements in hand. When web professionals know how much the website is worth, they can make a better case for user research, content audits, improved design, a new CMS, or additional staff. Show, don’t tell.

Make your website important AND valuable

Shouldn’t websites be important and valuable? If it is just important, web professionals will be seen as necessary. But if it is important and valuable – and everyone knows its worth – web professionals will become invaluable.

If everyone in an organization knows what the website is worth to them – yes, it has different worth to different groups – then the web team is the group that helps them meet their goals. The website stops being the place to “put stuff up.” It becomes a place where goals are realized. The website can contribute better to achieving business goals is if proper user research is done so it can deliver the things customers want in a usable manner. If design is part of the culture rather than seen as making something pretty (“design thinking,” anyone?), the website will be deliberate and useful.

The most successful businesses and non-profits value their web presence. They take a strategic approach, publish useful content, and give support and respect to the team that makes it all happen.

If you don’t know the value of your website, let’s talk about how you put a price tag on it. Already know the value of your website? Share in the comments about how that came to be.

This article was originally sourced from Social Fish. 

The RSL South Australian Branch chief executive has quit, along with a number of board members, as the organisation grapples with financial troubles.

It was revealed today that chief executive Julia Langrehr had stood down about a month ago, with two directors resigning this week — one due to bad health.

It follows a members' forum on Saturday where they were informed about the league's financial woes with revenue down significantly from last year.

Ms Langrehr said she decided to step down because she disagreed with the board on the direction of the league.

"I really wasn't aligned with the board and the decisions that they were making," she said.

"And I felt as the CEO then that that put me in a very difficult position to be able to lead an organisation where I didn't feel like the board and I were on the same path.

"There were also just basic structural issues that I wanted to change and I had been trying to change and not getting anywhere and then I realised that it was never going to happen."

State president Tim Hanna denied the league was in crisis but admitted it was under financial pressure.

"There is no hiding the fact that we have a cash flow problem at present," he said.

"Our revenues were down about $200,000 last year against budget and previous years and that obviously puts pressure on the organisation.

"We've undertaken a range of cost cutting to address that shortfall but it's left us with some challenges in terms of cash flow at this time."

As part of cost-cutting measures, Mr Hanna said some people who had moved on from the organisation had not been replaced.

"We've cut a range of other expenses in the business as any business does when it's facing some challenges," he said.

"We'll be sitting down with our national office representatives on Friday to go through a plan that will identify the steps we need to take to a healthier situation."

Despite leaving, Ms Langrehr believed the league had the ability to work through its problems if they did it as a team.

"I wish them the very, very best of luck, they are one of the most important organisations in our country," she said.

"They need to survive because there are thousands and thousands of people who rely on the RSL.

"So I just hope they can find a way to go forward with a solid team that's supporting everyone that's going in the right direction."

This article was originally sourced from ABC Online.

A handy guide published in Company Director February 2017 edition by Vera Visevic of Mills Oakley clearly sets out the priorities of what a diligent would-be director would look for when joining a not for profit board. 

This guide can be viewed in full, here.

To access any of Mills Oakley's other not for profit resources, please click here. 

New polling shows that when it comes to superannuation, most people want a system run on a not-for-profit basis with all returns going to members rather than creating an increased role for private financial institutions.

The Essential poll of 1000 people, commissioned by Industry Super Australia, found that only 31 per cent believed the banks will ensure the superannuation system works in their best interest. This compared to 38 per cent for the federal government; 61 per cent for the Fair Work Commission; and 69 per cent for Industry Super Funds.

Consumers felt strongly that their interests should be the sole focus of the owners of super funds. Some 70 per cent of those surveyed believed all super funds should be not-for-profit with all returns to members rather than split with shareholders; just 6 per cent disagreed.

Industry Super Australia chief executive David Whiteley said the results send a clear message the public want superannuation to work solely in their interests and not as a profit-making opportunity for the banks and their wealth management machines.

“When it comes to super, the banks are legally required to act in the best interest of their customers; most Australians don’t believe they do,” Mr Whiteley said.

Consumers believe aggressive cross-selling of advice, insurance and super by the private sector is designed to boost shareholder profits rather than leave fund members better off, he said.

“The banks’ relentless lobbying to remove consumer default protections could result in people ending up in under-performing funds and a nest egg that’s tens, even hundreds, of thousands of dollars short.

“Australians have told us what they think – they don’t trust the banks and believe their culture and profit motive are at odds with the purpose of super.”

The survey comes as the Turnbull government has renewed its commitment to mandating the appointment of independent directors and chairs to all super funds. A review by former Reserve Bank governor Bernie Fraser produced for the not-for-profit super sector rejected such a move in February.

However, in response to the Fraser review, the government affirmed its commitment to its planned changes, which were dropped as a result of a hostile Senate in the last Parliament. The current makeup of the Senate means any such move will face great difficulty in becoming law.

Mr Whiteley said the survey showed 58 per cent of respondents thought the banks would use the compulsory nature of super to exploit fund members.

Two thirds of respondents rejected increasing the influence of the banks in superannuation.

“Public opinion clearly runs counter to the banks’ efforts to change the super system to suit their vertically integrated business models. Astute policymakers will be listening,” Mr Whiteley said.

The Parliamentary Standing Committee on Economics will conduct a review of the major banks from this Friday. The CEOs of the major banks will appear before it. The New Daily is owned by industry super funds.

This article was originally sourced from The New Daily.

HomeGround is a real estate agency with a difference — it is not for profit.

Set up in 2014 by community organisation Launch Housing, it aims to create more affordable housing by tapping into the large private rental market.

"We've seen a significant decrease in public housing stock, it's reduced from 20 per cent down to 3 per cent in the past 20 years," HomeGround manager Christie Love said.

"At the same time, we've seen a significant increase in rental prices."

HomeGround works like a regular agency. The commission fees are standard but they go back into helping create affordable housing.

"You can have your property go on at full market, advertised on realestate.com and open to everyone, and get full market rent," Ms Love said.

"Then you have affordable properties, there's a criteria for the tenants that can lease those and an income restriction."

Beth Phillips is a savvy property investor with a strong social conscience, so for the past six months she has rented one of her units in Melbourne's bayside out at a subsidised rent to a low income tenant.

"It's been terrific, he's doing really well and it's had no impact really," she said.

HomeGround now has around 260 properties on its books with at least another 200 properties coming under management in the next few months.

"I've observed there's a sense of something bigger going on so the agents managing the property can manage with a greater sense of calm and knowing they're making an impact on the world," Ms Phillips said.

"As a result their service is excellent — it's well beyond what I've ever received anywhere else."

Community sector worker Felicity Rourke is renting her flat out at market rates, but is now considering dropping the rent.

"The management fees that were getting paid to the private company — it made sense that a not-for-profit were benefiting from that so it kind of ticked all my boxes in terms of my beliefs about ... supporting vulnerable people," she said.

A bonus is a special ruling by the tax office that allows any subsidised rent to be used as a tax deduction.

"You still have huge benefits in capital growth for yourself. A lot of people in my position have good incomes and a tax deduction goes a long way — it's almost as usual as additional income," Ms Phillips said.

HomeGround said the biggest challenge had been overcoming fears that low income tents will not pay the rent or look after the property.

"I've found I have to grow up and not be so affected about people's opinions on what I'm doing and questioning why I would do something like this," said Ms Phillips, who is now looking at leasing a number of her investment properties through Homeground.

Homeground has been so successful in Melbourne the team is already helping other community groups in New South Wales and Queensland set up similar not-for-profit real estate agencies.

This article was originally sourced from ABC Online. 

A new, not-for-profit KiwiSaver provider launching today says it is offering New Zealanders the chance to be $65,000 better off in retirement.

Simplicity is the pet project of former Tower Investments boss Sam Stubbs. It will be run by a charity, in a similar style to health insurance provider Southern Cross.

Stubbs said New Zealanders could expect to pay $54,700 on KiwiSaver fees on current structures over their working lives – more than the $35,900 they will fork out for their mobile phone bills or the $37,200 they will pay for power.

He is promising to slash that by heavily undercutting the market.

At the moment, the average KiwiSaver fund charges about 1.34 per cent of the member's balance in fees. Simplicity is promising half of that - $30 a year in administration fees and 0.3 per cent per year in total management fees. Fifteen per cent of the fees paid will go to the Simplicity charity, which will work to promote financial literacy.

All three Simplicity funds on offer will have the same fee structure. Other KiwiSaver providers charge more for high-growth options.

Stubbs said if he could get 4 per cent of the market, that would represent a lifetime saving of $4 billion to New Zealanders.

The power of compounding interest would amplify the savings KiwiSaver members made, so the difference in returns for Simplicity savers should be bigger than just the difference in the fees they paid.

He hopes to shake up the KiwiSaver market in a major way. "If we can run the cheapest fund and still give 15 per cent to charity, then others can do it, too."

KiwiSaver was not as competitive as it should be, he said, and providers had not been given any incentive to change or reduce costs to members. KiwiSaver accounts are mostly concentrated with the big banks.

He said while they had developed large economies of scale as balances grew, fees had not shifted accordingly. Because it did not require providers to front up with capital, KiwiSaver had become a "gravy train" for providers, he said.

"Compared to similar savings schemes in other developed countries, these fees are very high. Profits for KiwiSaver managers are at $150 million now. Without change, we think they will be at $1.3 billion by 2030."

Simplicity has developed a website portal to allow members to switch. Stubbs said the online focus of Simplicity was part of the reason it could offer lower fees. "There's none of the high cost traditionally associated with financial products – commission, branches or shiny head offices."

Stubbs said lack of education and lack of transparency around KiwiSaver fees meant few people understood how fees worked and what kind of impact they could have on long-term savings.

"We have declared war on high KiwiSaver fees today," Stubbs said. "Most New Zealanders don't even realise the high fees that they are paying.'"

Two of the directors for Simplicity have previously managed the Westpac and Tower KiwiSaver Schemes, another is former head of supervision for the Financial Markets Authority.

Simplicity eventually plans to branch out into life insurance products too. Stubbs said they were twice as expensive as they need to be.

He said it was refreshing and inspiring to be working on something that was designed to help New Zealanders, not line shareholders' pockets.

This article was originally sourced from Stuff.co.nz.

New Zealand's $60 billion not-for-profit (NFP) sector is facing concerns over the large number of organisations working in the area, a new report revealed. 

There are currently over 27,000 NFP organisations in the country, one for every 170 Kiwis. The Cause Report, by investment firm JBWere, is the first major in-depth analysis of the country's NFP sector.

JBWere's New Zealand head Craig Patrick said although the number of NFPs in New Zealand is substantially lower than Australia and the United States, the large numbers are "creating a burden on their supporters and volunteers.

The charity Cure Kids says it's working hard not to duplicate services and wants to make better use of its volunteers as new research shows there are more than 27,000 not-for-profit organisations in NZ - roughly two to three new charities are being created every day.

"Kiwis care very much about causes, and want to start and be involved in good works ... Since 2010, there have been 2.5 charities established each business day in New Zealand.

"Looking ahead, we think that more collaboration and mergers could be part of the solution," Patrick said.

Patrick said funding growth for the sector has been reasonably strong, almost 6 per cent annually since 2004.

"This growth has often been at the expense of margins which are squeezed. This has impacted on the ability for organisations to fund innovation and think more creatively. Where, for example, are the Googles in the NFP sector?"

Looking ahead, Patrick said JBWere saw a trend of new sources of funding emerging.

"Impact investments are becoming more popular where a project seeks to deliver both a financial profit as well as a social return."

New sources of funding were rewarding success, rather than just reimbursing an organisation's costs, and new methods of corporate support through partnerships emerged that offered benefits for both the company and the NFP organisation.

Cure Kids CEO Frances Benge welcomed the findings in the report.

"The Cause Report initiates an important discussion on a vital sector in the wellbeing of our society.

"The New Zealand picture emphases this need further with the reliance on philanthropy rather than government funding driving the importance of mutual interest collaborations, astute management of expenses and a greater appreciation of the value of volunteers," Benge said.

The report was based on data from Statistics New Zealand and data collected and published by Charities Services from charities' annual returns. It provides an overview of New Zealand's NFP sector including its asset base, income and expenditure, philanthropy and innovation, the makeup of its workforce and volunteers, and how the sector compares internationally.

This article was originally sourced from Stuff.co.nz.

The Australian Institute of Superannuation Trustees (AIST) board today announced the appointment of Eva Scheerlinck as acting CEO.

Ms Scheerlinck – who has served in the role of AIST Executive Manager, Governance & Stewardship since 2010 – will commence her new role when AIST’s current CEO, Tom Garcia, departs on March 10, 2017.

The appointment of Ms Scheerlinck brings stability and leadership to AIST while the search for a new CEO continues.

Applications for the CEO position closed last Friday and interviews for the role have now begun.

Mr Garcia – who announced he was stepping down from the role of CEO late last year – will continue his career in the profit-to-member superannuation sector, taking up an appointment with AustralianSuper.

This media release was sourced directly from AIST and was written by Janet de Silva.