ASAE Foundation Benchmarking in Association Management Survey 2018 Executive Summary
About the Benchmarking in Association Management Series ASAE s Benchmarking in Association Management series addresses the primary functional areas of associations. The data gathered gives association professionals the opportunity to compare themselves against their peers in the industry. Understanding how your organization s practices differ from, or align with, the norms of the industry, can serve as a starting point to measure performance. As each association is different, divergence from an industry standard is not necessarily cause for concern but can serve as an entry point for examination of your association s practices. Benchmarking in Association Management is part of ASAE s overall benchmarking research, which includes compensation and benefits data and financial ratios as well as the various Benchmarking in Association Management functional areas. These various reports are available as PDFs, but are also housed on the AssociaMetrics platform, a central, web-based benchmarking platform for association research data. Methodology and Respondents ASAE s 2018 Benchmarking in Association Management Survey was sent to 9,600 individuals at 3,274 organizations. Survey contacts were selected based on ASAE s available data regarding an individual s primary professional duties and the extent to which those duties aligned with the areas of association management covered by the survey. Survey Topics: Organizational Profile Section Membership Component Relations Marketing and Communications Public Relations Meetings Professional Development/Education/Learning Credentialing Publications Technology
The online survey was launched via email on March 12, 2018 and closed on April 2, 2018. The final dataset in this report includes responses from 677 people at 536 trade and professional associations, resulting in an individual response rate of 7% and an organizational rate of 16.4%. These figures account for multiple staff within a single organization working to complete separate functional area surveys. These findings are the results of the first of a two-part survey. Additional functional areas (e.g., HR, Operations, Legal, etc.) will be covered in a future survey scheduled for fall of 2018. Table i Number of respondents per section: Section N Organizational Profile 677 Component Relations 183 Credentialing 87 Information Technology 201 Marketing and/or Communications 312 Meetings 255 Membership 353 PD/Education/Learning 239 Public Relations 203 Publications 195 Table ii Overall Respondent N=677 Organization Type Annual Budget Total Staff Size Metro Area Professional 70.3% < $1M 9.3% < 10 22.2% DC 41.1% Trade 29.7% $1-$4.9M 31.0% 10-19 15.7% Chicago 11.7% $5-$9.9M 17.3% 20-49 28.1% New York City 4.3% $10-$24.9M 19.9% 50-99 13.7% Dallas-Ft Worth 3.4% $25M 22.5% 100 20.4% Other/Unknown 39.6%
Membership Of the 353 executives who responded to the membership questions, 63 percent represented professional associations, and 37 percent represented trade associations. The highest percentage of respondents, 31 percent, came from organizations with fewer than 10 staff members, and the next highest, 28 percent, were from associations with staffs of 20 49 FTEs. A third of organizations were located in the Washington, DC metro area. Key data points Types of Membership Professional associations had an average of 5.1 individual membership classes, and trade organizations had 2.5. Trade associations had more organizational membership classes, 4.2 on average, than professional organizations, with 2.3. Dues When it came to dues calculations for individual members, 79 percent of trade associations and 61 percent of professional organizations offered a single flat or fixed rate dues structure. For organizational members, both trade and professional organizations displayed a wider variety of dues calculations, distributed across single flat or fixed rate, fixed tiers with preset benefits, revenue or income, sales, and others. Additional Fees Most organizations (89 percent) charged an additional fee to members for their annual meeting. Just over half of associations included consulting services in their member benefits. This was more prevalent among trade associations, at 62 percent, than professional associations at 43 percent. Members paid extra for credentialing programs at 87 percent of associations. Forty-three percent of associations included some education programs with membership, while 81 percent charged an additional fee, indicating that some associations offer both free and paid programs. Free industry research was available to 83 percent of members in the organizations surveyed, and 28 percent offered it by fee, indicating, just as with education programs, some associations offer both free research and research with a cost associated to access.
Figure 1 Average Member Retention Rate 81.9% 87.8% 84.1% Professional Trade All
Component Relations A total of 183 professional and trade associations provided information on component relations. Professional organizations made up a majority of the respondent pool, at 79 percent. The responding organizations represented a range of sizes, measured by budget and staffing. In keeping with the overall demographic profile of participants, a significant portion of participants (34 percent) were located in the Washington, DC metro area. Key data points Of associations that reported having components, 71 percent had chapters, making that the most common type of component. Geographic affiliates, with 32 percent, and special interest groups, at 28 percent, were the next two most frequently reported types of components. Sixty-seven percent of the associations with components said that membership in a component was contingent on being a member of the parent organization. For non-autonomous membership arrangements, 87 percent of responding associations required member dues to be paid to the parent organization. Figure 2 Types of Component Organizations
Marketing and Communications Of the 312 respondents, 64 percent were from trade organizations and 36 percent were from professional organization. One third of the responding organizations had a staff of fewer than ten employees. Thirty-seven percent of associations reported a budget range of one million to less than five million dollars, at least double of any of the other four budget categories. Key data points Mean annual budget for marketing and associations averaged $1,031,000, with professional associations spending $36,000 more than trade associations on average. Budgets rose steadily by the budget size of an organization, ranging between $41,000 at the smallest organizations to $3,239,000 at the largest. Most responding associations conducted the majority of marketing and communications in house, especially email distribution, marketing communications, and social media, which were each conducted internally by more than 80 percent of associations. The exception was market research, which just under a third of associations opted to conduct without outside help. Associations are sending out an average of 13 emails per month to members. Average open rates are 32 percent and click-through rates are 14 percent. Small organizations are much less likely to be applying metrics to content strategy and planning. Fifty-two percent of organizations with budgets of less than a million and 33 percent with budgets of one million to five million said they were not applying metrics, while only 18 percent of those with budgets of 10 25 million, and 15 percent of the over 25 million category did not apply metrics. Figure 3 Average Email Open and Click-through Rates
Public Relations Of the 203 responding organizations, 65 percent represented professional organizations and 35 percent represented trade organizations. The majority, 61 percent, were from organizations with budgets of less than 5 million dollars. The two most reported categories for staff size were less than ten, at 39 percent, and 20-49, at 26 percent. One third of respondents were from the Washington, DC area. Key Data Points Spokespersons Not surprisingly, in nearly all associations (92 percent), chief staff executives had the authority to speak on behalf of their organization. In many associations (76 percent), the chief elected officer had that authority, and in fewer than half of organizations, board members were said to have the authority. Professional associations were more likely to allow board members and other volunteers to represent their associations publicly. Strategic Planning When it came to including public relations in C-suite strategic planning discussions, more than half (56 percent) of associations were doing so. But in 30 percent of associations, public relations had no presence in the strategic planning process, meaning that this function is not being represented in a significant portion of strategic planning areas. Figure 4 Roles Permitted to Speak On Behalf of the Organization
Meetings There were 255 responding associations, 63.5 percent of which were trade organizations, and 36.5 of which were professional. The majority of responding organizations were smaller, 57 percent had an annual budget of less than 5 million, and 58 percent had a staff of less than 19. A third of respondents were located in the Washington, DC metro area. Key Data Points Type of Meetings The annual meeting is a nearly universal event in both trade and professional associations of all categories. Overall, 95 percent of associations held an annual meeting or conference. Many other types of meetings were also held, with just under three quarters of overall respondents saying they held meetings on specific topics. The larger the budget size, the more likely an organization was to hold these types of meetings. Trade organizations were more likely than professional ones to hold trade shows/expos, at 60 percent and 42 percent respectively. Meeting Attendance The mean percentage of an association s membership that attended the annual conference was 38 percent, with more repeat members (62 percent) than first time attendees (21 percent). Annual Meetings Revenue Mean total meetings revenue for professional organizations was $3,242,000, while for trade organizations, it was $2,456,000. Overall revenue ranged from a mean of $169,000 at organizations with budgets less than a million dollars to $12,640,000 in those with a budget of greater than $25,000,000. Table 1 N=255 Organization Type Annual Budget Total Staff Size Professional 63.5% < $1M 18.4% < 10 39.6% Trade 36.5% $1-$4.9M 39.2% 10-19 18.4% $5-$9.9M 12.5% 20-49 24.3% $10-$24.9M 18.0% 50-99 8.6% $25M 11.8% 100 9.0%
Professional Development/Education/Learning Professional Development & Learning A total of 239 associations contributed data about their credentialing and learning programs. Of these, 68 percent were professional organizations, and 32 percent were trade. All sizes of organizations were represented, though the second smallest budget category, one million to less than five million, and the smallest staffing category, less than 10, were the most reported (39 percent and 40 percent). Just under a third of respondents were located in the Washington, DC metro area. Key Data Points Online Learning. Annual budgets for online learning varied significantly between professional and trade organizations, with professional organizations spending an average of $688,000, and trade organizations spending $84,000. Online seminars were the most popular type of online learning program offered, with 47 percent of associations overall indicating that they offered those. Online conferences were offered by 32 percent of associations overall, and online workshops by 27 percent. Trade associations were less likely to offer all three programs. Figure 5 Most Prevalent Types of Learning Programs
Credentialing Fewer organizations responded in the credentialing field. Of the 87 participating associations, 75 percent were professional, and 25 percent were trade. A range of budget and staff size were represented, distributed similarly to the professional development and learning respondent group. Just over a third of respondents were located in the Washington, DC metro area. Key Data Points The majority of associations have recertification or requalification requirements, including 72 percent of professional organizations and 94 percent of trade associations. Recertification is required at varying frequencies, the most common being every three years, reported by 42 percent of associations. The rest of respondents reported a range of requirements, including annual, bi-annual, more than three years, and other. The most popular requirement for maintaining an association s most common certification was continuing education, a requirement of 93 percent of the responding associations. Table 2 N=87 Organization Type Annual Budget Total Staff Size Professional 74.7% < $1M 11.5% < 10 29.9% Trade 25.3% $1-$4.9M 36.8% 10-19 19.5% $5-$9.9M 13.8% 20-49 21.8% $10-$24.9M 20.7% 50-99 12.6% $25M 17.2% 100 16.1%
Technology Of the 201 participating associations, 67 percent were professional, and 33 percent were trade. A range of budget and staff size were represented, distributed similarly to the professional development and learning respondent group. Just over a third of respondents were located in the Washington, DC metro area. Key Data Points About half (51%) of associations do not have a data policy and structure in place. Across multiple technological activities, the budget has remained the same since last fiscal year, including activities for cloud management services, data analytics, data management, desktop support and management, email management, mobile device support and management, network management, online meetings/video conferencing, server and storage support, software development and deployment, telephone communications management, and website development and maintenance. Figure 6 Average Number of Full-time IT Staff 6.6 1.9 5.1 Professional Trade All Figure 7 Median Annual Budget for Information Technology (Thousands)
Publications Of the 195 respondents, 70 percent represented professional organizations and 30 percent represented trade organizations. Forty percent of respondents were from organizations with a budget of 1 5 million dollars. A range of staff sizes was represented. Twenty-nine percent of respondents were from the Washington, DC metro region. Key Data Points Electronic and Print Most associations offered a combination of electronic and print publications, with 44 percent reporting a 50/50 split, closely followed by a majority of online/electronic publications. Only 16 percent do primarily print publications. Availability of Publications Many associations publish a range of resources that are available to members and nonmembers. Some resources were made available to members as a benefit, some for a fee. Most responding associations said that they included magazines or periodicals as a member benefit, 91 percent did so for print publications, and 89 percent for online. Online journals were included in membership for 88 percent of associations, but that number dropped to 64 percent for print journals. Profitability Less than half of associations reported that their publishing programs were profitable. Periodicals publishing was profitable for 44 percent of associations surveyed, and non-periodicals publishing was profitable for 39 percent. Forty-five percent reported profitability for their overall publishing programs. Figure 8 Profitability of Publications Programs
The authors have worked diligently to ensure that all information in this executive summary is accurate as of the time of publication and consistent with standards of good practice in the general management community. As research and practice advance, however, standards may change. For this reason, it is recommended that readers evaluate the applicability of any recommendations in light of particular situations and changing standards. ASAE: The Center for Association Leadership 1575 I Street, NW Washington, DC 20005-1103 Phone: (202) 626-2723; (888) 950-2723 outside the metropolitan Washington, DC area Fax: (202) 220-6439 Email: books@asaecenter.org We connect great ideas and great people to inspire leadership and achievement in the association community. Terri Ashton, Senior Manager of Research and Intelligence, ASAE: The Center for Association Leadership Emily Rabbitt, Associate Editor, Research and Content Knowledge, ASAE: The Center for Association Leadership Ariel Finno, M.S., CAE, Senior Director of Research, ASAE: The Center for Association Leadership Baron Williams, CAE, Director of Book Publishing, ASAE: The Center for Association Leadership Keith C. Skillman, CAE, Vice President, Publications, ASAE: The Center for Association Leadership This Executive Summary is part of a larger publication detailing results on the entirety of the questions posed to respondents in the 2018 survey iteration. The complete publication will be available through the ASAE bookstore for purchase at some point in the near future. A complete catalog of titles is available on the ASAE website at www.asaecenter.org. Copyright 2018 by ASAE: The Center for Association Leadership. All rights reserved. Permission to reproduce or transmit in any form or by any means, electronic or mechanical, including photocopying and recording, or by an information storage and retrieval system any portion of this work must be obtained in writing from the director of book publishing at the address or fax number above.