1415 AIESEC NCTU MARCOM half-term Reality Report

MARCOM reality report

A-bao Yang Marketing Manager, CTLC

jiunyi.yang@aiesec.net

1415 half-term

1415 Q3Q4 OGCDP MARKETING

KPI of GG/ GE Communication

Stakeholders

Feedback for

OGCDP

Marketing

GOAL vs ACTUAL

KSF or

BottleNeck + Sol.

GAP Analysis

Structure of

Stakeholder

Difficulties

+ Sol.

Divided &

Dig Deeper

Position

Direction

ME

KPI of GG/ GE # of info-session participate

-- 9 all

GOAL ACTUAL

--

ACTUAL / GOAL

GG

GE

KPI of GG/ GE # of info-session participate

60 22-4 1st

2nd 40 15-5

3rd 15 10

GOAL ACTUAL

30%

25%

66.7%

ACTUAL / GOAL

GE

GG

GE

GG # of info-session participate

GAP ? 1st gap

2nd Recruitment caused TIMELINE DELAY, lack of preparation

on Product Packaging, Product Marketing and INFO design.

2nd gap (Goal set too high.)

Based on VP’s experience, but this year was the highest 2nd INFO.

3rd gap (Fine.)

The highest 3rd INFO also.

KPI of GG/ GE # of sign up

-- 14 all

GOAL ACTUAL

--

ACTUAL / GOAL

GG

GE

VP

5 INFO/

9

KPI of GG/ GE # of sign up

40 8 1st

2nd 20 6

3rd 5 7

GOAL ACTUAL

20%

30%

140%

ACTUAL / GOAL

GE

GG

VP

12 INFO/

9

GE

GG # of Sign Up

GAP ?

1st gap 2nd Recruitment caused TIMELINE DELAY, INFO design wasn’t

precise enough for persuading students to sign up; Especially those

who had shown off autumn recruitment.

2nd gap (Goal set too high.)

Based on VP’s experience, but this year was the highest after 2nd

INFO.

3rd gap (Goal set too low.)

Based on VP’s experience, but it’s also the highest so far which

occurred after 3rd INFO. And VP directly explain the Project

Content while INFO definitely helped participants know more and

drive themselves to sign up.

KPI of GG/ GE Where the 35 Sign-ups came from?

18 17 all

INFO VP Approaching

GG

GE

GE

GG Where the 35 Sign-ups Came from?

K e y Findings?

INFO and VP approaching was almost the same.

Although we couldn’t get the information about how

many students had been approached by Sonja;

we can guess that in the same period of time, the

amount of students should be less when using one on

one approaching.

In case that students who had engaged with our program, INFO is more than VP approaching,

then we can have the conclusion that VP approaching

created higher percentage on “Sign-ups / students had engaged with the『Go Exchange』program” .

KPI of GG/ GE Info-Session~Sign Up conversion rate

-- 100% all

GOAL ACTUAL

--

ACTUAL / GOAL

GG

GE

KPI of GG/ GE Info-Session~Sign Up conversion rate

66.7% 11.1% 1st

2nd 50% 20%

3rd 33.4% 50%

GOAL ACTUAL

0.17

0.4

1.50

ACTUAL / GOAL

GE

GG

from VP

-- INFO

23.7%

GE

GG info-session~Sign Up conversion rate

GAP ? 1st gap

INFO design wasn’t precise enough for persuading students to sign

up; Especially those who had shown off autumn recruitment.

And we hadn’t had great use of follow-up-calls yet, such as delays,

unclear definition, or unbuilt conversations strategies.

2nd gap Didn’t make good use of customers’ characteristic.

If he/she show off because of classmates, roommates,

friends…next time we can persuade them through their key person.

3rd gap VP directly explain the Project Content while INFO definitely helped

participants know more and drive themselves to sign up.

And they have become friends with VP after INFO, which made

communication easier.

KPI of GG/ GE Sign Up~Match conversion rate

14 8 all

SIGN-UP Match

57.1%

CONVERSION RATE

GG

GE

VP

5 INFO/

9 VP

3 INFO/

5 VP

60%

INFO

55.6%

KPI of GG/ GE Sign Up~Match conversion rate

21 15+5 all

SIGN-UP Match

95.2%

CONVERSION RATE

GE

GG

VP

12 INFO/

9 VP

6+5 INFO/

9 VP

91.7%

INFO

100%

2/2/5 3/2/1 2/2/5 6/4/2 VP

50%

GE

GG Sign Up~Match conversion rate

K e y Findings?

AIESECers of GG hesitated more frequently after signing up than customers of GE.

Where the opportunity is close to you, you are more

likely changing your mind. (Customer’s mindset)

In GG,

INFO and VP approaching was almost the same. INFO

wasn’t the main factor that AIESECer take the program or not.

And in GE,

Those who have participated INFO and signed up after that all matched without an exception, but if it’s VP

approaching, it only got half of it during the semester. It

probably related to capacity which it’s not enough to

handle diverse characteristics.

KPI of GG/ GE Degree of (Self-)promoting – FB posts per EP

5 /EP 3+ /EP all

GOAL ACTUAL

++ %

GOAL / ACTUAL

GG

GE

2 /EP 0.5+ /EP all ++ %

GE

GG KPI of GG/ GE Degree of (Self-)promoting – FB posts per EP

GOAL ACTUAL GOAL / ACTUAL

KPI of GG/ GE Degree of (Self-)promoting – # of Promotion-cooperated EPs

8 ++ all

GOAL ACTUAL

++ %

GOAL / ACTUAL

GG

GE

KPI of GG/ GE Degree of (Self-)promoting – # of Promotion-cooperated EPs

10 ++ all

GOAL ACTUAL

++ %

GOAL / ACTUAL

GE

GG

KPI of GG/ GE Degree of (Self-)promoting – NPS

9 ++ all

GOAL ACTUAL

++ %

GOAL / ACTUAL

GG

GE

KPI of GG/ GE Degree of (Self-)promoting – NPS

7.5 ++ all

GOAL ACTUAL

++ %

GOAL / ACTUAL

GE

GG

Communication

Stakeholders

LCP EXTERNAL (partnership)

MB

MS

TL/ Mgr.

EB team

(External)

Students

OGCDP

MKT TL

OGCDP

VP MARCOM

VP TM

VP

OGCDP

LDT TL MARCOM

Mgr.

LDT team

MB

MKT team

MB

LCP EXTERNAL (partnership)

MB

MS

team

EB team

MARCOM

MKT Mgr.

OGCDP

VP

MARCOM

VP

OGCDP

LDT TL

MARCOM

Mgr.

LDT team

MB

MKT team

MB

Feedback for

OGCDP Marketing

Position 1 4 1 5

M A R C O M

Direction M A R C O M

1 4 1 5

ME M A R C O M

1 4 1 5

ROCK

Y O U

I N

2 0 1 5

WNCF