For alumni teams, online groups are an engagement mirage

It’s common these days for advancement leaders to have invested in the tools that enable the building and managing of online groups. Alumni teams have consistently chosen to do so because they’re supposed to be the pathway for growth. Establishing groups inside these platforms, instead of social media, is about consolidating efforts into one virtual space. But it all feels like a mirage — a strategy that should work, but it doesn’t.

Over the last several months, I’ve had conversations with alumni leaders, and I hear the same sentiment repeated often. They say, “We have a network platform, but we are changing how we think and talk about it. Our platform will now be considered a directory, and we will promote it as a resource for those looking to make connections.”

In each case, the reason for the shift has been that the group component isn't working.

When I hear this sentiment, my experience building online groups comes rushing back. I’ve tried and failed to build thriving online communities several times in my career. But I understand why alumni leaders continue to consider virtual groups the answer to scaling engagement — it just makes sense that a regional, affinity, or identity-based group should have an online presence. The thought is that each group should have a home for individuals worldwide who can’t attend an in-person event but want to participate.

Believe me. I get it. However, the results are becoming apparent after years of experimentation across our field. Something is amiss with the online group strategy. Here’s what I think is at least part of what's happening.?

Alumni volunteers working as group leaders don’t necessarily make effective online moderators.

We can only suggest that our volunteers lead a virtual community aligned with their affinity group. There’s can be no mandate to build and manage a corresponding online group using tools like PeopleGrove, Graduway, or Hivebrite. Huge CRM providers like Salesforce have a module for online communities too, and while these tools are convenient for us for many reasons, they’re not capturing the attention or imagination of our volunteers.?

The problem is that moderating an online group is hard work, and the effort must be continued day after day, which is different from producing in-person events. Building a robust online community requires considerable commitment and dedication. Perhaps more than is imagined. Stimulating ongoing activity in a virtual community means creating and curating content, providing topic prompts, motivating existing members, highlighting the achievements of those in the community, and reaching out to potential new participants. And that’s just the basics.

In order to grow, these mission-critical aspects of leading virtual groups must be managed by volunteers, not the staff. What winds up happening is that, eventually, group discussions dwindle. Volunteers that said “yes” move on and are not replaced, and before long, it’s just the staff person posting in the group trying to stimulate activity, but it doesn’t work. Members of the group that have opted-in never return due to the lack of activity.?

What’s left is a graveyard of groups inside platforms that no one wants to manage or delete.?It doesn't feel good for anyone involved.

Alumni leaders want to see these online groups work, but they’re not participating alongside volunteers.?

The only thing that might be more difficult than getting alumni volunteers to moderate groups is convincing senior leadership in advancement to actively participate in them. I’m guilty of this too. Back when I led the implementation of Graduway in my previous role, I didn’t spend much (any) time working to build our virtual community each day. In fact, building and sustaining online communities needs a point person, but to be successful, it needs to be part of everyones’ role.?

Online communities require an all-hands-on-deck approach like any other signature event to thrive.

At the same time, advancement leaders actively engage in many other programs their teams produce. In particular, there’s no problem getting senior team members to attend in-person events. But not virtual communities. What’s challenging is that events come and go, but the need for constant, daily participation in online groups is an ever-present need that’s not being met.?

Finally, advancement teams aren’t hiring and resourcing for virtual community-building

Well-resourced alumni associations, foundations, and advancement teams often invest in someone doing digital engagement. These individuals are tasked with all online activity from content creation to social media management, website management, to email communication. Digital engagement leaders are often running point on giving days and other crucial online fundraising initiatives.?

There’s no time to manage dozens (sometimes hundreds!) of groups that have been created and the volunteers necessary to make them work.

So, what’s the strategy that will actually lead to engagement growth? I’ve offered my thoughts on what should come next in order to reach lofty targets. More and more colleges and universities are including engagement outcomes in stated goals for fundraising campaigns. But the more I converse with alumni leaders as a consultant and take a look under the hood, the more I question how they’ll actually reach those targets.

Virtual groups are almost always part of the plan to increase engagement, but I think it’s a mirage.?

Agree or disagree? I’d love your thoughts.

Ryan is an engagement strategist and consultant with?Chris Marshall Advancement Consulting?and Network Catalyst with?Protopia. Protopia provides an AI-powered, app-less solution for connecting students and alumni. Check out the?Alum-Less?podcast and episodes on LinkedIn Live every other Friday at 11:30 a.m. ET.?