Breadth or Depth? Do Both!: The Engagement Enrichment Matrix
In 1968, the Boston Consulting Group revolutionized product positioning and portfolio management when its founder, Bruce Henderson, developed the Growth Share Matrix (BCG, 2021). At the height of its success, the Growth Share Matrix was used by 50% of fortune 500 companies and is still taught today as a central business strategy in the world’s top MBA schools (BCG, 2021).
The Growth Share Matrix views product positioning and prioritization through the lens of growth and market share (BCG, 2021). The aim is for companies to decide what offerings should be prioritized and how by plotting on a table with four quadrants, each representing a degree of profitability (BCG, 2021).
Cash cows are “milked” to reinvest into star and question mark products, stars should be prioritized due to their money-making potential, question marks should be invested in or discarded after an assessment of how likely they are to become stars with the right resources, and pets, sometimes referred to as dogs, should be discarded lest they use valuable company resources that could be invested elsewhere (BCG, 2021).
While nonprofits focused on community building may be concerned with growth and market share, especially regarding development, a greater concern is the sometimes awkward contest between breadth and depth. This is the question of what type of impact does a community-building company aim to make? Does it wish to be a broad community with offerings that target the lowest common denominator of community member at the expense of meaningful experience, or does it want to be a niche community with great depth of experience but with few members? Using the methodology of the Growth Share Matrix, I believe an Engagement Enrichment Matrix can show how communities can achieve both.
Star Programs
High Engagement/ High Enrichment
These are programs that achieve the aim of depth and breadth. They have large, sometimes mass participation rates, and include rich content that develops the identities and knowledge of community members. The depth of experience does not negatively impact the breadth of participation. Often, the depth of experience is what drives participation! In the Jewish community, programs that often achieve star program status include Birthright and Shabbat dinners. Star programs should take priority in marketing and should be poster programs used to drive development. They are the programs you come prepared to sell to angel donors.
Engagement Cows
High Engagement/ Low Enrichment
These are shallow programs that have large participation rates. They are important because, like cash cows in the BCG Growth Share Matrix, they build a base of community members that can be re-invested into star programs or developers. In the Jewish community, programs that might be considered engagement cows are BBQs and bagel brunches. Because of the large participation rates, it can be easy to be satisfied with the event. The Engagement Enrichment Matrix challenges community builders to ask “what are the opportunities for enrichment in this program?” and think of ways enriching content can be added. For example, When I worked at the Australasian Union of Jewish Students, a popular program we had was Café Dilemma. This turned bagel brunches into brunch with three small courses. Tables had peer facilitators and each table was waited by a peer that brought their course with a dilemma for discussion to be led by the table facilitator. Through this strategy, bagel brunches were enriched with content that was able to drive participation rather than limit it. An engagement cow was repositioned to become a star program.
Developers
Low Engagement/ High Enrichment
These are deep and meaningful programs with low participation rates. They add depth to experience but are limited by their low potential market. These programs are often defined by even deeper importance — it is these programs that tend to develop community members to become exceptional and skilled volunteers and leaders. In the Jewish community, common programs that might be considered developers are the Jewish Learning Fellowship, leadership training series, and alternative breaks. Because of their success in developing future leaders, like with engagement cows, community builders can be satisfied with the success of these programs. Again, the Engagement Enrichment Matrix forces community builders to ask the question “how can I grow this program to become a star program?” and brainstorm opportunities to grow the market. At Towson University Hillel this was successfully done with the Jewish Learning Fellowship. Seeing the success of the program but noting that one facilitator only had the capacity for around 12 participants we increased the number of learning opportunities using the JLF model and we now have more participants each week than even our Shabbat dinners, thus successfully repositioning a developer into a star program.
Dog Programs
Low Engagement/ Low Enrichment
Defined by low participation numbers and little depth, these are engagement cows that were not able to find a market or developers that did not land with their enriching content. On the engagement side, it might be a BBQ that only five members attended. On the enrichment side, the most notorious are expensive speaker events, costing as much as $4K, where community members “tune out”. These programs eat up resources that could be spent elsewhere but also eat up engagement and can be embarrassing for community builders. They are the programs a potential community member attends that causes them to never return. While questions should be asked by community members about why these programs failed and how they can potentially be saved, the oft correct action is to discard such programs.
Towson University Hillel has been using this methodology for the past year and a half. Doing so has brought us significant success in transforming breadth into depth. During the 2020–21 academic year, we have achieved a success rate of 40.7% of community members engaged reaching Hillel International’s depth characterized by 6+ interactions or a high impact activity, and 98% of community members that have participated in a high impact activity also reaching 6+ interactions. By comparison, Fall 2019, when we were not using this methodology, only 20% of engaged community members reached depth and only 58% of community members that participated in a high impact activity also reached 6+ interactions. A significant improvement on each performance indicator. We believe that our success shows that breadth need not be forsaken for depth or vice versa. That it is a false dichotomy and the Engagement Enrichment Matrix can work as a strategic visual tool to encourage this mindset for community builders.
