TheThumbPuppy
Registered User
Many complain that the numbers of masons in their Lodge is declining. I've had some thoughts for a while on one specific area, that is replying to a candidate's initial email, message, or telephone call. I'm curious to hear your opinion and I would like to exclude other possible causes that may contribute to a diminishing number of masons for this one debate.
I find that a candidate's initial email or message through a Lodge website's contact-us page seems to be habitually unanswered. At least that was my experience. Only 20% of my initial emails and messages got a reply. I got 2 replies, and even then I didn't get a follow up later through the process. I know my personal sample would make my statistics invalid, but I've read of other candidates on either side of the pond with a similar experience. Whatever the exact percentage may be, there seems to be a problem in answering a candidate's initial contact attempt.
I've read that some Lodges employ this tactic to see if the person who's enquiring is serious enough to get in touch again, or it's only a passing fancy of his. Personally I think that other procedures should be in place to ascertain a candidate's seriousness. A serious candidate may also be put off by not receiving a reply, because he may get the impression that that organisation itself is not a serious one and not one that he'd want to be a member of. My personal opinion is that not answering emails or contact-us messages – whether intentionally or by negligence – is not fit for the purpose of sieving through serious candidates.
It also gives the impression that that organisation has dropped the ball. The excuse that the organisation is run by volunteers and some of them may not know how to use a computer is also invalid or irrelevant, immo, as the damage is the same whether you do something on purpose or by accident:
How many WM's (or Lodges in general) check how emails and messages are replied, or whether they are replied at all? From my past as an Army officer, I learned that checking if something had been done was just as important as giving the order.
I don't know how many of you are familiar with marketing funnels to see at what point during your interaction with a customer you lose them (like in Google Analytics for example). Adopting a procedure like that would probably indicate that Lodges haemorrhage candidates at the very first steps of interaction with a potential candidate, by:
I find that a candidate's initial email or message through a Lodge website's contact-us page seems to be habitually unanswered. At least that was my experience. Only 20% of my initial emails and messages got a reply. I got 2 replies, and even then I didn't get a follow up later through the process. I know my personal sample would make my statistics invalid, but I've read of other candidates on either side of the pond with a similar experience. Whatever the exact percentage may be, there seems to be a problem in answering a candidate's initial contact attempt.
I've read that some Lodges employ this tactic to see if the person who's enquiring is serious enough to get in touch again, or it's only a passing fancy of his. Personally I think that other procedures should be in place to ascertain a candidate's seriousness. A serious candidate may also be put off by not receiving a reply, because he may get the impression that that organisation itself is not a serious one and not one that he'd want to be a member of. My personal opinion is that not answering emails or contact-us messages – whether intentionally or by negligence – is not fit for the purpose of sieving through serious candidates.
It also gives the impression that that organisation has dropped the ball. The excuse that the organisation is run by volunteers and some of them may not know how to use a computer is also invalid or irrelevant, immo, as the damage is the same whether you do something on purpose or by accident:
- If you don't know how to use a computer, you shouldn't be given the responsibility to answer emails and messages, or you shouldn't volunteer to do it.
- If you're doing something as a volunteer, you're not doing it worse than if you were paid for. Actually I find that it's the other way round. You feel so strongly about an organisation that you're prepared to give up your personal time to be of service.
- If you volunteer to answer emails and messages, you're the first person someone gets in touch with and you're representing the whole organisation. You better do it well, or the reputation of the whole organisation will suffer.
How many WM's (or Lodges in general) check how emails and messages are replied, or whether they are replied at all? From my past as an Army officer, I learned that checking if something had been done was just as important as giving the order.
I don't know how many of you are familiar with marketing funnels to see at what point during your interaction with a customer you lose them (like in Google Analytics for example). Adopting a procedure like that would probably indicate that Lodges haemorrhage candidates at the very first steps of interaction with a potential candidate, by:
- not replying to their first email or message
- not following up later in the process
Last edited: