Jennifer Lewin

[Acknowledgments]
[A Note About the Methodology]
[Appendix]

s the association serving its members’ needs? That, of course, is the fundamental question every association leader must answer. Creative financing and non-dues revenue aside, the strength of any association lies in its membership base.¹ And while determining member satisfaction with your bar association can be a difficult endeavor, to some degree we can infer levels of member approval through association growth and retention rates.

    How does your bar association’s membership growth compare with that of similar bars? This paper surveys membership growth, as well as membership management and marketing strategies of voluntary state bar associations and metropolitan bar associations² between 1995 and the first quarter of the year 2000. While we all frequently work with anecdotal information about association membership trends, the purpose of this paper is to provide empirical information upon which you can more readily rely and evaluate your own bar’s performance. In addition, this paper will reflect upon certain trends that became evident during interviews conducted with bar association staff.

Where Have We Been?

    Since 1960, the global population of lawyers has doubled to approximately two million, and the number of lawyers in the United States has more than tripled to 1,000,440, dramatically increasing the bar association’s market for members. Indeed, if one considers annual admissions to the bar as an indicator of growth in the profession, the dramatic 134 percent increase in admissions during the 1970s is significant. During the 1980s, growth leveled off to about 12 percent until the final years of that decade. In the late 80s and early 90s, another dramatic increase marked the otherwise steady pace. Since then, admissions were in a slight decline until 1999.³ The American Bar Association’s Market Research Department has calculated that, between 1995 and early 2000, the years with which this paper is primarily concerned, the U.S. lawyer population grew by a rate of about 12 percent.

Where do state and local bar associations stand in relation to that growth? State and local bars experienced a boom time in the 1970s and 1980s, inevitably spurred by the dramatic increases in the number of admissions to the bar during that time. Despite a second surge of admissions to the bar around 1990, bar associations struggled to steady membership numbers early in the decade, with dues failing to remain a priority against the force of the recession. Since the economic turnaround, bars have generally reported modest gains.

The Numbers

    Over the past five years, 77 percent of voluntary state bar associations and 70 percent of metro bars reported an overall increase in membership. The average growth rate for voluntary state bars is a little over 4 percent, an annual average of 0.86 percent. The range of growth rates is quite broad, with one bar association reporting five-year growth of 21 percent, and one bar reporting a loss of 22 percent of its members. The voluntary state bars with the highest reported growth rates are the Maryland State Bar Association (21 percent), North Carolina Bar Association (16 percent), Minnesota Bar Association (13 percent), Vermont Bar Association (13 percent) and the New York State Bar Association (12 percent).

    Metro bars show slightly higher, but similar statistics; average five-year growth is 4.76 percent, an annual average of 0.95 percent. The range is broader with a high of 28 percent growth and a 24 percent decline as the low. The bars with the highest growth rates for this five-year period are the Hennepin County Bar Association (28 percent)⁴, the Boston Bar Association (27 percent), the Indianapolis Bar Association (19 percent), the Hillsborough County Bar Association (16 percent) and the Milwaukee Bar Association (16 percent). No one size of bar association appears to have had an advantage, although very large metro bar associations (with over 10,000 members) reported comparatively smaller growth, and it appears that this was not due to a higher initial market share. The highest growth rate reported for these large metros was only six percent, and the five-year average was a decline of less than one percent. See Figure I for an illustration of state and metro bar five-year growth; the largest number of bars reported growth between 0 and 10 percent.

    Considered regionally, strong correspondences exist between state bar and metro bar growth. (See Figure II.) Southern bars showed the strongest average growth rates over five years with eleven percent for both state and metros, followed by mid-western state and metro bars, western bars and finally, northeastern bars. Northeastern metro bars reported an average decline of 0.4 percent over five years. Because of some perceptible differences in northeastern state bars, it became useful to divide the group further into New England and mid-Atlantic categories. Their five-year averages were 3 percent growth for New England state bars and a 1 percent decline for the state bars in the mid-Atlantic area. New England’s range fell between –6 and 13 percent, while the mid-Atlantic showed more dramatic differences with a range of –22 to 21 percent.⁵

    Numerous factors determine whether a bar association will see growth or a decline in membership in a given year. However, it is interesting to note that all state bars that reported losses over five years either compete with their state’s unified bar, or are located in the Northeast. No obvious common threads appeared among metro bars that reported declines. However, when comparing the growth of bar associations with general regional economic growth, notable correspondences are evident. This is not to suggest that general economic indicators explain an association’s membership increases or decreases, but economic trends may reveal some advantage or disadvantage to operating in a particular location.

    Both Forbes Magazine’s "Best Places" and a Milken Institute study cite Texas, the West and the Southeast as regions continuing to dominate economic growth, with all of the top fifteen cities on the Forbes list from these areas. By contrast, the first mid-western city to appear in the rankings – Omaha, Nebraska – placed 26^th, and the first northeastern city – Washington, D.C. – was ranked 43^rd. The Forbes report asserts that "the West is dynamic, entrepreneurial, high level of human capital, less risk averse, more business friendly, has high quality of life attributes, and culturally more open to new ideas than most of the Northeast and Midwest. Lower costs of doing business (tax rates, wage costs, real estate) in Texas, and the rest of the West relative to the Northeast and Midwest help it in manufacturing industries. Much of the Southeast is becoming a part of the New Economy."⁶

    Indeed, as mentioned above, southern bars dominated other regional bar groupings, which reflects the renewed economic development in that area to be sure, but also reflects a historical trend. Southern bar associations, on the whole, have frequently outperformed bars in other regions of the United States. This phenomenon can be attributed, in part, to the fact that the cultural norms of the South are favorably inclined toward communal organizations such as associations. However, these external factors are meaningless unless the bar association initiates and supports quality programs. The North Carolina Bar Association, for example, has one of the highest state growth rates nationwide. It achieves this growth by taking advantage of a pervasive bar association culture⁷ and by successfully differentiating itself from the state’s unified bar through its unique services and community identity.

    Mid-western bar associations were more successful than general economic indicators would lead us to predict. Mid-western state bars were quite stable with a smaller range of 2 to 13 percent, and five out of six reported above-average growth. Midwestern metros also reported solid growth. The metro sample included Minneapolis and Indianapolis, two cities that have fared well in the New Economy, and that ranked in the Forbes top 50 "Best Places."

    The western state bar group is ultimately not a satisfactory sample because Colorado is the only voluntary state bar in this area. However, Colorado did report growth at approximately double the national average, and its success mirrors economic trends. Western metros reported only average growth, however, performing less well than anticipated, due to low growth and some declines among California’s metros. Otherwise, Maricopa County (Phoenix), Multnomah (Portland) and King County (Seattle) all reported respectable gains of 10 percent, 14 percent and 14 percent, respectively.

    The dramatically lower gains reported in the Northeast are also consistent with general economic indicators, despite the region’s potential for growth as a result of the great concentration of lawyers. East Coast metros appear to share the struggles of their state bar counterparts. Bar association staff note greater concentrations of organizations – minority, women and specialty bars in addition to majority bars, not to mention a host of other nonprofits – competing for the limited dues dollar. The Boston Bar Association is the notable exception to northeastern trends, with five-year growth of 27 percent. Boston has become another pocket of activity spurred by the tech industry, and the BBA has been very successful in creating a brand image and solidifying its relationship with the city’s larger firms.

    Membership involves both programs and processes: the services the bar provides as well as the operations of member management. Having concluded this overview of the general statistics, this survey will now turn to more discreet components of the membership process that concern bar association staff. Based on conversations with staff from a sample of thirteen bars,⁸ developments in the areas of retention and attrition, one-to-one marketing and volunteer involvement in the membership process and in the bar association, generally, will be reviewed.

Retention and Attrition

    It has been repeated ad infinitum that if there is one secret to continued membership growth, it is retention. During the past decade in particular, retention has been the focus of innumerable seminars, publications, and discussions. Appropriately so. As has been widely noted, it is considerably less expensive for an organization to retain members than to recruit new ones.

    Ernstthal and Jones state in Principles of Association Management that, at the time of publication (1996), "average attrition in associations [was] 13 percent annually." Based the data collected for this study, 13 percent approximates average bar association attrition.⁹ Ninety-one percent was the highest retention level reported among bars in this sample.

    Across the board, bar associations experience the highest attrition among members in their first five years with the organization. This is the case for associations broadly. According to bar staff interviewed, the three most frequently cited reasons for bar association attrition¹⁰ are 1) participation in the bar competes with family responsibilities, 2) relocation and 3) the individual is no longer practicing law. Several bar associations also experience significant attrition between years five and eight, largely of attorneys (many of whom are women) leaving the profession temporarily or permanently to start families. There is widespread agreement among those interviewed that after the eighth year of membership, the likelihood that the individual will drop decreases significantly, though trends suggest that over the long term this may not continue to be true.

    Bar associations have attempted to address each of these issues in different ways. Bars have recognized that competition with personal priorities is essentially a time issue. Therefore, bars have initiated family-friendly bar events, such as picnics including spouses and children. One bar even offered substantive programming for spouses at the bar’s annual meeting. Some argue that these events are opportunities for members to participate in the bar and in a family activity simultaneously; conversely, others suggest that by doing this the bar tries to cover too many bases, and the member does not devote quality time to either. Some bar associations have taken a different approach to assisting their members balance family and work responsibilities. These bars are addressing the challenges professional parents face by providing information about local childcare or providing care during bar-sponsored events. These efforts have been generally well received.

    However, Mark Levin, author of Millennium Membership, suggests that associations need to look at volunteer participation in a new way. He agrees that the crucial issue is time. Levin suggests that while association insurance programs, publications, CLE and networking opportunities are still important, as is the ability to get information, "more than anything, [members] care about how much time it will take to get what they want." Time is currency of the new millennium. He suggests that members will, in part, base their membership decisions on issues such as: 1) how much time will it take to get vital information? 2) how much time will it take to participate in activities? 3) how much time will it take to serve in a leadership role? or 4) how much time will it take to convince my employer that membership is worthwhile?¹¹

    Bar associations are, indeed, facing these challenges. Participation initially seemed slightly beyond the scope of this paper, but after after discussions with bar staff it became clear that it is a crucial component of the membership experience. Volunteer participation is necessary for association governance and development of bar activities and, as membership directors are well aware, members who participate are far more likely to renew. Across the board, bar association staff reported dramatic decreases in levels of participation in the last few years. "I have one committee of 15 people, and I’m lucky if I can get three or four to show," reported one staff director. This sentiment was echoed by numerous others.

    Members are making choices, and while they may continue as dues-paying members for the time being, they are not volunteering their time in the way they did even five years ago. Two membership directors noticed a perceptible change among young lawyers this past year and speculated that an even greater pressure on associates to increase hourly billing now exists given the notable increase in starting salaries. In addition, several metro bar staff reported that as the cost of doing business in the city increases, more firms are moving out of downtown, making quick lunch meetings more difficult and the general accessibility of the bar more of an issue for members.

    According to Facing the Future: A Report on Major Trends and Issues Affecting Associations, "[a] shift is occurring away from long-term, time-intensive volunteer commitments toward short-term, tightly focused volunteer opportunities. In one association, a special interest group has even set up a volunteer structure that intentionally turns over monthly." Another association that holds a year-long membership campaign is "encouraging members to identify the specific months they will be participating from the menu of volunteer tasks available. The campaign goes on all year, but the volunteers rotate in and out based on their schedules."¹² In other words, bar associations may need to consider new ways to make participation possible – whether it is through abbreviated terms or new avenues of participation, such as less time-consuming opportunities on-line.

    Relocation and lawyers leaving the practice of law are clearly more difficult issues for bar associations to address. As the world becomes more global, our society is increasingly on the move. And while it may seem that the geographical boundaries that define many bar associations may, at some point, become obsolete, bars may have an opportunity to create a strong identity based on these very boundaries.

    As mentioned previously, there is a heightened awareness among staff that members are relocating with much greater frequency. While movement will always be part of professional advancement, professional dissatisfaction is an issue that is driving lawyers into new and different work. In some ways, this movement mirrors the attrition that is now of crisis proportions among many large law firms. In a recent article in the National Law Journal, Michael Goldhaber notes that law firm attrition is "epidemic on the coasts where, generally, hours are longest and job options are most profuse."¹³ It is not clear to what degree this kind of movement affects bar association membership directly, but one must consider the following questions. What happens when a lawyer moves from a firm that pays for bar membership to a firm that does not? What happens when a lawyer decides to start his or her own practice and resources dedicated to professional memberships may be more limited? And what happens when a lawyer decides to make a lifestyle change and/or moves out of the area or out of state?¹⁴ For many, renewing bar association membership may not be a priority.

    Let’s return to Boston for a moment. Not only is Boston currently a hub of high-tech activity, but it can also boast that it is the "exception to high attrition on the East Coast ... Boston firms have dominated the American Lawyer magazine’s associate satisfaction surveys for the past two years."¹⁵ Professional satisfaction and, by extension, law firm attrition have been points of focus for the Boston Bar Association, which has published two reports on the subject in three years.¹⁶ Interestingly, the bar’s attempts to partner with law firms to find solutions to this issue may have had some effect on its own growth rate. The bar has been able to create excellent relationships with the city’s larger firms, 93 percent of which invest in dues for its lawyers because the bar’s CLE is considered to be such excellent training.

    From an operational standpoint, most association staff indicated that they have instituted more extensive follow-up measures to their bar’s dues mailing and that these efforts have been successful. Some bar associations now use the same repetition seen in conventional for-profit advertising and distribute as many as five or six notifications. Some take advantage of the immediacy of technology and fax follow-up notices. Some send an attention-grabbing postcard ahead of the dues statement, alerting members and prospects to expect it. And many bars use telemarketers to remind members and prospects to send in their dues, and to survey members who have let their memberships expire about their reasons for doing so. Nevertheless, most bars reported that their retention rates have remained fairly steady. Only bars that were the most systematic and comprehensive in their retention efforts seem to make inroads in this challenging area.

Feedback

According to the 1998 Bar Activities Inventory, 53 percent of voluntary state bars and 47 percent of metros had conducted a general membership survey within the previous three years. Nearly all of the bars in this survey organize some kind of regular feedback mechanism, from formal survey to focus group to telephone and e-mail surveys. On average, bar associations engaged in large-scale, general surveys about every four years. Smaller, targeted surveys are conducted on a much more regular basis, as frequently as a couple of times a year. Overall, bars have been quite vigilant in their attempts to get feedback, and members have been regularly asked for their input on the bar’s services and activities.

    The challenge lies in how bars respond to the feedback they receive. Most surveys confirm what staff suspected, though many bars were surprised to find that members were less knowledgeable about membership services that were available to them. Indeed, several bar surveys indicated that lawyers seem increasingly out of touch with the bar and its activities. As a result of these findings, several bar associations reevaluated communications efforts and instituted changes such as initiating an e-mail calendar or newsletter, or increasing the frequency of the bar journal. As Mark Levin suggests, bar associations must "take advantage of . . . information overload by communicating with members and prospects in more effective ways."¹⁷

    Bar staff reported that members' most pressing concerns center around the business of practicing law. Bars continue to search for ways to help their constituents make a living. Bars – many of which are facing their own technological challenges – are being asked by members to assist with the decisions they must make in this rapidly changing environment. Nevertheless, many bars are meeting the challenge by providing a host of on-line resources that are available to their members quickly and efficiently. Increasing technological capabilities and providing more on-line resources is the most frequent way bars are responding to member concerns about issues relating to practice.

Segmenting and Targeting Markets

     "One-to-one marketing" or "mass customization is an approach that has gained currency among associations during the past decade, and is based on the idea that organizations need to treat its different members differently. Organizations that utilize this strategy aim to build loyalty among members by identifying the products or services which a member values most. Customizing every possible communication with a member or prospect is also an important part of selling the membership experience.

    Bar association staff generally embrace the concept of one-to-one marketing, though only a very few bars reported truly individualized marketing efforts. One bar, for example, has instituted a dues notice in the form of an invoice. Pre-printed on the form is the member’s name and contact information, and the appropriate dues category and practice sections are selected, based on data from the previous year. Members are only required to enclose a check, and are relieved of filling out what should not be, but what often is, a complicated form. These bars are acknowledging their members as individuals and, at the same time, are making it as simple as possible for them to renew or join.

    While bar associations are just beginning to explore individualized marketing, staff are, nevertheless, very aware of the needs of segments of their market, including groups such as new admittees, government lawyers and sole and small firm practitioners. Every bar association in this study targets segments of its membership with tailored programs, services and CLE. Still, the general consensus among staff is that the bar should do more to customize communications and marketing efforts to make interested segments aware of these services.

    Just as one customer’s Amazon.com home page highlights alternative country and Cuban jazz, another’s page may be entirely different, based on previous purchases and other information the company has collected. Similarly, the goal of one-to-one marketing for bar associations is to eliminate generic communications. If at all possible, every interaction should address the member by name and should be targeted to his or her preferences – preferences determined on the basis of data collected by the bar.

    The biggest obstacle to mass customization of marketing efforts was logistical – primarily database inflexibility. Many bars are still searching for databases that will accomplish the basics without hassles, much less the more sophisticated tasks customization requires.¹⁸ Levin argues vehemently, however, that improving member and prospect tracking "should be the place that organizations with limited resources spend their money."¹⁹ Bars universally single out three target markets: younger lawyers, because of the high levels of attrition associated with this group; and both government lawyers and sole and small firm practitioners, because these two latter groups tend to be underrepresented in the bar. Targeted follow-up communications to lawyers who can be identified as a member of one of these groups are not uncommon. On the whole, however, there is much room for growth and innovation in this area.

    Opinions are mixed about how to approach these groups. Are free or discounted memberships an incentive to join? Bar associations seem to be increasingly eliminating free categories, such as those for new admittees and law students. A few bars phased out free categories in both of these areas in recent years, and while one suffered an initial hit with a drop in CLE attendance, there was no loss of membership revenue and better overall retention. Indeed, more bar associations seem to be adopting the philosophy that members don't value what they don't pay for.

    In addition to instituting programs that are targeted to serve these groups, bar associations are also attempting to provide their members with more flexibility with regard to existing programs. The ASAE Trend Analysis Survey reports that 46 percent of associations indicated a change in financial structure, such as unbundling services that were traditionally included in the dues, and creating fee-based services. Some organizations have "developed a revenue system based on a la carte services. After paying initial dues, which include a periodical (via mail, fax or e-mail), members purchase everything else for a separate fee."²⁰

    Full-fledged unbundling of services has not appeared among bar associations, but bars are taking steps in more market-driven directions. For example, the Tennessee Bar Association is offering its TBALink, an online site with valuable practice resources, as a subscription discrete from its dues.²¹ Bars are also offering print or electronic options for publication delivery. While sponsoring a focus group organized to identify the needs of governmental lawyers, one state bar association discovered that these lawyers do not need many of the services the bar includes as benefits of membership, such as insurance or CLE programming. This bar indicated an interest in changing from a dues structure based on years of practice (essentially an income-based) to a service-based structure but, as of this moment, no bar association has made that leap.

Volunteer Participation in the Membership Process

    Testimonials and personal endorsements are still some of the most effective ways of selling a product or service. Why else would networking be so crucial to good business? While many volunteers may agree that personal endorsements are essential to the development of their own businesses, bar staff report very limited use of volunteers on behalf of the bar’s membership campaigns. Some smaller metro bar associations reported success with committee members who recruit among the larger legal community or who make follow-up phone calls to members who let their memberships lapse, but there are, predictably, mixed volunteer reactions to this. Recruitment and retention is, admittedly, all about the sometimes not-so-glamorous world of selling. Staff insist, however, that if it is made clear that volunteers are expected to participate in the membership process (as part of their board or committee responsibilities) the bar may see greater committment and success in this area. And as Levin urges, the organization must give volunteers choices and keep their tasks short-term and discrete.

    Volunteers may be especially helpful in the area of membership goal-setting. A leader committed to increasing the organization’s membership can be the driving force that turns a lagging membership program around.²² If it does not, your bar may want to consider incorporating membership goals into the organization’s strategic or long-range plan. Membership goals should include not only an overall membership philosophy, but also segments the bar may want to target and quantitative objectives. Only two bars interviewed identified quantitative goals. When the issue was raised among staff, reactions were mixed. One staff member expressed concern that the goal might be driven by budgetary considerations. Some board members were apprehensive about setting goals when faced with the possibility of not reaching them. Nevertheless, staff generally agreed that quantitative goals are very helpful – some say essential – because, unlike so many things that bar associations do, membership numbers are measurable.

Conclusion

    There are numerous components that make a membership campaign successful, many more factors than could be discussed in the context of this paper. And, while generalizing figures may be compelling, we are all aware that success lies in the details. Membership is all about the total experience. From the bar’s after-hours message²³ to the ease of registering for a CLE to the speediness with which the organization responds to information inquiries, each of these interactions is a fundamental part of the membership experience, and must be conducted with the highest quality of service.

    Even so, organizations must be willing to innovate and adjust to the changing business environment. Levin makes a call for pioneers. Indeed, pioneers are few in the association world. In order to maintain their relevance to the practicing lawyer, bars must be willing to learn by experience rather than by example.

Jennifer Lewin has worked with the ABA's Division for Bar Services since 1997, serving first as ABA liaison to the Metropolitan Bar Caucus and the National Conference of Bar Presidents. She now works with the division's Consultative Services Program, researching and writing on issues of interest to bar associations and foundations, as well as coordinating new division services that include strategic planning and bar association operational surveys. Before joining the division, Jennifer was working toward a Ph.D. in Art History at Northwestern University. She received her M.A. in the field in 1994.

Notes

²³ See Levin’s illustrative discussion of this on pages 99-102. [Return]