7. Conversion rate (overall)
32%1 out of 3 people
Conclusions:
• promotion did earn sufficient number of applications on
every LC except for LC Nitra
• conversion rate of 32% may suggest either less efficient
targeting of campaign or increased focus on quality this
year
• according to information from VP TMs, the selection of only
the most qualitative members was the case
9. Applications per weeks
BA CU TT NR BB PO KE
week 1
11
(14%)
6 (6%) 2 (5%) 6 (15%) 3 (5%) 6 (13%) ?
week 2
12
(15%)
34
(37%)
4 (10%) 3 (7%)
18
(28%)
3 (6%) ?
week 3
20
(25%)
13
(14%)
4 (10%) 5 (12%)
18
(28%)
6 (13%) ?
week 4
14
(17%)
16
(17%)
9 (23%) 5 (12%)
15
(23%)
19
(40%)
?
week 5
23
(29%)
24
(26%)
20
(52%)
22
(54%)
12
(16%)
13
(28%)
?
Suggestions:
• take these distributions into consideration when
planning your next RCTM activities
• do not rely on last week to deliver you most of your
applications, it may not (case of Nitra this year)
• try to balance your application numbers amongst the
weeks (like BA and BB this year)
10. Year of study distribution
• Bachelor 1st: 304
• Bachelor 2nd: 88
• Bachelor 3rd: 43
• Master 1st: 53
• Master 2nd: 20
• Graduate: 18
Relative distribution
Gr
3 %
Ma 2
4 %
Ma 1
10 %
Ba 3
8 %
Ba 2
17 %
Ba 1
58 %
11. Year of study distribution
• Bachelor 1st: 304
• Bachelor 2nd: 88
• Bachelor 3rd: 43
• Master 1st: 53
• Master 2nd: 20
• Graduate: 18
Relative distribution
CU
3 %
Ma 2
4 %
Ma 1
10 %
Ba 3
8 %
Ba 2
17 %
Ba 1
58 %
Conclusions:
• year of study based targeting worked
• we can see a decreasing trend with each next year of
study (except for an anomaly with first year master students
• the anomaly may be caused by students previously
studying on a different university who were not in touch with
AIESEC before
12. Sources of information
• enrolments: 182
• friends: 154
• posters: 149
• Facebook: 97
• web page: 70
• other: 57
• university web: 46
• other social media: 14
Relative distribution
2 %6 %
7 %
9 %
13 %
19 %
20 %
24 %
enrolments friends posters
Facebook web page other
university web other social media
13. Sources of information
• enrolments: 182
• friends: 154
• posters: 149
• Facebook: 97
• web page: 70
• other: 57
• university web: 46
• other social media: 14
Relative distribution
2 %6 %
7 %
9 %
13 %
19 %
20 %
24 %
enrolments friends posters
Facebook web page other
university web other social media
Conclusions:
• for the first time our planned and executed activities
(enrolments and events) beat the word of mouth (friends)
• activities executed solely by the MC contributed for 43%
(posters, social media, web)
• LCs major focus should be proper execution of enrolments
presentations and powerful each-one-get-one campaigns
(enrolments and friends)
14. Sources of motivation
• new experiences: 403
• new people: 353
• contacts: 336
• internationalism: 318
• english: 317
• theory in practice: 255
• leadership: 227
• other: 28
Relative distribution
1 %10 %
11 %
14 %
14 %
15 %
16 %
18 %
new experiences new people
contacts internationalism
english theory in practice
leadership other
15. Sources of motivation
• theory in practice: 255
• new experiences: 403
• english: 317
• new people: 353
• internationalism: 318
• contacts: 336
• leadership: 227
• other: 28
Relative distribution
1 %10 %
15 %
14 %
16 %
14 %
18 %
11 %
theory in practice new experiences english
new people internationalism contacts
leadership other
Conclusions:
• motivational factors are distributed very evenly -> we’re offering good value to our target
group
• highest contribution had the factor of new experiences -> focus on this when building
next campaign
• lowest contribution had the leadership factor, which demonstrates intangibility of this
word to our target group
• theory in practice often used in the past was also amongst the lowest of the contributors
• only 1% of our target group wanted something else entirely from AIESEC
16. Areas of interest
• international projects: 236
• event management: 127
• sales: 86
• marketing: 68
Relative distribution
13 %
17 %
25 %
46 %
international projects event management
sales marketing
17. Areas of interest
• sales: 86
• international projects: 236
• marketing: 68
• event management: 127
Relative distribution
25 %
13 %
46 %
17 %
sales international projects
marketing event management
Conclusions:
• very uneven distribution of interest
• goals were not planned for each sub-product
separately and thus the campaign was not adjusted
according to this
• we strongly suggest to do this during the next
campaign
18. What did we use?
Newly re-branded FLAT posters
Available here: https://docs.google.com/file/d/0B4Bo0HCF9diTSUx3TXNUeTdFTm8/edit
19. What did we use?
Newly re-branded FLAT leaflets
Available here: https://docs.google.com/file/d/0B4Bo0HCF9diTTTlNWHk4UFJFRDg/edit
20. What did we use?
Planned content in Social media calendar across Facebook,
Google+, Twitter and our own Blog
21. What did we use?
Hootsuite - social management tool in order to manage all
these online channels
22. What did we use?
Redesigned webpage of aiesec.sk
23. What did we use?
Application form embedded in the webpage, unified across all LCs
24. What did we use?
Editable social media posts templates on canva.com +
branding guide on ISUU
Available here: http://issuu.com/aiesec.slovensko/docs/rctm_book
25. What did we use?
Simple, branded enrolments presentation slides with
instructionsAvailable here: https://docs.google.com/presentation/d/1R1zhjqWBXuMpRvJLvev9gZ_rCG8DXqI8jHCasJ0Vx90/edit?usp=sharing
26. How much did it cost?rough estimate
Posters: 354,78€
Leaflets: 156,19€
Facebook: 166,06€
Web page: 34,3€
711,33€
27. How much did it cost?rough estimate
4,26€
per member
28. Was it worth it?
Calculations:
• Based on data from last 2 years of
SONA, quarterly revenues, costs and
numbers of members, the quarterly profit
of 1 autumn member is…
29. Was it worth it?
24,55€per member for 1 quarter
PROFIT
30. Was it worth it?
8,18€per member for 1 month
PROFIT
31. Was it worth it?
3388,52€
for 1 quarter
PROFIT of campaign
