Membership research
Membership research that ends in a decision.
Research with current, lapsed and potential members, and a look at what other schemes do — planned around the one decision it has to settle. Who to ask, which method, how many people, and how to stay on the right side of the MRS Code and UK GDPR.
Insight that changes the offer, the categories, the price, the message
From decision to evidencethe order we work in
- 01Decidethe one choice the research must settleQUESTION
- 02Askcurrent, lapsed, prospects, institutionalAUDIENCES
- 03Methodrecord, survey, interviews, comparatorsMETHODS
- 04Fieldconsent, a thank-you, enough repliesFIELDWORK
- 05Actproposition, categories, price, commsDECISION
Research that ends ina decision
01/ insight-informed membership
Research to decide, not to describe.
“Insight-informed membership” is the Crafts Council’s phrase. Its 2026 freelance brief asks for research with current members, research with potential individual and institutional members, a comparator analysis, and findings with recommendations — for £5,000, with participants’ thank-you vouchers funded separately. The insight has one job: to improve the next version of the scheme.
That is the test for any membership research. Name the decision first, then choose who to ask and how. In Marketing General’s 2024 report, 53% of associations that research their members said it helped them put their value proposition into words, and 41% said it led to new products or services (a US survey).
Pick the decision you face. The planner shows who to ask, which methods fit, and where to look first.
The decision you face
Ask
- Current members — use
- Lapsed members — not needed
- Prospects — use
- Institutional — not needed
Use
- Member record — use
- Survey — use
- Depth interviews — use
- Focus groups — not needed
- Comparators — not needed
- Behavioural data — use
Ask
- Current members — use
- Lapsed members — not needed
- Prospects — use
- Institutional — use
Use
- Member record — use
- Survey — use
- Depth interviews — not needed
- Focus groups — not needed
- Comparators — use
- Behavioural data — not needed
Ask
- Current members — use
- Lapsed members — use
- Prospects — use
- Institutional — not needed
Use
- Member record — use
- Survey — use
- Depth interviews — not needed
- Focus groups — not needed
- Comparators — use
- Behavioural data — use
Ask
- Current members — use
- Lapsed members — use
- Prospects — not needed
- Institutional — not needed
Use
- Member record — use
- Survey — use
- Depth interviews — use
- Focus groups — not needed
- Comparators — not needed
- Behavioural data — not needed
Ask
- Current members — not needed
- Lapsed members — not needed
- Prospects — use
- Institutional — not needed
Use
- Member record — not needed
- Survey — not needed
- Depth interviews — use
- Focus groups — use
- Comparators — use
- Behavioural data — not needed
Ask
- Current members — use
- Lapsed members — not needed
- Prospects — not needed
- Institutional — use
Use
- Member record — use
- Survey — not needed
- Depth interviews — use
- Focus groups — not needed
- Comparators — use
- Behavioural data — not needed
The planner’s mapping is our method, not a published standard.
02/ member research audiences
Four audiences, four different questions.
Current members tell you what works and what falls short. Lapsed members tell you when the fee stopped feeling worth it. Prospects tell you what keeps them out — the Crafts Council lists low awareness, financial barriers, perceived value and communications. Institutional members — employers, universities, firms — buy for different reasons, so ask them separately.
Lapsed member research tests what the organisation believes. In MGI’s 2024 report, executives believed members leave through lack of engagement (47%), a perceived lack of value (32%) or forgetting (29%) — beliefs, not what leavers said. CLOA’s 2025 brief asks for feedback from current and former members for exactly this reason.
Compare the groups, not just the totals. In Martilla and James’s importance–performance study, the ratings that differed between loyal and lost customers were the ones that explained who stayed.
Membership research audiences
- Current membersNeeds What works and what falls shortReach via Survey, then interviews
- Lapsed membersNeeds Why the fee stopped feeling worth itReach via Short call or exit survey
- ProspectsNeeds Awareness, cost, value, communicationsReach via Partners, events, networks
- InstitutionalNeeds What an employer or firm buysReach via Depth interviews
- First-yearNeeds Did joining match the promise?Reach via New member survey
- MatureNeeds Which benefits they actually useReach via Annual survey
- Long-standingNeeds Why they stay; what they would missReach via Interviews
- VolunteersNeeds Where the organisation should goReach via Focus group
- Students, early-careerNeeds Price, relevance, belongingReach via Courses and universities
- Eligible non-membersNeeds Why not yetReach via Partner channels
- Event-only contactsNeeds What would make them joinReach via Event lists, with permission
- EmployersNeeds Value for their staffReach via Account conversations
Our split. Segments are drawn equal width: the lens shows how a list divides, not how big each part is.
Why executives believe members do not renew
- Lack of engagement47%
- Perceived lack of value32%
- Forgot to renew29%
03/ research methods
Six research methods, and what each is for.
Start with what you already hold. The member record shows who joins, lapses, attends and upgrades; the Crafts Council shares its past surveys and membership statistics with whoever runs its research. Then add methods by what the decision needs: surveys for how many, interviews and focus groups for why, comparators for what others offer, behavioural data for what members do rather than say.
Talk before you count. Martilla and James recommend focus groups and unstructured interviews to find the attributes worth measuring, before the questionnaire is written.
Survey design and question banks live on member surveys and membership survey questions. Journey mapping lives on member journey.
→ Always the first step.
→ The Crafts Council asked for depth over breadth.
04/ sample size
How many people do you need?
For a survey, the number of completed replies comes from a formula. For interviews, it comes from the point where you stop hearing anything new.
The survey formula is Cochran’s, set out in the University of Florida’s guide to sample size: n₀ = z²p(1−p) ÷ e², then a finite population correction, n = n₀ ÷ (1 + (n₀ − 1) ÷ N). At ±5% and 95% confidence that is 385 replies for a large membership and 323 for 2,000 members. For 200 or fewer, survey everyone. Allow about 100 replies for each subgroup you want to compare, and invite more people than you need: the guide notes researchers often add 10% for people they cannot reach and 30% for nonresponse.
Interviews work differently. A peer-reviewed review of empirical tests found saturation within 9–17 interviews or 4–8 focus groups, mostly in fairly similar groups with a narrow question. Treat each audience as its own group: ten current members do not stand in for ten prospects.
Your membership and margin
Margin of error
Confidence
Completed replies you need
completed replies at ±5% and 95% confidence
A workable sample
Invite 1,077 of 2,000 people and check who replied against your member record.
Cochran’s formula as set out by the University of Florida (Israel, PEOD6): n₀ = z²p(1−p) ÷ e² with p = 0.5, then n = n₀ ÷ (1 + (n₀ − 1) ÷ N). Here n₀ = 384.2 and n = 323. Subgroups: about 100 replies each (Sudman, cited there). Assumes a simple random sample. Nothing you type leaves your browser.
First three: Israel, University of Florida IFAS, PEOD6, citing Cochran (1963) and Sudman (1976) — university extension guidance. Last two: Hennink and Kaiser, Social Science & Medicine, 2022 — peer-reviewed.
05/ response rates and incentives
Plan for the people who will not reply.
Survey response has fallen almost everywhere. The ONS Labour Force Survey went from 47.9% in 2013 to 14.6% in mid-2023 (House of Commons Library). It recovered to 22.8% by mid-2026 (ONS) after the ONS enlarged the sample and raised its thank-you from £10 to up to £50 (National Statistician, 2024). A different kind of survey, the same lesson.
A low rate is not automatically a biased result. A meta-analysis of 59 studies examined when nonresponse rates track nonresponse bias and when they do not. So check who replied against the member record — category, tenure, region, age. The OR Society reported “a very low response rate” to its members’ survey and said the results needed care.
What lifts replies is well tested. In a Cochrane review of randomised trials, a cash incentive almost doubled the odds of replying to an online questionnaire; a shorter one and an offer of the results also helped; “survey” in the email subject line hurt. The Crafts Council budgets for gift vouchers separately from the research fee.
- 2013 47.9%Jun–Aug
- Mid 2023 14.6%Jun–Aug
- End 2023 14.8%Oct–Dec
- Mid 2026 22.8%Apr–Jun
Odds of replying to an online questionnaire
- Cash incentive1.88×
- Non-cash incentive1.60×
- Shorter questionnaire1.51×
- Offer of the results1.36×
- “Survey” in the subject line0.81×
06/ comparator analysis
Comparator analysis: borrow what already works.
A comparator analysis looks at schemes you could learn from. The Crafts Council asks for examples inside and outside the cultural sector, including enterprise models. CLOA asks for benchmarking against other professional associations. The Royal College of Anaesthetists built three category models from member feedback, comparator research and its elected Council, then put them to members — categories first, fees after.
Compare on the same fields every time, so the table reads across. Tick the fields your comparison already covers. For price comparisons and willingness-to-pay methods, see price and proposition testing.
Each organisation’s own published brief or update. Their work, not ours.
Fields to compare across schemes · 0/8 in place
Tick what your comparison covers.
07/ from insight to decision
Turn findings into four decisions.
Every finding should land on one of four decisions: what membership is for, who it is for, what it costs, and how you say so.
Rate each benefit twice — how important it is, how well you deliver it — and rank by the gap. That turns a survey into a priority list: what to fix first, and what you may be over-serving. The plot below starts with example ratings; move them to your own medians.
Then hand each finding to its owner: the proposition to membership value, who it is for to membership categories, the price to price and proposition testing, the message to member communications. The full sequence sits in the membership review.
From survey answers to a priority list
Example ratings — replace them with your survey medians.
- CPD and learningConcentrate heregap +3
- A voice to governmentConcentrate heregap +2
- Meeting peersKeep up the good workgap +1
- Online communityLow prioritygap 0
- Journal and contentKeep up the good workgap -1
- DiscountsPossible overkillgap -2
Grid and quadrant names from Martilla and James, Journal of Marketing, 1977 (peer-reviewed). Ranked by gap: importance minus performance.
01
What membership is for
From the benefits members value and miss.
02
Who it is for
From who joins, who lapses and who never joins.
03
What it costs
From what members pay, compare and would pay.
04
How you say so
From the words members use about the value.
08/ what insight is worth
What an insight-led change is worth.
Research pays back when it moves renewal, joining or the fee. Model your own income over five years and see what one or two points of renewal are worth.
The model starts at an 82% renewal rate, the median in Marketing General’s 2026 report (a US survey). Everything else is your input. For what one member is worth over their membership, use the member lifetime value calculator.
Your three levers
Subscription income over 5 years
- Now £360k
- Yr 1 £360k
- Yr 2 £361k
- Yr 3 £364k
- Yr 4 £368k
- Yr 5 £374k
Income grows
Keep the renewal rate here and the fee rise does the rest.
Our arithmetic on your inputs. Renewal starts at 82%, the median in Marketing General’s 2026 report (a US survey). The members, fee, joiners and fee change are example inputs, not benchmarks. Move renewal one or two points to see what a fix found by research is worth.
09/ ethics and UK data law
Research ethics, consent and UK GDPR.
The MRS Code of Conduct, in force since May 2023, binds MRS members and is a sound standard for anyone else. Before people take part, tell them who is collecting the data, the subject, the purpose, that they can withdraw, whether it is recorded, and how long it takes (rule 30). Say who gives the thank-you, what it is, when it arrives and any conditions (rule 26). And do not use your own goods or services, or vouchers for them, as a research incentive (rule 25): a free month of membership is a marketing offer.
Keep research and selling apart. The ICO says genuine market research is not direct marketing, but research that carries promotion, or feeds later marketing to the same people, is — “sugging”. Reusing member data for research can be compatible with the original purpose when safeguards are in place, and processing counts as statistical only when the results are not used to make decisions about people, or are anonymised.
Since February 2026, UK GDPR Article 84C says research safeguards are not met if the processing is used for decisions about a particular person, and requires data-minimisation measures such as pseudonymisation. In practice: never use one member’s answers to target that member. The ICO is consulting on updated guidance. Not legal advice.
Is your research ready to field?
01Will participants be told who is asking, why, for how long, and that they can withdraw?
02Is the invitation free of offers, upgrades and renewal prompts?
03Is the thank-you something other than your own membership or services?
04Will people know who gives the thank-you, what, when and on what conditions?
05Will answers be kept apart from decisions about the individual member?
06Will you pseudonymise or anonymise before analysis?
Answer the 6 questions to see where you stand.
Checks from the MRS Code of Conduct 2023, ICO guidance and UK GDPR Article 84C. Not legal advice.
May 2023
MRS Code 2023
Permission, incentives and participant wellbeing · MRS
Jun 2025
Research chapter begins
UK GDPR Chapter 8A in force for specified purposes · legislation.gov.uk
Feb 2026
Chapter 8A fully in force
Article 84C safeguards replace DPA 2018 s.19 · legislation.gov.uk
Now
ICO guidance under review
Consultation on the research provisions guidance · ICO
10/ questions
Membership research FAQs.
15 minutes · video or phone
Book 15 minutes on your membership research.
Book 15 minutes to name the decision, choose who to ask and size the sample.
- 0115 minutes, video or phone
- 02The decision your research must settle
- 03Audiences, methods and sample, read back
- 04A plain next step
Pick a day that suits · live availability
Book 15 minutes · no obligation
Research that ends in a decision.
The right people, the right method, enough replies, and findings your board can act on.
12/ sources
Every claim, and where it came from
Every source was read on 8 October 2026. US, peer-reviewed, guidance and published-brief sources are labelled.
- Crafts Council — Freelancer: Insight-informed membership — brief, scope, £5,000 budget, thank-you vouchersPublished brief, UK
- Chief Cultural & Leisure Officers Association — Consultancy opportunity: membership review — current and former members, up to £3,200Published brief, UK
- Royal College of Anaesthetists — Reviewing RCoA membership — 2025 survey, comparator research, three category modelsOrganisation update, UK
- The OR Society — Rethinking our membership offer (Inside OR, May 2023) — a very low survey responseOrganisation update, UK
- Marketing General Inc. — 2024 Membership Marketing Benchmarking Report (full PDF) — member research, reasons for non-renewalIndustry survey, US
- Marketing General Inc. (Tony Rossell) — Just released: the 2026 Membership Marketing Benchmarking Report — 82% median renewalIndustry survey, US
- Glenn D. Israel, University of Florida IFAS — Determining Sample Size (PEOD6) — Cochran’s formula and finite population correctionUniversity extension guidance, US
- Hennink and Kaiser, Social Science & Medicine — Sample sizes for saturation in qualitative research: a systematic review (2022)Peer-reviewed
- Edwards et al., Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews — Methods to increase response to postal and electronic questionnaires (2023)Peer-reviewed
- Groves and Peytcheva, Public Opinion Quarterly — The impact of nonresponse rates on nonresponse bias: a meta-analysis (2008)Peer-reviewed, US
- Martilla and James, Journal of Marketing — Importance-performance analysis (1977)Peer-reviewed, US
- House of Commons Library — Has labour market data become less reliable? — LFS response 47.9% to 14.6%Parliamentary research
- Office for National Statistics — Labour Force Survey performance and quality monitoring report: October to December 2023Government statistic
- Office for National Statistics — Labour Force Survey performance and quality monitoring report: April to June 2026Government statistic
- UK Statistics Authority — National Statistician to the Treasury Committee on the LFS (Dec 2024) — incentives £10 to £50Government correspondence
- Market Research Society — MRS Code of Conduct 2023 — rules 25, 26 and 30Professional code, UK
- Information Commissioner’s Office — The research provisions: principles and grounds for processingRegulator guidance
- Information Commissioner’s Office — The research provisions: what is research-related processing?Regulator guidance
- Information Commissioner’s Office — Identify direct marketing — market research and “sugging”Regulator guidance
- legislation.gov.uk — UK GDPR Article 84C — appropriate safeguards (inserted by the Data (Use and Access) Act 2025)Statute