Critical Strategic Decision - All Opinions are Needed


(Hercules P.) #1

Hi everyone! This is my first post here :slight_smile:

I run a community where we help our members achieve their goals and create the life they desire. We focus on the following categories: Financial and Professional Success, Relationships, Personal Development, Style, and Fitness. Thus far, all of our members are men (it started as a male-focused community), but we want to find a way to include women as well. We can do this in two ways, and I am not sure which one is the best.

The first one is to have only one mixed FB group and have all of our members there.

The second one is to have 3 FB groups. One for male members, one for females, and one mixed FB group (all members will be there). The members will be able to choose which FB group to post in depending on the people they would like to see and comment on their posts. The assumption that supports this idea is that most members will feel safer discussing very personal information regarding relationships or dating in same-gender FB groups.

We have done user research: 90% of our existing members and 80% of the women that are going to join prefer to have the options to post on same-gender groups and on the mixed group.

What is your opinion? What would you do? Thank you very much!

(Sarah Hawk) #2

If that is what your research says then what would be the rationale for doing it another way?

(Hercules P.) #3

Hi Sarah, thanks for your help. It is more likely that we will do the 3 groups since this is what our members want. However, there are 2 disadvantages to this approach. I am trying to find ways to mitigate them but I haven’t thought anything useful.

  1. By having 3 FB groups we will dissipate the activity. Right now we have 18 male members and when we start the female group we will add 20 female members. Given that we don’t have a lot of members, I am not sure if we can afford to dissipate the activity. What do you think?

  2. It will be a lot harder to get to critical mass

Do you have any ideas on how we can reduce the effect of these disadvantages?

Thank you very much!

(Sarah Hawk) #4

Yeah, that is problematic.

TBH those are all very tiny groups though so you are essentially starting from scratch with three new communities – you need to build more founding members for each. If they’ve given you feedback and you ignore it you may lose the few existing members that you do have. That said, it’ll be easier to start one community from scratch so perhaps losing them isn’t the end of the world.

(Darren Gough) #5

Another way to read the data (if I’m understanding correctly), is that 80% and 90% aren’t opposed to posting on same sex groups?

Why not state that because of this you’ll aim to start with one group to promote engagement and growth, but may add additional groups in time.

Where I’d worry is if there was a big discrepancy between those who would post on own gender groups BUT NOT mixed groups.

(Hercules P.) #6

Thank you very much @HAWK and @Darren_Gough for your valuable thoughts. I have thought more about it and I can’t find a way to avoid discrimination against non-binary people…

There are some workarounds. For example I could give them the ability to choose which FB group they want to join but I don’t think that solution is good enough, and after extensive thought, I am still empty-handed. I don’t think its possible to do the 3 FB groups and simultaneously avoid the discrimination.

Our mission as organization is " to create a world where all humans have the power and resources to create the life they desire irrespective of their economic ability, ethnicity or other characteristic. " Taking the above into consideration if we were to discriminate that would eliminate the reason we exist in the first place.

Based on the above, I don’t think we have any choice other than to have only one FB group with all the members there irrespective of their gender.

Thank you very much for your thoughts Sarah and Darren. They confirm that having only one FB group is a good choice.