SimpsonScarborough: Intelligent Marketing for Higher Education

As promised in Teresa Valerio-Parrot's recent blog entry, here are my thoughts on how to influence your US News & World Report rankings.

Few days pass when a client or potential client doesn’t ask: How to improve my US News & World Report rankings?

The short answer is this: It won’t happen, at least not easily or quickly. My partner Elizabeth Scarborough has analyzed institutions that have made significant jumps in rankings. Her conclusions, which will be detailed in a forthcoming blog, are that few if any accomplish the miracle jump unless the move up in categories.

So what to do?

Start here – what not to do: Do not print a beautiful, 12-page, four-color glossy publication and mail it to the 200-plus institutions that vote on your reputation. When I was chief of staff at Indiana University for seven years, my job wasn’t to put those lovely pubs in the hands of the president – but to keep them off his desk.

You can have an impact on your rankings by first creating a reporting team responsible for ensuring that you complete the survey as honestly and favorably as possible. Often we see institutions that drop in ranking due to inadequate survey responses. Get a team, get them to work and hold them accountable.

Next, the president, provost and dean of admissions should look at the list of roughly 210 schools that often vote on peer institutions. If you are ranked 110, for example, divvy up the names from – roughly – 75 to 135. Over the course of the next year, the president, provost and admissions director should have strategic outreach efforts designed to meet and get to know these voters. When a relationship is established, the pretty brochures will be more effective. This is high maintenance, but the only way we have seen to make a significant impact.

If the president, provost and director each meet a dozen people a year, that is 180 over five years. Voila. Look also for opportunities to reach many at once, such as invites to a distinguished speaker’s series or something similar.

Reputation is important in the US News rankings, but ensure that you are realistic when you try to improve your standings.

-- Christopher Simpson

For a deeper look at the rankings and the lengths some schools have gone to influence them, read this article from The Chronicle of Higher Education. Very interesting.

Posted by Meredith Simpson at 09:44 AM | Permalink | Comments (0)

In a recent entry, I discussed the future of Second Life in higher education, which is an idea that I am very excited about. I just came across a promotional video for the Ohio University Second Life Campus, and I wanted to share it with you. Ohio University gives us a great example of what you can do with Second Life and the possibilities for metaverse application in higher ed. The video is a little cheesy in the beginning, but stick with it to the end. It's worth it!

Enjoy!

-- Meredith Simpson

Posted by Meredith Simpson at 01:52 PM | Permalink | Comments (2)

I am delighted to see more than a dozen college and university presidents gather together to ban responding to key parts of the US News & World Report onerous survey rankings.

But their ideas are half baked. And here is why…

To combat the influence of the portion of the rankings on “reputation” is a wonderful idea, but the college leaders are offering no concrete alternatives to the practice – and we wonder why they endorse the remainder of the survey. We are ready to wager that the move led by small school presidents will be a minor blip on the higher ed screen, and no more.

What our nation’s colleges and universities need is the leadership of a major organization – ACE, AAU, NASULGC or the others in the “big three” to take a stance on US News and show the way. But what are the odds?

-- Christopher Simpson

Posted by Meredith Simpson at 02:13 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)

Mega kudos to Montana State University President Geoff Gamble and Athletic Director Peter Fields, who last Friday fired Mike Kramer, head football coach, for cumulative player problems – not the proverbial smoking gun that more commonly sinks players and coaches.

The president and the AD, who we know well from past collaborations in Bozeman, take football very seriously, despite the modest recognition they receive. Five players have been arrested on drug charges in the last year, and one for murder. Fields said he finally had enough and fired the coach, calling the arrests a “crisis in leadership” and a “black cloud.” Gamble, a veteran no nonsense president, said “perception is reality” and MSU is being painted with a broad brush because of the arrests. So voila, no more coach.

Could such a brazen move be taken at top division one schools in the PAC-10, SEC, Big Ten or other conferences where big time football rules the roost? I doubt it. Money talks in those cases, and intestinal fortitude is as rare as bowl championships at the Bozeman university.

-- Christopher Simpson

Posted by Meredith Simpson at 04:49 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)

USA Today featured a story on a decision by social networking sites Facebook and MySpace to suspend their policies and allow the personal pages of the slain Virginia Tech students to remain online to memorialize the students and allow others to post messages to their pages. I thought this article was interesting, because one of the mothers said she felt taking down her son’s site was similar to taking another piece of him away from her. Her quote made my heart break, and I started to think about the comfort that exists with knowing a part of your child stays alive in perpetuity.

The healing that is occurring for Hokies through social networking and electronic outlets across the country and globally is amazing. How can you use the power of this medium on your campus and with your students to memorialize the good and the bad? How can the emotions tied to these sites be harnessed to tell your story?

-- Teresa Valerio Parrot

Posted by Meredith Simpson at 05:15 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)

I have heard lot of buzz about Second Life and its applications in higher education recently. I have to admit, I was skeptical at first.

Second Life is a virtual world called a metaverse that takes social networking to the next level. Even as a twenty-something young woman who had a front row seat during the meteoric rise of Facebook and MySpace, it was difficult for me to think about Second Life as anything more than entertainment. It was even harder for me to imagine that this platform would ever be embraced by higher education. Nonetheless, I wanted to know more.

In my research, I found that there are endless possibilities for using Second Life in higher education, and there are many colleges and universities who have already taken that step. I spent time on the Second Life site investigating what some schools have done already – and I was impressed. But I remained skeptical that it would have any long term application in higher education. Bottom line - I was intrigued, but not sold on the idea.

Then I had an epiphany in the form of Webkinz. For all of you who, like me, are not currently tackling the role of parenthood, Webkinz are high demand, fancy stuffed animals that come with a code that your child can use to create a virtual version of their pet online. Once logged in, they can dress their pet, decorate their room, and monitor the general health and well being of their new friend.

Why am I telling you about this? How does it apply to Second Life and its future in academia? The answer is simple.

Webkinz is far more than just a computer game, it is a social networking site for very young kids. Once I logged on as Pink the Pig (a loan from Teresa Valerio Parrot’s six-year-old daughter), I was able to interact with other children in a virtual world. As Pink, I was able to talk to other kids and make friends, play games, chat, go to parties, go shopping, and even get a job. I realized that Webkinz, and other sites like it, are the reason why Second Life may well become an important communications tool.

Kids are introduced to technology at an increasingly young age, and it will have a profound impact on their lives and their expectations for both entertainment and information. This trend will only continue to grow and become more influential, and the higher education community needs to take notice. In less than a decade, Pink’s owner and other Webkinz veterans will be the target demographic for our institutions—what format and message will they expect from us? We need to start thinking about this now.

Virtual worlds for kids and teens are exploding. Here are some examples to look at, keeping their marketing potential in mind:
• www.millsberry.com
• www.zwinky.com
• www.clubpenguin.com
• www.gaiaonline.com
• www.teen.secondlife.com
• www.habbo.com

Examples of metaverse applications in higher education:
• Virtual classrooms – EDTECH article about virtual classrooms
• Vassar College – Karine Joly writes about a tour of Vassar’s virtual campus
• Australian Universities in Second Life - Sardionerak reports on three Australian virtual campuses (definitely read about University of Southern Queensland)

Other links for information on Second Life in higher education:
• Second Life Education Wiki
• Second Life Educators Forum
• Campus: Second Life Wiki
• Second Life in Higher Education (Wiki maintained by Beth Ritter-Guth at Lehigh Carbon Community College)

-- Meredith Simpson

Posted by Meredith Simpson at 10:24 AM | Permalink | Comments (1)

If you missed the Abeedle-created Kettering University “School Daze” online ad that was unveiled two years ago, now is your chance to revisit one of the most creative higher ed ad efforts in recent years.

It was all the rage at the AMA Symposium and I must admit I ponder the bell tower conspiracy-notion every time I’m on a campus. When Kettering launched their new marketing program this past fall, they communicated the unveiling on Google Video, highlighting the university, its students and president. The Kettering admissions site now has student filmed “myth busters,” with the first installment featuring an analysis of samurai sword swings (hmmm… is there a ninja and samurai conspiracy at Kettering?). Nothing conventional here, and that is the point.

The reason I point out Kettering’s efforts is that they are maximizing the use of creativity, the web, and communication vehicles to create messages that resonate with their potential student base. Think about your admissions messaging and ask yourself if you are hitting the mark with potential students through your efforts. Market yourself OUTSIDE of the bell tower limitations and buck the conspiracy. It’s working well for Kettering.

-- Teresa Valerio Parrot

Posted by Teresa Valerio Parrot at 11:16 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)

This blog entry is going to be one of many to center around positioning. I’m hoping that this informal, yet substantive form of communication can be a place for the higher education marketing community to have a conversation on this important topic. I invite you to add your thoughts and experiences to this ongoing dialogue.

I’m convinced that positioning is the most critical piece of the marketing puzzle and that colleges and universities need to tackle it first. Just as integrated marketing communications is a way to bring focus to myriad messages, positioning is a way to bring focus to those messages.

Most importantly, good positioning will ensure institutions select the right messages – ones that resonate with and prompt support from key audiences. Good positioning lies in the convergence of three key areas: 1) what you institution does well; 2) what things are important to your stakeholders; and 3) what things you are doing better or more consistently than your competitors. Finding this positioning core is what I like to call triangulating your brand (see a graphic illustration this concept here).

Too many times, colleges and universities embark on positioning without focus, only to create a set of messages that tries to show how they can be all things to all people or that just describes the institution rather than its benefits to key stakeholders. This lack of focus or uniqueness is what got them into trouble in the first place, and these vague messages will not solve their marketing problems.

I challenge anyone reading this on a college or university campus to sit down with a piece of paper and pen or your laptop and try to identify your school’s position in the marketplace. If you can complete this exercise in one sitting, then you are to be congratulated, because your campus is three steps ahead of most. That is, only if your brand positioning and key messages are known, recited and lived by those on your campus.

If you can’t list your institution’s positioning messages, or if you can but they don’t really differentiate or triangulate your brand they way I described above, I encourage you to start reading up on positioning and how it can be a powerful tool for leveraging your institution’s assets in the higher education marketplace. Numerous articles, books and blogs touch on the subject. I would suggest these blogs:

Mantra’s What’s Your Brand Mantra Blog [http://brand.blogs.com/mantra/]
Laura Ries’s The Origin of Brand [http://ries.typepad.com/ries_blog/]
Futurelab’s Marketing & Strategy Innovation Blog [http://blog.futurelab.net/2006/07/]

I also welcome anyone’s thoughts and experiences on higher education brand positioning to be added to this blog.

CT Turner
Partner, SimpsonScarborough

Posted by CT Turner at 02:24 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)

It was interesting to see Monday’s AP story about a dozen university presidents leading a charge to boycott the US News & World Report ranking survey. We’ve already blogged about the focus placed on the rankings; today begins a three-part blog on how USN&WR rankings work, how to influence your placement and does anyone really make quantum leaps from year to year?

In recent months I tracked down information on the methodology of the often misunderstood peer assessment category within the USN&WR rankings and I obtained a copy of the survey instrument, which we are making available to you.

The comprehensive rankings are based upon the following categories and their assessment weight: peer assessment, 25%, retention, 20%; faculty resources, 20%; student selectivity, 15%; financial resources, 10%; graduation rate performance, 5%; and alumni giving, 5%. There is a paragraph within the methodology description that delineates the “peer assessment” rankings:

Peer assessment (weighting: 25 percent). The U.S. News ranking formula gives greatest weight to the opinions of those in a position to judge a school's undergraduate academic excellence. The peer assessment survey allows the top academics we consult—presidents, provosts, and deans of admissions—to account for intangibles such as faculty dedication to teaching. Each individual is asked to rate peer schools' academic programs on a scale from 1 (marginal) to 5 (distinguished). Those who don't know enough about a school to evaluate it fairly are asked to mark "don't know." Synovate, an opinion-research firm based near Chicago, collected the data; of the 4,089 people who were sent questionnaires, 58 percent responded.

So how does it work? I called and talked with Robert J. Morse, Director of Data Research for USN&WR (this means he is the rankings guru), and asked him for clarification on the peer assessment portion of the rankings. He was kind enough to walk me through the process used.

A school’s Carnegie classification is used as the basis for its overall categorization within the rankings. For explanation purposes, I’m going to use the liberal arts rankings to illustrate how the peer assessment calculation works. There are 215 schools within the liberal arts college category; USN&WR sends a survey to the president, provost and dean of admissions from each of the 215 institutions, for a total of 645 surveys distributed. The responses are used to calculate 25% of the overall ranking referenced above. The tiers used in the reporting of the rankings are based upon the overall score and reported annually as follows:

Top Schools: The top 50 percent of schools in this category, ranked numerically
Tier 3 Schools: The next 25 percent of schools in this category, listed alphabetically
Tier 4 Schools: The bottom 25 percent of schools in this category, listed alphabetically

So what’s on the survey? The three recipients from each school are asked to rank all 215 liberal arts colleges on a five-point scale ranging from distinguished to marginal, with “don’t know” serving as a sixth option, based upon “each program’s scholarship record, curriculum, and quality of faculty and graduates.” The scores are compiled, and the 25% of the overall ranking is calculated.

Here is the absolute coup of my telephone call: Mr. Morse was kind enough to send me a copy of the liberal arts survey used in 2006. Our blog software is unable to upload files, so please visit our resource page if you would like a copy of the survey. Enjoy!

Watch for the upcoming “how to influence the rankings” blog by Christopher Simpson, and Elizabeth Scarborough's entry detailing her analysis of schools' moves up and down the rankings ladder.

-- Teresa Valerio Parrot

Posted by Teresa Valerio Parrot at 12:26 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)

For the third time in my life, I am making the rounds of college and university campuses. My youngest daughter is in the college search process and I have been accompanying her in her quest to find a “home” for the four years of her upcoming collegiate experience. So far we have visited ten institutions with another two on our list. This is more than most people visit but still less than some of her more driven friends. I find the whole experience interesting for a number of reasons. First, I care deeply about my daughter and want her to feel good about her choice so I am paying a great deal of attention to the visit process. Second, as a professional in the field of marketing higher education, I am observing with a consultant’s eye. I have made it a point not to make comments to my daughter during visits until receiving her feedback. I do not want to bias her decision process. This does not mean I have not wanted to make comments or have been tempted to follow up on some of the visits with letters to some of the admissions departments. As one would expect, I have observed the gamut of what could easily be termed “the good, the bad and the real ugly.”

The Good
So far, the best overall visits (in my perception) have been Furman University and Loyola of Chicago. (For the record, my daughter agrees.) In both cases the entire process beginning with the campus visit appointment to the follow up were very thorough and personable. Things that made visit experiences stand out were:

Reception areas that were clean, comfortable and welcoming.

Reception personnel that were friendly and made you feel welcome. They interacted with those visiting and had smiles on their faces throughout.

Refreshments were available (and offered) along with reading material and videos to keep you occupied.

Excellent tour guides that were knowledgeable, personable and had strong communication skills. Best of all, the tour guides who couldn’t answer a question would either call immediately to get the answer or write it down and made sure to follow up as soon as the tour was over.

Tours that were well thought out and included what I refer to as “Kodak moment” stops that highlighted some of the more picturesque areas of a campus. At Loyola, I got a kick out of one of the dorm rooms we visited. Out one window was a view of the lake and out of the other you could see downtown Chicago. I did not think this room was cosen by chance. Those on the tour imagined this room being theirs!

Follow up surveys to measure the quality and the impressions of the school with offers to answer any new questions.

The Bad
As one would expect, not every tour was text book. Most of those that had problems represented the opposite experiences described previously. I will briefly touch on these and move on to some different issues.

Processes that are designed to benefit the school and not the customer (please see a previous blog entry entitled “Its not about you!”). Appointments should be made in the manner the customer wants to communicate and not how you would like to (only taking web based appointments).

Reception areas that are crowded and old.

Reception staff that give you the impression that you are bothering them. At one university my wife made the comment “I feel as if I am at a doctor’s office.” Please note, this was not a compliment.

No welcome of any kind. One school asked you to check the information on their information sheet and took it back afterwards without eye contact or a hello (back to the doctor’s office).

Tours that end in the middle of campus (and in front of the tour guides' dorm) requiring the families to find their way back to parking garages and cars.

Tour guides who don’t know answers to questions and don’t offer to find out.

A tour of a dorm room that didn’t look like it had been cleaned in about three weeks. In the same room, the window was so dirty you could not see out of it. Parents, imagine your children here!

One school provided every visiting student a coupon for 25% off university apparel at the bookstore during their visit. A potentially nice touch. The only problem was the bookstore was closed during the time of the week day afternoon visit.

The Ugly
Unfortunately, a few experiences have fallen into this category. In each of the three examples below the problem was a result of making very bad impressions on the group. Educational institutions are services and impressions can make or break the college decision. What makes each of these issues worse is that they all occurred at schools that boast personal attention.

One school, (the doctor’s office), let the visitors sit in the reception area without a word of welcome, were then herded into a small room without direction beyond the request to move; watched a PowerPoint presentation that was set on slide show, watched as a staff member (without saying a word) walk into the room and switch the slide show to a video and left the room again. All told, we were “in process” an hour before an official welcome was offered.

Admissions professionals that look like they just got out of bed. At one institution the admissions officer providing the university overview to over 80 people had rumpled clothes and dirty, unkempt hair.

In my book, however, the worse example of a bad process was a tour guide who made answers up to questions posed by the visiting parents. At a Jesuit campus we visited (not Loyola!) a parent asked the tour guide about the Jesuits as he was unfamiliar with the order. The tour guide proceeded to tell the individual that the Jesuits were founded in the mid 1800’s and then went on from there. The problem is that he was off by around 300 years (the Jesuits recently celebrated 450 years as an order), and the Jesuit university was older than the tour guide was giving credit to the order itself. This was the first of three times I counted wrong information being provided. There is a movie, of which I have a clip, that features a campus tour guide trying to convince the tour participants that a campus building was built in 1730. It was actually the building address and the comedy was that he would not back down from his claim. This was a real life example of tour guides gone bad.

Overall, the experiences have been enlightening and my daughter has been influenced by each of her campus visits (for better or worse). Most of problems we encountered came from the same two schools. By far, good experiences outweighed the bad.

I can’t help but come away with the idea though, that if there was ever an area that would benefit from mystery shopping, this would be it. In mystery shopping an individual that has been familiarized with the ideal visit process, acts as a potential student/parent to assess how well the visit process goes according to training and plans. Usually a number of different mystery shoppers are used over a given time period. This shopping technique is an excellent way to get feedback about your efforts.

It is important to note however, mystery shopping should only be used for educational purposes and not employee assessment. Due to the nature of services (they are inseparable from people and therefore variable), your best tour guide may have a bad day. Ideally, after a mystery shopping report and analysis are received, the admissions director should go over the positive highlights (here I would use names of tour guides for reinforcement), and the negative issues. Problem areas should be addressed without names mentioned as a learning moment where the importance of certain practices and processes are reinforced.

-- Tom Hayes

Posted by Teresa Valerio Parrot at 05:36 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)

The May 1st edition of The Washington Post included a wonderfully timed and well-written piece by Susan Kinzie entitled, “At First They Flirt, Then Colleges Crush: Rejection Rough on Students and Schools.” The timing seems ideal on two fronts: May 1st is the oft-used deadline colleges employ for accepted students to confirm their intentions for the fall and the article appeared on May Day.

I have fond May Day memories from my childhood of delivering homemade cookies and fresh flowers (usually picked from my mom’s prized tulip bed) to the front door of neighbors, ringing the bell and then running away and trying not to get caught. The point was to let people know you were thinking of them, but still maintain an element of surprise.

Occasionally my childhood neighbor caught me delivering my May Day offering; the recipient’s goal is to kiss the person providing the surprise. Besides not telling my mom that I picked her tulips, don’t tell her that I didn’t try very hard to run away from that kiss.

In working with colleges and universities on their enrollment strategies, I’ve learned that too often we treat incoming students like those neighbors—telling them they are valued but not indicating by whom. This is an ideal time of year to look at both your admittance and rejection letters to high school seniors. Are they heartfelt? Is your institution’s uniqueness voiced in those letters? Are you revealing to the students who you are and why you are thinking of them? Ultimately, the goal is to advance relationships. Are your letters accomplishing this goal?

Remember that the student you rejected may have younger siblings and friends who may be considering your institution in the future. Don’t burn bridges with less than well conceived rejection letters.

Ms. Kinzie’s article provides insight from Ivy League institutions on how to phrase a heartfelt rejection letter. I suggest you give it a peek. The advice she shares reminds us that: “Many admissions officers said it's key -- just as with any relationship ending -- to be clear that this is a final decision. Because every year, some students just can't let go and keep calling, keep asking why it's over.” The article also provides suggested wording to convey this finality.

Your acceptance letter, however, can only be written by you and should come equally from your heart and from your marketing messages. With a carefully worded letter, you can voice the students’ value and allow your institution to receive that May Day kiss.

-- Teresa Valerio Parrot

Posted by Teresa Valerio Parrot at 02:46 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)