My Take on Godin’s Higher Ed Melt-down

When Seth Godin posted The coming melt-down in higher education (as seen by a marketer) yesterday, several friends and colleagues eagerly asked me what I thought. I admire Godin and value his insights but for those of us in higher education marketing, he didn’t tell us anything we didn’t already know. I’m not going to examine each point. University web developer Dylan Wilbanks does a nice job of that.

The higher ed bubble has been expanding to a scary bursting for several years. In terms of marketing, the last two decades were “boom years” for higher education. The combination of one of the largest college-bound populations in history and a thriving economy led to too many applicants for the best schools. Every college and university that had the philanthropic support to do so became more competitive – adding faculty, programs, and amenities.

Given the competition for space at top colleges, lesser-known institutions were able to expand the public’s perception of the prestige category of schools beyond the Ivy League, the “Little Ivies” like Amherst and Williams, and the public Ivies like Cal Berkeley and Michigan. Marketing colleges became huge business with media outlets all too happy to produce guidebooks and websites offering new categories of “hot” colleges, “New Ivies,” “Colleges that Change Lives,” and “Colleges with a Conscience.” During this period many colleges and universities not only became stronger due to new resources, they also increased their visibility and prestige.

These boom years are over at least for the foreseeable future. The same factors that led to the boom – greater numbers of college-bound students and a thriving economy have reversed. At the same time the public and government leaders are critical of the high cost of higher education. This has been an issue for several years as tuitions rose at a much higher rate than the cost of living, but economic stress has intensified the issue. This makes perceptions of value versus prestige more important.

In addition a revolution in technology is changing the way the public accesses higher education and the way institutions think about the education they deliver. With more and more online courses and programs being offered even at top universities many in higher education have posited that a sea change is coming just as it has in the newspaper industry. No one is quite sure what the new landscape will look like and what it will mean. But if the institutions I work with are any indication most are trying to figure out how to navigate the new landscape and remain relevant.

I think the truest thing Godin says is that students and their families are not willing to blindly pay for “the best” anymore. He’s also right about the lack of quality in the majority of (but not all) direct mail students receive. (The Wilbanks post is especially insightful on this). Institutions do use direct mail to increase applications. But they also know increased applications are no longer a great measure of success given that students apply to more schools than ever. The real metric institutions pay attention to is the “fitness” of their applicant pool and their matriculating “yield” of admitted students – in other words, the students who actually enroll after being admitted.

Given that pundits have been predicting the end of higher education as we know it for most of the last decade for the reasons that I've described above, my real question is will the “end” come with a bang a la the financial meltdown or by degrees? To my mind, the rise of value versus prestige is one of the biggest changes that has been happening for a few years now. How institutions develop programs of value and prove that value in today’s world is what we higher education marketers need to be marketing. What we’ve been marketing has been mostly about real or wannabe prestige.

ROI is not Materialism

The New York Times recently featured a story on making college “relevant.” The basic premise is that colleges have gotten wise to the fact that students and their parents see a connection between going to college and their ability to earn a living. (Imagine that!) A connection that has been both obvious and debated for decades.

The difference between this piece and so many others I’ve read is that it does not include an impassioned faculty member arguing that the only “correct” reason for attending college is to be an educated human as opposed to the crassness of getting a job. Rather the premise of the piece is that colleges and universities have decided if you can’t beat ‘em join ‘em, axing philosophy departments in favor of “anything prefixed with ‘bio’” because students have “wealth as a goal” as opposed to “developing a meaningful philosophy of life.”

“The shift in attitudes,” the article’s author writes, “is reflected in a shifting curriculum.” One could easily get the idea that more mercenary students are pushing cash-strapped institutions to change their curricula. But the article leaves out some very important context.

The source cited for more money-conscious students is UCLA’s national survey of college freshman, the largest and longest-running survey of American college students. (It started in 1966.) The same survey also found that the most important belief among entering freshman is in raising a family and that "the importance of helping others” is the highest it has been in 20 years.

As John H. Pryor, director of UCLA's Cooperative Institutional Research Program’s which conducts the survey has said, “It would be simplistic to view today’s college students as materialistic because they feel it is important to be well off financially. In fact, students are also very interested in raising families and helping others, both of which are accomplished with greater ease if one is well-off financially.”

Another point of context is that the survey has also revealed that more students report they will get a job in order to cover college expenses than at any time during the 32 years this question has been asked. In addition they are more likely to use their own money to help pay for college than in years past and they are less likely to matriculate at their first choice college because of financial considerations.

With money and earning ability front and center leading up to and during a student's college years, it's no surprise that, as the article states, “Even before they arrive on campus, students — and their parents — are increasingly focused on what comes after college. What’s the return on investment, especially as the cost of that investment keeps rising? How will that major translate into a job?” But this doesn’t mean that “jobs and making money have replaced learning” as one sarcastic Twitterer commented about the article.

As a writer and communications consultant to colleges and universities, my job is to answer the question, "What makes hefty tuitions worth it?" I got into this business because I am a true believer in the power of education (from studying philosophy to bio) to change lives for the better. When students invest as much as $200,000 for that education, by necessity a better life better include being better off.

Photo Credit

College Admissions as Metaphor: Lessons for Consultants

As prospective students were learning this week if they'd been accepted early admission to colleges and universities around the country, those same institutions were letting many consultants know whether they'd been accepted as well. I don't remember so many RFP decisions coinciding with early admission season in the past, but for some reason the last two weeks have brought a number of yeas and nays to me and several colleagues.

Because I often team up with other firms I have been in the interesting position of knowing not only how I did but of seeing how other consulting friends have fared. One colleague, a talented golden boy, has been "accepted" by every school to which he applied including the Ivies. Another colleague was wait-listed -- make that short-listed -- at an Ivy, rejected by a little Ivy and accepted by a great public. As for me, I was accepted by an Ivy, rejected by another, and accepted by two top-tier liberal arts colleges. (Yes, I'm pleased.)

Now that the waiting is over, like families whose kids were accepted and rejected, these colleagues and I have been discussing the whys behind the decisions. I've taken away these lessons for consultants:

• In the end, no matter how talented a consultant is, institutions that want to sell prestige choose prestige. Whether consciously or not, institutions "trade up," choosing consultants who have worked with the institutions they admire. This can hurt you with "reach" schools but also help you identify schools that would welcome your counsel.
  
• The old adage about not judging a school by the tour guide works here too. To have a sense of whether you'll win the business, ask yourself if you have a great connection with more than one person at the school. Even if that one person is the dean of admission or chair of the board, it's not enough if you are not a good fit with the rest of the team. You may still win the business but if that key person leaves the value of your work for the institution can erode dramatically.
  
• Never let 'em see you sweat. While every institution wants great value, an over-eager or Avis we-try-harder approach can backfire. Especially in this economy, institutions want turnkey results and a sure thing. Rather than instilling confidence, revealing too much of the inner workings of your operation and decision-making can detract from a perception of out-of-town expertise, translating to weakness.
  
• If you're going after a reach school -- meaning you don't have similar institutions on your list -- you better have a special talent your competitors don't have. For prospective students that may mean being an Olympic fencer or holding a patent at the tender age of 17. For prospective consultants that can mean having a formula for successful search results or proven social media ROI.

I've often said that families choose schools that strike the right balance of prestige, cost, and outcomes. And so it is with institutions selecting consultants. When I consider the consultant choices made by several institutions this season, inevitably they each chose the consultant whose client pedigree, proven outcomes, and cost was right for them. Four years from now it will be interesting to see how many believe they made the right choice.

The good news for talented consultants, like talented kids, is there are so many fantastic institutions in this country -- a great match is possible for everyone.

Photo Credit

Give the Second Person a Rest

When I first started writing college admissions communications, no one addressed "you" the reader. It was all about "we" the institution. I spent a lot of time convincing institutions it was not only okay but would be more effective to break the fourth wall and talk directly to students. Now I wonder if we've gone too far.

A high school senior recently handed me a bag stuffed full of college search brochures he'd been sent. I spread them out on my office floor. Almost every one was some version of "Picture yourself here." "Fill-in-the-blank university and you." "X university is coming to you." "Your future." "You are bright." "You are extraordinary."

In this sea of publications, the second person no longer sounded warm and personal. Rather, the use of "you" hit me as cliched at best and presumptuous or cynical at worst. Out of the entire bag of brochures only one coverline made the institution itself stand out as a place confident enough to tell me what it cares about.

I've always counseled clients to answer the question, "What's in it for your prospect?" We try to answer this question powerfully and originally but head on. Indeed, I've just completed two admission campaigns that incorporate "your" in the tagline. These campaigns have been working, I believe, because their two- and three-word titles name what's essential about the institution and call it "yours." But I'll think twice the next time I use "you."

"Remember your reader!" One of my favorite writing teachers used to say. In other words make your reader care. Most great writers know how to make you care not by addressing you directly but by telling you a great story. I believe brand storytellers can do the same.

But then, you knew that.

Image credit

Forget Your Elevator Speech

Here’s a theory I’d like to test with you: The old idea of an elevator speech – a pitch you can deliver to someone summing up what’s great about an institution in the time it takes to ride an elevator – doesn’t work.

It’s the summing up part that is misguided. Here are two reasons why:

1. Your listener doesn’t want to be pitched.
2. Your listener can’t absorb and won’t remember a whole elevator speech.

Most listeners do, however, want to be intrigued, inspired or enlightened. So, when you have the opportunity to talk about your institution try this instead. Rather than attempting to sum up what’s great about your institution, give your listener one compelling fact or statement that makes them think “wow.”

Here are a few intriguing statements that apply to some of the institutions I work with:

• Even the presidents of other universities say this university does undergraduate education better than any place else.
• It’s one of the only women’s colleges ranked among the top 25 by U.S. News & World Report.
• It’s one of the best places in the country to do undergraduate research.
• You can graduate debt free and earn two Ivy League degrees for the price of one.
• That one small campus is the birthplace of blogging, hypertext, and the technology behind online shopping – and it’s a liberal arts college!
• It’s been ranked one of the top colleges in the country and one of the most beautiful – they say brains and beauty come together there.

My theory is these intriguing statements are short enough and powerful enough to be remembered and better yet, repeated. I also think they are more likely to engage your listener in wanting to know more.

As the conversation continues you can deliver more wow statements, eventually enlightening them on all the points you might have included in an elevator speech. Only with this approach they want to listen to you and you’re summing up what’s great about your institution in a way they’re more likely to remember.

It’s a theory I’ve been trying with some success. I’d love to hear how it works for you.

Is Your Twitter Movie as Good as Your Trailer?

"Loved the trailer, hated the movie" is a sad truth that happens everyday. I've been having a similar experience with a new Twitter connection.

Some initial tweets intrigued me enough to check out the Twitterer's Website. What I found were blogposts and trend stories focused on giving me a direct line to teen thoughts throughout the college counseling and admission process. While there are other sources for such information, I immediately fell in love with this site. I was wowed by its look and feel and the story behind it. Best of all the person who launched the site is a young and successful college admissions consultant. I was delighted by the whole package: relevance to me and my work, an appealing and distinctive look and feel, and credibility.

But to continue the movie metaphor, not only does my new source's Twitter feed not deliver on my hopes for a great film, sometimes I wonder if I've stumbled into the wrong theater. Rather than getting the inside teen scoop I was hoping for, I get a flurry of news headlines often having little to do with admissions at all. And the voice on the site is mute on the feed.

In her "5 Common Sense Twitter Tips To Keeping It Real On Twitter", CarolAnn Bailey-Lloyd counsels Twitterers to be clear about their goals. If your Twitter agenda is professional, give consumers value and "provide quality and relative information regarding your product (or service). "

How do you determine that value and relativity? It's a question I'm constantly trying to answer in my own feed. Because when people click "follow" they've bought a ticket to your show. And we all know it's easier to make a great trailer than it is to make a great movie.

The end of the story is that I'd just about given up on my new-found Twitter connection when into my feed today came a real gem of information. I'm such a sucker that I fell in love with the brand all over again. I decided -- at least for now -- it had been worth sitting through the movie for that one great scene.

5 Storytelling Essentials

(Update: 5/15/09) If you are coming from The Recruitment Minute, Welcome and thanks for reading. You might also be interested in Ask Better Questions and Is It Worth Printing?

As much as we think and talk about branding and storytelling these days, we often fail to consider true storytelling elements—character, plot, dialogue, scene, place, point of view, and sensory detail. Good stories have tension and conflict. Even the heroes have flaws. So how can you persuade readers of an institution's virtues and still tell a good story?

Protagonist and plot. Every campus's brand story is a mythic archetype with mythic heroes: the revolutionary, the discoverer, the change agent. As you begin a branding process, look for the plot lines in your institution’s big story from founding to now -- plot lines that make your heart beat, that have elements of risk and excitement. Once you understand the big story, everyday heroes will reveal themselves as well: students, faculty, and alumni who live and embody the brand.

Great beginnings. Good stories open by drawing the reader in emotionally, sometimes with childlike anticipation. But even intriguing openings should act as practical "doorknobs" that, with a turn, allow the reader to enter the story's world. Some of the most effective openings can be both emotional and practical: "What matters to you?" "Coming here was like seeing the entire world all at once." "Put yourself in the way of opportunity."

Sensory details. Once the audience enters your world, you must make them experience it. Whatever the medium—text, photos, film, web—the more you get out of the way and let your audiences experience the story for themselves, the better. In the best stories, action, description, and dialogue stand on their own. They have settings and scenes you can see, touch, taste, smell, and hear.

Scene, dialogue, narration. Institutional stories require scene and dialogue just as much as compelling fiction does. Think of photos as scenes, quotes as dialogue, blogs as the internal voice of a character, institutional voice as narration. How are they working together to communicate the narrative arc of your story?

Strong finishes. Endings are just as critical as beginnings. They can resonate and reverberate in the reader's mind to project an imagined future that continues to play even after a book is closed or a film has ended. That's just the response we want to evoke in prospective students and donors—an imagined future.

Novice fiction writers typically hear that no one will ever care as much as they do if their stories get written. Accepting this harsh truth is the first step to telling a story good enough to lead to true communication. No one will ever care about our institutions' stories as much as we do. We have to make them care by telling good stories. Only then do we have a chance of making our stories theirs.

College Media Coverage: The More the Merrier?

Given the media's insatiable interest in college admissions, has it gotten easier to pitch higher ed stories?

From 1992 to 1997, I was the director of communications for Scripps College. My big media coup at the time was riding the wave of "the Hillary factor." Hillary Clinton had just become First Lady and the fact that she'd gone to Wellesley boosted the popularity of women's colleges significantly. Scripps, the women's college of The Claremont Colleges, wound up in Newsweek, Glamour, and featured on The Jane Pratt show. It was a big deal because back then colleges weren't big news, especially small liberal arts colleges.

So, I began to wonder what it's like for college PR folks these days when media outlets like the New York Times and Daily Beast now devote huge amounts of space to college stories. Jodi Heintz, director of public relations, at Lewis & Clark College in Portland, Oregon, gave me this insight:

"I think the media is very interested in telling a certain kind of story about higher ed. Generally, it is true that because of the bad economy local and national reporters are actually beating down the doors of colleges looking for stories and people to interview. The bad news, in my opinion, is that they are only interested in telling one story -- the story of how bad everything is. They are singularly interested in covering crisis -- falling applications numbers, or conversely, overwhelming application numbers, endowment catastrophes, hiring freezes or lay offs, tuition increases, etc."

Heintz recalls one New York Times article about liberal arts college admissions deans wringing their hands over drops in applications. The article only briefly mentions at the end that, at one such dean's college, it was still their third-highest year in total number of applications.

She says that while she has indeed seen an increase in the number of reporter inquiries from the top media outlets, she's actually chosen not to respond.

"I'm concerned that collectively we are feeding the frenzy. I understand that many colleges are facing difficult circumstances but there are far more nuanced stories to tell about the economic challenges. And, I'm sure we PR professionals in higher ed could do a better job of educating reporters and helping shift the conversation and coverage."