findings from the 2015 case educational · findings from the 2015 case educational communications...

Findings from the 2015 CASE Educational Communications and Marketing Trends SurveyJanuary 2017

• Prepared by

Andrew ParadiseCouncil for Advancement and Support of Education

KENISHIROTIE/ISTOCK/THINKSTOCK

WHITE PAPER

© 2017 Council for Advancement and Support of Education.

All rights reserved. No part of the material in this document may be reproduced or used in any form, electronic or mechanical, including photocopying, recording, posting or distribut-ing, or by any information storage and retrieval system, without the written consent of the copyright holder.

Limit of Liability/Disclaimer: While the publisher has used its best efforts in preparing this paper, it makes no representations or warranties with respect to the accuracy or com-pleteness of its contents. Neither the publisher nor the authors are engaged in rendering legal, accounting or other professional services. If legal advice or other expert assistance is required, the services of a competent professional should be sought.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

CASE thanks the members and nonmembers who responded to this survey. Special thanks go to the following members of the CASE Commission on Communications and Marketing for their contributions to the project:

Gordon Arbeau, McMaster University

Teresa Flannery, American University

Tonjanita Johnson, University of Tennessee System

Luanne Lawrence, LML Marketing & Communications

Timothy J. McDonough, American Council on Education

ABOUT CASEThe Council for Advancement and Support of Education (CASE) is the professional organization for advancement professionals at all levels who work in alumni relations, communications, marketing, development and advancement services.

CASE’s membership includes more than 3,700 colleges, universities, and independent and secondary schools in more than 80 countries. This makes CASE one of the largest nonprofit education associations in the world in terms of institutional membership. CASE also serves more than 85,000 advancement professionals on staffs of member institutions.

The association produces high-quality and timely content, publications, conferences, institutes and workshops that assist advancement professionals to perform more effectively and serve their institutions.

For information, visit www.case.org or call +1-202-328-2273.

CASE Washington, DC CASE Asia-Pacific Singapore CASE Europe London CASE Latin America Mexico City

Advancing education to transform lives and society.

CONTENTS

Executive Summary. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6

Audiences: Priority . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7

Activities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7

Structure of Communications and Marketing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11

Resources . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12

Management of Communications and Marketing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13

Barriers and Challenges . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16

Successful Practices . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17

Future Challenges, Opportunities and Horizon Issues . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19

Institutional Demographics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21

Institution Type/Carnegie Classification . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21

Public/Private Status . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21

Geographic Region . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22

Enrollment Size . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22

Survey Methodology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22

Survey Background . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22

Statistics in the Report: How to Interpret . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22

For More Information . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23

FIGURES AND TABLES

Figures

1. Title of the person to whom the senior- most communications and marketing officer reports . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12

2. Measures of communications and marketing effectiveness used at the institution . . . . . . . . . 15

Tables

1. Highest priority audiences for communications and marketing initiatives . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8

2. Responsibility for communications and marketing activities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9

3. Emphasis on communications and marketing activities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10

4. Structural relationship of institution’s primary office or offices responsible for communications and marketing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11

5. Title of senior- most communications and/or marketing officer at institution . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12

6. Change in the operating budget for communications and marketing in the past two years . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13

7. New area or initiative for increased funding or staffing in communications and marketing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13

8. Change in the number of staff dedicated to communications and marketing in the past two years . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14

9. Top three areas occupying time and attention of senior- most communications and marketing officer . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14

10. Guidance tools in place for centralized campus communications and marketing efforts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14

11. Top three barriers to successful communications and marketing at the institution . . . . . . . . . 16

12. Greatest communications and marketing challenge in the last year . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17

13. Greatest communications and marketing success achieved in the last year . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18

14. Most effective communications and marketing practices . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19

15. Greatest communications and marketing challenge in the next five years . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20

16. Greatest opportunities for communications and marketing professionals at educational institutions in the next five years . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21

17. Type of institution . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22

18. Public/private status . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22

19. Geographic region . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23

20. Enrollment size (FTEs) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23

Findings from the 2015 CASE Educational Communications and Marketing Trends Survey www.case.org/whitepapers

• 6 •

EXECUTIVE SUMMARYEducational communications and marketing has carved out a vital space on campuses worldwide, and its significance has never been greater. Dissem-inating critical information, providing outreach and building engagement have become everyday functions at institutions, and now educational leaders are relying on communications and market-ing experts to ramp up their efforts in the face of new pressures and expectations. The results from the latest iteration of the CASE Educational Commu-nications and Marketing Trends Survey demonstrate that the function, despite an onslaught of demands from varying internal and external customers, has become the foundation for a wide range of critical activities at every institution.

This report marks the second time that CASE asked top- ranking communications and marketing officers to share their perspectives. Theresa Flannery, vice president for communication at American Univer-sity, helped create the survey and urges all institutions to contribute to tracking of developments and out-comes. This benchmarking enables communications and marketing professionals to “identify and respond to changes in our work, not only across our profession, but in our specific sector,” according to Flannery.

Although new challenges are surfacing on an almost daily basis, success in educational com-munications and marketing has continued with relative structural stability. Reporting arrange-ments have stayed similar to those in 2013, with the majority of chief officers reporting directly to the institution’s president or CEO. In addition, staffing levels for the function have changed very little. Flannery views the stability as a reassuring sign, especially because “the strategic business functions of marketing and communications are used to frame and influence important business goals, which create more and more opportunities for a seat at the executive table.”

Resources have also been consistently maintained in communications and marketing departments, for the most part. Flannery is not surprised that “institutions are really ramping up resources on communications and marketing, which is under-standable, given the priority on enrollment and prospective students.” Only 15 percent of survey participants experienced budget declines, meaning 85 percent had increased or steady budgets.

Another consistency from recent years was the approach to handling the massive list of responsibili-ties for educational communications and marketing. The most common strategy was centralized oversight of key functions such as branding, media relations, social media, web presence, print magazines and crisis communications. Embracing digital and social media as an everyday solution has become especially pop-ular across all demographic categories. According to Flannery, this rising trend reflects a twofold strategy deployed at many institutions. There needs to be a combination of “paid social media and organic leads to drive engagement.”

Although the mix of demands has continued to expand, survey respondents noted that some responsibilities had become more pressing than oth-ers. A large majority indicated that not only social media channels and mobile websites had occupied more of their time, but video production, digital recruitment communications and other digital col-lateral had each become more prominent activities. By contrast, print and direct mail offerings showed the largest decreases. Flannery also notes that most forms of “advertising as a tactic are on the wane.”

One of the striking results from the 2015 data was the pronounced emphasis on enrollment. By a wide margin, communications and marketing heads from all types of institutions ranked prospective stu-dents as their top priority, ahead of alumni, donors and parents. Flannery confirms the importance of this mindset: “No matter what sector we work


• 7 •

in, no matter how centralized or decentralized our organizations are, enrollment is job one. Advancing our institutions must start with enrollment, and end with engagement and philanthropy.”

Contributing to the full continuum of constit-uent experience has enabled communications and marketing professionals to demonstrate the value of their work. Many of the chief officers who partici-pated in the survey expressed relief that institutional leadership had fully realized the significance of the function. Considering the impressive catalog of achievements, it seems that the hurdle of justification has been cleared for most practitioners. The coming years will no doubt provide a growing number of opportunities to showcase the transformative poten-tial that communications and marketing can deliver to education.

AUDIENCES: PRIORITYConstituents at educational institutions are numer-ous and diverse. The 2015 survey results reaffirmed that a select few segments tend to take precedence over others. By an even wider margin than two years earlier, prospective students were treated as the highest priority (Table 1). The proportion of communica-tions and marketing heads that ranked prospective students among their top three priority audiences was 84 percent in 2015, up from 78 percent in 2013. In fact, prospective students increased in priority for every type of institution— from independent schools to research/doctoral institutions. Enrollment pressures did not escape any educational sector in recent years.

Other significant audiences included alumni (ranked by 53 percent in the top three), donors or potential donors (43 percent), and parents (37 percent). Audiences considered a moderate priority included current students, faculty and staff, community members, the general public and media representatives (each ranked in the top three by between 14 percent and 21 percent).

At the bottom of the rankings, governing boards, legislators and athletics fans continued to receive little attention from communications and mar-keting heads.

ACTIVITIESThe list of responsibilities that communications and marketing heads juggle is extensive, especially considering the proliferation of new technologies embraced by their audiences. By a wide margin, educational institutions favor a centralized approach to the management of these activities. The 2015 survey presented respondents with a list of 30 com-mon communications and marketing activities, and only one fell outside the domain of the centralized office for a majority of institutions (special event planning).

The survey results were consistent over the past two years, with at least 90 percent of centralized offices overseeing branding, media relations, social media, the institution’s primary website and print maga-zine, print advertising, print and digital collateral, photography, and crisis communications (Table 2). More than three- quarters also have responsibility for mobile content, digital magazine production, student recruitment communications in print and digital formats, video production, market research, and multiple forms of advertising. As was the case in 2013, institutions with smaller enrollments were more likely to have a centralized approach than institutions with larger enrollments. Only one activity deviated from this pattern: trademarking/licensing, for which 49 percent of central offices in small institutions had responsibility.

A parallel question asked communications and marketing heads to reveal whether the emphasis on each activity had increased, decreased or remained the same over the last two years. Many of the activi-ties were on the rise in 2015, and the rate of increase was consistent with 2013 (Table 3). The two largest increases were reported for primary institutional


• 8 •

Table 1Highest priority audiences for communications and marketing initiatives

2013

Priority Ranked #1 Ranked #2 Ranked #3% Ranked in

Top 3

Prospective students 55% 16% 8% 78%

Alumni 7% 22% 27% 56%

Donors/potential donors 7% 16% 20% 43%

Parents 15% 9% 9% 33%

Current students 1% 13% 7% 21%

Faculty and staff 2% 6% 8% 16%

Community members 3% 7% 7% 16%

General public 4% 5% 8% 17%

Media representatives 3% 6% 5% 14%

Governing board(s) 2% 1% 1% 3%

Legislators 0% 0% 1% 2%

Athletics fans 0% 0% 0% 0%

Total 100% 100% 100%

2015

Priority Ranked #1 Ranked #2 Ranked #3% Ranked in

Top 3

Prospective students 63% 15% 6% 84%

Alumni 5% 25% 24% 53%

Donors/potential donors 4% 16% 23% 43%

Parents 16% 14% 6% 37%

Current students 3% 11% 7% 21%

Faculty and staff 2% 5% 10% 17%

Community members 2% 4% 8% 15%

General public 2% 6% 5% 14%

Media representatives 3% 2% 8% 14%

Governing board(s) 0% 0% 2% 2%

Legislators 1% 0% 1% 2%

Athletics fans 0% 0% 0% 0%

Total 100% 100% 100%

Note: The individual percentages may not total 100% due to rounding.


• 9 •

Table 2Responsibility for communications and marketing activities

Activity

2013 Responsibility of centralized

office?

Activity2015 Responsibility

of centralized office?

Campus-wide branding* 96% Institution-wide branding 97%

Media relations 96% Media relations 97%

Primary campus social media presence* 96% Primary institutional accounts on social media channels 96%

Primary campus website* 92% Primary institutional website 94%

Photography 91% Photography 94%

Print publications (excluding magazine)* 95% Other print collateral 92%

Print/billboard advertising* 89% Print advertising 90%

Crisis communications na Crisis communications 90%

Print magazine 91% Print magazine 90%

Digital publications (excluding magazine)* 95% Other digital collateral 90%

Mobile website* 78% Mobile content/responsive web design 88%

Digital magazine 84% Digital magazine 83%

Student recruitment communications* 76% Student recruitment communications: print 82%

Video production 77% Video production 82%

Radio/television advertising* 86% Broadcast advertising 82%

Student recruitment communications: digital na Student recruitment communications: digital 78%

Audience/market research 80% Audience/market research 78%

Online advertising* 89% Paid search advertising 77%

Out-of-home advertising na Out-of-home advertising 75%

Alumni communications: print na Alumni communications: print 72%

Secondary/unit sections of campus website* 66% Secondary/unit sections of institutional website 72%

Student recruitment communications: direct mail na Student recruitment communications: direct mail 70%

Development communications: print na Development communications: print 67%

Development communications: digital na Development communications: digital 61%

Audio production 56% Audio production 60%

Trademark/licensing 42% Trademark/licensing 58%

Alumni communications: digital na Alumni communications: digital 58%

Development communications: direct mail na Development communications: direct mail 58%

Alumni communications: direct mail na Alumni communications: direct mail 53%

Special event planning 44% Special event planning 42%

* Indicates the question was restructured in 2015. na = Question not used in 2013, so data are not available.


• 10 •

Activity Activity has decreased Activity has stayed

the sameActivity has

increasedNot applicable

Primary institutional accounts on social media channels 0% 7% 91% 1%

Primary institutional website 1% 15% 82% 2%

Mobile content/responsive web design 1% 13% 80% 6%

Other digital collateral 1% 15% 79% 4%

Video production 3% 15% 75% 7%

Student recruitment communications: digital 2% 17% 74% 8%

Institution-wide branding 4% 28% 67% 1%

Photography 2% 35% 62% 1%

Secondary/unit sections of institutional website 1% 24% 59% 16%

Development communications: digital 2% 26% 57% 15%

Paid search advertising 6% 19% 55% 20%

Alumni communications: digital 1% 28% 53% 18%

Audience/market research 7% 34% 46% 14%

Media relations 8% 46% 45% 1%

Student recruitment communications: print 11% 45% 38% 6%

Other print collateral 12% 50% 36% 2%

Special event planning 4% 25% 35% 35%

Digital magazine 3% 37% 35% 24%

Crisis communications 6% 55% 34% 6%

Student recruitment communications: direct mail 13% 36% 33% 17%

Development communications: print 9% 49% 32% 11%

Development communications: direct mail 8% 43% 28% 20%

Broadcast advertising 21% 28% 26% 25%

Print magazine 16% 53% 25% 7%

Audio production 9% 31% 23% 37%

Print advertising 38% 36% 22% 4%

Out-of-home advertising 16% 27% 22% 35%

Alumni communications: print 11% 56% 21% 12%

Alumni communications: direct mail 10% 44% 21% 25%

Trademark/licensing 6% 39% 19% 37%

Other 0% 18% 21% 61%

Table 3Emphasis on communications and marketing activities


• 11 •

social media accounts and the institution’s primary website, at 91 percent and 82 percent, respectively. These percentages were nearly identical to those from two years earlier. The other large increases observed were related to technology- based activities: mobile content/responsive web design (80 percent), digital collateral (79 percent), video production (75 percent) and digital student recruitment communications (74 percent).

The heavy emphasis on social media and other technology platforms was evident across global regions and institution types. A majority of U.S. and Canadian institutions are also increasing deployment of secondary or unit sections of the institutional website, but European (40 percent) and other international institutions (47 percent) were less likely to expand these offerings. By con-trast, institutions outside of the United States and Canada are embracing audience/market research at a higher rate: 57 percent of European institutions and 67 percent of other international institutions reported increases, compared to 44 percent of U.S. and Canadian institutions. European institutions were also relying on print materials for student recruitment communications and the institutional magazine at a higher rate than other regions.

STRUCTURE OF COMMUNICATIONS AND MARKETINGAs the results for responsibility for activities conveyed, many institutions have maintained a centralized approach to communications and mar-keting. The 2015 findings confirm that little has changed with the typical structure (Table 4). The most prevalent structure is for communications and marketing to operate as one unit reporting to the same individual (80 percent). The remaining institutions either had distinct units reporting to the same area or division of the institution (11 percent) or distinct units reporting to separate areas of the institution (9 percent).

The structural differences between small and large institutions were again apparent in the results. Only 62 percent of institutions with enrollments exceeding 15,000 students maintain a completely centralized approach to communications and mar-keting, compared to 83 percent with enrollments between 1,000 and 5,000, and 89 percent with enrollments less than 1,000. Instead, large institu-tions were more likely than smaller institutions to organize communications and marketing as separate units that report to the same area or division (26 per-cent of large institutions). The remaining 12 percent of large institutions with enrollments greater than 25,000 had a decentralized approach.

There was also stability in the positioning of the senior- most communications and marketing officer within the institution. More than half of the communications and marketing heads had “director” or “manager” titles, whereas one- quarter had “vice president” in their title (Table 5).

2013 Percent

2015 Percent

Communications and marketing is one unit that reports to a single individual

82% 80%

Communications and marketing are distinct units that report to the same area or division of the institution

10% 11%

Communications and marketing are distinct units that report to separate areas or divisions of the institution (e.g., communications reports to advancement and marketing reports to student affairs)

8% 9%

Total 100% 100%

Table 4Structural relationship of institution’s primary office or offices responsible for communications and marketing


• 12 •

An additional 18 percent served as senior director or executive director.

Although the designation of communications and marketing heads changed little over time, there were still differences based on institution type. Overwhelmingly, independent schools assigned the top communications and marketing officer to a director or senior director level (95 percent). Only 68 percent of heads at community colleges and public four- year institutions had “director” in their title, and slightly more than half of private four- year institution heads did. In contrast, roughly one- third of commu-nications and marketing heads at higher education institutions operated at the vice president level.

Communications and marketing heads still influence strategy at the upper rungs of educational institutions. A slight majority of the survey respon-dents report directly to the institution CEO or president (Figure 1). Nearly 30 percent report to a vice president or senior vice president.

With a flatter hierarchy than at four- year institutions, independent schools (60 percent) and community colleges (61 percent) were likely to have the communications and marketing head report directly to the CEO. These arrangements were less frequent at four- year institutions: 40 percent of heads at public four- year institutions and 37 percent at private four- year institutions reported to a vice president or vice chancellor. Institutions with smaller enrollments were also much more likely to have the communications and marketing head report directly to the CEO than were institutions with larger enrollments.

RESOURCESDedication to communications and marketing in the form of organizational resources has remained steady in recent years. When asked about any changes in the operating budget for the function,

2013 Percent

2015 Percent

Associate/assistant director 2% 1%

Director/manager 53% 55%

Senior/executive director 19% 18%

Associate vice president/assistant vice president/associate vice chancellor

12% 9%

Vice president/vice chancellor/assistant head of school

12% 13%

Senior vice president 1% 2%

Assistant to the president/head of school 2% 2%

Total 100% 100%

Table 5Title of senior-most communications and/or marketing officer at institution

• Director/ manager• Senior/ executive director• Associate vice president/ assistant vice president/ associate vice chancellor• Vice president/ vice chancellor/ assistant head of school• Senior vice president• President/ chancellor/ vice chancellor/ head of school

Figure 1Title of the person to whom the senior-most communications and marketing officer reports, 2015

7%

51%

6%

25%

7%

4%


• 13 •

40 percent of survey respondents reported increases (Table 6). Nearly half revealed that their budgets stayed about the same, and only 15 percent reported decreases. This breakdown parallels the results for 2013, which suggests relative budget stability for many institutions.

Breaking out the financial results by institution type confirmed the positive trend in support for most segments. The rate of budgetary increases improved for independent schools, public four- year institutions and, to the largest degree, community colleges. Only private four- year institutions experi-enced a slight downward pattern in funding.

A follow- up question for those respondents with increased budgets revealed that new offerings continue to revolve around technology solutions. The most frequently cited new area or initiative was digital content or social media, at 24 percent of the open- ended replies (Table 7). Funding the institu-tional website was mentioned in 14 percent of new offerings, and videography or photography emerged in 9 percent. Advertising was also an important emerging expenditure, at 14 percent.

Trends in communications and marketing staffing levels matched the encouraging results for fund-ing. Nearly half of the responding institutions had consistency in the number of staff, and 42 percent

experienced gains in staffing levels (Table 8). Only 11 percent reported a decrease. The ramp- up in staffing was evident across most sectors, although independent school and community college staffing levels tended to look similar to 2013.

MANAGEMENT OF COMMUNICATIONS AND MARKETINGCommunications and marketing heads are con-tinually pulled in many different directions, but some responsibilities take up more of their time than others. Results from a new question about the top areas that occupied their time and attention showed that respondents focused the most on constituent communications (ranked in their top three areas by 77 percent). Roughly half cited strategic consid-erations and branding each among their top three areas (Table 9). By contrast, technology operations (21 percent), fundraising/development (15 percent)

2013 Percent

2015 Percent

Decreased 18% 15%

Stayed about the same 48% 45%

Increased 34% 40%

Total 100% 100%

Table 6Change in the operating budget for communications and marketing in the past two years

Area 2015 Percent

Digital content/social media 24%

Advertising 14%

Website 14%

Videography/photography 9%

Marketing initiatives 8%

Branding projects 8%

Staffing levels 5%

General budget 1%

Other 18%

Total 100%

Table 7New area or initiative for increased funding or staffing in communications and marketing


• 14 •

and staffing concerns (16 percent) ranked as the least demanding areas.

Examination of regional differences revealed that European chief communications officers were more likely to focus on schematic demands rather than tactical matters, compared to respondents from other locations. Specifically, European heads cited

constituent communications (93 percent), strategy (73 percent) and branding (60 percent) with much greater frequency than their counterparts. Instead, publication production, enrollment and staffing issues occupied more time of communications and marketing heads outside of Europe. In addition, technology operations seem to be a priority only for respondents from the United States and Canada— none of the European chiefs listed technology in their top three areas.

Considering the ever- changing list of communi-cations and marketing demands, it’s not surprising that most institutions relied on a set of guidance tools to facilitate their efforts. The most prevalent was graphic standards or guidelines, at 90 percent (Table 10). At least 70 percent of survey partici-pants maintained a crisis communications plan, social media policies, an official communications and marketing plan, or a campuswide strategic plan. For the most part, institutions with larger

2013 Percent 2015 Percent

Decreased 10% 11%

Stayed about the same 55% 47%

Increased 35% 42%

Total 100% 100%

Table 8Change in the number of staff dedicated to communications and marketing in the past two years

Area2015

Ranked in Top 3

Constituent communications (alumni, media, internal audiences, etc.)

77%

Developing and implementing strategies 51%

Branding 48%

Publication production 41%

Student enrollment 29%

Technology operations including social media 21%

Staffing and talent management issues 16%

Fundraising/development 15%

Other 3%

Table 9Top three areas occupying time and attention of senior-most communications and marketing officer

Note: This question was introduced in 2015.

Measure2013

Percent2015

Percent

Graphic standards or guidelines 84% 90%

Crisis communications plan 72% 74%

Social media guidelines or policies 67% 74%

Communications and marketing plan 65% 73%

Campuswide strategic plan 71% 72%

Editorial standards or guidelines 61% 60%

Media relations plan or protocols 56% 52%

Cross-campus communications and marketing group

32% 32%

Other 4% 3%

Table 10Guidance tools in place for centralized campus communications and marketing efforts

Note: Respondents were allowed to select multiple options.


• 15 •

enrollments tended to implement guidance tools more than those with smaller enrollments. The only notable exception was for adoption of a campuswide strategic plan.

Assessment of progress in communications and marketing can also be elusive when a large number of moving targets exist. Nevertheless, most institutions use a mix of measures on an ongoing basis (Figure 2).

Tracking social media activity and website hits was the most common technique, at 92 percent. Informal measures such as feedback from campus constituents (79 percent) and campus leadership (78 percent) were still important measures, and metrics such as media placement, student enrollment figures, event attendance and quantitative methods were in place at more than half of responding institutions.

Figure 2Measures of communications and marketing effectiveness used at the institution

Note: respondents were allowed to select multiple options.

92.3%88.5%

82.3%78.4%

68.8%72.3%

68.5%67.7%

60.4%60.5%

42.3%53.6%

36.5%38.9%

40.0%37.9%

26.2%32.5%

30.4%31.2%

26.5%25.9%

1.5%0.8%

0.8%4.6%

48.8%41.9%

83.5%79.2%

2013

2015

Website/social media visits/activity

Feedback from campus constituents

Feedback from campus leadership

Media coverage/media placement volume

Student enrollment metrics

Event attendance/ participation

Quantitative methods

Focus groups or other qualitative methods

Quantity/ volume of work

Dollars raised

Internal benchmarks

Benchmarking with peer institutions

Awards received

Other

We do not measure effectiveness

0% 25% 50% 75% 100%


• 16 •

The top assessment methods were widespread across all types of institutions, but some were more prevalent at large four- year institutions than at inde-pendent schools and community colleges. For example, social media metrics were tracked by at least 91 per-cent of each type of institution. But benchmarking with peer institutions was used at 55 percent of doc-toral institutions and at only 18 percent of community colleges. There was also a large gap between doctoral institutions and other sectors in the use of quantitative methods and media placement tracking.

BARRIERS AND CHALLENGESDespite reported stability in communications and marketing resources in recent years, many survey respondents indicated that their support isn’t ade-quate. Inadequate staffing and budgets were again

listed as the top barriers to success by a wide margin in 2015 (Table 11). The percentages of communi-cations and marketing heads that reported staffing (78 percent) and budget (63 percent) in their top three barriers were nearly identical to those from 2013. Staffing concerns were consistent across all types of institutions, but community colleges and public four- year institutions had more budget- related challenges than private institutions.

Respondents also expressed resource- related concerns most frequently in open- ended questions about their greatest communications and marketing challenge in the past year. Similar to 2013, nearly one- quarter of the qualitative observations focused on budget, staffing or other resource topics (Table 12). One chief communications and marketing officer summarized the situation of many: “The volume of

2013 2015

Barrier Ranked #1 Ranked #2 Ranked #3 Ranked #1 Ranked #2 Ranked #3

Inadequate staffing 42% 25% 11% 41% 20% 17%

Inadequate budget 19% 32% 11% 18% 31% 14%

Lack of institutional understanding of our work 12% 8% 20% 10% 15% 19%

Organizational structure 10% 9% 11% 9% 9% 13%

Inadequate planning 2% 10% 12% 7% 7% 11%

Inadequate support or collaboration from faculty 4% 5% 12% 4% 7% 11%

Inadequate support from administration 2% 8% 16% 3% 5% 10%

Other 4% 2% 3% 3% 3% 3%

We have no barriers 5% 6%

Table 11Top three barriers to successful communications and marketing at the institution

Note: Respondents were instructed to select “We have no barriers” as their top ranking if they agreed with that assessment. For the respondents who did so, their second and third rankings were excluded from the analysis. As a result, the percentages do not sum to 100%.


• 17 •

our work has increased each year for the past five years, and we have reached a point where the work-load is unsustainable given the current staffing and budget.” The commenter felt significant pressure to keep “remaining strategic and saying no to non- strategic requests that consume valuable staff time.”

Strategic focus was the second- most mentioned topic in the responses to recent challenges (18 per-cent). Many heads of communications and marketing expressed an ongoing frustration at the inability to rise past the status of internal provider. One respondent worked for an administration that had difficulty deciding “whether we should continue to be viewed as a ‘service’ shop or should be posi-tioned as a ‘strategic’ shop.” Another understood the demand for a strategic shift but had implementation obstacles: “The complexity of producing content for a personalized, customizable relationship with the institution is difficult to communicate and/or gain support for within … teams who view the world territorially.”

Implementing new technologies was one of the few categories for which the number of comments decreased. Although institutions might be more comfortable with social media and web technolo-gies than in the past, there is still much discussion about messaging through those platforms— as well as dealing with the reverse flow of comments from constituents. One respondent lamented the “con-tinuing fragmentation of communication channels.” Prospective students “are bombarded with more messaging than any generation before them and, as a result, have a very closed communication loop. It’s difficult to break through the noise and connect on a personal level.” Another was wary of the institu-tional reaction to evolving platforms: “As we move away from traditional methods and adopt new ones, we need to translate and explain these changes to our leadership. Their buy in is not always auto-matic.” One comment on this topic was very direct: “Students are mobile; administration is not.”

SUCCESSFUL PRACTICESTechnology adoption and implementation were involved less frequently in the success stories shared in 2015, compared to 2013. Still, 30 percent of the communications and marketing achievements provided by respondents revolved around tech-nology, and many had breakthroughs with video

Challenge2013

Percent2015

Percent

Budget/resources/staffing levels 23% 22%

Strategic focus or adapting to organizational challenges

17% 18%

Productivity in a fast-paced environment with limited resources

14% 14%

Competition with other institutions and maintaining a viable brand

6% 8%

Technology adoption or implementation, including social media and web presence

12% 7%

Resistance to efforts from internal constituents 6% 6%

Enrollment goals 4% 4%

Keeping up with trends in the profession and audience expectations

3% 4%

Championing the cause for communications and marketing in education or in the institution

8% 3%

Innovation and producing relevant offerings 1% 3%

Talent management 2% 3%

Other 4% 8%

Total 100% 100%

Table 12Greatest communications and marketing challenge in the last year

Note: These results are derived from open-ended comments by participants, so some responses referenced more than one concept.


• 18 •

and responsive content (Table 13). Adjusting the platforms gave many institutions the opportunity to enhance their messaging simultaneously. For exam-ple, one respondent executed a “complete redesign of our website to a responsive design site— including rewriting all of the content, which helped us to refine our key messages.” Another described the “launch of a newly revamped mobile website that also involved a deep dive into our brand messaging.”

Exploring new technologies as channels for communications has likely broadened the reach for many institutions. Respondents were more likely to cite successes in communication frequency, methods or audience gains in 2015 than two years prior. Here are some of their achievements:

• “ Creation and implementation of a truly integrated marketing campaign connecting undergraduate enrollment, campus culture and strategic vision— built on educating and communicating the social relevance of the historical university namesake in an easily accessible and engaging manner.”

• “ Developed and adopted college vision, mission and values (along with revamped college logo), which now provide the foundation for brand-ing of our college as connected and responsive to our community.”

• “ Creating an institutional marketing plan that brings all units on campus together— the chal-lenge will be implementing it!”

Communications and marketing heads had a similar emphasis on technology solutions when asked about their most effective recent practices. More than one- third of their open- ended comments on effectiveness involved some kind of technological implementation, such as social media adoption or enhanced web presence (Table 14). Some respon-dents had incorporated these cutting- edge tools

Success2013

Percent2015

Percent


37% 30%

Maintaining a viable brand 10% 11%

Constituent communication: increasing frequency, revising approach or reaching new audiences

2% 11%

Traditional Publications: campus magazine, brochures or other print collateral

6% 8%

Talent management/Staffing 6% 6%

Messaging: creating, revising or promoting key institutional messages

6% 6%


Strategic focus or overcoming organizational challenges

10% 5%

Measurement/Benchmarking/Other types of data collection

5% 4%


2% 2%

Budget/Resources 0% 2%

Development/Fundraising results 4% 1%

Other 6% 8%

Total 100% 100%

Table 13Greatest communications and marketing success achieved in the last year



• 19 •

as an extra layer of their communications plans. One respondent described a combination approach for recruitment: “direct marketing with email and phone follow up, media story or video emailed that invites them, followed by a letter from the dean.” Another has made sure that any social media outreach has good storytelling principles: “Having student and alumni testimonials about what they have experienced here is much more powerful, and we have adjusted our website, collaterals and ads to incorporate more storytelling.”

Among the other triumphs were the following:

• “ Customized, personal communication/nurturing plan for prospective families.”

• “ Simple, but graphically impressive, messaging is the key to grabbing attention in today’s media- driven world.”

• “ Evolving storytelling capacity to effectively brand and rebrand the institution.”

FUTURE CHALLENGES, OPPORTUNITIES AND HORIZON ISSUESKeeping pace was a dominant theme for communi-cations and marketing heads when describing their expectations for the next five years. Monitoring important trends and audience perceptions was the most frequently cited challenge, edging out concerns over budgets, resources and staffing (Table 15). The ability to stay productive in a frenzied environment was also an anticipated issue. One respondent noted the effect of technology on expectations: “Everyone can publish or record content, at any time and place… how can we manage the expectations of those who think everything should be available to everyone?”

Competing with other institutions in an ever- changing landscape was noted in 10 percent of the responses. Here are some examples related to main-taining a viable brand:

Table 14Most effective communications and marketing practices

Practice2013

Percent2015

Percent


38% 34%

Constituent communication: increasing frequency, revising approach or reaching new audiences

10% 14%

Leveraging traditional methods such as public relations, advertising and broadcasting for promotions and messaging

13% 12%

Strategic focus or overcoming organizational challenges

9% 11%

Messaging: creating, revising or promoting key institutional messages

9% 10%

Building goodwill and awareness of institution through word of mouth and networking

3% 6%

Traditional publications: campus magazine, brochures or other print collateral

4% 6%

Measurement/benchmarking/other types of data collection

6% 5%

Centralizing functions or processes to streamline operations

5% 1%


Other 3% 2%

Total 100% 100%



• 20 •

• “ Colleges are becoming homogenized. Every school presents the same photography, the same language, the same messaging. Administra-tors look to other schools as benchmarks and guidance— they want to ‘look like X Univer-sity …’ instead of defining their own brand.”

• “ There is so much ‘noise’ (digital content) being pushed to our potential audiences that rising above the din has become increasingly diffi-cult. There are more options than ever, and the demographics can’t sustain them all.”

• “ Differentiating ourselves, identifying a viable niche and committing to being the best in that niche will be essential for survival. We can’t try to be all things to all people because we will end up not being good at anything.”

• “ The education industry is slow to accept change, and marketing trends are changing at a rapid rate. For example, we found that many younger parents were researching and even making a decision on a school almost exclu-sively through web and social media ratings before they even ‘inquired’.”

When prompted to look to future successes for educational communications and marketing, the expectations for the next five years had familiar themes at the top. The most frequently cited area was technology adoption or implementation, at 37 percent (Table 16). Staying innovative, maintaining strategic focus, and continuing to champion the communications and marketing cause were each mentioned in at least 12 percent of the comments.

Other areas of opportunity, in the words of the respondents, include the following:

• “ Customization and personalization of the user experience. The better we can be at creating a unique user experience, the more impactful our marketing and communications strategy will be.”

Table 15Greatest communications and marketing challenge in the next five years

Challenge2013

Percent2015

Percent


5% 18%

Budget/resources/staffing levels 20% 16%


6% 13%

Competition with other institutions and maintaining a viable brand

12% 10%


11% 8%


22% 8%




6% 5%

Resistance to efforts from internal constituents 4% 3%


Other 2% 6%

Total 100% 100%



• 21 •

• “ I believe the greatest opportunities for com-munications reside in our relationships with our communities. The communications tactics that work best are those that make it easy for community leaders to become champions for our institutions.”

• “ To use our professional expertise to help educators appropriately communicate with constituents, especially parents, so that the educators feel professional satisfaction from the exchange. As the expectations for constant communications increase, educators can feel that they are responding to unrealistic demands on their time rather than sharing great news and important information.”

• “ Greater role in shaping the wider brand: Social media makes organizations more transparent; the identity of an organization needs to be coherent to maintain a strong reputation.”

INSTITUTIONAL DEMOGRAPHICSInstitution Type/Carnegie Classification

The 2015 survey respondents worked at several types of educational institutions. More than one- third (38 percent) were at independent or international schools (Table 17). Community colleges accounted for 9 percent of the respondents. Four- year insti-tution types ranged from 15 percent to 19 percent of the sample. The remaining 3 percent came from specialty/professional institutions.

Public/Private Status Two- thirds of the responding institutions were pri-vate (67 percent). The other 33 percent represented public institutions (Table 18).

Table 16Greatest opportunities for communications and market-ing professionals at educational institutions in the next five years

Opportunity2013

Percent2015

Percent


49% 37%



17% 13%


10% 12%


7% 7%



1% 2%

Branding 0% 4%

Other 3% 7%

Total 100% 100%

Note: These results are derivved from open-ended comments by participants, so some responses referenced more than one concept.


• 22 •

Geographic Region

Although the survey reached institutions across the globe, the vast majority of respondents (91 percent) were from the United States or Canada (Table 19). European institutions accounted for 4 percent of the respondents, institutions from the Asia- Pacific region accounted for 3 percent, and 2 percent of the respondents represented Latin America or other geographic regions.

Enrollment Size

Educational institutions of many enrollment sizes participated in the survey (Table 20). The smallest enrollment category of less than 1,000 students accounted for 33 percent of respondents. A slightly larger proportion (36 percent) had between 1,000 and 5,000 students. Mid- sized institutions— between 5,001 and 15,000 students— accounted

2013 Percent

2015 Percent

Public 35% 33%

Private 65% 67%

Total 100% 100%

Table 18Public/private status

2013 Percent2015

Percent2015

Percent

Independent or international school (pre-collegiate institution)

37% 38%

Community/technical college or district/system (associate's)

15% 9%

Bachelor’s college or university (four-year institution)

15% 17%

Master’s college or university 16% 14%

Research/doctoral university 14% 19%

Specialty/professional institution (e.g., standalone law or business school)

3% 3%

Other, e.g., system-wide administration (please specify)

0% 0%

Total 100% 100%

Table 17Type of institution

for 16 percent of the respondents, and the remain-ing 15 percent were large institutions with more than 15,000 students. The average size of the student body among participating institutions was 7,999 students.

SURVEY METHODOLOGYSurvey Background

CASE Research fielded the second iteration of the Educational Communications and Market-ing Trends Survey in March 2015. All CASE member educational institutions were eligible to participate. A total of 458 usable responses were collected by the close of the survey in May 2015, for a response rate of 12.5 percent. The sample size for the inaugural survey in 2013 was 318 institu-tions. For both iterations, responding institutions represented a broad range of demographic profiles reflecting institution type, enrollment size, geo-graphic area and alumni base.

Statistics in the Report: How to Interpret

Mean (or Simple Mean or Average). The mean is calculated by summing all responses to a question and dividing by the number of respondents to that question. Unless there are clear outliers that need to be excluded from the calculation (i.e., a few responses that are far outside the expected range of values for a given question), the mean includes each


• 23 •

value reported. A mean computation is affected by extremely high or low values, which can skew results.

Median. When all values for a given question are rank- ordered from lowest to highest (or the reverse), the value in the middle position is the median. Half the values are above this point and half are below. If there is an even number of values, the median is derived by taking the values just below and just above the midpoint and averaging the two.

The median is sometimes preferred over the mean as a more representative measure because median values are not added and then divided by the number of respondents (as the mean is) but rather are chosen from the position of the value at the midpoint of the values. Thus, the median is less vulnerable to being skewed by very high or very low individual values. However, when both the mean and the median measures are provided, readers can get a sense of the range of responses to a question if there is a large difference between the two measures.

Percentages are rounded to the nearest whole percentage point. Because of rounding, not all per-centages may add to 100. In some cases, totals add to more than 100 percent due to respondents’ ability to select more than one response to a question.

FOR MORE INFORMATIONCASE staff have prepared detailed breakouts of the survey results based on key demographic variables such as institution type, public/private status, enrollment size and geographic region. If you are interested in these results, please contact CASE Research at [email protected].

2013 Percent

2015 Percent

Less than 1,000 32% 33%

Between 1,000 and 5,000 39% 36%

Between 5,001 and 10,000 13% 10%

Between 10,001 and 15,000 7% 6%

Between 15,001 and 25,000 4% 6%

More than 25,000 5% 9%

Total 100% 100%

Table 20Enrollment size (FTEs)

2013 Percent

2015 Percent

United States or Canada 90% 91%

Asia-Pacific 3% 3%

Latin America 1% 1%

Europe 4% 4%

Other 3% 1%

Total 100% 100%

Table 19Geographic region

findings from the 2015 case educational · findings from the 2015 case educational communications...

Documents