indiana state universityirt2.indstate.edu/nca2010/assets/pdf/emg.pdf · 2010. 8. 10. · in the isu...

2953 South Peoria Street Suite 110 Aurora, CO 80014 (303) 743-8298 (303) 337-2448 Fax www.emgonline.com

INDIANA STATE UNIVERSITY

Situational Analysis and Recommendations

September 25, 2003

© 2003 Educational Marketing Group, Inc. All Rights Reserved. Printed in the U.S.A.

IN D I A N A STATE UN I V E R S I T Y – SITUATIONAL A N A L Y S I S PAGE 2 OF 75 SEPTEMBER 25, 2003

© 2003 Educational Marketing Group, Inc. All rights reserved. Printed in the U.S.A.

TABLE OF CONTENTS

INTRODUCTION AND METHODOLOGY.......................................................................................3

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ...............................................................................................................4

INTERNAL ENVIRONMENT..........................................................................................................6

BRAND ARCHITECTURE ................................................................................................................6 ORGANIZATIONAL STRUCTURE AND STAFFING..................................................................................8 RESOURCE ALLOCATION AND MANAGEMENT .................................................................................. 14 STRATEGIC PLANNING AND COMMUNICATIONS PROCESS.................................................................. 17 BRAND PRESENTATION .............................................................................................................. 19 APPLICATION AND ENROLLMENT TRENDS....................................................................................... 23 ADMISSIONS, ADVANCEMENT, AND ALUMNI AFFAIRS ........................................................................ 27 STRENGTHS AND WEAKNESSES................................................................................................... 29

EXTERNAL ENVIRONMENT....................................................................................................... 35

BRAND AWARENESS AND BRAND EQUITY....................................................................................... 35 TARGET AUDIENCES.................................................................................................................. 37 MARKET SHARE AND PENETRATION.............................................................................................. 40 MARKETPLACE TRENDS.............................................................................................................. 49 STATE AND FEDERAL FUNDING TRENDS ........................................................................................ 53 PEER AND COMPETITOR POSITIONING........................................................................................... 54

CHALLENGES/OPPORTUNITIES, AND RECOMMENDATIONS ................................................... 60

CHALLENGE/OPPORTUNITY 1: INTERNAL BRAND............................................................................. 60 RECOMMENDATION 1: INTERNAL BRAND ........................................................................................ 60 CHALLENGE/OPPORTUNITY 2: EXTERNAL BRAND............................................................................ 61 RECOMMENDATION 2: EXTERNAL BRAND ....................................................................................... 61 CHALLENGE/OPPORTUNITY 3: ORGANIZATIONAL STRUCTURE ........................................................... 63 RECOMMENDATION 3: ORGANIZATIONAL STRUCTURE...................................................................... 63 CHALLENGE/OPPORTUNITY 4: STRATEGIC PLANNING...................................................................... 67 RECOMMENDATION 4: STRATEGIC PLANNING.................................................................................. 67 CHALLENGE/OPPORTUNITY 5: INTEGRATED MARKETING PLAN........................................................... 68 RECOMMENDATION 5: INTEGRATED MARKETING PLAN...................................................................... 68 CHALLENGE/OPPORTUNITY 6: REGIONAL MARKETING..................................................................... 70 RECOMMENDATION 6: REGIONAL MARKETING................................................................................. 70

APPENDIX 1.............................................................................................................................. 72

APPENDIX 2.............................................................................................................................. 75



INTRODUCTION AND METHODOLOGY Dr. Lloyd Benjamin, President of Indiana State University (ISU), requested that Educational Marketing Group, Inc. (EMG) assist in developing a unique and compelling market position, brand identity, and integrated marketing plan for Indiana State University in order to achieve the following goals:

1. Increase the number of applications and enrollment from high-ability students; 2. Improve the effectiveness of internal communications and collaboration and build a

shared commitment to delivering exceptional educational quality; 3. Enhance the image of Indiana State University among business and opinion leaders,

influencers, and the public in Indiana. The analysis was conducted July through September 2003. EMG President Bob Brock, Vice President Marlene Brock, and Brand Strategist Art Stone conducted on-site interviews and consultations on August 6-8, 2003. On-site interviews and consultations were also conducted in Indianapolis on August 8, 2003. EMG met with approximately 95 faculty, staff, alumni, students, and business leaders, and conducted follow-up interviews with 24 individuals (Appendix 1).

EMG also sent questionnaires to administrators and staff members and reviewed the resulting data from 12 respondents. EMG solicited qualitative e-mail input on strengths, weaknesses, competitive advantages, and core values from University stakeholders, and reviewed 37 e-mail responses.

EMG reviewed approximately 100 sample materials, organizational charts, budgets, and other data supplied by the University. EMG also reviewed data from external sources including the Indiana Commission on Higher Education, U.S. Census Bureau, National Center for Educational Statistics, Chronicle of Higher Education, U.S. Department of Education, and others. EMG reviewed data and materials from peers and competitors and used proprietary data for national benchmarks.

EMG discovered exceptional strengths during the review process, including dedication to excellence in education, highly committed faculty and staff who are serious about providing a high-quality education, and alumni who care greatly about the institution, its public image, its unique academic quality, and its tradition of excellence.

While the report could include lengthy descriptions of exceptional strengths, its purpose is to identify ways in which the University can maximize its competitive advantages. Therefore, by design, the report focuses on areas of potential improvement. This concentration on areas of improvement should in no way be construed as a diminution of the extraordinary strengths and quality of Indiana State University.



EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Indiana State University is a complex, multi-million-dollar organization that has numerous strengths including nationally recognized academic programs, outstanding faculty, innovative community partnerships, and numerous prominent alumni. It is comprised of seven schools and colleges and dozens of academic and support departments, units, and related facilities.

Despite its great strengths, ISU has not established a clear, quality-based market position or brand for the institution and its related units. In the absence of a strong University-wide brand identity, many schools and support units have developed their own personalities. This has encouraged competing messages being delivered to external audiences, conflicting brand presentations, and chaotic application of institutional signatures and marks.

No data is available that quantifies brand awareness, but anecdotal input suggests that ISU enjoys strong name awareness throughout much of the state and the region because of its long history, athletics programs, and large numbers of local and regional graduates. However, awareness appears to be shallow and is not supported by strong perceptions of quality or a pervasive willingness to recommend the institution. This is increasingly true the further one travels from Terre Haute and is dominant among critical influencer audiences in Indianapolis. Therefore, ISU awareness is essentially one-dimensional with little understanding of the University’s academic strengths and its strong impact on the state.

The shallow understanding of the University is due, in large part, to a historical lack of investment in focused communications and lack of a clear academic identity. Over many years, the University has emphasized low cost and open access to average and even below-average students. This has encouraged public perceptions of weak academics, hindering the University’s ability to develop a public image of quality. In addition, poor statewide perceptions of Terre Haute have deepened the negative image of the institution.

The University has created and periodically updated an institution-wide strategic plan. However, the plan has not been operationalized, and few stakeholders are able to articulate its important goals. Various units have created their own strategic plans with unit-based goals as the guiding force for tactical efforts. This has emphasized short-term unit needs over institutional priorities and has placed a strong focus on addressing the immediate rather than the important.

Until recently, ISU used a news- and publications-driven communications approach, which resulted in a limited public profile and an over-emphasis on local and regional communications. This approach diminished the University’s ability to impact top-of-mind awareness and quality perceptions in Indianapolis as well as in regional and national venues.

The recent evolution to an integrated marketing approach has significantly improved ISU’s marketing capabilities. However, the university is in a transition period, and has not yet fully implemented an effective integrated model. Despite important improvements, ISU’s graphic identity, brand presentation, and key messages are not yet consistent or compelling.

The University’s current investment in marketing is on the low end of national benchmarks for similar institutions. This is particularly true given the increasingly aggressive marketing investments by in-state competitors. Existing resource allocations are sufficient to sustain



current market position, but additional funding will be required if the institution is to launch an effective initiative to establish a regional ISU brand known for unique academic strengths.

The University’s central communications unit has increased its visibility and stature as marketing issues have become a higher priority. However, the creative team is split into two separate work groups (Communications and Marketing and Multimedia Support Services) that compete for internal resources and influence. This organizational anomaly has fragmented and diluted marketing initiatives and inhibited strategic planning and the effective allocation of marketing resources, particularly with respect to the University’s web presence.

Based on its internal and external analysis, EMG makes the following recommendations to achieve the goals established by the University:

1. Indiana State University should develop the internal foundation for a unique and compelling brand identity that differentiates ISU based on its core values, unique campus experience, and superior quality attributes. ISU leadership should create a positioning statement, brand promise, and brand components based on broad stakeholder input and should reinforce these elements in all organizational processes.

2. The University should develop high-profile creative implementations of the brand identity for all communications platforms. Communications should reflect a clear brand architecture that defines how the ISU core brand and its many entities relate to one another. Materials should consistently portray the singular ISU identity across all target audiences through constant reinforcement of key messaging, logos and signatures, typography, photography, color palette, voice, and tone.

3. The University should consolidate its communications, creative, and marketing resources in a single high-impact organizational structure. This unit should be solely responsible for maintaining the ISU brand identity and for implementing an integrated marketing approach that advances the institution’s strategic goals.

4. The Strategic Planning Oversight Committee should develop a five-year strategic plan consistent with the ISU positioning platform, brand promise, and brand components. The plan should identify ISU’s brand values and desired areas of pre-eminence as well as a set of measurable institutional performance objectives.

5. The University should implement an annual integrated marketing plan under the direction of the chief Communications and Marketing officer. This plan should be a university-wide matrix-style effort that addresses the measurable objectives outlined in the ISU strategic plan on a day-to-day, operational level.

6. The University should shift its marketing efforts to a broader state and regional scope that establishes ISU as a regionally respected brand. The University should increase its marketing investment in order to significantly strengthen the ISU presence in Indianapolis through an integrated approach including a stronger physical presence, targeted advertising and events promotion, personal appearances, media relations, and one-to-one marketing.



INTERNAL ENVIRONMENT Brand Architecture EMG interviewed ISU communications and marketing staff and administrators, and reviewed current practices to identify existing brand architecture structures and strategies. Brand architecture is a process for strategically managing how the organization’s units represent themselves to their target audience segments. The goal is to strengthen the core brand while maximizing the effectiveness of each unit.

Indiana State University has not defined comprehensive brand architecture. The lack of a clear and strategic architecture has resulted in ambiguity about how ISU’s various units relate to the core brand and how they represent themselves in the marketplace.

Strategies have been attempted in recent years to deal with these issues. The “Sycamore Leaf” logo and signature, for example, was developed in the early 1980s to unite all academic divisions under a single mark. This effort has been supported by a well-articulated graphics standards policy. The institution is primarily represented by this signature and the ISU seal signature, which is used for official documents.

However, the effort has been only marginally effective. The institutional signature was largely a design-driven effort to mandate consistent identification rather than the reflection of a singular, consensus-based strategy. In the absence of a unifying brand strategy, some units have developed quasi-independent identities. A cursory review of the marks being employed by campus divisions and units, for example, shows that at least 32 different marks have been used recently by various units. These marks, often used as sub-brands and independent brands, have arisen as independent design solutions by various departments and units, and do not reflect strategic decision-making by the institution (Appendix 2).

Additional Observations: 1. The institution has been represented primarily by the “Sycamore Leaf” logo and

signature for approximately 20 years, and anecdotal feedback suggests that this mark generates moderately strong awareness of the institution. However, the sycamore name is not unique to ISU, and its use is widespread in Indiana. Moreover, the existing mark did not generate significant emotional response from most stakeholders, and equity in this mark is in question despite its longevity.

2. The core ISU brand encompasses the following primary academic units: a. College of Arts & Sciences b. School of Business c. School of Education d. School of Health & Human Performance e. School of Nursing f. School of Technology g. School of Graduate Studies



3. ISU encompasses a number of centers, institutes, and other units whose relationship to the core brand has not been clearly defined, including but not limited to: a. Sycamore Athletics b. Alumni Association c. DegreeLink d. Center for Economic Education e. Gongaware Center f. Division of Lifelong Learning g. Child Care Center h. ISEAS Project i. Leadership Development Institute j. Dewey Institute for Lifelong Learning k. ISU Foundation

4. ISU does not currently have a position charged with managing all of the institutional brands. Decision-making regarding a unit’s relationship to the core brand appears to be on a case-by-case basis.

5. Athletics programs have used the starred Indiana map with “Sycamores” script logo for a number of years, operating as a typical sub-branded unit. Although there is no quantifiable data on awareness, this mark appears to have moderate awareness among target audiences in the region.

6. There is no consistent application of design elements, logos, color palette, typography, tagline, or photography that helps audiences understand the relationship of each unit to the core brand.



Organizational Structure and Staffing EMG interviewed staff and reviewed organizational charts and questionnaire feedback to assess current communications and marketing organizational structure and staffing patterns.

According to data reported to EMG, approximately 27.75 FTE are devoted primarily to communications and marketing functions, institution-wide. Of that total, a reported 15.75 FTE reside in two central work groups: Communications and Marketing (14.75) and Multimedia Support Services (1).

Most institutional communications and marketing functions are the responsibility of the central Communications and Marketing unit, which is supervised by the Assistant Vice President for Communications and Marketing, a member of the President’s extended cabinet. This unit reports to the Vice President for Advancement (Chart 1, below).

The Communications and Marketing unit has a total of 14.75 full time equivalent (FTE) positions (including vacant positions) in four work groups: Administrative Communications (1 FTE), University Marketing (1 FTE), Public Affairs (4.75 FTE), and Publications (5 FTE).

Chart 1: Organizational Chart, University Advancement



The unit also employs student workers who perform communications duties part-time. This staffing allocation is smaller than most competitor institutions, given the history, size, and needs of the institution (Table 1, below).

In addition, the Multimedia Support Services (MSS) group, which reports to the Associate Vice President and Chief Information Officer, has at least five and perhaps as many as seven full-time positions that produce communications in videography, photography, and web graphic design. These positions are primarily responsible for academic support services. However, they also provide services to the Communications and Marketing team and collaborate on projects including promotional photography; web page navigation, content, and design; and television programming. However, MSS reports that only the equivalent of one FTE out of those five to seven positions is devoted to marketing communications functions. It is unclear if this includes all videography, still photography, and design/content services conducted by these positions.

The division of creative resources in two separate work groups is of particular concern with regard to website functions. At most institutions of higher education, the central communications and marketing team supervises web design, navigation, and content. Those that have retained bifurcated structures similar to ISU’s have faced ongoing challenges in web marketing and management.

Table 1: Indiana State University Staffing for Communications and Marketing Functions, 2003

Department or Unit FTE Reporting Line Central Communications and Marketing Resources

Assistant Vice President for Comm. and Mktg. 1.00 Vice President for University Advancement

Public Affairs 4.75 Assistant VP for Communications and Marketing University Marketing 1.00 Assistant VP for Communications and Marketing

Administrative Communications 1.00 Assistant VP for Communications and Marketing

Support Staff 2.00 Assistant VP for Communications and Marketing University Publications 5.00 Assistant VP for Communications and Marketing

Multimedia Support Services (marketing functions)1 1.00 1 Associate VP and Chief Information Officer

Total Central Communications & Marketing 15.75 Departmental Communications and Marketing Resources

Intercollegiate Athletics 7.00 Athletics Director

Departmental Communicators 5.00 Various Total, ISU Communications and Marketing 27.75

NOTES: 1. This unit provides academic support services as a primary job function. Although approximately 5 to 7 full-time positions in this unit

conduct creative communications as part of their job, the unit reports that the equivalent of only 1.0 FTE is devoted to marketing communications functions. It is unclear whether this figure includes web layout and design services.

SOURCE: Self-reported by ISU units.

The majority of publicly funded universities similar in size and scope to ISU employ in-house communications and marketing staffs of between 16 and 25 FTE.



The University of Wyoming (UW), for example, a land grant research-intensive doctoral university with approximately 11,000 students and growing, employs 16 FTE in communications and marketing: two positions are in supervision and support, three in publications, four in news services, two in magazine production, three in photography, and two in web services. However, UW also outsources the bulk of its publication design and production requirements to a stable of local freelancers. The in-house staff produces internal communications and media/public relations, manages brand strategy and marketing plans, and supervises external vendors.

Montana State University (MSU), the state’s flagship land-grant institution with approximately 10,500 students, employs 17 FTE in communications and marketing, including five in agriculture/extension communications, four in news services, five in publications, and three in support and supervision. MSU employs a highly decentralized communications approach, with many units producing their own materials in-house or via freelancers. (MSU is currently considering reorganization to develop a more efficient centralized organizational structure.)

Kansas State University, with nearly 23,000 students, employs a pproximately 27 FTE in communications and marketing functions. This includes 16 FTE in its central communications, marketing, and publications work groups. The in-house printing services operation has its own three-person design team plus three production coordinators. The separate ag/extension communications unit has approximately five staff members.

Iowa State University employs approximately 16 FTE in in-house communications positions, primarily focusing on media relations, brand management, and internal communications functions. However, Iowa State outsources the vast majority of its high-end design, publications, media, and marketing functions to a local agency.

Ball State University, a direct ISU competitor with approximately 20,000 students, supports a communications and marketing staff of 25 FTE including linked work groups in Communications, Media Relations, Artistic Services, Photo Services, and Display Services. The robust communications and marketing staff, together with large budget resources, has been a major factor in this institution’s aggressive marketplace stance and its significant success.

Excluding personnel in Multimedia Support Services, ISU’s 14.75 FTE communications and marketing staff is on the low end of the spectrum regarding overall staffing, particularly given the fact that ISU outsources relatively few of its major publications, producing most major marketing materials in-house. Most similar public research institutions with staffs of similar size also have significantly higher levels of outsourcing in design, production, and marketing.

The current reporting structure – through the Vice President for Advancement – is not unusual in higher education. While a majority of institutions still use this structure, an increasing number of colleges and universities are putting communications and marketing functions into a direct reporting line to the chief executive officer (CEO). This is a reflection of the growing importance of strategic marketing and brand development in higher education.



Additional Observations: 1. The Communications and Marketing unit is responsible for public affairs, internal

communications, marketing, publications, media relations, and some community relations.

2. Staff members in the central communications units are well trained, experienced, and professional. They produce quality communications products ranging from four-color publications to videos, print and broadcast advertising, media releases and issues management, periodicals, CD’s, and numerous other products.

3. While the Communications and Marketing unit’s current reporting structure through Advancement is not causing significant organizational challenges, it has limited the unit’s ability to position itself among stakeholders as a critical decision-making body that can help drive the leadership’s strategic plan forward.

4. Communications and Marketing is well organized and well directed. However, it is broken into four artificial work groups, a holdover from previous organizational structures. While segmentation does not appear to hinder working relationships, it adds an unneeded bureaucratic hurdle to budget and resource management.

5. Public Affairs and Communications units report that their operational mode is a blend of the agency/client and on-demand models. The office uses a “news beat” approach to contact various departments to identify potential media stories. However, the agency/client process at ISU appears to be relegated to a service/support level, involving little strategic planning, proactive initiatives, and decision-making by the communications and marketing personnel.

6. The Communications and Marketing unit reports that ISU communication efforts are mostly centralized, with most major communications and marketing initiatives produced or approved by the central unit and some high-visibility departmental projects undertaken unilaterally.

7. The Communications and Marketing unit has expanded its products in recent years, and has become increasingly aggressive in addressing ISU’s strategic goals. The unit has won professional kudos including 10 APEX awards for writing, design, and web development during the last two years and has implemented numerous communications initiatives including:

a. Production of ISU’s first annual report b. Assistance in procuring the $20 million Lilly Endowment c. Production of an 8-minute promotional video d. Production of innovative electronic news kits e. Management of a significant campaign media buy f. Launch of a quantitative PR evaluation system

8. Public Affairs reports that the office produces 30-50 faxed or electronic media releases per month. Print releases are not used. Releases are heavily skewed (70%)



toward local events announcements. A two-month sample of releases (March-April, 2003) included 84 separate releases and reflected the following topic distribution:

a. Public events 42 50% b. Media events 17 20% c. Kudos 13 15% d. News based on ISU research 9 11% e. News not based on ISU research 3 4% f. Backgrounders 0 0% g. Feature Releases 0 0%

Total releases 84 100% 9. Despite an increase in the strategic focus of PR on “experiential learning,” the bulk

of media releases appears to be non-strategic. 10. Regional and national media relations efforts are minimal, with ideas rarely pitched

to media sources outside of the immediate area, and no staff members are assigned exclusively to national media relations.

11. Some local marketing efforts, particularly the ISU Coach’s Show on local television, appears to require significant resources but produce few bottom-line outcomes.

12. Local media coverage is significant and balanced, and reflects a strong and positive relationship with local media representatives. Media coverage in Indianapolis, however, the region’s media center, is negligible. Interview input suggests that ISU is not widely perceived to be integral or important to the Indianapolis news scene.

13. The Publications work group reports that it produces about 600 jobs per year. This unit produces an annual publications schedule that outlines the top 57 publications, with production dates. The project schedule does not include information on coverage by audience segment or total print runs and is not necessarily utilized as a strategic planning tool.

14. The School of Business has engaged a private vendor to independently produce a viewbook and supporting brochures, without significant input or collaboration from the central communications and marketing team. It is not known how many other units have undertaken similar unilateral initiatives.

15. The Marketing work group supervised an institutional media buy of $382,459 (plus $44,541 in production/agency fees) in 2002-2003. Total media was highly concentrated, with 79.3% devoted to major Indiana urban centers, of which 52.1% was allocated to Indianapolis. The buy included the following allocations:



a. Network TV in three markets, for two 3-week flights $105,060 b. Print ads in three markets 69,028 c. Billboards in urban centers 66,300 d. Cable TV in two 3-week flights 58,938 e. Radio in five markets 34,640 f. Mall kiosks in four markets 24,900 g. Airport signage in Indianapolis 15,785 h. High school papers 7,808

Total buy $382,459 16. At least five and as many as seven central creative positions reside in the Multimedia

Support Services unit in the following areas: web design/programming (3 FTE, estimated), video production (2 FTE), and photography (2 FTE). This is a separate work group that reports to the Associate Vice President and Chief Information Officer (CIO). The principle mandate of this unit is to supply communications services for academic support, and the CIO reports that existing staffing and resources are not adequate to supply current and future academic support needs. While this unit works collaboratively on a project-by-project basis with the Communications and Marketing unit, it does not engage in joint strategic planning or collaboration beyond current projects initiated by the Communications and Marketing unit. Relationships at the staff level are generally collegial, but are strained at administrative levels, where the two units compete for campus resources and influence. The reporting structure leads to duplication of effort and disagreements regarding areas of responsibility. This is particularly acute with issues regarding website messaging, content, navigation, and page design. As a result, web innovations and marketing solutions have been bogged down by internal issues. The division of the staff has reduced ISU’s ability to allocate resources effectively to capitalize on emerging marketing needs and opportunities. It has also divided members of the creative team into two silos that, because of competing mandates, are likely to become increasingly isolated. This organizational anomaly will hinder the effective and efficient implementation of integrated brand marketing processes, especially with respect to web-based marketing functions. In addition, the Office of Information Technology is currently advertising for a new director for the work group, which will formally create an instructional and academic media group. This effort is expected to increase the academic focus of the work unit and reduce available marketing communications resources. This will exacerbate current marketing challenges.



Resource Allocation and Management EMG reviewed annual expenditures for communications and marketing functions and distributed questionnaires to appropriate administrators to assess resource allocations. EMG also applied national benchmarks to compare the University’s investment to other institutions.

In 2002, the University invested approximately $1.38 million to fund its institutional communications and marketing efforts (Table 2, below), which is equivalent to about 0.8% of total operating budget. This level of investment puts the University at the very low end of the national benchmark range for similar institutions.

The total investment includes major communications-related expenditures by all units for internal and external communications and advertising, as well as salaries and benefits for the 14.75 FTE in the central communications units and the one FTE in Multimedia Support Services devoted to central communications functions.

In keeping with EMG’s national benchmark criteria, the total used for benchmarking purposes excludes the salaries and benefits of approximately 12 communications professionals who work directly for their own colleges, schools, divisions, departments, and centers.

Additional Observations: 1. The Communications and Marketing unit manages at least eight different budget

lines in its overall resource mix. The distribution of funding through multiple budget lines is unwieldy, unnecessarily bureaucratic, and hard to manage. It prevents quick, efficient allocation of resources to meet emerging challenges and opportunities.

2. Some areas of the University develop and distribute communications on their own. These are often funded and implemented unilaterally without institution-level planning or supervision.

Table 2: Indiana State University Estimated Communications, Marketing & Advertising Expenditures – 2002

Operating &

Promotions 1 Printing &

Production 2 Advertising 3 Salaries 4 Total Operating

Budget Percent of

Budget Central Comm. and Marketing $61,091 $186,213 $440,500 $339,820 $1,027,624 -- -- Multimedia Support Services $5,000 0 0 $5,300 $10,300 -- -- Admissions 0 $42,104 $31, 573 N/A $73,677 Athletics $50,0005 $79,000 $2,0006 N/A $131,000 -- -- Other Departmental $69,5797 $55,9208 $13,269 N/A $138,768 -- -- Total $185,670 $363,237 $487,342 $345,120 $1,381,369 $172,238,771 0.8% NOTES:

1. Operating expenses devoted specifically to PR, marketing, and communication activities. Includes general operating budgets for central communications and marketing units.

2. Costs associated with printing of publications greater than $1,000, including outsource design and production. 3. Includes paid print and electronic media purchases for marketing, advertising. 4. Salaries and benefits for central communications and marketing unit only. Departmental salaries are not included in benchmarks. 5. Estimated, based on overall operating budget. 6. Does not include cross-promotional and self-supported advertising. 7. Estimated by ISU units. Includes only those expenses devoted to PR, marketing, communications. 8. Estimated by ISU units. May be under-reported due to departmental differences in reporting.

SOURCE: Self-reported by ISU units.



3. Athletics appears to be significantly under-funded in marketing. Most mid- to large-size public universities, including ISU’s primary competitors, have self-sustaining athletics programs that generate aggressive marketing budgets. Athletics programs typically add significant exposure for academic programs. The lack of aggressive athletics marketing has hampered ISU’s ability to create awareness and positive public attitudes in high-growth markets outside of Terre Haute.

4. A large proportion of overall resources – both in media relations and marketing – are devoted to local platforms. This has resulted in a lack of resources for regional and national communications and marketing efforts.

5. In 2002-03, ISU allocated an institutional advertising budget of $387,000 aimed primarily at the state’s largest urban centers, including Indianapolis. The media buy appears to have increased inquiries significantly. However, data suggests that the campaign may not have been supported by corresponding improvement in back-end marketing to capitalize on the increase in public interest. The campaign has not been supported by integrating one-to-one marketing and strategic public relations in the target areas.

6. ISU’s communications functions are in a transition period, moving from a news- and publications-based model to an integrated marketing model. During this transition phase, integrated tactical approaches are not yet fully implemented, leaving a void in current operations.

7. Major competitors in Indiana and surrounding states, including the University of Indiana, Purdue University, and Ball State University have dramatically increased the resources devoted to communications and marketing in recent years. This ha s made the major urban areas of Indianapolis and Chicago among the most competitive in the nation. Competitor institutions have devoted more than $3 million annually to media buys in these markets during each of the last three years.

National Benchmarks It is impractical to directly compare the University’s overall expenditures with those of similar institutions because universities do not report marketing expenditures in a standardized way. National benchmarks below have been computed from best available data and should be considered rough guidelines to be applied with appropriate caution.

EMG’s national benchmark averages refer to expenditures for institutional marketing, advertising, major institutional publications, and public relations operating budgets (including salaries and benefits for central creative staff only). The benchmarks exclude:

• Departmental communications staffing and general operating budgets • Admissions, development, and alumni salaries and benefits • Athletics marketing staff salaries and cross-promotional advertising



Proprietary data from institutions of higher education nationwide indicates that effective marketing in higher education requires between 0.7% and 3.5% of annual operating budget. Lower in the benchmark range (0.7%-2.0%) are large publicly supported research universities with operating budgets of $150 million or more. In the upper range (2.0%-3.5%) are small private colleges with budgets of under $75 million.

Large publicly supported institutions with operating budgets of at least $150 million but less than $1 billion typically invest between 0.7% and 1.5% of operating budget on communications and marketing functions. Universities with conservative or regional PR-based programs – similar to Indiana State University – are in the lower end of the range (0.7%-1.0%), while aggressive universities with advertising-driven programs or competitive national marketing programs invest between 1.0% and 1.5% of annual operating budgets, with expenditures ranging up to 2.0% very rarely.

Based on an annual operating budget of approximately $172 million, The University can expect to achieve a maximum return-on-investment from a sustained marketing investment of between $1.2 million (0.7%) on the conservative side, and $2.1 million (1.2%) for an aggressive regional marketing program.

The estimated 2002 expenditures of $1.38 million for communications and marketing activities are equal to about 0.8% of ISU’s annual operating budget. This places the University at the low end of the national benchmark ranges noted above, and should be considered a relatively conservative investment level.

The current level of investment is adequate to maintain ISU’s existing local and regional market position, market share, and awareness levels. However, improving awareness and positive image among targeted audiences in Indianapolis and at other selected regional and national levels, particularly given the extremely aggressive nature of the Indiana marketplace, will require a more aggressive, sustained marketing investment.



Strategic Planning and Communications Process EMG interviewed University administrators and staff members and reviewed existing planning and marketing communications documents to assess strategic plans, procedures, communication processes, and tactical executions.

The University created a comprehensive strategic plan in 1994, which was updated in 2000: “Balancing Change & Continuity, Strategic Plan for the Twenty-First Century: A Year 2000 Update.” The plan outlined eight strategic goals for the institution. While comprehensive and visionary, this document does not appear to be used as an active guideline for institutional priorities or operational plans. The document articulates an implementation plan with “suggested” action steps, but EMG was unable to identify a unified internal process to achieve the institutional objectives of the strategic plan. Without such an operational process, campus units – and the institution itself – have created additional planning devices and unit-driven plans without correlating benefit.

Such efforts are largely unilateral in scope and academically focused. They vary in style and tone and typically do not involve strategic input from, or collaboration with, the central communication or administrative units. Support from the central communications unit is given primarily through graphic support, i.e. requests for creative input within the tactical executions.

The duplication of planning efforts, and thus the lack of a single unified tactical plan to articulate and achieve institutional goals, has encouraged development of school and department-based silos that pursue unit-driven objectives rather than institutional priorities. Some units are stronger than others in their executional efforts. Weaker units reflect a poor quality image for the University.

Overall, the organization has difficulty identifying and addressing critical institutional objectives, mobilizing stakeholders to achieve common goals, and capitalizing on emerging opportunities.

Over the past two years, the University has addressed the strategic planning issue aggressively, both generally and specifically, aiming at more centralization of resources linked to achieving specific institutional goals. The 2004 Annual Marketing & Recruitment Plan (April, 2003) is an aggressive and well-purposed plan aimed at annual marketing and recruitment. The plan is well researched, reflecting excellent analyses of both past history and future needs of the University. It reflects a strong desire to adopt and strategically integrate recruitment efforts within an ongoing overall integrated marketing program.

While leadership has generally approved a strategic market position based on “experiential learning and community engagement,” this market position has not yet been well articulated or supported by stakeholder acceptance of a brand promise, brand components, brand values, or key messages. Therefore, the market position has not yet been operationalized or implemented. Additionally, efforts have been hindered by the lack of internal organizational structures and processes that encourage stakeholder buy-in and allow operational execution of institution-wide strategic goals.



The strategic planning review process now underway promises to address these and related strategic planning issues.

Additional Observations: 1. The lack of an integrated operational strategy has encouraged decentralized efforts,

which have, in turn, fragmented resources and contributed to a weak and inaccurate image of the University.

2. Public and media relations functions are not always prioritized at the institutional level. Efforts are still largely driven by individual unit or department needs, without enough emphasis on strategic public relations aimed at institutional goals. Numerous projects are undertaken without linking them to measurable objectives and without strategy for the best allocation of resources. Efforts are largely determined by available resources and departmental needs, and focus strongly on local audiences.

3. Many publications are conceived, funded, and implemented unilaterally by department-based communicators with non-strategic assistance from the central communications and marketing unit.

4. Various work groups collaborate well on a project-by-project basis, such as the current collaboration on the Coach’s Show. However, strategic planning that spans work group lines is minimal.

5. The lack of coordinated planning impacts operations. For example, the publications schedule is a unit work plan that does not address the overall strategic objectives for major institutional marketing materials.

6. Communications and marketing staff members have limited experience in integrated marketing management and brand marketing in higher education, which may limit the University’s ability to implement an integrated marketing process. Currently, the staff is not considered part of the institutional “strategic planning team.”

7. Communications and marketing units uniformly agree with the need for a more integrated approach. However, they are skeptical about effective integration due to bureaucratic silos and a historical lack of integration at strategic planning levels.

8. While there appears to be widespread acceptance of a vague market position based on “experiential learning and community engagement,” this position has not been well articulated and supported by key messages or clear brand components.

9. The ISU Integrated Communications and Marketing Plan (produced by the Integrated Marketing Task Force) and the President’s Fall Address to the Faculty represent benchmark efforts that reflect the growing internal desire exists to positively address the lack of institution-wide strategic planning.



Brand Presentation EMG reviewed more than 100 communications samples supplied by the University, including recruitment materials, print and broadcast advertising, video media, departmental brochures, and collateral publications. EMG reviewed the University website and subordinate virtual sites. Samples were assessed for content, design, production value, and effectiveness.

While most of ISU’s top-level materials reflect appropriate quality and professionalism, college- and department-level communications vary widely in quality, tone, and consistency. ISU’s brand presentation is competitive with many public universities of similar size, but it is not at a level that allows the University to stand out from its primary in-state competitors.

ISU’s communications, when taken as a whole, do not differentiate the University in the marketplace or define a unique and compelling brand identity based on superior quality. Lack of key messaging; lack of consistency in design, typography, photography, and color palettes; and the widespread practice of using the institutional name as a design element have conspired to muddy ISU’s institutional personality and fragment its brand identity.

The “The Right Fit for You” campaign, which has been running for nearly four years, has provided a consistent advertising and recruiting theme that has improved awareness. While the campaign is professional and engaging, particularly in radio executions, it has not convincingly established a differentiated position based on unique quality attributes. It has neither positioned the institution as one of Indiana’s leading universities nor conveyed a level of prestige equal to that of its primary in-state competitors.

The “Experience your future” message, which began during the last year, has been used in conjunction with the “The Right Fit for You” campaign. Use of the two similar messages is likely to be confusing to both internal and external audiences.

The website is clean, quick loading, and professional but quite institutional in tone and style. Overall it is serviceable, but not competitive with best practices in higher education, and its potential is not being maximized as one of the institution’s premier marketing tools.

Messaging and Content 1. Primary marketing communications are well written and professionally produced. 2. Given today’s sound-byte society, most printed materials are text heavy and do not

present a discernable hierarchy of key messages. Weekly ISU newspaper advertorials, for example, offer long text blocks that are not likely to be effective.

3. Institutional copy (stiff, formal language and content that reflects an internal bureaucratic viewpoint) is often presented as primary or lead messaging, while text that is relevant to audiences is buried in unnecessary, outdated verbiage.

4. In many publications, copy is presented in long paragraphs with few callouts, subheads, captions, and quotes, limiting audience “points of entry” into the copy.

5. Every publication utilizes its own editorial outline, with little or no consistency in the presentation of key messaging.



6. The “The Right Fit for You” campaign has reinforced consistent themes across multiple platforms, emphasizing three key messages:

a. 100+ majors b. Small classes c. Nationally recognized degree programs

While primary recruitment materials echo the “The Right Fit for You” campaign messaging, department brochures do not. They show little consistency in content or style. The radio spots are among the most effective of the advertising executions, reinforcing campaign messages while also presenting expanded proof points and strong production value. Anecdotal information suggests that, overall, the “The Right Fit for You” campaign messaging has improved awareness, but has not improved brand equity, prestige, quality perceptions, or willingness-to-recommend. No quantitative data exists to measure campaign outcomes.

7. “Low-cost,” “affordable,” and “easy access” messages still appear prominently in many recruiting and department publications, including current TV ads. Anecdotal feedback from stakeholders and business leaders indicates that these attributes have become strongly ingrained in perceptions of ISU.

8. No branding messages are used as attention grabbers on direct mail envelopes. 9. Prominent messages in the 2002 recruitment publications include:

a. See how Indiana State fits your future (Cover) b. 100+ majors (Cover) c. Nationally recognized degree programs (Cover) d. Small classes (Cover) e. The way college is supposed to be (Back cover) f. Faculty committed to teaching g. Big enough to matter and small enough to care h. High-quality education at an affordable price i. Accessible technology j. Opportunities for excellence

10. Indiana State University Magazine is a high-quality, award-winning publication. It reliably contains interesting layouts and well-written stories, and is professionally designed. The magazine is competitive with leaders in the category. Although the magazine increased frequency from two to three issues this year, this is not enough frequency to maintain reader loyalty or top-of-mind awareness. Surprisingly, the magazine does not employ the ISU logo, and does not print a masthead listing the editorial and administrative staff.



11. Campus Connection is an informative, upbeat publication for faculty and staff produced monthly during the academic year. Articles are interesting and relevant and reflect a good mix of topics, including examples of outstanding educational innovations and student/staff achievements. It does an excellent job of connecting readers with more information. Layout and designs are clear and consistent. The publication, however, does not employ the ISU signature.

12. The website does not employ a format that delivers key messaging points in layered fashion. Neither the home page nor second level pages have short identity descriptions, taglines, or recurring key messages. Second-level pages are text and link heavy, and vary significantly in tone and style. Many second-level pages contain only extraordinarily long lists of links.

13. The website appears to be designed by committee, and its lack of personality and inconsistent navigation does not reflect the best practices in higher education.

14. The website does not offer a consumer-focused presentation that leads visitors through the site effectively or persuasively. There are no “rewards” for click-throughs at various levels, with virtually all content relegated to third level or lower.

Design and Production Value 1. ISU blue drives the cover approaches in the recruitment package and the ad

campaign. The bulk of departmental and non-recruiting materials, however, do not utilize a distinctive color palette.

2. It is commonplace to employ the name “Indiana State University” as a design element and/or headline on publication covers, advertising, advertorials, recruitment publications, and departmental brochures, muddying the institutional identity.

3. Departmental publications reflect a wide selection of different personalities through inconsistent designs and layouts, without dependable usage of design elements, color palette, typography, photography, headlines, or callouts.

4. The ISU Sycamore logo/signature is employed with relative consistency on most institution-level publications (notable exceptions include the faculty/staff newsletter, the alumni magazine, and the newspaper advertorials). However, for unknown reasons, the signature is often relegated to the back cover, almost as a n afterthought.

5. The ISU Sycamore logo/signature is also used in many different incarnations and color adaptations that have not been approved. This signature is very corporate in style and somewhat dated. Campus interviews reveal considerable ambiguity about the depth of feeling for the institutional mark, with few individuals willing to offer emotional attachment or impassioned support for it. The mark appears to suffer in some executions, and is difficult to reproduce in small versions.



6. Despite its relative consistency, the approved logo/signature is not used universally. For example, a review of current practice indicates at least 32 different logos being used at least intermittently to represent institutional units. These various logos and marks do not represent strategic brand architecture.

7. Different types of publications sometimes form their own minor families of publications unrelated to overall communications. For example, the Class Schedules represent a total departure from any other design approach.

8. Department brochures sometimes use public domain clipart and are inexpensively reproduced, giving them an inexpensive and low-quality feel.

9. Athletics publications are competitive with similar institutions, but do not present a distinctive Sycamores Athletics identity, and do not emphasize the school mascot.

10. The ISU website has a clean, professional design that is efficient and effective and echoes the prevailing brand design and color palette.

11. The website home page combines target audience and subject matter links consistent with best practices on the web, but with 28 links it presents too many options. The home page provides access to a student portal, “My ISU.”

12. Two primary design templates are used for the second level, although some pages use neither, while others do not employ the institutional logo (i.e. News and Events). Various treatments of navigation bars and design are used on the second level. Many content-level pages have no navigation bars at all.

13. The Prospective Students area of the site does not lead prospects through the site in an inviting, consumer-friendly way. It is confusing, with an overwhelming number of links, and provides few marketing messages and no institutional personality.

14. ISU has a graphics standards policy tha t is short, understandable, and to the point.



Application and Enrollment Trends EMG reviewed admissions reports and enrollment histories to assess recent application and enrollment trends at ISU.

ISU has experienced roller coaster enrollment trends over the last 20 years, with enrollment decreasing slightly over the period 1982 – 2002. In 2002 headcount was 11,714, 1.8% lower (-219) than the 1982 enrollment of 11,933. (Table 3, below) Meanwhile, overall state population increased by 12.6%. Thus, ISU’s market share has eroded since 1982.

Table 3: Indiana State University Total Enrollment, Selected Years, 1982 - 2002

Year Enrollment % Change

1982 11,933 N/A

1987 11,161 -6.47% 1992 12,271 9.95%

1997 10,784 -12.12%

1998 10,970 1.72% 1999 10,985 0.14%

2000 11,051 0.60%

2001 11,321 2.44% 2002 11,714 3.47%

SOURCE: Official Report Book, Fall Enrollment, Office of Registration & Records

ISU’s highest enrollment in recent history came in 1992, at 12,271 students. Enrollment declined by 12.1% between 1992 and 1997, when ISU experienced its record low enrollment in recent history of 10,784. Since 1997, ISU enrollment has been more stable, with continuous growth during the period (Chart 2, below).



Chart 2: Indiana State University, Total Enrollment Headcount, Fall 1997 - 2002

11,321

11,051

11,714

10,98510,970

10,784

10,00010,20010,40010,60010,80011,00011,20011,40011,60011,80012,000

1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002

Year

Enro

llmen

t

When overall enrollment is examined by student segment, however, there is more year-to-year volatility in both new undergraduate and graduate students (Table 4, below). Incoming first-time undergraduates increased by 4.6% during the 1998 – 2003 timeframe while incoming transfer students increased 3.8% in the same period. New graduate students showed the strongest increase, 8.6%, during the 1998 – 2003 timeframe, due mainly to a dramatic 27.5% jump in 2001.

Table 4: Indiana State University Fall Headcount Enrollments, 1998 – 2003

Headcount 1998 - 1999 %

Change Headcount 1999 - 2000

% Change

Headcount 2000 - 2001

% Change


% Change


% Change

First-time FT Undergrads 1,996 5.9% 2,017 1.0% 2,124 5.3% 2,164 1.9% 2,088 -3.5%

New Transfer Undergrads

681 11.3% 732 7.5% 708 -3.3% 714 0.8% 707 -1.0%

Returning Undergrads

7,239 9.3% 6,527 -9.8% 6,658 2.0% 6,809 2.3% 7,150 5.0%

New Grad Students 430 -10.8% 406 -5.6% 371 -8.6% 473 27.5% 467 -1.3%

Returning Grad Students

1,197 6.7% 1,245 4.0% 1,143 -8.2% 1,114 -2.5% 1,250 12.2%

Other: First-time PT Undergrads

108 83.0% 58 -46.3% 47 -19.0% 47 0.0% 52 10.6%

Total Headcount

10,970 1.7% 10,985 0.1% 11,051 0.6% 11,321 2.4% 11,714 3.5%

SOURCE: ISU, Institutional Research



Examining enrollment by academic unit highlights differences in growth characteristics of ISU schools and colleges (Table 5, below). Between 1997 and 2002, degree-seeking enrollment increased by 44.5% in the School of Technology. Arts & Science showed a strong increase of 16.5%, while Business (8.4%) and Education (7.0%) were more moderate.

During the same period, the School of Health/Human Performance declined by 12.1% and Nursing by 5.5%. These declines are consistent with nationwide erosion in enrollment in health-related fields in recent years. Student Academic Services also declined by 16.4%, which may have been due to a strategic decision to limit enrollment in remedial programs.

ISU has only recently begun to track prospect inquiries. First-time first-year inquiries increased dramatically (34.3%) in 2002-2003 over the prior year, from 9,871 to 13,263 (Table 6, below). However, the 2002-2003 conversion rate for applications was significantly lower than the prior year. As a result, both admits (4,603) and enrolls (2,140) decreased. This discrepancy may be due to inaccuracies or differences in data tracking during the years in question.

However, it is also possible that it resulted from a more aggressive advertising campaign coupled with a lack of corresponding follow-through at the application and decision-making stages. Similarly, the number of transfer inquiries increased by 1,577 from 2002-2003, but applications decreased by 106, and accepts and enrolls both declined. Conversion rates for inquiries-to-applications and accepts-to-enrolls should be monitored carefully to identify potential bottlenecks in marketing, admissions, and registration processes.

Table 5: Indiana State University Degree-Seeking Undergraduate Enrollment, by Academic Unit, 1997 – 2002 Academic Unit 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 % Change College of Arts & Science 3,318 3,486 3,469 3,440 3,612 3,865 16.5% School of Business 1,221 1,219 1,272 1,295 1,323 1,323 8.4% School of Education 918 929 1,004 1,032 990 982 7.0% School of Health/ Human Performance 832 802 712 684 682 731 -12.1% School of Nursing 566 503 472 488 503 535 -5.5% School of Technology 762 809 904 951 1,028 1,101 44.5% Student Academic Services 1,291 1,288 1,251 1,334 1,344 1,079 -16.4% Total 8,908 9,036 9,084 9,224 9,482 9,616 8.0%

SOURCE: Official Report Book, Fall Enrollment, Office of Registration & Records



Table 6: Indiana State University, Inquiry to Enrollment Yields, 1998 - 2002 Inquire Apply % Inquired Accept % Applied Enroll % Accepted

Full-time First-year Undergrads 13,263 5,550 41.8% 4,603 82.9% 2,140 46.5%Transfer Undergrads 4,858 1,704 N/A 1,159 68.1% 707 61.0%

2002

-03

Grad Students N/A 1,322 N/A 812 N/A 467 N/AFull-time First-year Undergrads 9,871 1 5,557 56.3% 4,792 86.2% 2,211 46.2%Transfer Undergrads 3,281 1 1,810 N/A 1,353 74.8% 714 52.8%

2001

-02

Grad Students N/A 1,147 N/A 747 N/A 473 N/AFull-time First-year Undergrads N/A 5,307 N/A 4,378 82.5% 2,171 49.6%Transfer Undergrads 3,375 1 1,677 N/A 1,180 70.4% 708 60.0%

2000

-200

1

Grad Students N/A 1056 N/A 629 N/A 364 N/AFull-time First-year Undergrads N/A 4,915 N/A 4,220 85.9% 2,075 49.2%Transfer Undergrads 2,729 1 1,405 N/A 1,106 78.7% 732 66.2%

1999

-200

0

Grad Students N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/AFull-time First-year Undergrads N/A 4,608 N/A 3,993 87.0% 2,104 53.0%Transfer Undergrads N/A 1,215 N/A 973 80.0% 681 56.0%

1998

-199

9

Grad Students N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/ANOTES: 1. Indicates that this data is not available or may not be dependable due to recording inconsistencies.

SOURCE: ISU Office of Admissions



Admissions, Advancement, and Alumni Affairs The focus of this analysis is on communications and marketing, but because of the strong impact of Admissions, Advancement, and Alumni Affairs areas, EMG reviewed these functions, albeit very briefly. EMG reviewed questionnaires and organizational charts and interviewed administrators and staff members to assess capabilities. Advancement and Alumni The Interim Vice President for Advancement currently oversees ISU’s fundraising, foundation, and alumni affairs activities as well as the University’s communications and marketing functions.

This unified reporting structure, which combines four separate functions under a single vice president, is common in higher education, particularly among small- to mid-sized institutions. However, due to an increasing need for aggressive marketing and the heightened profile of issues management and fundraising in recent years, more and more institutions are having their communications and marketing units report directly to the CEO.

In ISU’s Advancement unit, approximately 20 FTE are devoted to fundraising functions, while three FTE focus on alumni activities, and one FTE is devoted to events planning. The alumni affairs staff appears to be consistent with other institutions of similar size and scope, but the fundraising staff appears to be somewhat smaller than many competitor institutions.

The fundraising staff includes development directors for each of seven schools and colleges, as well as specialists in annual giving, planned giving, research, support, and the foundation.

The Advancement unit sponsors two major fundraising events each year: The Intercollegiate Athletics Auction for athletic scholarships and the President’s Scholars Golf Outing for need-based scholarships. This represents fewer annual events than most competitor institutions.

ISU’s alumni giving rate is 11%, significantly lower than similar institutions, which often average 15% or more. The ISU Foundation and fundraising operations are relatively new, and have suffered from some instability and an historically weak legacy of giving. The University’s endowment stands at only about $36 million, appreciably lower than most similar mid-sized public research institutions. Annual giving to the institution is approximately $7 million, again significantly lower than most peers and competitors. Admissions The Admissions Office, with 22 FTE total, includes seven admissions counselors (Chart 3, below). No positions are devoted specifically to marketing communications functions, although all staff members conduct recruitment communications as part of the normal job duties. The Admissions Office appears to be well organized and professional. Admissions has a strong relationship with marketing, and the two offices have undertaken joint strategic planning through the Enrollment Planning Team and the 2004 Marketing and Recruitment Plan.

The Admissions Office has developed a coherent, comprehensive prospect correspondence flow chart, although EMG did not receive information on the effectiveness of implementation. The flow involves significant direct-mail follow-through and calls for departmental follow-up



contacts. Currently, the plan primarily addresses printed communications, and does not call for significant personal contact. The plan will be revised when an automated communication process is operational in 2003-2004.

The office conducts four search mailings (lists from PSAT, NRCCUA, ACT, and My College Options) reaching an unknown number of student prospects. Admissions also sponsors eight on-site events each year, reaching approximately 1,000 prospects. Another 300 prospects have been identified as making personal campus visits on a drop-in basis. The office attends nearly 80 off-campus fairs and events and makes numerous high school visits. Based on limited information, ISU prospect communications and marketing efforts appear to rely heavily on direct mail, with personal and web-based contact levels lower than optimum.

Chart 3: Organizational Chart, Admissions



Strengths and Weaknesses EMG compiled qualitative stakeholder input on the strengths and weaknesses of the institution. The President of Indiana State University sent a global e-mail invitation for feedback to students, alumni, faculty members, staff members, and administrators. The e-mails invited interested stakeholders to provide anonymous feedback directly to EMG on the three greatest strengths, three greatest weaknesses, the most compelling single competitive advantage, and the singular core value for which Indiana State University should stand. This section summarizes the strengths and weaknesses that surfaced repeatedly throughout the responses to the e-mail. EMG received a total of 129 e-mails during the two and a half-week period in early September 2003.

Students 11 Faculty Member 36 Staff Member 23 Administrator 16 Alumni 43 Total 129

Strengths Following are the strengths that were reiterated most often by multiple stakeholder groups. They represent qualitative input and are not listed in priority order.

• Small class sizes • A medium-sized campus • An affordable education • The relationship with and availability of faculty • A wide variety of program offerings • Quality of faculty members • Access to an education for those who might not receive it elsewhere • A focus on educating students • Beautiful campus • Opportunities through extracurricular activities • Strong academic programs • Friendly, collaborative campus community

Representative Strength Quotes

Students “Generally small classes and most of the time taught by professors who are willing to go the distance for their students.”

“Caring faculty that serve as well as lead.”

“Beautifully groomed and maintained campus landscaping.”



Faculty “A broad range of curricular offerings.”

“Faculty who are interested in the student’s personal and professional growth.”

“Cost of tuition is lower than other comparable institutions.”

“Accessibility to the university and a flexible transfer policy.”

Staff “Small campus. Everything is within walking distance and not so spread out like larger campuses.”

“Students have an opportunity to be involved in a wide range of activities/Greek life/organizations/ Student government… there is something for everyone!”

“Mid-sized university: Safe, yet lots of opportunities for research/faculty interactions.”

Administration “It’s just the right size. Students don’t have to worry about getting lost in the crowd. Yet ISU is large enough to offer students everything a larger institution can offer.”

“Low cost, access and opportunity to get a college education.”

Alumni “Teaching orientation with instructors and administrators that care about the students.”

“Easy to become involved with campus activities and learn to become a leader.”

“More accessible to the average family financially.”

Weaknesses Following are the weaknesses that were reiterated most often by multiple stakeholder groups. They represent qualitative input and are not listed in priority order.

• Terre Haute does not feel like a campus town • Poor customer service in the Financial Aid Office • Poor on campus communication • Poor reputation • Not a rigorous enough education • Limited parking availability • Some faculty not invested in educating students • Lack of diversity support services • Poor recruiting efforts • Poorly prepared, under-qualified students admitted • Lower standards than competitors



Representative Weakness Quotes Students

“(Poor) communication between higher ups and regular staff.”

“Parking is an absolute nightmare.”

“Admissions and financial aid are difficult to work with.”

Faculty “The city of Terre Haute: It is an embarrassment to our institution and negatively affects recruiting.”

“Lack of quality service in enrollment and financial aid.”

“Current image of ISU as a place to go when (there are) no other options.”

“A large proportion of poorly-prepared, over-extended, or indifferent students who dilute the level of intellectual discourse in most classes.”

Staff “Admissions lack of enthusiasm and friendliness.”

“Our identity doesn’t show the strengths in academics that is a reality.”

Administration “Lack of collaboration between faculty and student groups.”

“No campus town (downtown needs to continue to develop).”

“Student body quality is low; low academic average.”

Alumni “Not a great enough national reputation and presence.”

“Low institutional academic prestige.”

“Impression from community that ISU will enroll anyone.”

“Inability to provide a critical support center for minority students.”

Competitive Advantages Following are the competitive advantages that were reiterated most often by multiple stakeholder groups. They represent qualitative input and are not listed in priority order.

• Small campus environment with opportunities of a larger university • The relationship between students and faculty • Many educational opportunities at a lower cost • Experiential learning



• Access to an education to those who might otherwise be turned away (Flexible admissions)

• High quality education

Representative Competitive Advantages Quotes Students

“Tuition not being extremely high allows for more students to enroll here versus other in-state colleges such as Purdue and IU.”

“Experiential learning, putting knowledge into practice.”

“What compelled me to attend ISU for my grad and undergrad degrees were location and costs.”

Faculty “Excellence in teaching. I would stack ISU’s level of instruction on an equal basis with the big schools like PU and IU.”

“Big enough to have a wealth of opportunities, yet small enough to be personal.”

“We care about our students and want them to succeed. Our efforts do not end at graduation.”

Staff “Down-to-earth sympathetic faculty and staff who are open and available.”

“It is a smaller school that cares about students.”

“The smaller classrooms and more direct contact with instructors are more advantageous for our students.”

Administration “True feeling of friendliness and caring about an institution that is here to serve students.”

“Experiential learning opportunities.”

Alumni “Faculty and administrators that really seem to care about the students and create a teaching-oriented environment with small classes, but the breadth of programs of a large university.”

“Cost-to-value ratio. ISU does a good job for reasonable tuition.”

“Big university feel, but with small university size and price.”

“ISU gives students a second chance. If their grades in high school weren’t good enough to get them into a bigger, more widely known school, then they can attend ISU and get a quality education that they can then use in their careers or graduate schools.”



Core Values Following are the core values that were reiterated most often by multiple stakeholder groups. They represent qualitative input and are not listed in priority order.

• Quality education • Focus on students • Access to education (Flexible admissions) • Good education at a reasonable price • Lifelong lessons taught • Superior customer service for students

Representative Core Value Quotes. Students

“Working for the betterment of students, in terms of equipping them with knowledge of diversity and becoming culturally more adept.”

“Excellence in education. Students want to enter a program they know is sought after by good employers.”

“College should be a possibility to nearly everyone. Those who need help academically will find the assistance they need in tutoring programs or the writing center and in small classes.”

Faculty “ISU should stand for being the best place in the state to acquire a quality, affordable undergraduate education.”

“ISU is an excellent place to get an education.”

“Every student in Indiana can have an absolutely top-level university education.”

Staff “A premiere education and experience; we give what a private school does for less investment. The service provided to students is outstanding.”

“Faculty who truly care and are willing to work with students.”

“A helpful and friendly environment for all types of students to grow and mature to what they want to become.”

Administration “Truly caring about students, going the extra mile to provide assistance so that students can graduate!”

“Student-friendly service. We do not run a ‘herd’; we work with students.”



Alumni “We take your education personally.”

“A high quality education at a low dollar cost.”

“ISU should stand as the Indiana university that welcomes all students to be successful and believes higher education should be readily and easily available to anyone willing to put forth the effort.”



EXTERNAL ENVIRONMENT Brand Awareness and Brand Equity There is no quantifiable data available on brand awareness or public perceptions of ISU quality. EMG interviewed administrators, faculty, and business leaders in Terre Haute and Indianapolis to compile anecdotal feedback on brand awareness and equity among target audiences. Additionally, EMG reviewed and synthesized information supplied by the University.

Interview input indicates that throughout much of Indiana, particularly the Terre Haute/Wabash Valley region and in some nearby Illinois “waiver” counties, general public awareness of ISU is quite strong. ISU’s market penetration, for example, is statewide: Students come to ISU from every county in the state. This broad awareness can be attributed in large part to the school’s historical presence since its founding in 1865 as the Indiana State Normal School.

However, while general name awareness is strong, top-of-mind awareness (being among the first three institutions named in unaided recall), particularly when matched against primary competitors Purdue University, Indiana University, Ball State, and UIPUI is quite low.

Enrollment data suggests that ISU brand awareness is strongest in the rural areas surrounding Terre Haute, and particularly weak in the high-growth urban areas of the state. For example, ISU’s market share of Indiana high school graduates entering Indiana public institutions in 1999 – 2000 was 4.5% in Marion County and only 4.0% in Lake County. ISU market share in these two heavily populated counties has remained relatively flat over the 1995-1999 period.

Business and opinion leaders in Indianapolis also powerfully reinforced the lack of brand strength. Prominent graduates and other city leaders were strident in noting that “ISU is not on the radar screen.” This feeling was intensified when ISU was compared with IU and Ball State. Ball State, in particular, received commendations for effectively increasing its presence in Indianapolis, not just through its advertising but through the visibility of the Ball State President.

In addition, anecdotal feedback suggests that perceptions of ISU’s academic quality are weak compared to the competitors noted above. ISU’s brand appears to be driven by perceptions of it as an easily accessible, affordable school that provides educational opportunity for first-generation students and for lesser achievers. These perceptions surfaced repeatedly in virtually every interview group, including those with internal stakeholders, and were especially strong among Indianapolis business leaders and accomplished alumni.

The concepts of personalized attention and small class sizes also consistently surfaced in interviews as brand differentiators. However, such perceptions were often accompanied by caveats that they were particularly important because ISU serves many mid- to low-performers.

Over time the institution’s historic position as the region’s low-cost, accessible institution has overshadowed the many quality attributes of the University. It has precluded ISU from basing its brand position on leadership or superiority, and has diluted the fundamental notion of academic quality at ISU.



Despite broad name awareness, there is clearly a low willingness to recommend ISU to high-performing students on the part of influencers, parents, business leaders, and prominent graduates. Even on campus, administrators and faculty members often referred to a pervasive “inferiority complex.”

IN D I A N A STATE UN I V E R S I T Y – SITUATIONAL A N A L Y S I S PAGE 37 OF 75 SE

indiana state universityirt2.indstate.edu/nca2010/assets/pdf/emg.pdf · 2010. 8. 10. · in the isu...

Documents