Lipman Hearne, a US-based marketing and communications firm serving the nonprofit sector, and by the Council for Advancement and Support of Education (CASE) recently partnered on a new study called “Marketing Spending at Colleges and Universities.” The study shows that colleges and universities are diversifying their marketing strategies to include a mix of time-honored and new-generation tactics. From a greater focus on research and benchmarking and more strategic use of new media to employing established methods of print publications, institutions are using blended strategies that are paying off in terms of greater visibility, increased alumni giving, and higher quality applicants, among other indicators.

“In the last five years there’s been a much greater interest in proof, in validation, and in testing,” says Donna Van De Water, COO, director of research at Lipman Hearne, and one of the study’s authors. “Marketers need to be able to show that their investments are going to have a payoff, whether it’s in increasing enrollments or generating a higher profile. Having the metrics helps an institution understand where it sits relative to competitors, how to better manage reputation, how to shape messages, and how to maximize resources.”

Key findings in the survey:

• Interactive and social media budgets are growing. Between FY2008 and FY2009, 55 percent of institutions surveyed allocated more to interactive; and 52 percent allocated more to social media.
• Institutions that invested more in social media were more likely to report positive outcomes in three important areas: website hits, positioning, and rates of alumni giving.
• Moderate-to-heavy users of social media were actually spending less per student overall on marketing activities. The moderate-to-heavy investors spent $83 per student, and the light-to-non-investors spent $121 per student.
• While interactive and social media budgets were on the rise, traditional advertising budgets were on the wane. The study found that more than one-third of the institutions allocated less to traditional advertising in FY2009 than they did in FY2008 (35 percent). And 42 percent of moderate-to-heavy social media users spent less on traditional advertising compared to the prior year.
• Institutions continue to rely on print publications. Of those surveyed, 55 percent spent the same portion of their budget on print publications in FY2009 as they did in FY2008. In fact, more than one-quarter of marketing budgets went toward print publications, more than any other category.
• Among institutions that were moderate-to-heavy investors in market research and strategy—those who devoted at least 6 percent of their marketing budget to these activities—71 percent reported that marketing efforts had a positive impact on the quality of their applicants. Other positive outcomes were seen in brand management and positioning.
• Though marketing spending has decreased at some institutions in the short term, marketing spending has increased substantially over the last decade. According to an earlier study, in FY2001, the median marketing spending for a midsized college or university (2,000-5,999 students) was $259,400 (or $321,900, adjusted for inflation). Not even a decade later, that figure rises to $800,000—an increase of more than 100 percent.

The study separates colleges and universities into types and sizes: liberal arts colleges, master’s-level universities, research institutions, and two-year institutions, as well as a number of independent primary and secondary schools. Results were collected from February 1 to March 19, 2010, in a detailed, online survey completed by representatives at 212 CASE member institutions.

Help Me Source – Post Your RFI or RFP with us, and let us help you source the best product or service through our “Help Me Source” service.

I’m all for equal opportunity, but the results that I recently published on our sister publication Profectio of the Top 100+ Most Influential People In Social Media were a bit surprising with 62% of Canada’s social media influences being men.  Out of 102 nominations from readers the majority were male, 72% to be exact.  Attending different public relations events or visiting the offices of the of the agencies it is quite evident that there are more women in PR than, but why such a large difference with social media?

Anyone have any thoughts on this?

Most of us have seen Titanic and the source of its demise.  If you haven’t seen it, perhaps you’ve seen an iceberg on the Discovery Channel, on a bottled water commercial, or on one of those marginally corny corporate motivational posters that were all the rage in the late 90s.

In any event, picture an iceberg.  Why?  Because, as a former crisis communication colleague explained, it’s a fitting visual meant, in this case, to explain the relationship between the media and stakeholders.  More specifically, the media are above the waterline and all other stakeholders are below.  This delineation is meant to symbolize the comparative size and, in some potentially controversial cases, priority of the media versus stakeholders.  Particularly in a crisis, but in an increasing number of non-crisis situations as well.

OK, now you have the iceberg visual in mind.  Now think research and measurement in communications.

Above the Waterline:  Media Research & Measurement
Media relations has, historically, been THE foundational tactical approach to PR.  PR has become so much more than that, of course, but it remains pivotal.  The industry spends a fair amount (some might say disproportionate) of time here.  So, it’s important that media relations efforts be measured.

Media Content Analysis, a method for turning the qualitative into strategic actionable quantitative data—has been available in some cases for quite some time (CARMA, Cormex) and in some cases has seen more recent market entrants (CPRS-conceived MRP and MediaMiser).  They all effectively fill a particular niche or value proposition in the market and all can look back to establish a benchmark, then track on an ongoing basis going forward.  Thus they can be used, as any research method should, from both a pre-campaign formative and post-campaign evaluative perspective.  They all provide some form of data.  They all tackle the ‘how much’ and ‘how good’ question but the ‘with what effect’ goes largely unanswered.  Some of these providers, however, look at correlating media coverage with awareness, opinion.

To be clear, I’m talking about correlation not causality.  Proxy not proof.  Correlation demonstrates that there is some (albeit statistically valid) relationship between the two but not proving that one is exclusively driving the other.  That—causality or proof–can be done, and consumer packaged goods companies in the U.S. are doing it, but it’s an entirely different level of research altogether.  (Stay tuned for another article on that)

Below the Waterline:  Researching & Measuring Stakeholder Relationships
Still, even if we are correlating media coverage with awareness, opinion, or reputation drivers, there’s more to communications than media relations.  Particularly in an increasingly ‘direct-to-stakeholder’ world.  Traditional media isn’t and never will be unimportant, but it is in some cases becoming less central or a less exclusive tactical element of a campaign.

Stakeholder, influencer, key opinion leader relationships are everything in this business.  So if the industry is investing time and money in initiating, building and maintaining relationships with stakeholders for mutual benefit (which sounds like a pretty classic definition of PR to me), then there sure better be a way to first diagnose the situation, respond to it, then measure success.   There is.  Methods exist to quantifiably benchmark and tracking the quality of stakeholder relationships:  (customers, interest groups, investors, employees, vendors, government officials, etc.) over time.  It’s used to establish a diagnostic benchmark, build a campaign around addressing gaps, and measure again for lift.

Other research methods that could be used both in a pre-campaign formative and post-campaign evaluative sense include:

• Perception audits
• Communications audit research
• Employee research:  engagement, alignment, support, motivation, trust, loyalty, satisfaction, etc.
• In-depth external audience research: awareness, opinion, attitude, perception, trust
• Quantifying and tracking organizational expressiveness: how effectively and organization communicates with its audiences, how emotionally appealing organizers are to those audiences
• Corporate social responsibility research:  awareness, transparency, credibility, perception
• And the wholly grail, reputation: what’s driving your reputation? How do you compare to others? How does media coverage correlate?

Collectively, as an industry, we’re doing a healthy job at researching and measuring above the waterline but the industry gets cold feet when it considers sticking a toe below the surface.  But pressure to do so is mounting.  Increasing pressure for the industry to demonstrate accountability and prove it’s contributing to the bottom line will only grow, and acutely so, in this troubling economy.  In a world that is commonly intuitive and arts-based, research and measurement can play a critical role in helping organizations do the right things to the right audience at the right frequency with the right desired effect and prove that we’ve done so.  We need to get below that waterline.  Can’t afford to, you say?  Can you afford not to?

Alan Chumley, Director of Communications Research, Leger Marketing, is an instructor of communications research in the PR programs at Ryerson and McMaster Universities, an associate member of the CPRS measurement committee, as well as an industry speaker, conference chair, and blogger: http://alanchumley.wordpress.com

Although we are often the brunt of the joke, “Eh”, Canadians scored big in the 9th Annual Edelman Trust Barometer, part of the results showed that trust in Canadian businesses has risen by 10% over last year. Trust in Canadian governments is at 39% and trust in media rose to 48% from 34% last year. David Fleet was able to attend the event and did an amazing recap on his blog,

Click here to download the 9th Edelman Trust Barometer report for 2008.

No surprise that Word of Mouth is still the most source that 83% of respondents trust the most.

edelman-trust-ba_1″ >Top Edelman Trust Barometer Finding Over The Years

• 2001 – Rising influence of NGOs and increased need for corporate social responsibility linked to business goals
• 2002 – NGOs approach partity in credibility with business and government; era of celebrity CEO is over as trust in business wanes
• 2003 – Stories in business and government stronger; U.S. companies in Europe suffer trust discount
• 2005 – Trust in established institutions and figures of authority shifting of authority shifting to peers
• 2006 – “A person like me” most credible spokesperson for companies; trust in employees significantly higher than in CEOs
• 2007 – Young opinion elites show higher levels of trust in business than older elites; rely on multiple sources of information to form opinions about companies

I came across a link to some interesting data from Zogby International says that two thirds or 67% of American’s no longer value traditional journalism such as newspapers and TV as their go-to source for news. Personally I have found that the way that I consume news has altered over the years, moving to websites, to email newsletters and now subscribing to well over 300 RSS feeds where I scan headlines to find something that catches my eye. Probably no surprise to see that the majority of the 67% are aged between 18 and 29 (55%), while the other large group is aged 65 and older which represents 35% of the respondents.

Where do Americans get their news?

• (48%) use the Internet (40% increase from the same time a year ago)
• 29% use television
• 11% use radio
• 10% use newspapers

The other biggest disrupter on how news is being consumed through Facebook and and a user’s ability to use applications to pull feeds from a blog into their profile, another big growing source is Twitter where you could literally sit at your desk and be fed minute by minute updates on events such as a conference or a debate between Hilary Clinton and Barack Obama.

Web sites are regarded as a more important source of news and information than traditional media outlets – 86% of Americans said Web sites were an important source of news, with more than half (56%) who view these sites as very important. Most also view television (77%), radio (74%), and newspapers (70%) as important sources of news, although fewer than say the same about blogs (38%).

Other findings from the survey include:

• Although the vast majority of Americans are dissatisfied with the quality of journalism (64%), overall satisfaction with journalism has increased to 35% in this survey from 27% who said the same in 2007
• Both traditional and new media are viewed as important for the future of journalism – 87% believe professional journalism has a vital role to play in journalism’s future, although citizen journalism (77%) and blogging (59%) are also seen as significant by most Americans
• Very few Americans (1%) consider blogs their most trusted source of news, or their primary source of news (1%)
• Three in four (75%) believe the Internet has had a positive impact on the overall quality of journalism
• 69% believe media companies are becoming too large and powerful to allow for competition, while 17% believe they are the right size to adequately compete

The survey was conducted between on February 20 and 21, 2008 with 1,979 consumers across the US.