Facebook? Not in Our House!
Posted by Chris Potts | Posted in Concepts, Facebook, Social Media | Posted on 03-11-2008
22
Written by Chris Potts, Senior Assistant Director Of Admission
By now most people know (or should know!) of the impending nationwide crisis for the higher education profession: a sharp decline in the number of students graduating from high school and attending college. Because of this it will become much more difficult for colleges to recruit students, or at least students who they are used to recruiting. New strategies must be developed, new methods put in place, and as a profession we must begin to think more like the students we want to recruit – we must enter their world on their timeline and in their preferred manner. As if it isn’t already, it will become even more of a “buyer’s market” for college bound students, who will have numerous colleges almost begging for them to attend their “prestigious” institution. Both students and parents alike will eventually catch on to this, and as a result will be able to command much greater attention and respect from colleges and universities (respect as in greater scholarship packages and newer, nicer, and bigger facilities, among other things).
Ah yes, our field of work is changing rapidly and being forced to adapt to the changing world around us. Wait a minute – did I just say being forced to “adapt” to the changing world around us? Silly me. I know better. Even though, in my opinion, our survival as institutions depends on us realizing the sober realities that students are no longer choosing where they attend school based solely on the quality of the academics, the “scholarly reputations” of the faculty, or the overall academic reputation, we are still marred in the details of what were issues years ago. We are debating issues that are no longer of any concern to students looking to attend college and this shows in our archaic publications, our methods of communication, and our awkward attempts to remain “scholarly” while simultaneously entering the student’s worlds.
Enter new ways of communication. Facebook. MySpace. Zinch. Twitter. Text messaging. Instant Messaging…and on and on. Ask most people on any college campus about any of these and it’ll be like you’re speaking Greek. And yet, it seems that very few people in higher education care to educate themselves on these things let alone even entertain the idea that it will make a difference in their recruitment efforts as a university or will impact how they will have to adapt their teaching strategies, building strategies, social strategies, etc.
Here at Butler, for example, we have admittedly done a very good job in keeping up with these new trends and ways of communication with students. We have jumped head first into the realm of “the eighteen year old.” What a concept! But when I say “we,” I am mainly talking about a few people, almost all of whom work in enrollment. For example, we now have a fairly large presence on Facebook. Yet oddly, the same decision makers tell our admission counselors to “stay away” from sites such as these, including MySpace as well, and that we should never be looking at or even visiting such sites when making admission decisions – or even to just learn more about our students. Heaven forbid we’d want to actually forge authentic relationships with our prospective students. So even though “we” are advertising on Facebook, utilizing blogs and forums, capitalizing on the newness of Zinch, that’s all peripheral. We still must do the nitty gritty recruitment of students through writing notecards, sending plain text e-mails that seemingly nobody reads anyone (minus perhaps some parents), and making even more awkward “congratulations on your admission” phone calls; because everyone knows that a personal call means more to a student than sending them a note on Facebook, right??
My point in all of this is that a continental divide is developing at many colleges and universities, between the “old media” types and the “new media” types. A large percentage of us in higher education, for some valid reasons, are terrified of venturing totally into the world and mind of an eighteen year old student, and yet every year we ask the same questions as to why our recruitment strategies don’t seem to be working and what we can do to improve them. If as a profession we don’t quickly realize this and make legitimate efforts to better balance our communication strategies, then students will toss us aside, rightly or wrongly making the conclusion that we don’t care enough about them to actually want to communicate with them on their level. And with fewer number of prospective students to go after – well, this will naturally mean that some institutions just may actually be “forced” to think like that of an eighteen year old – whether they want to or not.
Interesting post, Brad.
Don’t you think that one of the reasons behind this behavior might be to respect students’ “private” spaces, i.e. their facebook or myspace accounts? Some studies showed that institutional communications are not always welcome in these contexts.
I’m not saying this is right or wrong, but it might just be a factor.
What do you think?
I’ve not heard of this sharp decline in students attending college, just a dramatic incresease in the number of applications to colleges. And of course all the traditional schools are jam packed. Which is why the career colleges and U of Phoenix are doing great business.
I will defer to Chris, who wrote the post. This group blogging thing gets tricky when multiple people post!
Personally, I agree with the private space and the concept of ‘if you check one, you must check them all.’ I don’t necessarily agree that messages should be sent via Facebook (unless there is an opt-in), but i do think that there should be some sort of presence on the site.
There are some interesting articles out there, demonstrating that there is projected to be a steady decline of high school graduates. Most suggest that by around 2010 is when this will become an issue. Here are just two recent articles about this, from major media outlets:
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/03/09/education/09admissions.html?_r=1&ref=education&oref=slogin
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/03/09/AR2008030902065.html?sub=AR
One of the main points I tried to make in my post is that lots of college and universities are talking about this but AREN’T talking about how to lessen its impact – by working now to develop better and more balanced recruitment and communication strategies.
Let me clarify one point – I agree 100% with Karine and Brad…I am NOT suggesting that colleges, universities, (or any other institution for that matter) should start barging their way into traditional student “private” areas to essentially market themselves. This would be bad. Doing so would become obvious to the students, would probably be irritating, and would be counter-effective. But, I do think we need to start looking for ways to communicate with students in a way that is natural, non-threatening, and informative – rather than persuasive. The more traditional approaches just simply aren’t cost-effective anymore and are not reaching their intended audiences.
I think this is typical of “old” people trying to figure out “young” people and new media. Putting serious things (e.g. college admissions) into non-serious environments (Facebook/Myspace… let’s not even mention the Ponzi scheme that is Zinch) usually fails.
The reason it fails is that teens have their personal space which they don’t like having intrusions upon by adults.
This is precisely why teens don’t respond to most big company’s attempts to market to them in Facebook.
This is the same reason that companies like Zinch are scams because they offer false hope to students with scholarship contests and the like. No college will accept based on his or her Zinch/Facebook profile but they could reject that student because of the potential for things on the kid’s profile freaking them out.
Traditional approaches may not be cost-effective from a pure response rate standpoint, but the metrics to support campaigns in social media are simply not there.
Our admissions director is very worried about the declining high school market. Competition is going to be rough. We used to have the luxury of falsely thinking that viewbooks and brochures were all we needed, but I look back and realize that students didn’t read them. Their parents did. Now with the social sites, students have cocooned themselves away from anyone they don’t want to interact with.
Tricky problem!
“By now most people know (or should know!) of the impending nationwide crisis for the higher education profession: a sharp decline in the number of students graduating from high school and attending college.”
True, there is a projected decline in high school graduates. This does not causally mean there will be a decline in high school graduates attending college, which could actually increase if a greater percentage of students pursue college. (Folks in higher ed seem to forget that not every high school graduate attends college.) Furthermore, these demographic shifts are not the case everywhere – they vary by region and sub-region.
“My point in all of this is that a continental divide is developing at many colleges and universities, between the “old media” types and the “new media” types.”
That point cuts both ways. I consider myself both “old media” and “new media”, and it saddens me that “new media types” fail to realize the try to understand the strength of print and traditional marketing approaches when **done well**. Old media and new media are complementary and intertwined – not sure setting up a dichotomy between them achieves anything useful.
“We still must do the nitty gritty recruitment of students through writing notecards, sending plain text e-mails that seemingly nobody reads anyone (minus perhaps some parents)…”
E-mails when **done well**, yes, even plain text e-mails, can be highly effective.
Print materials are perhaps more important for parents than students. For the sake of argument, let’s accept that as true. That said, if your print materials don’t have the impact you want for prospective students, you need to overhaul your print materials. The relevance of the message may be broken, not the medium. Focus on what students are interested in. A “new media” person should have some idea of student interests
Put a couple hours thought into a postcard you are sending out and it will have more impact than a couple hours spent on Zinch.
“students are no longer choosing where they attend school based solely on the quality of the academics, the “scholarly reputations” of the faculty, or the overall academic reputation…”
Sure, it’s not solely about academics, but academics can still be a highly effective part of the marketing. Kids still ask about majors. Kids ask about rankings. Rattle off a list of impressive Ivies where faculty have Ph.D.s from, and kids are still impressed. Couple that with a $20 million rec center and a Starbucks (yes, it isn’t all about academics) and you can get kids to attend at a low discount rate, with their parents buying in, as well.
And, lets face it, some kids are looking at colleges X, Y, and Z because their friends attended those schools, not because of “old media” or “new media” contact.
From my experience, kids aren’t as bothered by interaction on MySpace, Facebook, etc., as is often implied. (This is often implied by agencies with products to sell… ahem… T a r g e t X.) Surely Brad and Chris have had prospective students add them as friends on Facebook without any solicitation and even send them messages through Facebook.
I could go on, but I don’t want my comment to be longer than the original post.
Keep up the crusade to push for “new media” at Butler, but take time to learn and respect the intertwined role “old media” has to play. Change for the sake of change really has no direction.
Just my two cents. I’m enjoying the blog posts
I think the argument for coupling old media with new is wise. But do you think really think many, if any, schools are struggling to keep old media in the mix? I think the point of this blog was how to innovate. You know, the ole “if you keep doing the same thing you keep getting the same results.” Looks like the cliche remains a cliche because people keep struggling with the same issues.
The issue isn’t trying to persuade colleges, even those that embrace new media like Butler, of the need for old media- it’s having a willingness consider a “movement” (if it can yet be called that) toward web 2.0 within higher ed. Measuring the effectiveness of these new mediums in recruiting and outreach is just beginning. You want to compare hours to hours when old media has been polished and perfected over years and new media is, by definition, NEW media. New media enters the scene and you dismiss it while it’s in its infancy? I’m not saying that’s right or wrong (results will speak for themselves to either point). I’m saying it’s premature and shortsighted.
Remarkably, higher ed is embracing technology at a rate outpacing Fortune 500 companies. However, as with any innovation, the many will be slow to adopt and naysayers will keep be saying nay. The innovators (and I’m not implying social media in higher ed will be a sure bet) in higher ed will always be the schools that we know by name. The rest of the pack will continue to be simply classified as “some school in that part of the country.”
I just wanted to chime in and say that this is a GREAT discussion. I am really enjoying all of your thoughts on this. I often times get going on something ‘because it’s what I get paid to do’, but hearing things from counselor/admin perspective is always helpful. This is what we wanted to bring together at SquaredPeg, as noted on our About page:
“where 3 distinct voices of higher education professionals will be weaving together to bring you posts on many different areas.”
It’s good to see commenting from new and familiar faces.
I’m going to re-read this in the AM and try to sum up a response to some thoughts, but I’m way too tired right now. G’night!
Chris, great way to make a splash on SquaredPeg Chris…. Looks like you hit a ’spot with a lot of people, well done!
Tony, great post. Some responses in the spirit of conversation.
The movement toward new media/Web 2.0 in higher ed is still needed, and it is great that Brad, Chris, and others are proactively promoting this. That there is finally starting to be growth in electronic/interactive recruiting positions in admissions offices is exciting.
I don’t dismiss new media. My full-time position is interactive recruitment, and I consider myself to have been a very early adopter in this young field: I sent my first mass e-mail to prospective students in 1997 (I kept a copy for the college archives), I had my first IM conversation with a prospective student in 1999, set up my first electronic group for admitted students to talk to each other around that same time… Yes, I proactively use Facebook for recruiting, etc.
It saddens me that many schools still don’t use “basic” tools like IM (which has already peaked in effectiveness from my experience, but is not dead), and many have barely scratched the potential of e-mail (which is hardly dead – it is extremely effective when done well). Text messaging is even more rare…
While adopting electronic communication approaches in the late ’90s, I was simultaneously overhauling all of our print recruiting publications. Changes to print were informed in part by feedback obtained through new media. Hence my bias that they are intertwined.
“But do you think really think many, if any, schools are struggling to keep old media in the mix? I think the point of this blog was how to innovate.”
I do think the majority of schools are struggling to innovate *within* old media. Join even a mere dozen random college mailing lists this week as a high school junior, watch the mail pour in, and be mostly unimpressed. Alone, sitting on your desk during the review process, these print pieces often seem good. Toss them in the mix of a dozen other schools flooding the mailbox, and they sound like most others. “Talented students, ideal location, successful graduates…” Or, sometimes worse, they fail to convey basic information about a school in a clear way. Think new media writing for the Web, and adapt it to print.
A prospective student might be more inclined to take you up on your open house visit option if your brochure about it also lists some basic facts about your school, such as majors at a bare minimum. Do you receive many e-mailed questions about available majors from rising seniors in spring and summer? If so, your print materials might not be including this info AND that info might be harder to find on your Web site than you think.
Print/direct mail can stand out. Join the Colgate mailing list as a high school sophomore and you’ll likely be impressed. Granted, Colgate likely has a larger marketing budget than the rest of us…
I think there **is** a need to persuade new media advocates at colleges to also learn, appreciate, and take advantage of the effectiveness of old media done well.
New media advocates are often equipped with the knowledge to know the details about their own school that get prospective students excited. As such, they also have great insights into tweaking old media approaches.
Further, they can integrate old media with new media and develop metrics between them. As a basic for instance, think unique Web landing pages for a print piece, for instance. You can develop focused, relevant content for that landing page. (Using includes makes maintenance of recycled content simpler.) You can track how many visitors come to that page from a print piece. You can even track what they do when they get to that page to tweak content for the revised print piece in the future. Basic, but seemingly not often done.
“The innovators… in higher ed will always be the schools that we know by name.”
In terms of new media, I think the innovators will also be the schools we *don’t* know by name, though they may not be heading out to national conferences to present. We’ll always be aware of the brand name schools. Related example: Google is an innovator. But unknown start-ups can be incredible innovators – you simply haven’t heard of them. And just as Google can buy the startup, the brand-name school can buy the innovative new media marketer if he/she doesn’t have a strong bond with their current school.
Rob, your remarks are very insightful, thx for sharing. You have a compelling point with old media. In fact, it seems great innovation on the web is innovation that actually integrates real-life interaction, which again takes us back to the point that belly to belly contact and physical mailers will always have a place.
Print in general does have the tendency to follow traditional print which seems to differ greatly from some contemporary forms of ‘publishing’ (the way a newspaper is written differs from the way a blog is written). Effectively bridging old and new media, where appropriate, seems, at the very least, to be worth a shot. I think you’re right about viewbooks- the glossy brochures have a tendency to be boring and a “dime a dozen.” The answer isn’t necessarily to abandon as perhaps to innovate, as you pointed out. The fact that it’s been done this way for so long also suggests any transition should be thoughtful, and not too abrupt.
My comment on ’schools that we know by name’ was indeed incomplete. Certainly factors beyond simply a school’s ability to innovate combine to put that institution in the forefront of our news and in our minds. Your Google example is an interesting. I would add that Google, Facebook, and most other lasting innovations on the Web weren’t always what they are today. We (i certainly include myself) use these tools today because someone was willing to innovate- **someone** both in terms of the product brainchild/founder and the first users/early adopters. I willingly acknowledge my own unwillingness to embrace certain forms of innovation (i wouldn’t bank online for a long time- I mean, it was my **money** right?). But to cautiously adopt innovation is drastically different from totally dismissing it. We must demand results from new media, I just think that positive results are a function not only of the innovators ability to magically build the right technology, but of the end-users willingness to taste-test and then weigh-in.
In politics, feelings of political efficacy correlate strongly to participation. I think technology might have an even greater correlation. Understanding (personally) that we don’t have unlimited amounts to time to seek out and test every innovation that comes are way, I do think we should not stand idle, particularly in our field of study/work, as innovation comes before us. Our participation, at it were, impacts not only the end product, but what has a chance to be a lasting innovation. Our vote, especially an educated vote, really counts!
“But to cautiously adopt innovation is drastically different from totally dismissing it.” I love that point.
Also, for new media innovators having a tough time getting buy-in on new-media approaches, sometimes the argument to adopt certain approaches needs to be honed.
To go back to the title of this post (“Facebook? Not in Our House!”), a search on Facebook for *class of 2012* turns up 500+ groups, and that is without search variants such as *collegename ‘12*. Showing these search results along with a list of easily developed additional arguments for being proactive can help persuade higher-ups if there is resistance:
- The Facebook group will exist even if we don’t start it
- The kids are already on Facebook, so it would be relatively easy to get them to join
- We can help stop misinformation, and further inform/soft sell in the group
- We can connect students with each other to help yield applicants/reduce summer melt
- We can build connections before they arrive, potentially helping retention
- Our competitors’ Facebook groups have more members than ours, and Suzy, Johnny, and Sally (who also applied to our school) are in our competitor’s Facebook group
- The VP/director’s alma mater has a class of 2012 group on Facebook
etc. etc. with some time, we could probably triple the size of that list.
If you express interest and offer constructive ideas for old media and how to integrate it with new media (especially in terms of developing metrics for print materials as I mentioned before), your boss might gain additional confidence in your judgment re: new media.
Back to sending out some e-mails to prospective students and checking the incoming student Facebook group
[...] Facebook? Not in our house! A nice rant about student recruitment in the era of social networking, with great discussion in the comments. Chime in. [...]
A related Chronicle article to check out.
Tangled Up in Tech – Admissions deans grapple with the promises and pitfalls of electronic recruiting
“It seemed like a good idea at the time. Kenton B. Pauls, director of enrollment services at the University of North Dakota, knew that high-school students frequently send one another text messages, so last year he decided to incorporate text-messaging lingo into the viewbook…”
http://chronicle.com/weekly/v53/i28/28a03601.htm
[...] fra Butler University. Her har de et informativt indlæg om brugen af Facebook til kommunikation: Facebook? Not in Our House! SHARETHIS.addEntry({ title: “Fra 0 til 100.000 medlemmer på 3 dage”, url: [...]
“Yet oddly, the same decision makers tell our admission counselors to “stay away” from sites such as these, including MySpace as well, and that we should never be looking at or even visiting such sites when making admission decisions – or even to just learn more about our students. Heaven forbid we’d want to actually forge authentic relationships with our prospective students”
I actually agree with the decision makers on this one. What would happen if you rejected a student because of what was on their facebook or myspace instead of their official application (with all the required material) and the student found out about it? That’s a lawsuit waiting to happen.
I also disagree with you that email is dead in communicating with your applicants. You’re their counselor, not their friend. The rules are different. Students still use their email accounts (if for nothing else than to log into their facebook accounts) but studies show they use it for “business purposes”, such as communicating with colleges. Also, you discount the input of parents at your peril – they are just as pivotal in a student’s decision-making process than anything. So even if it is the parent reading the email, what have you really lost?
[...] great blog about Facebook, new technologies, and how it can affect recruitment, check out what Chris Potts over at SquaredPeg have to say. There has been some great discussion to [...]
Thanks for generating some great discussion, Chris! We linked to this posting in our March issue of Lawlor Focus.
http://www.thelawlorgroup.com/intel/focus/0803-online-strategies-to-engage-admitted-students
Chris, great way to make a splash on SquaredPeg Chris…. Looks like you hit a ’spot with a lot of people, well done!
It seemed like a good idea at the time. Kenton B. Pauls, director of enrollment services at the University of North Dakota, knew that high-school students frequently send one another text messages, so last year he decided to incorporate text-messaging lingo into the viewbook.