(I wonder if that tiny gem I spent one of the best years of my life at, The Warburg Institute in London, has jumped on the bandwagon? Somehow, I think not.)

Leaving aside my own, my wife’s, and my children’s institutions, I connect with many institutions in a professional consulting capacity on the issue of fundraising. One thing that is clear, although rarely acknowledged, is that virtually all educational fundraising, successful or not, is bland and generic.

What do I mean by bland? The fundraising communications lack a strong, distinctive style or voice. The photographs, though generally of high quality, are predictable and middle-of-the-road. The lead lines and body copy are conventional and expected.

Why do I say generic? Virtually all of the appeals sent out by virtually all educational institutions say the same things:

• Give to [your institution here] for feelings of school pride and spirit
• Give to [your institution here] so that students today can enjoy the same wonderful experience you enjoyed.
• Give to [your institution here] because we depend upon your gifts to support our faculty, students, and program.
• Give to [your institution here] because our rankings depend upon a high level of alumni support (This last one only applies to colleges and universities and not to independent schools).

There are several reasons for the blandness of fundraising communications. One is the topic at hand, which is raising money. Fundraisers tend to be tactful, cautious and risk adverse professionals by nature. No one wants to alienate a prospective donor.

Another is the way educational fundraising has evolved over the past 20 years. The community has coalesced around a cautious, albeit highly professional, approach. Institutions are serviced by consultants who provide similar advice. These consultants do not possess much in the way of marketing expertise in their professional toolkit. Often the consultants are former fundraisers. They conduct prospect research in the context of feasibility studies. They do not fully appreciate the power of distinctive messaging and certainly do not know how to achieve it.

There is a road not yet taken – this is to build fundraising communications around a distinctive, research driven brand personality.

This alternate path involves incorporating a different professional skill-set into fundraising operations. Vice Presidents for Advancement would need to begin to take brand-based marketing seriously, not just for the admissions operation, but for their own operation as well. The creative services that support fundraising would need to move away from generic appeals and toward conveying a more distinctive “attitude” in their messaging. Organizations would need to overcome their tendency to be cautious and conservative at every turn.

In fact, this alternate path is the road to take. Academic institutions are all competing for pieces of the same pie in their fundraising. Eventually some will figure out that one way to increase their share is such brand-based marketing.

Dare to Be First.™

They write:

The brand brings our strategic priorities to reality, defining what we stand for and the essence of the UD experience. It highlights our internal strengths–the distinctive values and characteristics of our colleges, programs, people and initiatives–that provide the substance on which our core messages are based. And it takes into account the way external perceptions help to shape and differentiate our identity from that of other institutions.

You can read the rest of the article here.

So here’s the question – is “Dare to be First” actually a brand strategy or is it really a gussied-up tagline?

To help answer that question, here is a little background. A brand strategy needs to meet four simple criteria. There is nothing elusive or arcane about the criteria themselves. The challenge comes in meeting all four. Here are the criteria:

1. A brand strategy needs to respond to an established audience desire.
2. It needs to distinguish the product or service from the competition.
3. It needs to possess a high degree of authenticity.
4. It needs to possess “stretch,” providing direction for future growth.

How well do you think the University of Delaware did?

And here is a bonus question – if you believe that the University of Delaware spent significant time and money to end up with something that amounts to a tagline, where do you think they went wrong? That is a more difficult but ultimately more important question, since colleges and universities across the country are devoting major resources to just this sort of project and ending up with just this sort of result.

Those on the outside rarely appreciate the identity system that goes hand in hand with the logo. The system is the accompanying guidelines on colors, fonts, stationery design, application of the logo, etc. Usually the identity system is explained in a graphic standards manual. (You can see an example of graphic standards manual we developed for Tufts University here).

Sometimes, if the offices around your campus are hungry for a new design, the minute you announce your logo, they will ask for the electronic file and want to start stamping it willy-nilly on whatever they are producing. They will be a little less happy when you send over a manual that tells them that they are only to apply the logo in strictly regulated ways and that they must use certain fonts and colors.

Although the identity system is the least appreciated part of logo work, it is as important to successful implementation of a new identity as the logo itself. Folks not involved with the day-to-day issues of design have no idea how much thought and organization go into production of a consistent, memorable brand identity.

For the sake of that identity system, it is essential that when you begin a logo development process, you conduct a comprehensive communications audit to catalog the complete range of communications associated with your institution – both on the web and in print. The audit needs to be as thorough as possible, including, for example, brochures and letters sent out by your athletics department, parent’s group, and alumni association. Posters developed by student clubs. Web sites developed by departments and centers. One of the most important areas to document are collaborations between parts of your institution and separate corporate or non-profit entities, for example a collaboration between a medical school and one of its hospitals in its teaching system.

This audit not only needs to account for the complete range of current communication but also look to the future. The goal for an effective identity system is that it will be in place for quite a long time, since the identity grows in effectiveness the more it is repeated. If there is a new center or school envisioned in the next five or ten years, it is wise to take this into account when developing the identity system. Is there a new bio-tech research park in the works? Is there a change of location afoot? Is there a capital campaign in the near future? All of these factors should be taken into account if possible in developing the system.

Normally it is the role of the design team heading up the logo development process to conduct this audit. You can help that team by beginning to assemble information. The most important thing for the in-house team managing the process to do is to insure that all important areas of communication are vetted as part of the audit process. The outside team will have no way of knowing about the many possible applications of the identity system. The in-house team need to direct the designers to critical applications.

The audit is the essential starting point for a logo development process. Don’t get underway without it.

We start here – you have commissioned a new logo because you find something lacking in the current one. It is out of date, difficult to use, or lacks design quality that you believe accurately reflect the quality of your institution. Sometimes there has been a lack of discipline surrounding application of the current logo system. Competing, non-conforming logos dot the campus. In commissioning a logo, you are asking a graphic designer to help you achieve your goals. You are asking for a piece of design that is timeless, fresh, lively, distinctive, and appropriate. You are also asking for outside assistance in creating a culture where people use a logo in consistent ways so that you can build positive brand recognition.

Understand at the outset that you will be asking many people within your institution to judge a work of design in a way for which they are not equipped by training or expertise. Logos are particularly difficult to design because one is working with a minimal palette to meet many exacting criteria. That is why logos are produced by designers with experience in this particular field. They are the kind of people who spend their lives focusing on visual minutiae that most of us take for granted. Administrators at an institution do not possess this graphical point of view yet they often believe it is valid to interject their own judgement when it comes to the quality of a logo.

The important way to combat this is to maintain an orderly and structured process for design review. The graphic designer will show you his or her proposed solution(s) and some explanation of how he or she arrived at that recommendation. It is critical to a successful logo development process that all the people who could down the road veto the design be present for this presentation. This might be a board member, the institution’s Headmaster or President, or a Vice President on the other side of campus. If down the road they are going to have input into the design of the logo, they need to be present for the graphic designer’s explanation. And you need to think seriously about this issue. You might think you’ve included everyone with the ability to veto a logo only to discover later someone you’ve overlooked. If this occurs, the designer is well within his rights to complain about how you have managed the process.

You will be working collaboratively with the designer. Your most important role is provide feedback as to whether you feel the design accurately reflects the image of the institution and where the institution wants to go. Then you need to thoroughly vet the design to make sure it supports the full range of required applications – whether you need special versions for institutional centers, whether the colors are easily produced in a wide range of media, etc. If you play your role well and if the designer has talent and the ability to explain the reasons for his or her design solution, the process can go smoothly. You will enjoy the considerable benefits that come from a high quality piece of design at the center of your institution.

In my next blog post, I’ll focus on the importance of a communications audit prior to beginning the design process.

One thing specific to the independent school sector is heavy reliance on high-volume, independent-school-focused vendors. Schools like to hire the same folks who did the work for the other independent schools down the road. To some extent, this is a natural and valid tendency – there are strong arguments in favor of hiring a consultant with prior segment experience. But independent schools take this tendency to an extreme. They overwhelmingly work with the same group of independent school vendors. The results are predictable – most of the work that independent schools produce is broadly similar and fails to differentiate the institutions from their (ahem, sorry to mention this unpleasant reality) competitors.

I am working now in one of the large, robust East Coast independent school markets. Their are a handful of “top-tier” schools and beneath them many other schools jockeying for position. Tuition hovers around $30,000 per year. Within that market, there are several dominant marketing vendors – the viewbooks and websites for many of the schools are produced by the same firms.

I mean the same firms. Not similar firms. When one of the top-tier schools gets a new website or viewbook, the other schools seem to take this as a sign of approval and get on board. How crazy is that?

On some level, the goal for these schools needs to be about differentiation. Yes, I guess it’s helpful to have a family resemblance to top-tier institutions but it’s definitely not sufficient. If these schools are to thrive, they need to develop a distinctive presence.

Here’s another point – if you want to look for really good examples of educational marketing you don’t look to top-tier institutions. Prestige plays such an overwhelming role in perceptions of quality that top-tier institutions have little pressure to market themselves well. (In this way, the dynamic is exactly the same as in the higher education sector.) In most cases, top-tier independent day schools have mediocre websites and bland viewbooks. But just because a top-tier institution has blessed a particular vendor, the other schools in the category believe their problems will be solved if they also sign up.

It will be interesting to see if, in the new more challenging economic landscape, more independent schools will have the courage to break from the pack. Opportunities certainly exist. The herd mentality of the sector creates ripe opportunities for those with the courage and conviction to swim against the current.

Just like any interview, this process is fraught with challenges. It’s all to easy to get sidetracked by minor considerations or pet agendas. As the consultant (and in this case interviewee) I sometimes wonder if I have a better idea of what the school needs than the folks doing the interviewing. But it’s not my place during such an interview to offer more than I’m asked. I never know what issues or experiences frame the questions. I try to respond clearly and positively to the questions, all the while wondering about the folks sitting at the table who are saying nothing.

So what question should a school ask if they want to hire a really good marketing consultant? I once had the benefit of being a candidate in a selection process led by one of the giants of the advertising industry. This woman had virtually single-handedly turned around the marketing at a Fortune 50 company. She had garnered numerous industry awards. I met with her and her committee twice. She only had one question –  ”show me the quality of your thinking.” I was young and I was going up against much larger and more experienced firms. I kept wanting to draw her into the details of my research approach to prove I had the bona fides for the project. But she couldn’t have cared less. She just had one question – “I want to know the quality of your thinking.”

The reason that her question is the right one is because there is no methodology that on its own, without experience and cunning, can arrive at good marketing strategy. Marketing is not mechanics. Consultants often try to impress clients with detailed, trademarked approaches to research. They use jargon. They focus attention on their method. But none of this amounts to anything if the person driving the project and interpreting its results doesn’t have a first-rate marketing mind. What you should ask when interviewing marketing consultants is, “Show me examples of your thinking.” If you ask that question, you’ll find the best consultant to work with. The methodology will follow.

Network Technology, Marketing, and Independent Schools

by Patrick Pei-Ning Ko

The way the information is produced is rapidly shifting from an industrial production model to a de-centralized production model, which is facilitated by the rise of inexpensive network technology. The components of this new model includes publication tools such as blogs or Twitter, social media tools such as Facebook and many others that enables individuals to produces, share, consume, and evaluate information in faster and more accessible ways than ever before.  In this paper, I will first discuss three major changes in our information society as a result of the shift in production model, and how each of them impacts the marketing paradigm in our modern world.  Second, I will tie these changes to the communications environment of independent schools, leading to some concrete recommendations for schools to not only respond, but also to take advantage of technology and lead in the field of education.

The de-centralized production model of information brings about three major shifts in our information society. First, increased individual production and value of these individuals as “trust agents” (Brogen, Trust Agents, 2009). Second, more cooperative efforts in information production.  And third, a shift of power from major information producers to information aggregators and organizers.

With inexpensive networked technology, anyone with access to the Internet can produce information that is available online. The desire to be known and heard has always been human nature. More than ever before, there are now easy ways to satisfy such desire.  Blogs, websites and mobile applications such as Yelp and Foursquare make it easy for individuals to voice their opinions. There is almost no barrier to entry.  In fact, anyone with poignant thoughts and good web writing skills have the opportunity to become extremely influential experts or “trust agents” in the world of online information (Brogen).

This connection between deep human desire and effective tools leads to more information production by the individual. According to Benkler (The Wealth of Networks, 2006), the material requirements for effective information production and communication are now owned by numbers of individuals several orders of magnitude larger than the number of owners of the basic means of information production and exchange a mere two decades ago.

In this environment of greater participation, individual perception of value of the self also increases. As people become more connected in virtual environments such as social media sites, the new trend is more and more sharing of personal information. As pointed out in a recent New York Times article on information sharing, people are becoming more relaxed about privacy and recognize that publicizing information about themselves can result in serendipitous conversations or ego gratification.  This again speaks to the desire and the perceived increased value of the individual.

The changes in the marketing paradigm due to increased production and value of individuals include decreased reaction time, boundary and control in the marketing process. In the past, with limited information from individuals, marketing professionals had more control and time to carry out marketing research, strategy and execution. As individuals present an unprecedented amount of responsiveness, the boundary of the marketing process is now far wider, with more control resting with individual customers rather than predetermined groups. One might argue that the desires for information perhaps outweigh the desire for actual goods or services. In this new paradigm, goods or services may no longer be the main product themselves – information becomes the new focus. This shift profoundly changes the marketing paradigm from product centered to information centered.

As a result, the new information landscape is more complex and noisy, so the challenge is to decide what types of opinion are most representative of potential customers.  Marketing professionals need to spend a great deal more time listening to individual opinions to accurately speak to specific desires in order to facilitate exchanges.

The collective power of decentralized information production is illustrated by the production model of Wikipedia. This is a type of conscious collaboration. Cooperation can also take place unconsciously. As a person writes a blog, the tags in their entry will automatically lead to groupings through search engines. For example, a search on boarding schools will result in relevant websites that contain these unconscious collective productions.

Through this process, we now see increasing range and diversity of weaker connections. Technology enhances people’s capacity to do more in loose commonality with others, without being constrained to organize their relationship through a price system or in traditional hierarchical models of social and economic organization (Benkler).

Increased cooperative efforts in information production creates new challenges and opportunities for marketing professionals.  Actively creating and fostering user or fan groups becomes important in strategy and execution.  For businesses or schools, this could mean marketing by creating Facebook fan pages or user groups on websites.  In other words, marketing now has a new key component, which is to encourage collective productions of information regarding goods or services.  In other words, marketing professionals need to use technology in order to generate a positive buzz about goods or services.

This trend is manifested in the increased relevance of word-of-mouth marketing.  Tools that aid this shift in marketing paradigm include mobile apps such as Foursaqure, which allows individuals to collectively evaluate an establishment, and Buzzd, which allows groups of people to decide which spots are buzzing with action.  In addition to technology firms, firms such as BzzAgent are examples of successful use of word-of-mouth marketing.  It formally structures and studies positive buzz by harnessing the power of collective information production, thereby providing companies with the ability activate large-scale discussions, uncover hidden values, and drive measurable results (BzzAgent).

With increased production from individuals and collective groups, the web is expanding in sources of information and complexity. According to the Babel objection, when everyone can speak, no one can be heard (Benkler).  To avoid such chaos or cacophony, information aggregators and organizers play key roles in making the web more meaningfully accessible.  These players include search engines such as Google, and popular portals such as MSN or Yahoo.  A popular blogger even argues that Facebook, with its tremendous user participation, is becoming the doorway to the Internet or even the Internet itself.  These players hold tremendous power because they determine how and what information reaches people. They are not just portals to the Internet; in fact, they select the information most people consume. Therefore, in this new age of distributed production, power shifts from major information producers to information aggregators and organizers.

Not ending on the top of search results or not getting listed on popular sites can make information producers irrelevant.  In the business of search engine optimization or Internet ads, one could pay for one’s relevance.  In this case, Benkler correctly predicts that in facing the Babel objection, money reemerges as the distinguishing factor between statements that are heard and those that wallow in obscurity.

In terms of marketing, partnering with and using the services of information aggregators and organizers are key components to successful marketing strategies. Marketing messages not only have to be well crafted, but they also need to be effectively delivered.  Therefore, marketing professionals need to actively devote resources in search engine optimization and online ads that are effectively customized to reach target consumers. Gmail ads present good examples: through personalized ads, users consciously or unconsciously receive information predetermined by Google.  This fundamentally changes how people connect with advertisement because relevant information can now reach people in more detailed and nuanced ways.

The new landscape of distributed information production affects independent schools in very much similar ways as it does to businesses. As information becomes more available, open and free, schools now have less control of their reputation. Nothing can be hidden, and they can no longer put up boundaries and walls.  Reaction time to customer feedback is shorter, and there is greater demand for responsiveness.

All this change creates new challenges for independent schools, many of which are accustomed to insularity in isolation and prestige.  No matter how they meet this challenge, over time, the new communications environment will inevitably lead to more porous and transparent schools. In the process, some schools will succeed and some will fail.  In the following sections I will analyze these changes in more detail and provide three concrete recommendations in how schools can respond as well as capitalize on new opportunities.

Culture is largely formed by shared traditions, beliefs and assumptions. Schools are places of culture.  As the communications environment changes, school culture will change as well. Benkler sees the networked information environment as a more attractive cultural production system, which makes culture more transparent and malleable.  School culture can change in those ways as well.  In response, school leaders use technology to actively promote, shape, or preserve a culture that is positive and in concert with the school’s mission.

Actively shaping a school’s culture in the new communications environment means relinquishing some control.  School websites and school managed social media groups must encourage constituents to produce and contribute information. But while distributing control, schools should actively manage and create a uniform cultural message.  For example, if the school’s culture is one of innovative teaching, then its online communication should be directed to focus on the activities that support such a notion. The groups that are created should have this focus as well – conversations, testimonials, and dialogues should be directed to promote or maintain the culture.  By structuring what people think and talk about, schools can actively shape their culture.

In addition to taking charge of fostering an appropriate culture, these practices make their practitioners better “readers” of their own culture and more self-reflective and critical of the culture they occupy, thereby enabling them to become more self-reflective participants in conversations within that culture (Benkler).  Eventually everyone is a participant, so the challenge is to get the participants to think in similar ways.  This concept is further discussed in the next recommendation.

The new communications environment creates both challenges and opportunities for schools.  One challenge that comes with decreased control is the spread of negative information or rumors online.  For example, websites such as DC Urban Moms and Dads provide a forum where parents or potential customers can discuss schools anonymously.  This becomes a place where complaints and rumors can run wild.  In response to this challenge, schools should assign personnel or committees to monitor information online.  They should then analyze the information and come up with appropriate responses.  Schools can actively manage its communications environment by creating positive spins that drowns out negative voices.  Alignment and cohesion are keys to success in creating such positive spins.  Online communications plans need to be formed to accomplish this objective.  It is very important to educate constituents and stick to the plan in maintaining the discipline of creating cohesive messages.  If the school has an active and involved online community of users who enjoy supporting the school, then enough positive spin can drown out the negative ones.  In addition, the community will self-police inaccurate or extreme statements.  Similar to word-of-mouth marketing, the school community is its best promoter.

This new communications environment requires new leadership skills, especially skills in crafting messages that attract readers and followers.  I believe that school leaders should blog, especially the head of school, who often possess a great deal of credibility.  This is another way to proactively build a positive spin and become a “trust agent.”  Not many leaders do this today or do it well.  For a successful example, one can learn from the blog of The Think Global School, where administrators promote interesting and engaging ideas about global education and technology. This blog also demonstrates the opportunity where marketing advances the mission.

While this proactive approach creates opportunities, it also comes with some risks.  For example, a head of school’s blog post can be “flamed” by an outspoken naysayer.  However, this situation can be still be seen as an opportunity – being “flamed” could be the best thing that ever happens – it can promote awareness and spark interesting dialogues (Neustadt).

Network technology should be used to enhance the learning experience of students in independent schools.  Even though current students are all digital natives, they still need to be taught the skills, attitude and knowledge to use technology effectively and appropriately.  What they need is beyond digital literacy – they need to perform their own information production.  Examples of this type of production are student blogs and online portfolio.  In creating blogs, they will learn communications skills that are required in this new environment.  In other words, schools need to teach the writing of clear and concise messages rather than essays that few will ever read.  Another key benefit of this technology use is the promotion of sharing and positive peer effect.  Some work should be accessible to peers for evaluation and feedback.  Comments can be made online in response to work in progress – this not only provides formative advice, but it also teaches students constructive feedback and critical thinking.

Collaboration is another key area in which network technology improve student learning.  Tools such as Wikispaces or Google Doc should be used for students to work collaboratively.  And with video conferencing technologies, they can learn with students outside of the school community.  Remote collaborations and teamwork are skills needed in today’s market place, and independent schools should teach these skills.  No matter what fields students choose, they need to possess the critical skills mentioned.  Ultimately school need to empower students to be leaders and “trust agents” of the future.

While taking advantage of technology, schools also need to be keenly aware of the risks presented in the use of network technology.  Plagiarism, privacy, and cyber bullying are key issues to address.  Positive and generative use of technology should be a part of the curriculum across subjects.  Responsible digital citizenship needs to be a major objective in what schools teach.

Schools and school leaders need to think of the impacts from the new communications environment as opportunities rather than threats – opportunities to shape culture, to create positive messages, to lead and influence society for the better, and to educate students and prepare them for the future.  By embracing these changes in thoughtful and responsive ways, schools can ensure their future sustainability and relevance in servicing their students and missions.

The aesthetics of school, college, and university websites are changing in positive ways. There is much more emphasis on clarity, ease of navigation, and simplicity. The bells and whistles, the flash animations, that we all paid so much attention to just a few years ago, are diminishing in importance.

One of my favorite recent sites, that of the Walker School in Atlanta, Georgia (designed by Silverpoint), has an elaborate homepage feature – a set of still images that open into short video clips at the click of the mouse. It is elegant and impressive. I’m sure that the Walker School administration is rightfully proud of it. Truth be told, however, the site would be just about as good without the elaborate video feature. The strength of the site is its clear design and navigation and the purpose-written text that runs throughout. In this day, one can’t imagine a family making as deliberate a decision as where to send their child to school based on a flashy feature. But they will be persuaded by helpful information thoughtfully and professionally presented.

One feature that will not go away from educational websites, especially not for colleges and universities, is the virtual tour. When you conduct research among high school students, they always mention the virtual tour. When they go to an institution’s website, what are they looking for? Among the top things is what the institution looks like.

If anything virtual tours are becoming more not less important. We all know how important campus visits are to the admissions process. Once a student has visited a campus, they are not going to care about a virtual tour on the school website. But two groups of growing importance to most universities are less likely to be visiting campus – the less affluent and students from overseas. We all know the challenges that schools face bringing students from modest backgrounds to campus. Most international students apply and enroll at American institutions without setting foot on the campus. For these two groups, as well as for the rank and file of applicants before they visit campus, the virtual tour is crucial.

That’s why I’m so excited about the virtual tour recently launched by Dickinson College. It is not particularly elaborate. Unlike more traditional tours, it is built on four themes that flow from the institution’s brand strategy. So it doesn’t just show students what the campus looks like, it uses the opportunity of the virtual tour to reenforce key institutional themes.

What is so exciting about this tour is that it was built on such a user-friendly content management system that the staff in the communications office was able to write and load all of the content with little effort and no technical expertise. If you spend a few minutes with the tour, you will see how rich in content it is. There are so many images and so much text that it’s unlikely a visitor will take in all of it. And the CMS is so easy to work with that the images and text can be changed, replaced, and updated as desired. The design is simple and effective enough that it maintains the all important brand image while individual photos and text nuggets can constantly change.

The price of the site was quite reasonable. And note – it doesn’t really have any bells and whistles. All it has is an intuitive and simple interface, a good concept, and clear design.

Every college and university should have a virtual tour like this. Not necessarily these particular themes. The themes and structure are a product of the brand strategy that is specific to Dickinson College. But something that is so straightforward, economical, engaging and easy to build and maintain. I’m betting on a two point jump in applications next year at Dickinson based on the virtual tour alone.  I know without question that this will be a boon to their international recruitment. In the meantime, it sure looks like the folks at Dickinson are having fun with their virtual tour. I’m proud to have played a supporting role in its development.

People used to say to me, when they found out what I did for a living, “why do these colleges and universities you work for need to market? Many are already highly selective. Why does a school with a surplus of interest need someone to help them with their marketing?”

I would explain to them that there was not a school in America, with perhaps a single exception, that did not want to be something other than it was. A school with a strong, traditional preppy culture wanted to be more bohemian. A school with bohemian culture wanted to be preppier. A school with little diversity wanted to be more diverse. A school with a great deal of diversity wanted more non-diverse, i.e. “white” affluent students. And every single school wanted to ascend to a higher rung on the prestige ladder. Regardless of how esteemed they were, they were restless to achieve the prestige of the school above them.

This restlessness has been part of higher education institutional culture for the past twenty years. Things have never been good enough. There has always been a rung to grasp that is just out of reach. I, along with an industry of consultants, analysts, and ad men, have sprung up to help colleges and universities get to the next level. Because prestige is a zero-sum game – one institution’s gain is another institution’s loss – the work has been never ending. So long as everyone else is restless and striving, there is no way for an institution to avoid playing this game. The rules of the game are set beyond the boundaries of a particular institution. One ignores the game at one’s peril.

Today we find ourselves at an interesting juncture. There is no evidence that the core dynamic of the prestige higher education market is changing. Indeed, if anything, the class system among colleges and universities is becoming more entrenched. What is changing is the marketing environment. Just as in other sectors, the ability of middle-class families to finance a prestige lifestyle through debt has diminished. This means that the total size of the market for prestige institutions has shrunk. Financial aid resources at institutions are stretched. Colleges are beginning to face the reality that they may be unable to finance their aspirational dreams of a few years ago. They may be forced to make unpleasant trade-offs.

Are we passing from an era of aspiration to an era of consolidation in educational marketing? The constantly expanding market of the past twenty years led everyone in higher education to dream big. Today, things are much more challenging. It is essential that institutions execute well and think clearly and cogently about the nature and capacities of their markets. Can they really invest $1/4 million to shift their campus culture from preppy to bohemian? Can they really focus so intensively on the next rung of the ladder or do they need to make certain they are is secure on their own rung?

If in fact we are passing into an era of greater clarity and rigor in educational marketing, I for one will greet it with open arms. There’s been far too much silliness, extravagance, fantasy, and slip-shod thinking in the marketing of institutions the past 20 years. We’ve had our own bubble mentality. I’m ready for the serious times to begin. Let’s work with realistic budgets and realistic appraisals of our place in the market. Let’s treat resources as if they are limited and tie them to outcomes. Let’s use metrics to measure our performance and assess our marketing efforts. The basic game is not changing, but times require far more professional, skillful execution. I, for one, am eager to jump into this new environment which will test what we’re made of as marketers.

I recently conducted several focus groups of college-bound high school students. One topic I explored was preferred sources for college information. Generally these students – who were affluent, well-educated, and bound for top schools – were suspicious of social media websites such as Unigo, College Confidential, and College Prowler. They questioned the reliability of the comments. Most had visited campuses and felt these visits gave them much more reliable first-hand information.

But one student told a story that should send a chill down the spine of anyone working in college communications. She had received a viewbook in the mail that had totally struck a chord. She spent an hour pouring over it. At the end of the hour, the school had moved to the top of her list. The viewbook completely sold her on the institution.

Then she went to a social media website to check out the school. There she read not one but several comments that completely altered her view. Students wrote that this particular college’s community was socially narrow and homogeneous. All the students did in their spare time was drink. As quickly as the viewbook had built a positive impression, these comments tore it down. She crossed the school off her mental list.

No sooner had she finished her account than two students added that they had the same experience with other name-brand colleges. What a horror story! This shows you the force and speed with which third-party comments can derail years of costly, time consuming marketing effort. And there is not a college in America that can assume it is immune from this impact.

Social media sites have such enormous potential to derail a college’s formal marketing efforts that schools should act now to confront this new reality and not wait until such sites grow in reach and sophistication. This is one communications trend where colleges cannot afford the luxury of being late adopters. Colleges need to define a new communications staff position for social media marketing. They need to build expertise in this area. And it needs to be in-house expertise.

What should this communications staffer do? The first step is obvious: inventory all of the institution’s social media involvement surveying the style and substance of comments. Next, develop a social media marketing plan.  I have written before about the limited ways in which most colleges and universities engage with social media. They view it as a new public relations channel, using Twitter and Facebook to circulate news about events on campus. These are not good uses of social media and in the long run will have virtually no impact in the higher education social media space.

The real direction for social media presence of an academic institution is to raise the intensity of positive participation on social media sites by an institution’s fans so that they will outweigh the inevitable naysayers. This will be accomplished by means of social media strategies that are less centralized and more organic to the culture of an institution. You cannot take the old paradigms of public relations and marketing and apply them to social media. A social media strategy needs to build positive presence by leveraging positive feelings among members of the community – faculty, students, and administrators. These should not be paid spokemen for the administration. They should be people who participate of their own volition in a voice and style  in which they are comfortable. A social media communications staffer should to be the facilitator for this activity, not the chief spokeman.

There is little time to waste. The impact of social media on the college selection process will grow quickly. At this point, colleges can make a relatively small expenditure to stay out in front of the social media revolution. Those who do not will find themselves at risk, playing a costly game of catch-up down the road.