Philosophical Differences

Yesterday in meeting with two senior leaders we had a clash of philosophy that led to change in strategy. The basic change is that I was building a committee of 10-12 which included some senior leadership and now we are looking at a much smaller committee of 4-5 which includes almost exclusively senior leadership. It is a change that is minor at the outset, but has tremendous strategic consequences. For instance, I was using the committee as a place to get input, but also to get buy-in. Now I need to do that differently.

Another change is that the parent committee will be making the charge, and the subcommittees will be actually drafting the first core messages and possibly a new tagline for general campus use. The parent committee will be the final refiner and approval.

I was basing my model on Larry Lauer and Robert Sevier's work and recommendations in their writing, and it seems like now we have taken a turn that I'm not sure will get us where we need to go, but I'm passionate enough about the goal to press on.

I had the insight today that being a "director" means I have to get along in the organization like a middle weight fighter. I still have to jab and move, but I have the occasional knock out punch. The cabinets are the heavyweights, they don't have to adjust or move as fast because they have the "weight" to take the punches and can deliver the knock out when needed. This is different than entry-level positions that require the cost bobbing and weaving of a lightweight.

It's not a great analogy, but one that I was pondering this morning.

The Squeeze

One of the challenges that faces someone with the title "director" is setting a campus wide marketing agenda is that they are often faced with someone or several someones with titles that signify they have more power in the situations. However, the nature of the college campus is collaborative with the least being the most in some cases. This challenge is on full display right now though and without a plan we have all agreed on I think the squeeze is more painful.

The squeeze occurs when two V.P.'s both ask a director to do something and that something is contradictory. I see one of the primary values of having an integrated marketing plan as being the fact that it will give me an agreement to go back to and negotiate. For instance, I can go back and say, "Well, maybe we should do this because it fits with the marketing objectives." Then again, I may be living in a fantasy world of preplanning when the world looks rosy.

I have decided that it doesn't do much good to use the blog unless I link to some of the documents we are working on. I'm working on how to do that.

Better life through marketing

As I wait for meetings to start the process of creating the marketing plan I have been contemplating the why's of marketing. Basically, part of it stems from the believe that if we communicate better we can change the world through our students. Part of it is just my natural bent toward process and trying to order a world that is by it's definition chaos. On its best days the inherited structure of higher education is chaos.

There is a good artilce on the Christianity Today website right now about "Organizational Pain". While I would say I'm in an organization that isn't exhibiting a lot right now, I see some signs that are worth paying attention to. The article is at http://www.christianitytoday.com/le/2006/002/11.41.html .

The biggest challenge ahead is getting everyone to really see the value in this process and to see how each department can contribute to a greater overall impression. I think it was the Greek Tacticus (I may be wrong) who said "Self interest is the enemy of all true affection." I take that to heart as I survey the landscape and see that we really need to each give a little of our own agendas to make this great, and it could be great.

Research my be a key to this. Asking our stakeholders what they think instead of guessing is a good place to start. But having done everything from surveys to focus groups I know that research takes a lot of work, and good research takes even more work. However, I also know that nothing is as valuable.

So it begins

This afternoon I was supposed to have a meeting with the new Executive VP and the VP for Advancement, but alas one didn't show. Building a marketing plan is a team process and one of the hardest parts on a college campus is getting everyone in the same room at the same time. The good news is that the Executive VP and I had a good talk and there is a lot of support for the process.

Basically, we are starting by forming a committee with 3 of the VP's and representatives from admissions, marketing, advancement, athletics, music and some at large faculty members. The other good news is that I convinced a faculty member with some marketing expertise to be part of the committee. As a side note - marketing faculty don't always do well on these kinds of committees. In the past I had one notable disaster with a marketing faculty member.

In his great book on college marketing, "Competing for students, money, and reputation: Marketing the academy in the 21st century by Larry D Lauer talks about the process of building support for markeitng at Texas Christian Univ. On a campus that size he had many more constituents than I need to deal with, but we are currently looking at a committee of about 12.

A former boss and chancellor at mid-size public university used to challenge me to think of the per hour cost of meetings, especially when those meetings were Deans and VP's. It's a good way to think about it, and it challenges me to come up with agendas and exercises that will be valuable enough to get them to care. When that doesn't work, I'll probably just start buying doughnuts.

Rankings Rant

Yesterday, many of us in the PR/Marketing world found out if we are winners or loser according to the latest U.S. News and World Report ranking. Today's Inside Higher Education had a few good articles on why the rankings are a bit (or horribly) flawed. It can be found at http://www.insidehighered.com/.

Let me say this. It is great for the CCCU and private colleges in general that some of the institutions represented have done really well, but having been on several ranked campuses and knowing colleagues at others, I know that the story those rankings tell is largely false.

I also think that the media over emphasizes how many students pay attention to these rankings. The top 10% absolutely due, but the average student at an institution like ours cares little about that list and even fewer understand it. In a lot of ways, the rankings seem to highlight what is wrong with higher ed, because so few of the measures have even a slight impact on the lives of individual students. If higher education is about educating students for life then rankings don't really tell much about the institutions ability to do that.

Or I could be horribly wrong when my institution moves from the third tier to somewhere higher next year and I put that pretty little U.S. News symbol on all my publications.

The big five

As I'm looking at the marketing plan there are many, many stakeholders. It is one of the things that makes it difficult. But I'm also struck by the question, "What differences make a difference." For instance, I know an adult student is very different than a 17 year old prospect. They need different communication. But as I start to look at targets is a prospect from South Carolina significantly different than a prospect from South Dakota. More importantly are there reasons for choosing or not choosing us important. As one adds donors to the list this gets even more interesting.

Right now I'm starting with the premise of the big five: General (all audiences, the community at large),Admissions, Advancement (alumni and fundraising), Athletics, and Music. These seem to be the ones in the most desperate need of a marketing plan and as I think about who is stepping on whose toes these seem to be the players on my campus - who am I missing?

My theory that some of those I have missed, like academics, I have missed because they don't market directly. We desperately need their involvement in marketing and we even need them to sometimes make marketing sensitive decisions. However, I think the plan has to distinguish at some point and having worked at three institutions I know getting that group exciting about this process is easy - but getting them to do the grunt work is hard. Right now, I need grunt work.

Buy in

I'm a marketing director, which means in the lexicon of the modern American college or University that I am middle management. Therefore, it will be as important in the process to manage up as it is to manage down. As I go about trying to create a new comprehensive marketing plan for the college I have visions of a plan that includes admissions, alumni, fundraising, music, athletics and the many other groups that all showcase the institution in some way. I'm also hoping to tie all of this to outcomes, research, and most importantly budget. As the great Dr. George White a former collegue once said, "If the strategic plan isn't tied to the budget you don't have a strategic plan, you have a budget."

The first step was today when I met with the VP of my division to discuss a basic plan for how this might be accomplished. It seemed to go well and the first step of buy in is complete. I now have two other VP's to meet with, and then it will be on to my staff who have already been involved in part of the process, but have not seen the entire plan.

It is overly dramatic, but I'm somehow feeling like I'm planning D-Day, but I know it is possible. My readings of and in some cases discussions with the likes of Robert Sevier and Larry Lauer of TCU indicate the tremendous potential of a campus wide plan. However, right now what I have is pieces of a plan ready to come together. In the words of Hannibal from the A-Team, "I just love it when a plan comes together."