for Four-Year Colleges and Universities - RuffaloNL · SM 2016 Ruffalo Noel Levit | 2016 Marketing...

SM

© 2016 Ruffalo Noel Levitz | 2016 Marketing and Student Recruitment Practices Benchmark Report 1

Trends in Enrollment Management

2016 Marketing and Student Recruitment Practices Benchmark Report for Four-Year Colleges and UniversitiesWhat’s working in undergraduate student recruitment and marketing? To find out, Ruffalo Noel Levitz conducted a 105-item, web-based poll of campus officials in November of 2015 as part of the firm’s continuing series of benchmark polls for higher education. For context, comparative findings from previous studies of marketing and recruitment practices are available on the Ruffalo Noel Levitz website, as this study is repeated every two years.

Among the highlights:Email continues to be effective when communicating with prospective students, but many undergraduate officials now give even higher marks to text messaging.Events and event-related activities head the lists of the “top 10” most effective strategies and tactics across four-year private and public institutions.Advertising is fairly popular, with online ads receiving the highest marks, but respondents generally rated the effectiveness of advertising lower compared to other practices.Overnight campus visits and college-paid trips to campus appear to be effective but under-utilized practices for private institutions, while weekend visit days and campus visits designed for school counselors appear to be effective but under-utilized for public institutions.Use of a CRM for managing and tracking recruitment communications ranked at the top of 13 internal operations practices. Fall of the senior year of high school was among the most popular times for purchasing high school student names from list vendors such as NRCCUA, the College Board, and ACT. Only about 10 percent of private and public respondents in this study gave an “excellent” rating to their strategic, multi-year enrollment plan, and nearly 40 percent indicated they don’t have one. Adjusting the content and timing of communication flows was the number one way respondents are planning to respond to the federal government’s new FAFSA rules, commonly known as “Prior-Prior Year.”

The above is just a sampling of this year’s findings. Please see the Appendix of this report for detailed findings from all 105 items on the poll.

SM


Plans in response to federal government’s new FAFSA rules NEW! 12

Planning and leadership practices highlights 10

CONTENTSHighlights

Top five most effective modes of communication for undergraduate marketing and student recruitment

Top 10 strategies and tactics

Volume of written contacts

Five least-effective strategies and tactics

Five least-used strategies and tactics, including promising practices

3

4

Complete findings by institution type

Rankings of 61 practices by their effectiveness and usage • Division that oversees the chief enrollment officer • Rankings of 10 methods for making initial contact with high-school-age purchased names • Rankings of 8 advertising practices • Usage of student-to-student contact programs • And more

13

Responding institutions 42

About Ruffalo Noel Levitz and our higher education research 44

9

5

5

APPENDIX/COMPLETE FINDINGS

Search practices highlights/Initial outreach to high school students

See the Appendix for detailed findings from all 105 items on the poll.

Top five internal operations 6

7

About the rankings and the statistical process used in this studyAll of the findings in this report are judged to be statistically significant. This determination was made by calculating a statistical confidence interval for each finding (e.g., means, medians, proportions, and other relevant test statistics) and then judging the confidence interval to be acceptably small relative to the size of the finding.

Note that this study’s rankings are by effectiveness and usage. To rank the most and least effective practices, respondents were asked to rate each practice on the following scale:

__ Very effective __ Somewhat effective __ Minimally effective __ Practice not used

To report the findings as accurately as possible, the rankings of effectiveness were based only on the relative effectiveness options that were chosen by respondents: “very effective,” “somewhat effective,” and “minimally effective.” This approach of excluding the fourth response, “practice not used,” allows promising, less-frequently-used practices to be included in the “top 10” rankings—those practices that are rated very effective but which are not currently being used by the majority of institutions.

Note: To identify the proportion of institutions using a particular practice, a simple calculation was made of the inverse of those who selected “practice not used.”

Findings color key:

Four-year private

institutions

Four-year public institutions

SM


Top five most effective modes of communication for undergraduate marketing and student recruitment, by institution typeHighlighted below is a small sampling of the communication findings of this study. This table shows the five modes of communication that respondents from four-year private and public institutions most frequently rated “very effective” among 10 modes that were measured.

Highlights from these rankings: Mobile-friendly websites were number one in this year’s rankings of effective communication modes, but email and text messaging vied for the next-highest rating. In addition, the majority of respondents from both sectors rated cell phone calls, publications, and additional modes of communication not shown here, such as social media and website-embedded videos, either “very effective” or “somewhat effective.” Please see the Appendix for details (pages 14 and 28).

Boldface in this table indicates a mode of communication that was not being used by more than one-quarter of institutions within the sector. Institutions not using text messaging may want to consider using it, especially given its high ratings for effectiveness and the increasing number of prospective students who are open to receiving text messages from colleges, including up to 70 percent of high school juniors and seniors.1

*Reminder: Rating options for this study included “very effective,” “somewhat effective,” “minimally effective,” and “practice not used.” Respondents who selected “practice not used” were excluded from the effectiveness ratings. See explanation on page 2.

HIGHLIGHTS

More communication findings

Online display ads were the top-rated form of advertising for public institutions, while private institutions gave highest marks to pay-per-click ads on search sites like Google, Bing, or Yahoo. See the Appendix, pages 20 and 34.

Five or six contacts was the median per-student volume of recruiting contacts (phone and written) initiated by student employees working for admissions/recruitment offices. See the Appendix, pages 26 and 40.

1 Ruffalo Noel Levitz, OmniUpdate, CollegeWeekLive, & NRCCUA. 2015 e-expectations report. Cedar Rapids: Ruffalo Noel Levitz, 2015.

Available at www.RuffaloNL.com.

Rankings by effectiveness* Four-year private institutions Four-year public institutions

1 Website optimized for mobile browsers

Website optimized for mobile browsers

2 Text messaging Email communication

3 Email communication Text messaging

4 Recruiting page(s) on website Recruiting page(s) on website

5 Calling cell phones Publications in general (viewbook, search piece, etc.)

SM


Top 10 most effective strategies and tactics for undergraduate marketing and student recruitment, by institution typeBelow are the 10 survey items, by sector, that respondents from four-year institutions most frequently rated “very effective” among 61 strategies and tactics for marketing and student recruitment. The 61 practices ranged widely and included events, digital marketing, advertising, targeting specific populations, partnering with outside organizations, and other proven or emerging strategies.

Highlights from these rankings: Campus open houses topped the list of effective strategies and tactics, with campus visit days close behind. Also rated in the top three were overnight visits for high school students, for private institutions, and campus visit events designed for school counselors, for public institutions.

Boldface in this table indicates practices that were not being used by more than one-quarter of institutions within the sector, despite the ratings of effectiveness. Institutions not using these practices may want to consider using them. For example, two-thirds of respondents from private institutions were not using college-paid trips to campus and approximately one-quarter of respondents from public institutions were not using weekend visit days. Please see the Appendix for details (pages 15 and 29).

HIGHLIGHTS

Rankings by effectiveness Four-year private institutions Four-year public institutions

1 Campus open house events Campus open house events

2 Overnight visits for high school students

Campus visit days for high school students

3 Campus visit days for high school students

Meetings or events for high school counselors

4 Encouraging prospective students to apply on the admissions website

Encouraging prospective students to apply on the admissions website

5A planned, sequential flow of communication to

prospective students, from the beginning to the end of the recruiting cycle

Campus visit events designed for school counselors

6 Encouraging prospective students to schedule campus visits on the admissions website

Encouraging prospective students to schedule campus visits on the admissions website

7 High school visits by admission representatives to primary markets Weekend visit days

8 Weekend visit days Community college visits

9 College-paid trips to campus for prospective students

A planned, sequential flow of communication to prospective students, from the beginning to the end

of the recruiting cycle

10 Targeting in-state students High school visits by admission representatives to primary markets

SM


Five least-effective strategies and tactics This table shows the five items that respondents from four-year institutions most frequently rated “minimally effective” among the 61 strategies and tactics that were measured for their effectiveness and usage.

Highlights from these rankings: Respondents from private and public institutions were in agreement that online college fairs and “asking current students/alumni for applicant referrals” were minimally effective. However, there was also considerable disagreement between sectors. For example, “targeting adult learners” was rated relatively high in effectiveness by respondents from private institutions, despite its low ranking by respondents from public institutions. Please see the Appendix for specific proportions of respondents choosing each rating category.

Boldface in this table indicates practices that were being used by half or more of institutions within the sector despite being ranked minimally effective. For example, 52 percent of public institutions reported using online college fairs, as shown in the Appendix on page 32.

Five least-used strategies and tactics, including promising practicesNote that least-used practices may be least-used for distinct reasons. For example, a practice may be least used because it is ineffective or it may be because it is a practice that has not yet caught on widely (see boldface definition below).

Highlights from these rankings: Two of the least-used practices for private institutions appeared to be promising practices, as highlighted in boldface. For public institutions, only one practice is highlighted; overnight visits showed promise for public institutions, but there were not enough respondents to rate effectiveness (see usage levels in Appendix).

Boldface in this table indicates practices that half or more of respondents rated “very effective” or “somewhat effective.”


1 Mailing course schedules to residents in area

Mailing course schedules to residents in area

2 Offering loans directly from the college or university Offering loans directly from the college or university

3 Online college fairs Overnight visits for high school students

4 Admissions decisions “on the spot”—in high schools or during campus visits/open houses Targeting part-time students

5 Targeting part-time studentsRoutine contacts by financial aid office

professional staff to assess student reactions to financial aid awards

Rankings by ineffectiveness Four-year private institutions Four-year public institutions

1 Mailing course schedules to residents in area Asking current students/alumni for applicant referrals

2 Online college fairs Recruiting through business/industry

3 Asking current students/alumni for applicant referrals Online college fairs

4 Targeting veterans Targeting adult learners

5 Cooperative or consortia-based recruiting Radio ads

HIGHLIGHTS

SM


HIGHLIGHTS

Top five internal operations practices The table below shows the five internal operations that respondents from four-year private and public institutions most frequently rated “very effective” among 13 internal operations that were measured for undergraduate marketing and student recruitment.


1CRM solution for managing and tracking

recruitment communications, online applications, etc.

CRM solution for managing and tracking recruitment communications, online applications, etc.

2 Outsourcing telephone qualification to rate the interest levels of prospective students by phone

Systematically contacting admitted students to code their level of interest in enrolling at your

institution (“qualifying” admits)

3Using a statistical, analytical approach to determine financial aid award levels by predicting enrollment

rates based on award amounts (aka “financial aid leveraging”)

Admissions tracking to monitor and predict students’ incremental rates of movement toward enrollment

4 Outsourcing print or electronic campaigns for student search

Search engine optimization process to improve organic search results

5 Outsourcing print or electronic campaigns to generate applications from the inquiry pool

Outsourcing print or electronic campaigns to generate applications from the inquiry pool

Highlights from these rankings: Across both sectors, using a CRM solution to help manage and track communications again topped the list of effective internal operations for undergraduate marketing and student recruitment, similar to earlier studies. However, there was substantial variance between private and public institutions on the other top-ranked practices.

Boldface in this table indicates internal operations that were not being used by more than one-quarter of institutions within the sector. Institutions not using these practices may want to consider using them. Please see the Appendix for details.

SM


Search practices highlights/Initial outreach to high school studentsHighlighted below and on the following page is a small sampling of the undergraduate search practice findings of this study, all of which focus on high school students.

Volume of high school students’ names purchased each year for use in direct mail or email to generate inquiries and applicants

Statistics Four-year private institutions Four-year public institutions

25th percentile—volume of names purchased

30,000 37,500

Median volume of names purchased

65,000 75,000

75th percentile—volume of names purchased

130,000 120,000

What the data show: Respondents from public institutions reported purchasing a slightly higher volume of high school student names at the median compared to respondents from private institutions.

HIGHLIGHTS

SM


Most popular methods for making first contact with purchased names (Percentages indicate the proportion of institutions using each method; respondents were instructed to “Check all that apply.”)

What the data show: Email messages and self-mailer brochures again ranked highest on the list of preferred communication methods for both sectors for making first contact with purchased names. Few respondents reported using text messaging to make first contact—please see the Appendix for details and note that only 1 percent of today’s high school students prefer text messaging for the first contact.2

More search highlights from the Appendix

At the median, purchased names were the source of 24 percent of all high school student inquiries for private institutions and 20 percent of all high school student inquiries for public institutions. See the Appendix, pages 25 and 39.

55 percent of private institution respondents and 60 percent of public institution respondents reported sending the same communications as inquiries to a subset of purchased names of high school students. See the Appendix, pages 25 and 39.

2 Ruffalo Noel Levitz, (2015). 2015 high school students’ and parents’ perceptions of and preferences for communication with colleges. Cedar Rapids:

Ruffalo Noel Levitz. Available at www.RuffaloNL.com.

HIGHLIGHTS

57%

71%

37%33% 30%

37%

Email message Email message with link to a personalized URL

Self-mailer brochure

70 %

60%

50%

40%

30%

20%

10%

0%

Four-year private institutions


SM


Volume of written contacts by enrollment stage(direct mail, email, and texting combined)

What the data show: The median number of written contacts that a typical prospective high school student received from a college or university over the course of an entire recruiting cycle (direct mail, email, and texting combined) was 33 for private institutions and 25 for public institutions. Notice the volume of written contacts was highest during the inquiry and admit stages.

Student-to-student contact programsPercent of respondents in agreement

Survey item* Four-year private institutions Four-year public institutions

Yes, we have a student-to-student contact program

69.6% 56.3%

What the data show: Half to two-thirds of respondents reported using a student-to-student contact program, with a median, per-student volume of five or six contacts. Please see the Appendix for volume breakdowns by each type of contact (phone, email, text, social media, and handwritten notes) and by sector.

Definition

*For this item, respondents were asked: Do you have a student-to-student contact program in which current students stay in touch with prospective students via phone, email, text messages, social media such as Facebook, and/or personal, handwritten notes?

HIGHLIGHTS

10

7

10

76 6

Purchased name/Pre-inquiry stage Inquiry stage Admit stage Deposit/Confirmed stage

7

5



SM


Planning and leadership practices highlightsDespite the need for stronger planning and leadership in today’s challenging environment, only about half of respondents from four-year institutions indicated they had a committee to coordinate recruitment planning, and many respondents questioned the quality of their written plans for marketing and recruitment, as shown in the table below.

Highlights from these rankings: Only about 10 percent of respondents gave an “excellent” rating to their strategic, multi-year enrollment plan, and nearly 40 percent indicated they didn’t have one. Many respondents also gave low quality ratings to their committee for recruitment planning.

*Quality ratings in this table were based on a four-part scale: “Excellent quality, “Good quality, “Fair quality,” or “Poor quality.” The ratings excluded those who indicated “practice not used.”

Four-year private institutions Four-year public institutions

Survey items Institutions using practice

Excellent quality* Excellent or good quality*

Institutions using practice

Excellent quality* Excellent or good quality*

My institution has a written annual recruit-ment plan

85.1% 15.5% 63.9% 81.6% 22.5% 60.0%

My institution has a written annual market-ing plan

80.7% 12.0% 53.3% 75.0% 13.9% 50.0%

My institution has a written, long-range (at least three-year) strategic enroll-ment plan

61.6% 11.6% 53.6% 61.2% 10.0% 43.3%

My institution has a standing, campuswide committee that addresses coordinated recruitment planning and implementation across all units

49.1% 14.3% 46.4% 57.1% 10.7% 35.7%

HIGHLIGHTS

SM


Reporting responsibility for chief enrollment officersA range of practice across sectors was evident in the supervision of chief enrollment officers, as shown in the table below.

Chief enrollment officer reports to… Four-year private institutions Four-year public institutions

President 76.5% 34.7%

Academic Affairs 12.2% 22.4%

Student Affairs 0.9% 26.5%

Administrative/Business Office

0.0% 0.0%

Other* 10.4% 16.3%

Highlights from these rankings: At private institutions, a chief enrollment officer is more likely to report to the president, while at public institutions, a chief enrollment officer is more likely to report to student affairs.

*Other responses named by two or more respondents from private institutions in a blank, open-ended field included “executive vice president” and provost. For public institutions, “dean” was named by two respondents. The rest of the “other” responses were unique responses identified by only one respondent each.

HIGHLIGHTS

SM


Survey items—responses to new FAFSA rules

Four-year private institutions Four-year public institutions

Adjust content and timing of communication flows to prospective students

61.7% 71.4%

Provide financial aid estimates earlier

59.1% 51.0%

Will be encouraging leadership to set tuition earlier

58.3% 28.6%

We do not yet know what changes we will be making

35.7% 42.9%

Consider an earlier deadline for filing the FAFSA

27.8% 14.3%

Admit students earlier 23.5% 14.3%

Other* 2.6% 4.1%

Plans in response to federal government’s new FAFSA rules NEW!New in this year’s study, respondents from four-year institutions were asked: “What marketing and recruitment changes, if any, are you planning to implement in response to the federal government’s new FAFSA rules which allow use of Prior-Prior Year (PPY) information? (Please check all that apply.)” Responses to seven checkbox-options appear below.

Highlights from these rankings: The majority of respondents across private and public institutions indicated they will be adjusting their communication flows and providing earlier estimates of financial aid in response to the federal government’s new FAFSA rules which allow use of Prior-Prior Year (PPY) information. In addition, many respondents will be working to set tuition earlier, and many were still formulating their response.

* No two respondents indicated the same response.

HIGHLIGHTS

SM


Appendix with complete findings by sector The following tables include the complete findings of this study, divided and color-codedfor each of the three sectors examined.

Contents

Usage and Effectiveness of 10 Modes of Communication for Marketing and Recruitment 14

Usage and Effectiveness of 61 Strategies and Tactics 14

Usage and Effectiveness of 11 Event Marketing and Recruitment Practices 19

Usage and Effectiveness of 8 Advertising Practices 20

Usage and Effectiveness of 13 Internal Operations Practices 2 1

Search Practices and Initial Outreach to High School Students 23

Written Contacts, Student-to-Student Contact Programs 26

Planning and Leadership Practices 27

Usage and Effectiveness of 10 Modes of Communication for Marketing and Recruitment 28

Usage and Effectiveness of 61 Strategies and Tactics 28

Usage and Effectiveness of 11 Event Marketing and Recruitment Practices 33

Usage and Effectiveness of 8 Advertising Practices 34

Usage and Effectiveness of 13 Internal Operations Practices 35

Search Practices and Initial Outreach to High School Students 37

Written Contacts, Student-to-Student Contact Programs 40

Planning and Leadership Practices 4 1

Pages 14-27:

Pages 28-41:



SM



Usage and Effectiveness of 10 Specific Modes of Communication for Marketing and Student Recruitment at Four-Year Private Institutions—Ordered by Percent Rated “Very Effective”

Survey items—Four-year private institutions

Institutions using practice Very effective Somewhat

effectiveMinimally effective

Very or somewhat effective

Website optimized for mobile browsers 87.6% 43.4% 40.4% 16.2% 83.8%

Text messaging 61.1% 34.8% 46.4% 18.8% 81.2%

Email communication 100.0% 31.0% 61.9% 7.1% 92.9%

Recruiting page(s) on website 99.1% 25.9% 56.3% 17.9% 82.1%

Calling cell phones 95.6% 25.7% 57.8% 16.5% 83.5%

Publications in general (viewbook, search piece, etc.)

93.8% 25.5% 54.7% 19.8% 80.2%

Videos embedded in campus website 80.2% 19.1% 49.4% 31.5% 68.5%

Calling home phones 98.2% 9.9% 39.6% 50.5% 49.5%

Video calls using Skype or similar services

31.3% 8.6% 37.1% 54.3% 45.7%

Social media sites like Facebook or Twitter

98.2% 8.0% 44.6% 47.3% 52.7%

Usage and Effectiveness of 61 Strategies and Tactics for Marketing and Student Recruitment at Four-Year Private Institutions—Ordered by Percent Rated “Very Effective”Rankings of Strategies and Tactics





Campus open house events 97.3% 61.7% 32.7% 5.6% 94.4%

Overnight visits for high school students 64.9% 58.3% 27.8% 13.9% 86.1%


91.9% 56.9% 35.3% 7.8% 92.2%


98.2% 49.1% 42.6% 8.3% 91.7%

A planned, sequential flow of communication to prospective students, from the beginning to the end of the recruiting cycle

95.5% 47.6% 45.7% 6.7% 93.3%


92.7% 46.5% 44.6% 8.9% 91.1%

SM



Rankings of Strategies and Tactics, Continued





High school visits by admission representatives to primary markets

96.4% 40.6% 41.5% 17.9% 82.1%

Weekend visit days 76.6% 31.8% 48.2% 20.0% 80.0%

Targeting in-state students 91.8% 29.7% 57.4% 12.9% 87.1%

College-paid trips to campus for prospective students

33.3% 29.7% 37.8% 32.4% 67.6%

Direct marketing aimed at eliciting specific, measurable actions such as a campus visit or submission of an application

90.9% 29.0% 50.0% 21.0% 79.0%

Routine contacts by admissions office professional staff to assess student reactions to financial aid awards

84.4% 28.3% 51.1% 20.7% 79.3%

Admissions decisions “on the spot”—in high schools or during campus visits/open houses

29.6% 28.1% 46.9% 25.0% 75.0%


70.0% 27.3% 41.6% 31.2% 68.8%

Student-to-student telecounseling involving continuous, regularly scheduled flows of phone calls at a high volume (one-time phonathons don’t count)

66.1% 26.4% 43.1% 30.6% 69.4%

Student search via email 91.9% 23.5% 50.0% 26.5% 73.5%

Off-campus group meetings for prospective students and/or their parents

76.4% 22.6% 48.8% 28.6% 71.4%

Meetings or events for high school counselors 67.0% 21.9% 43.8% 34.2% 65.8%

SM








Routine contacts by financial aid office professional staff to assess student reactions to financial aid awards

41.8% 21.7% 43.5% 34.8% 65.2%

Community college articulation agreements

79.3% 20.5% 40.9% 38.6% 61.4%

Content marketing to attract students using informative subjects, topics, and informational resources

64.8% 18.6% 45.7% 35.7% 64.3%

Academic programs within high schools for students to earn college credits to your institution

50.5% 18.5% 27.8% 53.7% 46.3%

Special interest workshops, seminars, or camps (music, sports, science, etc.)

77.3% 17.6% 40.0% 42.4% 57.6%

Targeting out-of-state students 79.1% 17.2% 50.6% 32.2% 67.8%

Student search via direct mail 86.5% 16.7% 42.7% 40.6% 59.4%

Community college outreach to academic advisors

79.3% 15.9% 45.5% 38.6% 61.4%

Targeting parents of prospective students 76.1% 15.7% 49.4% 34.9% 65.1%

Pay-per-click ads on search sites like Google, Bing, or Yahoo

71.3% 15.6% 35.1% 49.4% 50.6%

Targeting high-academic-ability students

85.3% 15.1% 60.2% 24.7% 75.3%

Offering flexible payment plans 73.4% 15.0% 43.8% 41.3% 58.8%

High school visits by admission representatives to secondary, tertiary, or test markets

85.5% 14.9% 36.2% 48.9% 51.1%

Cookie-driven “retargeting” ads that target users who’ve previously visited your website

61.8% 14.7% 39.7% 45.6% 54.4%

SM








Faculty phone contacts with prospective students

74.8% 14.5% 41.0% 44.6% 55.4%

Encouraging prospective students to use an inquiry form on the admissions website

94.6% 14.3% 54.3% 31.4% 68.6%

Having enrolled students visit one or more high schools

40.0% 13.6% 40.9% 45.5% 54.5%

Targeting international students

74.3% 13.6% 37.0% 49.4% 50.6%

Cooperative or consortia-based recruiting

40.4% 13.6% 18.2% 68.2% 31.8%

Virtual tours 47.7% 13.5% 46.2% 40.4% 59.6%

Community college visits 93.7% 13.5% 43.3% 43.3% 56.7%

Sending a subset of purchased names the same communications as inquiries

52.7% 12.1% 39.7% 48.3% 51.7%

Targeting adult learners 45.5% 12.0% 50.0% 38.0% 62.0%

Using alumni in recruitment/marketing

69.4% 11.7% 31.2% 57.1% 42.9%

National or regional college fairs 97.3% 11.1% 51.9% 37.0% 63.0%

Pay-per-click ads on Facebook or other social media sites

73.9% 11.0% 39.0% 50.0% 50.0%

Targeting under-represented students 76.1% 10.8% 48.2% 41.0% 59.0%

Offering loans directly from the college or university

17.4% 10.5% 52.6% 36.8% 63.2%

Online display advertising 86.4% 10.5% 50.5% 38.9% 61.1%

Television ads 39.6% 9.1% 45.5% 45.5% 54.5%

Targeting transfer students 91.9% 8.8% 44.1% 47.1% 52.9%

Asking current students/alumni for applicant referrals

75.5% 8.4% 21.7% 69.9% 30.1%

SM








Personalized home page/portal for prospective students

43.6% 8.3% 54.2% 37.5% 62.5%

Targeting online learners 36.9% 7.3% 39.0% 53.7% 46.3%

Recruiting through business/industry 39.4% 7.0% 25.6% 67.4% 32.6%

Online net price calculator 95.5% 6.7% 31.4% 61.9% 38.1%

Targeting part-time students 30.6% 5.9% 26.5% 67.6% 32.4%

Online college fairs 20.7% 4.3% 8.7% 87.0% 13.0%

Radio ads 71.6% 3.8% 38.5% 57.7% 42.3%

Billboard, bus, or other outdoor advertising

56.4% 3.2% 43.5% 53.2% 46.8%

Print media ads in general 91.9% 2.0% 35.3% 62.7% 37.3%

Targeting veterans55.0% 0.0% 31.1% 68.9% 31.1%

Mailing course schedules to residents in area

9.0% 0.0% 10.0% 90.0% 10.0%

SM



Usage and Effectiveness of 11 Event Marketing and Recruitment Practices at Four-Year Private Institutions—Ordered by Percent Rated “Very Effective” This data is a subset of the data presented in the previous, 61-item table.






Overnight visits for high school students 64.9% 58.3% 27.8% 13.9% 86.1%


91.9% 56.9% 35.3% 7.8% 92.2%



33.3% 29.7% 37.8% 32.4% 67.6%


70.0% 27.3% 41.6% 31.2% 68.8%


76.4% 22.6% 48.8% 28.6% 71.4%


67.0% 21.9% 43.8% 34.2% 65.8%


77.3% 17.6% 40.0% 42.4% 57.6%



SM



Usage and Effectiveness of 8 Advertising Practices at Four-Year Private Institutions—Ordered by Percent Rated “Very Effective” This data is a subset of the data presented in the previous, 61-item table.






71.3% 15.6% 35.1% 49.4% 50.6%


61.8% 14.7% 39.7% 45.6% 54.4%


73.9% 11.0% 39.0% 50.0% 50.0%


Television ads 39.6% 9.1% 45.5% 45.5% 54.5%

Radio ads 71.6% 3.8% 38.5% 57.7% 42.3%


56.4% 3.2% 43.5% 53.2% 46.8%


SM



Usage and Effectiveness of 13 Internal Operations Practices at Four-Year Private Institutions—Ordered by Percent Rated “Very Effective”






72.2% 48.7% 28.2% 23.1% 76.9%

Outsourcing telephone qualification to rate the interest levels of prospective students by phone

25.7% 46.4% 10.7% 42.9% 57.1%

Using a statistical, analytical approach to determine financial aid award levels by predicting enrollment rates based on award amounts (aka “financial aid leveraging”)

78.9% 45.3% 38.4% 16.3% 83.7%

Outsourcing print or electronic campaigns for student search

65.7% 42.3% 35.2% 22.5% 77.5%


49.5% 41.5% 30.2% 28.3% 71.7%

Systematically contacting admitted students to code their level of interest in enrolling at your institution ("qualifying" admits)

74.1% 41.3% 40.0% 18.8% 81.3%

Statistical modeling to predict the likelihood of a prospective student enrolling at your institution

72.5% 40.5% 34.2% 25.3% 74.7%


78.7% 37.6% 40.0% 22.4% 77.6%

Systematically contacting inquiries to code their level of interest in enrolling at your institution ("qualifying inquiries")

69.4% 34.7% 34.7% 30.7% 69.3%

SM



Rankings of Internal Operations, Continued





Outsourcing market research (lost applicant analysis, brand perceptions, pricing analysis, SEO, etc.)

49.5% 22.6% 39.6% 37.7% 62.3%


81.7% 20.2% 49.4% 30.3% 69.7%

Analytics resources such as Google Analytics to provide data for decision making (search engine optimization, fine-tuning recruitment/admissions portion of the website, etc.)

91.7% 19.0% 51.0% 30.0% 70.0%

Outsourcing international recruitment

19.4% 9.5% 28.6% 61.9% 38.1%

SM



Search Practices at Four-Year Private InstitutionsApproximate Number of High School Student Names Purchased


First quartile Median Third quartile

Approximate number of high school student names purchased for use in direct mail or email to generate inquiries and applicants

30,000 65,000 130,000

Approximate Number of High School Student Names Purchased (Subset of Above) Who Receive Email Only



Approximate number of high school student names purchased who receive email only

16,250 40,000 75,000

Timing of Contact with Purchased High School Names by Vendor Respondents were instructed to “check all that apply.”


NRCCUA names PSAT names SAT names PLAN names ACT names Other vendors*

Prior to grade 10 5.2% 5.2% 5.2% 4.1% 4.1% 4.1%

Sophomore year 40.2% 40.2% 40.2% 27.8% 23.7% 16.5%

Junior year 62.9% 46.4% 52.6% 28.9% 63.9% 29.0%

Summer prior to senior year 52.6% 21.6% 53.6% 17.5% 61.9% 28.9%

Fall of senior year 51.5% 14.4% 63.9% 13.4% 67.0% 32.0%

Winter or later of senior year 25.8% 5.2% 32.0% 2.1% 40.2% 19.6%

*“Other vendors” specified by two or more respondents included: Cappex, CBSS, Christian Connector, Chegg, and CollegeFish.

SM



Respondents Who Reported Using Purchased High School Student Names from Three or More of the Five Sources Named (Based on data from the previous table—“Timing of contact.”)

For example, 50.5 percent of respondents who purchased names of high school juniors acquired the names from three or more of the five name sources listed on the previous page: NRCCUA, PSAT, SAT, PLAN, and ACT.

Survey items—Four-year private institutions Percent

Prior to grade 10 4.1%

Sophomore year 28.9%

Junior year 50.5%

Summer prior to senior year 41.2%

Fall of senior year 40.2%

Winter or later of senior year 15.5%

Respondents Who Reported Contacting Purchased Names Three or More Times From Each of the Name Sources Examined (Based on data from the previous table—“Timing of contact.”)

For example, 52.6 percent of respondents reported contacting NRCCUA names three or more times.


NRCCUA names 52.6%

PSAT names 24.7%

SAT names 54.6%

PLAN names 19.6%

ACT names 55.7%

Other vendors 10.3%

Preferred Methods for First and Subsequent Contacts with High School Purchased Names—Ordered by Preferred First Contact

Respondents were instructed to “check all that apply.”


First contact with purchased names of high school students

Subsequent contact(s) with non-responding purchased names before giving up on them

Email message 57.4% 78.3%

Email message with link to a personalized URL 36.5% 35.7%

Self-mailer brochure 30.4% 19.1%

Outbound phone call to all or selected contacts 20.0% 27.8%

Letter 19.1% 13.9%

Letter sent with enclosed brochure 17.4% 17.4%

Letter sent with viewbook 12.2% 4.3%

Other* 8.7% 7.8%

Viewbook 6.1% 10.4%

Catalog 0.9% 2.6%

Text message 0.0% 7.8%

*The vast majority of those who selected “other” (7.8 percent) listed postcards.

SM



Typical Number of Additional Contacts Made (Subsequent to the First Contact) With Purchased High School Names Before Giving Up on Them—Reported Separately for Email vs. Mail vs. Phone


Approximate number of additional email contacts

Approximate number of additional mail contacts

Approximate number of additional phone contacts

First quartile 5.0 2.0 0.0

Median 8.0 2.0 1.0

Third quartile 12.0 3.0 2.8


Percent Yes 55.3%

Do You Send a Subset of Purchased Names the Same Communications as Inquiries?

Approximate Percentage of High School Student Inquiries By Source—Ordered by Median Response

Survey items—Four-year private institutions First quartile Median Third quartile

Purchased names 10.0% 23.5% 46.0%

Other sources* 6.0% 13.0% 29.0%

Travel to high schools and college fairs 8.8% 11.5% 20.0%

Website/Web form 5.0% 10.0% 20.0%

Application as first contact 5.0% 8.0% 15.0%

Test scores 3.0% 5.0% 10.0%

Campus visits 3.0% 5.0% 10.0%

Referrals 1.0% 5.0% 10.0%

Paid online ads 0.0% 2.0% 10.0%

*Other sources named by two or more respondents in a blank, open-ended field included transcripts, phone calls, coaches, denominational events/affiliation, and these organizations: FAFSA/ISIR, Cappex, Hobsons, Chegg, PC&U—Private Colleges & Universities, CollegeXpress, Student Paths, and Petersons.

SM



Written Contacts at Four-Year Private Institutions

Number of Written Communications a Typical Prospective Student Receives from Marketing and Recruitment Offices by Stages (Combination of direct mail, email, and texting)

Statistics Purchased name/Prospect stage Inquiry stage Admit stage Deposit/confirmed

stage

First quartile 3 5 5 4

Median 7 10 10 6

Third quartile 12 20 20 15


Percent Yes 69.6%

Do You Have a Student-to-Student Contact Program? (Yes/No)

Statistics Phone Email Text Social media Handwritten notes

First quartile 2 0 0 0 1

Median 3 1 0 1 1

Third quartile 5 4 0.5 5 3

Volume of Student-to-Student Contacts for Campuses That Responded Yes to Previous Item—Reported Separately for Phone vs. Email vs. Text vs. Social Media vs. Handwritten Notes

Student-to-Student Contact Programs at Four-Year Private Institutions

SM



Planning and Leadership Practices at Four-Year Private InstitutionsQuality Ratings for Six Leadership Practices—Ordered by Percent Rated “Excellent Quality”



Excellent quality Good quality Fair quality Poor quality Excellent or

good quality

Regular evaluations of marketing and recruitment strategies and tactics, including making changes accordingly

95.6% 24.8% 45.9% 24.8% 4.6% 70.6%

Written annual recruitment plan 85.1% 15.5% 48.5% 30.9% 5.2% 63.9%

Written annual integrated recruitment/marketing plan 68.1% 14.3% 33.8% 41.6% 10.4% 48.1%

Standing, campuswide committee that addresses coordinated marketing and recruitment planning across all units

49.1% 14.3% 32.1% 37.5% 16.1% 46.4%

Written annual marketing plan 80.7% 12.0% 41.3% 35.9% 10.9% 53.3%

Written, long-range (at least three year) strategic enrollment plan

61.6% 11.6% 42.0% 30.4% 15.9% 53.6%

Chief Enrollment Officer Reports to Which Office?Respondents were instructed to choose only one response from the response below.


President 76.5%

Academic Affairs 12.2%

Other* 10.4%

Student Affairs 0.9%

Administrative/Business Office 0.0%

*Other responses named by two or more respondents in a blank, open-ended field included provost and executive vice president. All the rest of the “other” responses were unique responses identified by only one respondent each.

Plans in Response to Federal Government’s New FAFSA RulesRespondents were asked: “What marketing and recruitment changes, if any, are you planning to implement in response to federal government’s new FAFSA rules which allow use of Prior-Prior Year (PPY) information? (Please check all that apply.)”


Adjust content and timing of communication flows to prospective students 61.7%

Provide financial aid estimates earlier 59.1%

Will be encouraging leadership to set tuition earlier 58.3%

We do not yet know what changes we will be making 35.7%

Consider an earlier deadline for filing the FAFSA 27.8%

Admit students earlier 23.5%

Other* 2.6%

*Each respondent who selected “Other” was presented with a blank field in which to specify additional initiatives. However, no two respondents indicated the same response.

SM



Usage and Effectiveness of 10 Specific Modes of Communication for Marketing and Student Recruitment at Four-Year Public Institutions—Ordered by Percent Rated “Very Effective”

Survey items—Four-year public institutions




Website optimized for mobile browsers 83.3% 37.5% 45.0% 17.5% 82.5%

Email communication 97.9% 27.7% 59.6% 12.8% 87.2%

Text messaging 31.3% 26.7% 53.3% 20.0% 80.0%

Recruiting page(s) on website 95.8% 26.1% 45.7% 28.3% 71.7%

Publications in general (viewbook, search piece, etc.)

100.0% 22.9% 62.5% 14.6% 85.4%

Calling cell phones 85.4% 19.5% 48.8% 31.7% 68.3%

Videos embedded in campus website 87.5% 11.9% 52.4% 35.7% 64.3%

Social media sites like Facebook or Twitter

89.6% 11.6% 48.8% 39.5% 60.5%

Calling home phones 95.8% 10.9% 47.8% 41.3% 58.7%

Video calls using Skype or similar services

31.3% 0.0% 33.3% 66.7% 33.3%

Usage and Effectiveness of 61 Strategies and Tactics for Marketing and Student Recruitment at Four-Year Public Institutions—Ordered by Percent Rated “Very Effective”Rankings of Strategies and Tactics







97.9% 51.1% 44.7% 4.3% 95.7%


83.3% 45.0% 32.5% 22.5% 77.5%


100.0% 41.7% 50.0% 8.3% 91.7%


68.8% 39.4% 39.4% 21.2% 78.8%


95.8% 39.1% 52.2% 8.7% 91.3%

SM









Community college visits 95.7% 33.3% 51.1% 15.6% 84.4%

A planned, sequential flow of communication to prospective students, from the beginning to the end of the recruiting cycle

95.8% 32.6% 56.5% 10.9% 89.1%

High school visits by admission representatives to primary markets

100.0% 31.3% 60.4% 8.3% 91.7%

Community college articulation agreements

91.3% 31.0% 50.0% 19.0% 81.0%

Targeting in-state students 100.0% 29.2% 56.3% 14.6% 85.4%

Community college outreach to academic advisors

89.4% 28.6% 47.6% 23.8% 76.2%

Academic programs within high schools for students to earn college credits to your institution

77.1% 27.0% 35.1% 37.8% 62.2%

Admissions decisions “on the spot”—in high schools or during campus visits/open houses

41.7% 25.0% 40.0% 35.0% 65.0%


75.0% 25.0% 58.3% 16.7% 83.3%

Having enrolled students visit one or more high schools

44.7% 19.0% 33.3% 47.6% 52.4%



37.5% 16.7% 50.0% 33.3% 66.7%

Targeting transfer students 91.7% 15.9% 63.6% 20.5% 79.5%

SM








Student-to-student telecounseling involving continuous, regularly scheduled flows of phone calls at a high volume (one-time phonathons don’t count)

54.2% 15.4% 69.2% 15.4% 84.6%

Content marketing to attract students using informative subjects, topics, and informational resources

68.8% 15.2% 54.5% 30.3% 69.7%

Targeting out-of-state students 85.4% 14.6% 53.7% 31.7% 68.3%

Direct marketing aimed at eliciting specific, measurable actions such as a campus visit or submission of an application

85.4% 14.6% 56.1% 29.3% 70.7%

Targeting parents of prospective students 75.0% 13.9% 47.2% 38.9% 61.1%

Routine contacts by financial aid office professional staff to assess student reactions to financial aid awards

31.9% 13.3% 46.7% 40.0% 60.0%

Offering flexible payment plans 66.0% 12.9% 35.5% 51.6% 48.4%

High school visits by admission representatives to secondary, tertiary, or test markets

97.9% 12.8% 46.8% 40.4% 59.6%

Routine contacts by admissions office professional staff to assess student reactions to financial aid awards

33.3% 12.5% 62.5% 25.0% 75.0%

Targeting under-represented students 85.4% 12.2% 61.0% 26.8% 73.2%

Student search via email 87.5% 11.9% 52.4% 35.7% 64.3%

Targeting high-academic ability students

93.8% 11.1% 55.6% 33.3% 66.7%

SM








Personalized home page/portal for prospective students

41.7% 10.0% 55.0% 35.0% 65.0%

Targeting online learners 42.6% 10.0% 45.0% 45.0% 55.0%


43.5% 10.0% 45.0% 45.0% 55.0%

Encouraging prospective students to use an inquiry form on the admissions website

91.7% 9.1% 54.5% 36.4% 63.6%

Television ads 47.8% 9.1% 40.9% 50.0% 50.0%

Targeting international students

70.2% 9.1% 30.3% 60.6% 39.4%


Student search via direct mail 85.4% 7.3% 48.8% 43.9% 56.1%

Sending a subset of purchased names the same communications as inquiries

62.5% 6.7% 56.7% 36.7% 63.3%

Virtual tours 62.5% 6.7% 56.7% 36.7% 63.3%

Faculty phone contacts with prospective students

63.8% 6.7% 43.3% 50.0% 50.0%

Targeting veterans 63.8% 6.7% 40.0% 53.3% 46.7%

Using alumni in recruiting/marketing 64.6% 6.5% 41.9% 51.6% 48.4%


75.0% 5.6% 55.6% 38.9% 61.1%

Recruiting through business/industry 39.6% 5.3% 10.5% 84.2% 15.8%

Asking current students/alumni for applicant referrals

48.9% 4.3% 8.7% 87.0% 13.0%


52.2% 4.2% 41.7% 54.2% 45.8%

SM









56.5% 3.8% 53.8% 42.3% 57.7%

Online net price calculator 81.3% 2.6% 38.5% 59.0% 41.0%


Mailing course schedules to residents in the area

16.7% 0.0% 50.0% 50.0% 50.0%


76.1% 0.0% 34.3% 65.7% 34.3%

Cooperative or consortia-based recruiting

37.5% 0.0% 33.3% 66.7% 33.3%

Radio ads 65.2% 0.0% 30.0% 70.0% 30.0%

Targeting adult learners 41.7% 0.0% 20.0% 80.0% 20.0%


Targeting part-time students 29.8% NA NA NA NA

Overnight visits for high school students 27.1% NA NA NA NA

Offering loans directly from the college or university

18.8% NA NA NA NA

NA notation: Please note that effectiveness ratings are unavailable (shown as “NA”) in cases where the number of respondents was too small to provide statistically significant findings.

SM



Usage and Effectiveness of 11 Event Marketing and Recruitment Practices at Four-Year Public Institutions—Ordered by Percent Rated “Very Effective” This data is a subset of the data presented in the previous, 61-item table.







97.9% 51.1% 44.7% 4.3% 95.7%


83.3% 45.0% 32.5% 22.5% 77.5%


68.8% 39.4% 39.4% 21.2% 78.8%



75.0% 25.0% 58.3% 16.7% 83.3%


37.5% 16.7% 50.0% 33.3% 66.7%



75.0% 5.6% 55.6% 38.9% 61.1%


Overnight visits for high school students 27.1% NA NA NA NA

NA notation: Please note that effectiveness ratings are unavailable (shown as “NA”) in cases where the number of respondents was too small to provide statistically significant findings.

SM



Usage and Effectiveness of 8 Advertising Practices at Four-Year Public Institutions—Ordered by Percent Rated “Very Effective” This data is a subset of the data presented in the previous, 61-item table.







43.5% 10.0% 45.0% 45.0% 55.0%

Television ads 47.8% 9.1% 40.9% 50.0% 50.0%


52.2% 4.2% 41.7% 54.2% 45.8%


56.5% 3.8% 53.8% 42.3% 57.7%



76.1% 0.0% 34.3% 65.7% 34.3%

Radio ads65.2% 0.0% 30.0% 70.0% 30.0%

SM



Usage and Effectiveness of 13 Internal Operations Practices at Four-Year Public Institutions—Ordered by Percent Rated “Very Effective”






87.2% 48.8% 39.0% 12.2% 87.8%

Systematically contacting admitted students to code their level of interest in enrolling at your institution ("qualifying" admits)

56.3% 44.4% 40.7% 14.8% 85.2%


75.0% 36.1% 52.8% 11.1% 88.9%


72.3% 35.3% 50.0% 14.7% 85.3%


41.7% 35.0% 45.0% 20.0% 80.0%

Analytics resources such as Google Analytics to provide data for decision making (search engine optimization, fine-tuning recruitment/admissions portion of the website, etc.)

78.7% 32.4% 48.6% 18.9% 81.1%

Using a statistical, analytical approach to determine financial aid award levels by predicting enrollment rates based on award amounts (aka “financial aid leveraging”)

45.8% 31.8% 59.1% 9.1% 90.9%

Outsourcing print or electronic campaigns for student search

45.8% 31.8% 45.5% 22.7% 77.3%

Systematically contacting inquiries to code their level of interest in enrolling at your institution ("qualifying inquiries")

47.9% 30.4% 47.8% 21.7% 78.3%

SM



Rankings of Internal Operations, Continued





Statistical modeling to predict the likelihood of a prospective student enrolling at your institution

66.7% 28.1% 59.4% 12.5% 87.5%

Outsourcing market research (lost applicant analysis, brand perceptions, pricing analysis, SEO, etc.)

29.8% NA NA NA NA

Outsourcing telephone qualification to rate the interest levels of prospective students by phone

22.9% NA NA NA NA

Outsourcing international recruitment

19.6% NA NA NA NA

SM



Search Practices at Four-Year Public InstitutionsApproximate Number of High School Student Names Purchased



Approximate number of high school student names purchased for use in direct mail or email to generate inquiries and applicants

37,500 75,000 120,000

Approximate Number of High School Student Names Purchased (Subset of Above) Who Receive Email Only



Approximate number of high school student names purchased who receive email only

19,000 50,000 76,520

Timing of Contact with Purchased High School Names by Vendor Respondents were instructed to “check all that apply.”


NRCCUA names PSAT names SAT names PLAN names ACT names Other vendors*

Prior to grade 10 7.0% 7.0% 4.7% 0.0% 4.7% 7.0%

Sophomore year 23.3% 34.9% 18.6% 23.3% 18.6% 14.0%

Junior year 41.9% 44.2% 46.5% 30.2% 44.2% 25.6%

Summer prior to senior year 37.2% 27.9% 62.8% 18.6% 53.5% 30.2%

Fall of senior year 69.8% 23.3% 83.7% 14.0% 86.0% 27.9%

Winter or later of senior year 23.3% 14.0% 32.6% 7.0% 32.6% 20.9%

*“Other vendors” specified by two or more respondents included: CBSS, Cappex, Chegg, and Naviance.

SM



Respondents Who Reported Using Purchased High School Student Names from Three or More of the Five Sources Named (Based on data from the previous table—“Timing of contact.”)

For example, 39.5 percent of respondents who purchased names of high school juniors acquired the names from three or more of the five name sources listed on the previous page: NRCCUA, PSAT, SAT, PLAN, and ACT.

Survey items—Four-year public institutions Percent

Prior to grade 10 4.7%

Sophomore year 20.9%

Junior year 39.5%

Summer prior to senior year 41.9%

Fall of senior year 37.2%

Winter or later of senior year 16.3%

Respondents Who Reported Contacting Purchased Names Three or More Times From Each of the Name Sources Examined (Based on data from the previous table—“Timing of contact.”)

For example, 39.5 percent of respondents reported contacting NRCCUA names three or more times.


NRCCUA names 39.5%

PSAT names 27.9%

SAT names 46.5%

PLAN names 18.6%

ACT names 44.2%

Other vendors 60.5%

Preferred Methods for First and Subsequent Contacts with High School Purchased Names—Ordered by Preferred First Contact

Respondents were instructed to “check all that apply.”


First contact with purchased names of high school students

Subsequent contact(s) with non-responding purchased names before giving up on them

Email message 71.4% 73.5%

Self-mailer brochure 36.7% 18.4%

Email message with link to a personalized URL 32.7% 16.3%

Letter sent with enclosed brochure 26.5% 16.3%

Outbound phone call to all or selected contacts 22.4% 26.5%

Letter 16.3% 22.4%

Letter sent with viewbook 12.2% 10.2%

Viewbook 10.2% 18.4%

Other* 10.2% 16.3%

Text message 6.1% 8.2%

Catalog 2.0% 4.1%

*The vast majority of those who selected “other” listed postcards. Beyond postcards, no two respondents indicated the same response under “other”.

SM



Typical Number of Additional Contacts Made (Subsequent to the First Contact) With Purchased High School Names Before Giving Up on Them—Reported Separately for Email vs. Mail vs. Phone


Approximate number of additional email contacts

Approximate number of additional mail contacts

Approximate number of additional phone contacts

First quartile 5.0 1.0 0.0

Median 6.0 2.0 1.0

Third quartile 10.0 3.0 2.0


Percent Yes 60.0%

Do You Send a Subset of Purchased Names the Same Communications as Inquiries?

Approximate Percentage of High School Student Inquiries By Source—Ordered by Median Response

Survey items—Four-year public institutions First quartile Median Third quartile

Purchased names 10.0% 20.0% 47.8%

Travel to high schools and college fairs 10.0% 20.0% 35.0%

Application as first contact 7.0% 11.0% 26.3%

Website/Web form 5.0% 10.0% 13.3%

Campus visits 5.0% 10.0% 15.0%

Other sources* 1.0% 8.0% 13.5%

Test scores 4.0% 7.0% 20.0%

Paid online ads 0.0% 2.5% 6.5%

Referrals 0.0% 2.0% 5.0%

*Other sources of inquiries named by two or more respondents in a blank, open-ended field included these organizations: Cappex, Hobsons, CollegeWeekLive, Chegg, YouVisit, and NextStep.

SM



Written Contacts at Four-Year Public Institutions

Number of Written Communications a Typical Prospective Student Receives from Marketing and Recruitment Offices by Stages (Combination of direct mail, email, and texting)

Statistics Purchased name/Prospect stage Inquiry stage Admit stage Deposit/confirmed

stage

First quartile 3 5 5 3

Median 5 7 7 6

Third quartile 8.5 10 14 8


Percent Yes 56.3%

Do You Have a Student-to-Student Contact Program? (Yes/No)

Statistics Phone Email Text Social media Handwritten notes

First quartile 2 0 0 0 0

Median 2 1 0 1 1

Third quartile 4 4 2 2 1

Volume of Student-to-Student Contacts for Campuses That Responded Yes to Previous Item—Reported Separately for Phone vs. Email vs. Text vs. Social Media vs. Handwritten Notes

Student-to-Student Contact Programs at Four-Year Public Institutions

SM



Planning and Leadership Practices at Four-Year Public InstitutionsQuality Ratings for Six Leadership Practices—Ordered by Percent Rated “Excellent Quality”



Excellent quality Good quality Fair quality Poor quality Excellent or

good quality

Written annual recruitment plan 81.6% 22.5% 37.5% 35.0% 5.0% 60.0%

Regular evaluations of marketing and recruitment strategies and tactics, including making changes accordingly

93.9% 17.4% 34.8% 37.0% 10.9% 52.2%

Written annual marketing plan 75.0% 13.9% 36.1% 38.9% 11.1% 50.0%

Written annual integrated recruitment/marketing plan 55.1% 11.1% 59.3% 25.9% 3.7% 70.4%

Standing, campuswide committee that addresses coordinated marketing and recruitment planning and implementation across all units

57.1% 10.7% 25.0% 46.4% 17.9% 35.7%

Written, long-range (at least three-year) strategic enrollment plan

61.2% 10.0% 33.3% 30.0% 26.7% 43.3%

Chief Enrollment Officer Reports to Which Office?Respondents were instructed to choose only one response from the response below.


President 34.7%

Student Affairs 26.5%

Academic Affairs 22.4%

Other* 16.3%

Administrative/Business Office 0.0%

*Only one “other” response—dean—was named by two or more respondents in a blank, open-ended field. All the rest of the “other” responses were unique responses identified by only one respondent each.

Plans in Response to Federal Government’s New FAFSA RulesRespondents were asked: “What marketing and recruitment changes, if any, are you planning to implement in response to federal government’s new FAFSA rules which allow use of Prior-Prior Year (PPY) information? (Please check all that apply.)”


Adjust content and timing of communication flows to prospective students 71.4%

Provide financial aid estimates earlier 51.0%

We do not yet know what changes we will be making 42.9%

Will be encouraging leadership to set tuition earlier 28.6%

Consider an earlier deadline for filing the FAFSA 14.3%

Admit students earlier 14.3%

Other* 4.1%

*Each respondent who selected “Other” was presented with a blank field in which to specify additional initiatives. However, no two respondents indicated the same response.

SM


Respondent profileData in this report reflect responses from 163 nonprofit, four-year colleges and universities that collectively enroll 1.1 million students. Respondents participated in the Ruffalo Noel Levitz 2015 national electronic poll of undergraduate marketing and student recruitment practices between October 27 and November 11, 2015. The poll was emailed to admissions, marketing, and enrollment officials at accredited, degree-granting institutions across the United States. Respondents included 114 four-year private institutions and 49 four-year public institutions, as listed below.

Four-year private institutionsNote: Any participating two-year private collegesare included on this list.Antioch University Los Angeles (CA)Appalachian Bible College (WV)Arcadia University (PA)Augustana College (IL)Austin College (TX)Bluffton University (OH)Bob Jones University (SC)Boston Architectural College (MA)Boston Conservatory, The (MA)Briarcliffe College (NY)Bryan College (TN)Bryant University (RI)Bucknell University (PA)Buena Vista University (IA)Capital University (OH)Cardinal Stritch University (WI)Centenary College (NJ)Cleveland Institute of Art (OH)Coe College (IA)Colby-Sawyer College (NH)Columbia College (SC)Columbia College Chicago (IL)Concordia College (NY)Concordia University Nebraska (NE)Corban University (OR)Cornell College (IA)Cornerstone University (MI)Crown College (MN)Dakota Wesleyan University (SD)Delaware Valley University (PA)DePauw University (IN)Dordt College (IA)Dunwoody College of Technology (MN)East-West University (IL)Emmanuel College (GA)

Friends University (KS)Goodwin College (CT)Gordon College (MA)Guilford College (NC)Hesston College (KS)High Point University (NC)Hillsdale College (MI)Holy Cross College (IN)Houghton College (NY)Houston Baptist University (TX)Howard Payne University (TX)Huntingdon College-Evening Bachelor’s Program (AL)Huntington University (IN)Indiana Wesleyan University (IN)Kettering College (OH)La Roche College (PA)Lancaster Bible College (PA)Le Moyne College (NY)Lesley University (MA)Lindenwood University (MO)Long Island Business Institute (NY)Los Angeles College of Music (CA)Lynn University (FL)Maria College of Albany (NY)Marian University (IN)Marymount University (VA)McNally Smith College of Music (MN)McPherson College (KS)Milwaukee Institute of Art & Design (WI)Minneapolis College of Art and Design (MN)Montreat College (NC)Moore College of Art and Design (PA)Mount Ida College (MA)Mount Mary University (WI)Mount St. Mary’s University (MD)Mount Vernon Nazarene University (OH)Nazarene Bible College (CO)Northwest Nazarene University (ID)

Thank you to those who participated.

SM


Northwestern College (IA)Notre Dame de Namur University (CA)Ohio Dominican University (OH)Oklahoma Baptist University (OK)Oral Roberts University (OK)Oregon College of Art and Craft (OR)Pace University (NY)Point University (GA)Reed College (OR)Rhode Island School of Design (RI)Ripon College (WI)Robert Morris University (PA)Rockford University (IL)Rocky Mountain College (MT)Saint Louis University (MO)San Francisco Art Institute (CA)Schreiner University (TX)Seattle University (WA)Southern Nazarene University (OK)Southwestern Assemblies of God University (TX)St. Edward’s University (TX)St. Norbert College (WI)Stetson University (FL)Texas Christian University (TX)Texas Wesleyan University (TX)Trine University (IN)University of Denver (CO)University of Evansville (IN)University of Mary (ND)University of Northwestern-St. Paul (MN)Utica College (NY)Vanderbilt University (TN)Vanguard University of Southern California (CA)Wagner College (NY)Walsh University (OH)Washington & Jefferson College (PA)Westminster College (PA)Wilson College (PA)Wisconsin Lutheran College (WI)Wofford College (SC)York College of Pennsylvania (PA)

Four-year public institutionsAngelo State University (TX)Boise State University (ID)California State University-Dominguez Hills (CA)

California State University-Los Angeles (CA)Central Washington University (WA)Cleveland State University (OH)Darton State College (GA)Frostburg State University (MD)George Mason University (VA)Indiana University Southeast (IN)Kennesaw State University (GA)Lake Superior State University (MI)Louisiana State University (LA)Millersville University of Pennsylvania (PA)Mississippi State University (MS)Ohio State University, Main Campus (OH)Penn State University Park (PA)Purdue University Main Campus (IN)Sam Houston State University (TX)Southern Connecticut State University (CT)Southern Utah University (UT)SUNY College at Potsdam (NY)SUNY Canton-College of Technology (NY)SUNY Polytechnic Institute (NY)Temple University-College of Public Health (PA)Texas Tech University (TX)University of Alaska Anchorage (AK)University of Arizona, The (AZ)University of Baltimore (MD)University of Delaware (DE)University of Houston-Victoria (TX)University of Missouri-Saint Louis (MO)University of North Carolina at Greensboro (NC)University of North Carolina Wilmington (NC)University of Oklahoma, The (OK)University of Pittsburgh at Bradford (PA)University of Southern Indiana (IN)University of Toledo (OH)University of Vermont (VT)University of West Alabama, The (AL)University of West Georgia (GA)University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee (WI)University of Wisconsin-Parkside (WI)Virginia Tech Corps of Cadets (VA)West Virginia University (WV)Western Connecticut State University (CT)Western Kentucky University (KY)Western State Colorado University (CO)Winthrop University (SC)

SM


Questions about this report? Want to discuss the findings? We hope you found this report to be helpful and informative. If you have questions or would like to discuss marketing and student recruitment strategies with an expert from Ruffalo Noel Levitz, please contact us at 800.876.1117 or [email protected]. Our consultants are available to come to your campus to present the report findings and to offer enrollment management counsel.

About Ruffalo Noel Levitz and our higher education researchA trusted partner to higher education, Ruffalo Noel Levitz is a nationally recognized consulting firm focused on enrollment management, student success, and fundraising. Since 1973, Ruffalo Noel Levitz has partnered with more than 3,000 colleges and universities throughout North America.

For more than 20 years, we have conducted national surveys to assist campuses with benchmarking their performance. This includes benchmarking student retention and marketing/recruitment practices and outcomes, monitoring student and campus usage of the web and electronic communications, and comparing institutional budgets and policies. There is no charge or obligation for participating, and responses to all survey items are strictly confidential. Participants have the advantage of receiving the findings first, as soon as they become available.

For more information, visit www.RuffaloNL.com.

Related reports from Ruffalo Noel Levitz

Benchmark Poll Report Serieswww.RuffaloNL.com/BenchmarkReports

E-Expectations Report Serieswww.RuffaloNL.com/E-ExpectationsSeries

Latest Discounting Reportwww.RuffaloNL.com/DiscountingReport

National Student Satisfaction-Priorities Reportswww.RuffaloNL.com/SatisfactionBenchmarks

National Freshman Attitudes Reportswww.RuffaloNL.com/FreshmanAttitudes

Read more about our higher education research at www.RuffaloNL.com/TrendResearch.

How to cite this reportRuffalo Noel Levitz (2016). 2016 marketing and student recruitment practices benchmark report for four-year colleges and universities. Cedar Rapids, Iowa: Ruffalo Noel Levitz. Retrieved from www.RuffaloNL.com/BenchmarkReports.

All material in this document is copyright © by Ruffalo Noel Levitz. Permission is required to redistribute information from Ruffalo Noel Levitz, either in print or electronically. Please contact us at [email protected] about reusing material from this document.

Find it online:This report is posted online at: www.RuffaloNL.com/BenchmarkReports

Sign up to receive additional reports or our e-newsletter. Visit our webpage: www.RuffaloNL.com/Subscribe

View previous reports on marketing and recruitment practices Visit www.RuffaloNL.com/BenchmarkReports to access our complete series of Benchmark Poll Reports, including previous

reports on college marketing and student recruitment practices.

800.876.1117 | [email protected] | www.RuffaloNL.com

MP0 0216

for Four-Year Colleges and Universities - RuffaloNL · SM 2016 Ruffalo Noel Levit | 2016 Marketing...

Documents

Transcript of for Four-Year Colleges and Universities - RuffaloNL · SM 2016 Ruffalo Noel Levit | 2016 Marketing...