I decided to head over to eduStyle to check out all the site redesign submissions I’ve missed over the last few months. It turns out that “differentiation” doesn’t seem to be a marketing objective anymore. Check out all these variation on a theme (and there are plenty more I could have chosen). What gives? Have we as an industry actually hit upon higher ed’s perfect website layout- big image/interactive area across top with multiple columns of text and images below?
Most emails I get arrive on a regular schedule. Some monthly, some weekly, some daily. But I can only think of a handful that are mailed on an as needed basis. They send me mail when and if they have something of value to tell me. Otherwise, they get out of my way and help keep my inbox free of clutter. Brilliant!
This came up recently for me because of two things:
First, I received a regularly scheduled newsletter that apparently decided to hit send even though they didn’t have content to fill out their mailing. The screenshot of the cse in point even admits they didn’t find enough good content to send, but send they still did. Now, in their defense, the email is typically full of good links, and this particular edition did too, just not in this particular section. So I wonder, why not wait on this mailing until there’s enough good content to justify hitting send?
Second, I’m in the process of thnking about e-newsletters on behalf of my university’s alumni relations group. They currently send an email on a bi-weekly basis. That’d be fine if the content in those emails supported such a constant stream. However, and it’s one man’s opinion of course, I don’t think it does. It’s chock full of stuff I don’t care about (I happen to be in their target audience so I can make that claim), is way too long, has no focus/theme/glue to what is included, and it doesn’t look appealing. So why not abandon the bi-weekly schedule and move to an as-needed basis? It’d be less work internally to create and become more valuable to recipients because it’s only sent when there’s something valuable worth sending.
I came across this series of blog posts from NYTimes columnists David Brooks. In his own words:
“…I asked readers over 70 to write autobiographical essays evaluating their own lives.”
I love that idea.
Higher ed could do take Brooks’ basic idea and fill some of the gaps that exist with prospects’ and students’ relative lack of life experience compared to alumni. Imagine if we offered the accumulated life experiences, lessons learned, career exposure and general worldliness of alums to the rest of our university’s community. It would create bonds of affinity (not to mention a deep well of outcome oriented stories) by tossing aside the artificial audience segmentations we’ve created as an industry- prospects, students, donors, faculty, alumni, parents, etc.
I see all audiences sitting on a continuum where boundaries only exist if you purposely create them. I’m an alum of the university I work for but I still feel I’m a student at heart. I know I’m not technically a student, but I identify myself as a life long learner which shares the same state of mind as a student who may be 20 years younger. So why put up a barrier between us and treat us separately? Our needs certainly differ in important ways and those needs to be accounted for, but at what expense and to what degree? I think any higher ed’s community shares more similarities than differences.
A university’s ability to communicate with students is contingent on its internal systems working efficiently and effectively. Otherwise, the institution risks communicating a disorganized message, misinformation and a confused brand. In this presentation, I walk through some organizational structure ideas as they apply to higher ed and how they affect institutional branding. From there, I talk about how structural barriers can be overcome to help dissipate some of the negative effects.