Online Conversation Benchmarks for Higher Education Dr. Liz Gross | @LizGross144 NAICU Annual Meeting February 5, 2019
54% “A person like me” is a credible spokesperson @EdelmanPR | www.edelman.com/trust-barometer
Public perception has become reality Rep eputa tati tions ons are ma e made de and d de destroyed ed over ernig ight, t, than anks s to: • The power of online and social media • An emboldened public who has seen Twitter bring down corporate titans and foment social-political unrest around the world. Zach Olsen, Inside Higher Ed’s Call To Action Blog, August 30, 2017
The internet is real life
“Your president is on social even if they’re not on social” - Walter M. Kimbrough President, Dillard University
strategic social listening real life: transcribed, categorized, and analyzed to provide your institution with the insights it needs to support data-driven strategies
How Social all conversations Listening Works queries results
• 65 institutions • Representative of the 2,924 non-associate degree-granting institutions (2015 Carnegie Classification) across program type, institution type, size by enrollment, geographic region • Collected & analyzed conversations from August 2017 to July 2018 • 13 million+ Custom Conversation Segmentation • • Owned vs Earned • Athletics conversation • Prospective student mentions • Admitted student mentions • Alumni engagement • Alumni news mentions We can describe the online conversation about higher education and benchmark individual institutions accordingly.
How much public online conversation occurs about higher education institutions?
Annual Mentions – excluding athletics Excludes athletics-related conversation
Annual Conversation by Institutional Control Public ic Privat ate Non-Pr Prof ofit Privat ate For-Pr Profit it Median 20,260 4,164 670 Range 2,061 - 959,320 21 - 8,967,233 51 - 5,655 Excludes athletics-related conversation
Annual Conversation by Enrollment Excl clusiv usivel ely Very Small Small Medium um Large Graduat ate Median 1,811 1,386 5,318 10,784 188,357 Range 100 – 21 – 670 – 5,655 – 14,190 – 5,003 13,631 61,818 66,169 8,967,233 Excludes athletics-related conversation
How many people or organizations contribute to the conversation?
Annual Contributors to Conversation (authors) Excludes athletics-related conversation
Unique Authors by Enrollment Excl clusiv usivel ely Very Small Medium um Large Graduat ate Small Median 206 152 850 1,427 19,687 Range 24 - 548 10 - 518 84 – 9,478 566 – 8,313 1,262 – 1,087,445 Excludes athletics-related conversation
Where does the conversation happen?
Where Does The Conversation Happen? Excludes athletics-related conversation
Why Monitor All Public Online Conversation • Knowing where people talk about your institution prepares you to respond to opportunities, either on- or offline; don’t discount the value of conversation from sites that have a small mention volume. • Understanding where conversation occurs is key to understanding how the public views your institution. – 90-9-1 rule for participation inequality for social media & online communities
Who generates the online conversation?
Owned and Earned Conversation Owned • Created by campus accounts and websites • Shares of this content by others Earned Content about the campus • • Social media accounts, journalists, blogs, forums • Conversations with campus social media accounts
Excludes athletics-related conversation
Components of Owned and Earned Conversation Excludes athletics-related conversation
Alignment of owned and earned conversation themes is a measure of institutional influence.
Components of Owned and Earned Conversation Excludes athletics-related conversation
An audience that’s likely to retweet owned tweets appears just as likely to retweet audience-generated content about the institution, increasing institutional visibility.
What does online conversation look like according to the higher education lifecycle?
Prospective Student Conversation About Institutions is Scarce • Institutions heard from (or about) institutions a median of once. – Range: 0-221 (outlier: 6,483) • 74% of institutions had less than 10 prospective student mentions. Admitted students are a different story Excludes athletics-related conversation
Annual Conversation from Admitted Students Excludes athletics-related conversation
Admissions Conversation by Institutional Control Public ic Privat ate Non-Pr Prof ofit Privat ate For-Pr Profit it Median 15 27 1 Range 0 – 1,525 0 – 3,074 0 - 82 (outlier: 35,775) Excludes athletics-related conversation
Admissions Conversation by Enrollment Excl clusiv usivel ely Very Small Small Medium um Large Graduat ate Median 3 2 32 68 2,577 Range 0 – 272 0 – 227 0 – 432 6 – 426 187 – 43,609 Excludes athletics-related conversation
Alumni May Be Quiet, But They’re Talked About • Alumni contributed to institutional conversation 0 – 26,500 times (median = 12) – Based mostly on self-identified alumni – Excluding outlier, range shrinks to 0 – 1,015 • Most often mentioned on news sites
Annual Conversation About Alumni Includes athletics-related conversation
What happens when we add athletics back into the conversation about higher education institutions?
Athletics Affiliation of Our Sample • 36 of the 65 institutions in our sample had an athletics program Affil iliati tion on Nu Number mber of Insti titu tuti tion ons NCAA Division 1 6 NCAA Division II 7 NCAA Division III 12 Other Organizations 11 Other organizations e.g., NAIA, USCAA
Impact of Athletics Conversation
Not Just High-Performing or Well-Known Programs • 22 institutions had higher-than-average percentage of athletics-related conversation – 73% play in NCAA Division III or other affiliated sports – All but two are classified as small or very small
Athletics Impacts Admissions Conversations • Prospective students talk more larger institutions • Admitted students talk about athletics more regardless of institution size
Athletics Disproportionately Increases Admitted Students Conversation for non-NCAA Institutions
Conclusion • Quality, engaging content influences how your audiences talks about you online. You can shape (and assess) your online presence so it’s representative of your institution. • Every conversation about your institution may be an opportunity to learn from or engage with your audience and increase ROI in the form of tuition revenue or fundraising. • Athletics conversation is increasingly impactful and levels the playing field for online conversation for small institutions.
Social listening is not a social media investment. Social listening is quickly becoming a required component for strategic intelligence in higher education.
Get the study Read the handbook • Printed copy here today • Printed copy here today • Digital copy available February 14: • Download now: info. o.cam ampussonar onar.com .com/be /bench nchma marks ks info.cam o.campuss ussonar nar.com .com/nai naicu cu
We’re analyzing 6 months of online Tuning In: conversation from 194 executives to determine: Higher Ed Conversation topics • • Behavior of campus execs on Twitter Execs Online • The relationship between executive digital leadership presence and institutional conversation/reputation Get the study • Digital copy available in April: info.c o.cam ampuss pussonar onar.com/ .com/highe ghered redexecs • See who’s included: bit.ly/ .ly/Tunin ningIn gInPre rez bit.ly/ .ly/Tunin ningIn gInVP
Recommend
More recommend
