Intermedia

The alumni engagement curve

As I've noted on this blog before, I'm a fan of the long tail theory as applied to constituent (let's focus on alumni here) engagement. A recent article by the Register's Andrew Orlowski, though, calls out the long tail, saying that it's more sizzle than steak (my words, not his). It's a good article that gets to origins of Anderson's theory and got me thinking about the whole curve beyond the tail and how it may apply to alumni engagement.

He writes about the pareto principle (or the 80%/20% rule) and how the long tail is really something of an everyman's counter to it, amplifying the voice and impact of the 80%, but perhaps without any bottom line impact. Made me think a bit about how this could apply to alumni engagement.

If 80% of programming is targeted at 20% of the people (due to geography or because they keep coming back, which makes a college less likely to pull back so that it can offer different types of programming), shouldn't it be offering more programs to the other 80%, who may show up in smaller numbers but be just as if not more engaged? Moreover, look at magazine and web content -- who does it speak to? The 20% who share common interests and perhaps give the most or provide the most feedback or are you working to get the other 80%, that may have 80%'s worth of different interests, involved?

Here's how I think it might play out.

 

The answer, maybe, is to depart a bit from what's worked for the 80% but not go so far as to try to reshape the suite programs to over-cater to the long tail as there just may not be enough critical mass there to support a widely (and wildly) diverse set of offerings.The key here is doing so in a way that doesn't sacrifice the top end. In the context of alumni engagement though, which builds upon a shared experience on a campus/at an institution, there should be enough points of commonality among the alumni that a college can shift down the curve in terms of focus in order to capture a larger portion of the alumni body's attention. Right?

This is the point at which you can start to pick apart my argument. Have at it.

Online newspapers and iron horses

So, when are we going to stop talking about "online newspapers?" Few if any newspapers simply slap the day's paper up on the web and call it a day. They are breaking news online, fleshing out features, and posting exclusive content, including multimedia to the web. Calling it the online newspaper sells it short, but it also may be a sign that we haven't yet made the mental leap necessary to adapt the print-centric model that is suffering so badly right now. My fear is that this resistance ("The print version doesn't work so we'll do the same thing on the web") will stifle the ability of a well-established industry to make the changes necessary to survive.

What's that? Newspapers are dead, you say? Well, my point here is that newspapers really weren't ever about newspapers. They're about content. Newspapers grew by using the best media (a press-based mass content packaging and distribution network) available to connect people with information they needed. Heck. Almost sounds like the Internet!

A new faster, cheaper model has emerged so it's time to adapt the content to fit the new container (an old favorite of mine). The newspaper itself has always been limited by the cost of production and the availability of ads. The Internet doesn't work that way. Content is only limited by its quality and consistency because that's how folks decide whether or not to consume it.

This study by Pew shows that, between 2006 and 2008, daily newspaper readership among Americans has dropped 7 percentage points, from 34% to 27%. And, they note that, "since the early 1990s, the proportion of Americans saying they read a newspaper on a typical day has declined by about 40%." Not good for the news biz... maybe. The same study showed that a slim majority (51%) of Americans now "graze" for their news, checking in at multiple points during the day. Goes back to that whole more efficient network thing. The ritual of reading the dailiy, authoratitive newspaper (or two) over coffee each morning may be waning, but the appetite for relevant, interesting news doesn't appear to be going away. In fact, the robust availablility creates more of an appetite for content -- just not the structured kind that fit the newspaper mold.

Web content is no more an online newspaper than a train is an iron horse. It's an evolutionary change to the medium that still serves the same primary purpose.

Social networking will cure baldness

I'm all for getting excited about the fast growth and rising popularity of social networking and fully embrace the power of new media. What I don't love is the gratuitous throwing under the bus of other media -- print and email have been popular punching bags for those who proclaim that social networking is so transformational that it will mean the end of other forms of communication.

There is no doubt that social networking is both changing and, I would argue, improving communication. Sites like Facebook provide an always-on, global, real-time, communication platform that has flattened relationships. It's less about where you live and what you do for a living and more about what groups you join and what old friendships you may choose to rekindle. There is also no doubt that the draw of social networking is broad. This week's Nielsen report, “Global Faces and Networked Places” has some great information:

- Two-thirds of the world’s Internet population visit social networking or blogging sites, accounting for almost 10% of all internet time
- Across the globe in 2008 activity in ‘Member Communities’ accounted for one in every 15 online minutes - now it accounts for one in every 11.
- The fastest growing group on Facebook is people aged 35-49 years of age (+24.1 million). From December 2007 through December 2008, Facebook added almost twice as many 50-64 year old visitors (+13.6 million) than it has added under 18 year old visitors (+7.3 million).

But, even with all of this, social networking is only a piece of the puzzle. Just having a "Facebook strategy" or a "Social Networking Committee" doesn't mean that you've figured it all out. There is a responsibility that comes with jumping into these media. A good communication program is all about relationship building and consistency. It's also about using the media available in the most effective way. Used propely, each medium in your toolkit -- print, web, email, social networks, twitter, the phone (imagine that) and in-person communication -- is powerful and can be used effectively. The challenge is to understand that and not lean too much on one to do all the heavy lifting.

Time to focus on your core

It seems that one positive outcome of the current economic correction (lemonade anyone?) is that organizations -- interactive service providers for the purposes of this post -- will have to be clear about what their core business is all about and execute on it. Plain and simple.

We've all gotten the pitches from well-intentioned design, hosting, and service firms that provide "best in breed" service across platforms, 24/7 support, email marketing, analytics, social networking and will walk your dog -- all for $50 per month. Problem is that they all to often don't have the staff or technology resources to do those things consistently or they can't generate enough business to sustain their model. They'd be much better off, in my opinion, doing one or two things with efficiency and consistency. That will win my support and loyalty as a client.

Don't blame them though, it's our fault. That's right. We, as potential clients, often issue RFPs that demand everything all at once and cast off companies that are too small or don't have plans to expand. We do it because the challenge of managing multiple suppliers is often a headache -- who wants to have separate companies handling email, hosting, fulfillment, design, etc.? No one wants it, but's less about what we want than what's best for the folks who should  be at the top of our list -- our end-users. The potential students, alumni, parents, legislators, friends, and others who are looking for easy, relevant communications and service.

They don't care who's providing what. They just want it to work.

So, next time you're talking with a provider, focus less on everything they propose to do and more on everything they are able to do. And make them prove that they can do it consistely and professionally.

The ragged edge

There is a lot of talk about being on the "cutting edge" of things -- new media, for the purposes of this conversation. As I think about it though, if you're that far out in front of everyone else it tends to be kind of messy doesn't it?

Our constituents and stakeholders often want programs to be on the cutting edge, but I it's probably more productive (and honest) to refer to that edge as ragged. Things aren't always going to work perfectly and there's some risk involved. Plowing new ground is rarely a clean process.

But, if the people involved and those who could be involved are game for some new thinking and accepting that there will be roadblocks and some bumps along the way, the payoff is going to be bigger -- and the whole process is going to be more exciting. I love working with groups or "clients" (yes, we use that word) who are willing to be the first with a new technology or program because they have confidence that we know what we're doing AND they know that there will probably be a few glitches, but that's where the really good stuff happens -- that's where we get to think creatively, problem solve, and often come up with a solution that far outpaces what we could have done with traditional thinking.

The point is that messy can be strategic.

Social media sustainability

So what happens to your communication program if you get hit by a bus tomorrow? Okay, that's really dark. How about this? What about you win the lottery and move to Fiji tomorrow?

Will your social media initiatives fall apart? Will your strategic communication plan suffer? Will anyone update your feeds and pages... or know why you were even doing it?

Developing and putting into place a strategic, focused social media program really isn't an option any more. See Andy Shaindlin of Alumni Futures,who writes, "if organizations don't seize the tools and start working outside our old silos, our audience will do it for us. Are you comfortable with that?"

What also isn't an option though is hiring a "specialist" or some students who know some FBML or can run a Flip Video (HD of course) and calling it a day. A sustainable program has direct lines drawn between the social media tactics and the overall strategic communication plan. It can be justified in terms of staff time and dollars spent. It has an impact that can be felt and would be missed if the whole bus/lottery thing happened.

So, the challenge is to integrate your social media plans into overall planning efforts and to communicate your goals and strategies internally just as well as you do externally. Talk about the technologies, how you're using them, and how the are meant to affect change or support initiatives.

Social media ROI

As budgets get tighter and print media get, well, less present, it's clear that electronic communications are becoming an even more important part of institutional media mixes. This should mean good things in terms of technological development, best practices, and professional standards. It will also surely mean more emphasis on ROI. As institutions invest more in new media, they are going to want to know where the resources are going.

Not a new conversation, of course, but one that everyone's going to be able to have in a hurry. The key, as I've always said, is the direct connection between the media or program and an overarching strategic communications plan. What is your institution trying to accomplish and how does a blog, Twitter or Facebook help achieve that goal? If you can't draw that straight line, or at least connect some dots, something's not right.

This isn't about monetizing social media or being able to derive profit from a Facebook fan page, but it is about seeing your social media efforts within a broader context.

Online video - Quality does (or at least should) matter

You know what I like more than online video? Watchable online video. And I bet I'm not alone.

There is a lingering perception that online video watchers prefer video that isn't highly produced and has a gritty, "genuine" feel. I was in a conversation with a colleague at another institution recently during which he said as much ("If it's not kind of grainy and shaky, students won't watch it") Really? I just don't buy it.

First of all, the prices of quality cameras and editing software have come way down, which means that even basic user-generated content should have a cleaner presentation.

Second, I think that the purpose and tone of the video have an awful lot to do with the most appropriate feel. For example, if a college is posting brief, newsy videos on a quick turnaround, sure, grainy is fine and, yes, probably more believable. But, on the other hand, there is a place for more feature-oriented videos that not only can, but should, feel more highly-produced. (See what NC State is doing) The web is able to deliver high-quality video and, for these purposes, I think people expect it.

Look at Hulu and YouTube. Totally different models for delivering web video, and that's okay. You expect to find just about anything on YouTube but you know that the quality probably won't be great, it might be a hacked video, and if it's long it might be cut into a bunch of pieces. Hulu, on the other hand, has a much more shallow well of videos but they're high quality and full length. Given the choice to watch a clip on Hulu or YouTube, I'm picking Hulu every time. Need to find something that's obscure or viral and I'll probably start with YouTube.

** Update [12.5.08] ** I should mention that YouTube's HD offering certainly makes videos posted there and, I think, makes an even stronger case for high quality video. No longer will that 90 second YouTube bit shot on your phone be almost as visually compelling as the one shot and posted with a Flip HD. **

Building community online -- builders or buyers?

I have an immediate and negative knee-jerk reaction to the case that younger people only use the web and older people (loosely defined, of course) don't. It's silly and for every Twittering tween you show me, I'll come right back with a Googling grandpa. Social media usage, in my opinion, is more about disposition than demographics.

So, if you've recently attended a conference where you were told that you are irrelevant if you don't have a blog or a Facebook page, take a step back and think about the community you are communicating with at your organization. Do they tend to take initiative? Do they write letters to the editor of your magazine? Do they want to help build something or do they want to take advantage of a final product? I think it's necessary to take a few steps back to think about how they demonstrate interest and interact before pushing forward with a program.

This is particularly important with new media, partially because it's just so new. We need the flexibility to experiment -- smartly, of course -- and learn based on what is working and what isn't. Members of the community need to feel like they're part of the process not just recipients of the final product. If they're not -- or they're not willing to work through it with you -- the point of interactivity is lost.

If you think about your community's profile, are they the types who get a charge out of building something new or would they rather work with a finished product. The former group is much more likely to get on board, take ownership and build community in powerful ways.

Degrees of alumni connection

There's an interesting post on TechCrunch today about the need to update Milgram's Six Degrees of Separation which, as one recent study they cite predicts, may now be more like three degrees. Spend some time on Facebook and it's hard to disagree that we're not more closely connected with others than we were 40 years ago when Milgram's theory caught on.

It would be an interesting project to investigate just how many degrees of separation are between generations of a college's alumni and what role technology plays not only in decreasing the number of degrees but also highlighting that you are closely connected.

Fewer degrees of separation
College social networks, hosted or free range, have the potential to connect alumni beyond class years or groups they may have participated in while on campus. Alumni, years separated from alma mater, who share common interests, values or practices can connect through these networks, pulling them a few degrees closer to each other.

Highlighting the degrees
Similarly, you might not know that you're connected via your alma mater to the hiring manager at the company you've longed to work for, or that favorite author, or someone who lives in your neighborhood, but the technology that drives the networks allows people to make these discoveries.

I'd bet that the average degrees of separation among college alumni, from big schools and small, is fewer than six. Just think of how many generations of alumni some faculty members reach. Or coaches. Think of the person who has worked in the main dining hall every day for 20 years. And those are just the on-campus connections. Think of how the network explodes as alumni enter the workforce, work in their communities, and grow their families.