Web2.0 And Business Schools Dawn Henderson

1 Table of Contents ABSTRACT ................................................................................................................ 8 CHAPTER ONE: INTRODUCTION .................................................................... 12 1.1. Rationale for the Research............................................................................... 12 1.2. Research Aim and Objectives ......................................................................... 13 1.3. Research Approach .......................................................................................... 15 1.4. Dissertation Structure ...................................................................................... 16 CHAPTER TWO: INDUSTRY OVERVIEW ...................................................... 19 2.1. Introduction ..................................................................................................... 19 2.2. The Web2.0 and Social Media Revolution ..................................................... 19 2.2.1. What is Web2.0/Social Media? ................................................................ 20 2.2.2. The Growth of Social Media .................................................................... 22 2.2.3. The Benefits of Using Web2.0 and Social Media .................................... 25 2.3. Industry Overview: Business Schools ............................................................. 27 2.3.1. Business Schools in the UK ...................................................................... 28 2.3.2. Business Schools in the USA.................................................................... 29 2.3.3. The Future for Business Schools .............................................................. 30 CHAPTER THREE: LITERATURE REVIEW ................................................... 33 3.1. Introduction ..................................................................................................... 33 3.2. Business School Marketing – The Traditional Approach ............................... 34 3.2.1. Building the Business School Brand ........................................................ 34 3.2.2. Traditional Business School Marketing Approaches................................ 36 3.3. Customer Empowerment ................................................................................. 39 3.3.1. The Power Shift to the Consumer ............................................................. 39 3.3.2. The Drivers of Customer Empowerment .................................................. 40 3.3.3. The Need for Business Schools to Become „Customer-Led‟? ................. 42 3.4. Marketing to the Net Generation ..................................................................... 43

2 3.4.1. Characteristics of the Net Generation ....................................................... 45 3.4.2. Strategies for „Tapping the Groundswell‟ ............................................... 48 3.5. Business School Marketing – A New Marketing Mix .................................... 50 3.5.1. A New „Business School Marketing Mix‟ ................................................ 51 3.5.2. Marketing as a Ongoing Conversation ..................................................... 54 3.6 Chapter Conclusion and Research Gap ............................................................ 58 CHAPTER FOUR: METHODOLOGY ................................................................ 60 4.1. Introduction ..................................................................................................... 60 4.2. Research Methods ........................................................................................... 61 4.2.1. Secondary Research .................................................................................. 62 4.2.2. Primary Research ...................................................................................... 63 4.2.3. Qualitative vs. Quantitative Research ....................................................... 63 4.3. Choice of Research Strategy ........................................................................... 66 4.4. Phase One: Development of Framework ......................................................... 69 4.5. Phase One: Internal and External Web2.0 Analysis ........................................ 71 4.5.1. Sampling ................................................................................................... 73 4.5.2. Engagement Profiling ............................................................................... 76 4.5.3. Scoring System ......................................................................................... 77 4.5.3.1. Channel Presence Scoring for this Dissertation ..................................... 79 4.5.3.2. Engagement Scoring for this Dissertation ............................................. 79 4.5.3.3. Engagement Profiling ............................................................................ 82 4.6. Phase Two: Best Practice Case Examples ....................................................... 85 4.6.1. Sampling ................................................................................................... 85 4.6.2. Creation of the Case Examples ................................................................. 86 4.7. Phase Three: Interviews .................................................................................. 87 4.7.1. Sampling ................................................................................................... 88 4.7.2. Interview Methods .................................................................................... 89 4.7.3. Interview Content ..................................................................................... 90 4.8. Chapter Conclusion ......................................................................................... 90

3 CHAPTER FIVE: PRESENTATION OF RESEARCH FINDINGS (Phase One: Internal and External Analysis).............................................................................. 93 5.1. A Summary of the Research Findings (Phase One) ........................................ 94 5.2. Adoption of Web2.0 by Business Schools ...................................................... 97 5.2.1. Internal Evaluation: Use of Web2.0 applications on Business Schools‟ own website ...................................................................................................... 100 5.2.2. External Evaluation: Business Schools‟ presence on external Web2.0 sites .......................................................................................................................... 103 5.3. Web2.0 Engagement ..................................................................................... 108 5.4. Chapter Conclusion ....................................................................................... 113 CHAPTER SIX: BEST PRACTICE CASE EXAMPLES (Phase Two) ........... 116 6.1. University of Pennsylvania: Wharton ........................................................... 116 6.1.1. The Wharton School: Internal................................................................. 117 6.1.2. The Wharton School: External ............................................................... 120 6.1.3. Return on Investment (ROI) and Impact of Wharton‟s Web2.0 Activities .......................................................................................................................... 123 6.1.4. Summary ................................................................................................. 126 6.2. Harvard Business School............................................................................... 127 6.2.1. Internal .................................................................................................... 127 6.2.2. External ................................................................................................... 129 6.2.3. Summary ................................................................................................. 132 6.3. MIT Sloan School of Management ............................................................... 133 6.3.1. Internal .................................................................................................... 133 6.3.2. External ................................................................................................... 135 6.3.3. Summary ................................................................................................. 137 6.4 Chapter Conclusion ........................................................................................ 138 CHAPTER SEVEN: ISSUES AND CHALLENGES FACING „SELECTIVES‟ AND WALLFLOWERS‟ (Phase Three) ............................................................. 141 7.1. „Selectives‟ and „Wallflowers‟: Interview Analysis...................................... 141 7.1.1. Performance, Impact and Benefits of Using Web2.0 ............................. 142

4 7.1.2. Drivers for Web2.0 Integration ............................................................... 144 7.1.3. Organisation of Web Marketing ............................................................. 147 7.1.4. Issues, Challenges and Barriers to Implementation ................................ 149 7.1.5. Future Plans ............................................................................................ 152 7.2 The Wharton School: Impact, Challenges and Future Plans .......................... 154 7.2.1. Performance, Impact and Benefits of Web2.0 ......... Error! Bookmark not defined. 7.2.2. Process of implementation ........................ Error! Bookmark not defined. 7.2.3. Issues, Challenges and Barriers to Implementation Error! Bookmark not defined. 7.2.4. Organisation of Web Marketing activities Error! Bookmark not defined. 7.2.5. Future Plans ............................................. Error! Bookmark not defined. 7.2.6. Summary of the Wharton Interview .......... Error! Bookmark not defined. 7.3. Chapter Conclusion ......................................... Error! Bookmark not defined. CHAPTER EIGHT: CONCLUSION, RECOMMENDATIONS AND LIMITATIONS ...................................................................................................... 157 8.1. Key Research Conclusions ............................................................................ 157 8.1.1. Phase One ............................................................................................... 157 8.1.2. Phase Two ............................................................................................... 160 8.1.3. Phase Three ............................................................................................. 162 8.2. Industry and Literature Conclusions ............................................................. 163 8.2.1. The Growing Importance of Social Media ............................................. 163 8.2.2. The Net Generation ................................................................................. 165 8.2.3. The Need for a New Mindset and Marketing Mix.................................. 167 8.2.4. Conclusion .............................................................................................. 169 8.3. Recommendations for Business Schools ....................................................... 170 8.3.1. Recommendation One: Implement a Degree of Organisational Change 171 8.3.2. Recommendation Two: Formulate a Winning Web2.0 Strategy ............ 172 8.3.3. Recommendation Three: Measure the Effects and Impact of Web2.0 Activities ........................................................................................................... 175 8.3.4. Recommendation Four: Embrace the New 8P Business School Marketing Mix .................................................................................................................... 177

5 8.3.5. Conclusion to Recommendations ........................................................... 178 8.4. Limitations..................................................................................................... 178 8.5. Areas for Further Research ............................................................................ 179 REFERENCES ....................................................................................................... 181 APPENDICES ........................................................................................................ 189 Appendix One: External Analysis ........................................................................ 189 Appendix Two: Internal Analysis ........................................................................ 190 Appendix Three: Channel Presence Scoring ........................................................ 191 Appendix Four: Standard Email ........................................................................... 191 Appendix Five: Interview Notes .......................................................................... 192 Appendix Six: Interview Structure ....................................................................... 193 Table of Figures Figure 1.1 : Dissertation Objectives ................................................................... 14 Figure 1.2 : The Dissertation Process ................................................................. 16 Figure 2.1 : The Social Media Landscape .......................................................... 22 Figure 2.2 : Social Media Use Around the World .............................................. 23 Figure 2.3 : Global Web Traffic to Social Networking Sites ............................. 24 Figure 2.4 : The Conversation Prism .................................................................. 27 Figure 2.5 : Higher Education Course Enrolment 2007/2008 ............................ 29 Figure 3.1 : Literature Review Strands ............................................................... 33 Figure 3.2 : A Conceptual Model for Brand-building for Business Schools ...... 35 Figure 3.3 : Business School 7P Marketing Mix ................................................ 37 Figure 3.4 : Example of an „inside-out‟ Website Message ................................. 42 Figure 3.5 : Demographic Breakdown of U.S Population by Generation .......... 45 Figure 3.6 : The Eight “Norms” of the Net Generation ...................................... 47 Figure 3.7 : POST Method for Developing a Groundswell Strategy.................. 49 Figure 3.8 : The „8P Business School Marketing Mix‟ ...................................... 53 Figure 3.9 : The Meaning of „Engagement‟ ....................................................... 56

6 Figure 3.10 : The 5 Groundswell Strategies in Relation to Business Schools.... 57 Figure 4.1 : Research Objectives ........................................................................ 61 Figure 4.2 : The Research Process ...................................................................... 67 Figure 4.3 : The Engagement Profiles ................................................................ 70 Figure 4.4 : Research Framework – Phase One .................................................. 71 Figure 4.5 : Business School Rankings from www.ft.com ................................. 75 Figure 4.6 : Engagement Profiles used in the Engagement DB Study ............... 76 Figure 4.7 : Channel Presence Yes/No Scoring System ..................................... 79 Figure 4.8 : Engagement Scoring ....................................................................... 80 Figure 4.9 : Key Performance Indicators for Web2.0 involvement.................... 81 Figure 4.10 : Web2.0 Categories ........................................................................ 81 Figure 4.11 : Engagement Score Calculation Example ...................................... 82 Figure 4.12 : Engagement Profile Scoring Requirements .................................. 84 Figure 4.13 : „Maven‟ Characteristics ................................................................ 85 Figure 4.14 : „Best Practice Case Example‟ Creation Process ........................... 86 Figure 4.15 : Interviewed Business Schools ranked in order of Engagement Score ................................................................................................................... 88 Figure 4.16 : Interviewed Business Schools: Interviewee Details...................... 89 Figure 5.1 : Research Objectives.........................................................................93 Figure 5.2 : Engagement Profiling of the Business Schools .............................. 96 Figure 5.3 : Business School Channel Presence and Engagement Graph .......... 97 Figure 5.4 : Internal Channel Evaluation – Use of Web2.0 on Business Schools‟ own website ...................................................................................................... 101 Figure 5.5 : External Evaluation – Presence in external Web2.0 Channels ..... 104 Figure 5.6 : Results of the Engagement Profiling of 20 Business Schools ...... 110 Figure 5.7 : Business School Channel Presence and Engagement Graph ........ 112 Figure 6.1 : Wharton – Links to External Social Networking Presence ........... 117 Figure 6.2 : Knowledge at Wharton.................................................................. 118 Figure 6.3 : Wharton Tag Cloud and Student Diaries ...................................... 119 Figure 6.4 : Wharton – Discussion Forum ........................................................ 119 Figure 6.5 : Wharton – Relevant Discussion Forum Threads displayed throughout website ............................................................................................ 120

7 Figure 6.6 : Wharton – Facebook Content ........................................................ 121 Figure 6.7 : Wharton Flickr Photostream ......................................................... 122 Figure 6.8 : Wharton YouTube Channel .......................................................... 122 Figure 6.9 : Drivers of Future Business Performance ...................................... 123 Figure 6.10 : Wharton – Drivers of Future Business Performance .................. 125 Figure 6.11 : Harvard Business School – Stay Connected ............................... 128 Figure 6.12 : Harvard Business School News Twitter Account ....................... 130 Figure 6.13 : Harvard Business School MBA Program Facebook Page .......... 131 Figure 6.14 : Harvard Business School YouTube Channel .............................. 132 Figure 6.15 : MIT Sloan Video Blog Section ................................................... 134 Figure 6.16 : MIT Sloan - Links to External Social Networking Sites ............ 135 Figure 6.17 : MIT Sloan School of Management Facebook Interaction Example .......................................................................................................................... 136 Figure 6.18 : MIT Sloan Student Blog Site ...................................................... 137 Figure 6.19 : Wharton Live Chat ...................................................................... 139 Figure 7.1 : Yale Facebook Website Link Example ......................................... 147 Figure 8.1: The Norms of the Net Generation .................................................. 166 Figure 8.2 : 8P Business School Marketing Mix .............................................. 168 Figure 8.3: Balanced Scorecard Strategy Map ................................................. 174 Figure 8.4: The Key Elements of the 8P Business School Marketing Mix ...... 177 Table 5.1: Internal Analysis Summary ............................................................... 94 Table 5.2: External Analysis Summary .............................................................. 94 Table 5.3: Business School Performance Summary in order of Engagement Profile.................................................................................................................. 95 Table 5.4 : Business School Ranking in terms of Web2.0 Use (Channel Presence) ............................................................................................................. 99 Table 5.5 : Internal Category Presence ............................................................. 100 Table 5.6 : External Category Presence ............................................................ 103 Table 5.7 : External Presence on Multimedia Sharing Sites............................. 105 Table 5.8 : Internal and External Channel Presence as a % of the number of channels, ranked in order of internal channel presence % ................................ 107

8 Table 5.9: Business School ranking in order of Total Engagement with Web2.0 technologies both internally and externally ...................................................... 109 Table 5.10 : Technology Adoption Level of Business Schools ........................ 111 Table 6.1 : Phase One Results for „Mavens‟ .................................................... 116 Table 7.1 : Performance Measurement and Benefits of Web2.0 Use ............... 142 Table 7.2 : Drivers for Web2.0 Integration ...................................................... 145 Table 7.3 : Organisation of Web Marketing Activities .................................... 147 Table 7.4 : Issues, Challenges and Barriers to the Implementation of Web2.0 150 Table 7.5 : Future Plans for Web2.0 Implementation....................................... 152 Table 7.6 : Chapter 7 Conclusions .................................................................... 155 ABSTRACT Over the past few years, there have been three internet revolutions, Web1.0, Web2.0 and Web3.0, which is starting to develop now, in 2010. Web2.0, however, coined by O‟Reilly Media in 2006, has revolutionised the web as we know it (O‟Reilly Media Inc., 2006). Used interchangeably with „Social Media‟, the term Web2.0 refers to Social and professional networking websites (Facebook, Bebo), Blogs, Wikis (Wikipedia), Podcasts (Apple itunes), Multimedia Sharing Sites (Flickr, YouTube), to name but a few. Over the past few years, the growth of Social Media has been staggering, with over 100 million YouTube videos now on the internet, over 200 million blogs and 57% of internet users having joined a social network by 2008 (Kagan, 2008). It‟s now estimated that the average internet user in the USA spends over 6 hours on Social Networking websites every month (The Nielson Company, 2010). So why has Social Media become so popular? The paradigm shift in power, from organisations to consumers, has led to the increase in popularity of Social Media, with consumers wanting to use their human traits of collaboration, interaction and communication, to share information with each other, exert their opinions about companies and products, and communicate

9 with one another in real-time. One industry which has felt the effects of customer empowerment, is the Business School industry. With students now being able to rate, compare (on ranking websites) and find out large amounts of information about Business Schools, there is fierce competition in the industry. With the Business School market reaching saturation, it has become apparent that there is a need for change within the industry. With many factors affecting the future position of Business Schools in the Higher Education arena, it is vital that Business Schools differentiate themselves from the competition and focus on attracting „quality students‟ (Hamill, 2009), who will remain part of the Business School until their Alumni years. The students currently working their way through the education system belong to the „Net Generation‟ (Tapscott, 2009) and have grown up with the fast-changing pace of technology. This generation are already communicating with each other in the Social Networking arena and are using their new found power to influence organisations and share information with each other on a global basis. There is a need for Business Schools to differentiate themselves and become much more „customer-led‟. The students, members of the Net Generation, expect one-to- one relationships, interaction, collaboration and real-time information. Business Schools can leverage the power of Social Media and differentiate themselves by becoming „customer-led‟ organisations, who engage with their students and stakeholders, developing lasting relationships with them throughout their educational journey: from prospective student, to current students, to member of the Alumni. The question which had to be asked was: are Business Schools aware of the power of Social Media? Are they aware that there is a need for radical change within the industry? Are they currently using Social Media in their marketing activities? This researcher aimed to answer these questions by undertaking three Phases of research;  Phase One: A „first of its kind‟ framework was developed, using the a combination of the methodologies from the leading Social Media study from 2009

10 (the Engagement DB Study) and the framework created by Attard (2008) and Barrie (2008) for the purpose of their Masters in Marketing theses.  Phase One (part two): This framework was then used to analyse both the Web2.0 and Social Media use and engagement of 20 of the top Business Schools in the world: the top 10 UK and top 10 US Business Schools.  Phase Two: From the results generated from phase one of the research, three best practice case examples were created, presenting the top three Business Schools in terms of Web2.0 use and engagement. These case examples should act as benchmarks for other Business Schools aiming to become engaged with Social Media.  Phase Three: 7 of the top Business Schools in the world were interviewed, in order to establish their awareness of Social Media, their current marketing activities, any barriers or challenges faced in the implementation of Web2.0 and their future marketing plans. The results of the research showed that there is lack of adoption of Web2.0 and Social Media and many issues within the Business Schools. There is a need for a clear Web2.0 strategy to be created, the need for a new Business School marketing mix (which was developed by the researcher), the need for a new organisational culture and also the need for the monitoring of Social Media and marketing activities within the Business Schools who are actively engaging with the technology. Clear recommendations were made for Business Schools and with the presentation of the three best practice case examples, there are clear paths which must be followed, if the Business Schools want to differentiate themselves, engage with the mis- understood „Net Generation‟ and survive the „hyper competition‟ (Starkey & Tiratsoo, 2007) in the Business School industry. Business Schools can survive in the higher education arena, but in order to so, several radical changes must be introduced.

11 CHAPTER ONE: INTRODUCTION

12 CHAPTER ONE: INTRODUCTION This chapter sets the background to the study and the purpose of the dissertation, outlining the main aims and objectives of the project and describing the structure used to achieve these objectives. 1.1. Rationale for the Research The researcher has a passion for marketing and is very interested in internet marketing in particular. Having been employed by one of Germany‟s leading internet start-up companies, Hitflip Media Trading GmbH, the researcher developed a keen interest in online marketing practices and was motivated to learn more. Whilst taking a „Managing Customer Relationships‟ class at their Business School, the researcher was drawn to the importance of the internet when creating and managing an institutions relationship with its customers. The emergence and importance of Web2.01 and Social Media was also brought to the researcher‟s attention and formed the basis of the rationale for this dissertation. Having discovered the growing importance of Web2.0 and Social Media in Business Schools, the researcher was intrigued to establish whether the technologies were being used by the top Business Schools in the UK and in the USA, where it was hypothesised that the technology had been more widely adopted. From studying the literature, the researcher discovered numerous authors writing about Business Schools and their role within Universities and Higher Education in general (Kilcourse, 1995; Parker & Guthrie, 2010). Despite the fact that the topic of Web2.0 and Social Media Marketing is relatively fresh, there was sufficient information available for the researcher to be able to make conclusions. The Higher Education landscape is changing and Business Schools need to be responsive to the marketing conditions in this era of hyper-competition and consumer empowerment. 1 The terms ‘Web2.0’ and ‘social media’ are interchangeable.

13 Daniel (1996) believes that technology is the key to the rejuvenation of Higher Education as a whole and so, along with the fact that Social Media is a revolutionary approach to marketing, it was recognised that there is a need for Business Schools to develop a whole new mindset towards marketing, strategy and brand-development. Through the analysis of the research, a new Marketing Mix was created by the researcher. A research gap was found to exist, as it is not yet known whether or not this new mindset is being adopted by Business Schools and if it is, whether or not it is proving successful in developing their brand and achieving differentiation. As a result of these findings and the presence of a research gap, the researcher decided to investigate Daniel‟s (1996) claim further by studying the current use of Web2.0 and Social Media in marketing activities, by the top Business Schools in the UK and in the USA. 1.2. Research Aim and Objectives Principally, the research aim is to establish the extent to which the top Business Schools in the UK and in the USA are currently using Web2.0 and Social Media for marketing purposes, by using the framework created by the researcher. This will then provide the basis for further research into the field of Web2.0 and Education, justifying the knowledge gap presented. This aim will be met by the fulfilment of the following objectives (Figure 1.1);

14 Figure 1.1 : Dissertation Objectives Objective One: To conduct a thorough review of the literature relating to the project in order to better understand the topics and to identify knowledge gaps. Objective Two: To create a framework for the measurement of Web2.0 and social media utilisation and engagement using the „Engagement DB Study 2009‟ and previous theses by Attard (2008) and Barrie (2008). Objective Three: To use the framework created to analyse the extent to which Web2.0 applications are currently being utilised both internally and externally by the top 10 UK and the top 10 US Business Schools. An „engagement profile‟ will then be allocated to each Business School, based on the methodology of the Engagement DB Study 2009. Objective Four: To use the findings from the analysis to present 3 „best practice‟ case examples – the top three Web2.0 adopters. Objective Five: To carry out interviews with the top Business Schools to understand more about their awareness about the impact and benefits of their Web2.0 activities and the barriers they have experienced in its implementation. Objective Six: To present the research findings and the implications for Business Schools as a result of those findings. Objective Seven: To provide recommendations for Business Schools based on the research conducted and present how Business Schools can improve their Web2.0 and Social Media engagement.

15 1.3. Research Approach As can be seen from Figure 1.2 below, secondary research formed a significant part of the research process, with the aim of fulfilling objective one. A mixed method approach was adopted to fulfil objectives two, three and four of the dissertation. A new framework was first created for the evaluation of Web2.0 utilisation, fulfilling objective two. This framework created by adapting the framework used in two previous Masters Theses conducted under the supervision of Dr Hamill, to analyse the Web2.0 use in the hospitality and football industries and combining this with the methodology used in the Engagement DB Study 2009, a leading edge study of the world‟s top 100 brands. Once the unique framework had been created, the quantitative research could begin: an analysis of the Web2.0 adoption by the top 10 UK and top 10 US Business Schools, fulfilling objective three of the dissertation. Based on the analysis of the findings from the primary research undertaken, 3 „best practice case examples‟ were created, fulfilling objective four of the dissertation. These case examples were based on the three Business Schools who demonstrated the most engagement with Web2.0 and social media, the „Mavens‟. Qualitative research methods were then used in fulfilment of objective five – interviews were conducted with 7 of the top Business Schools, both in the UK and in the USA. The interviews were conducted with key members of the marketing or communications departments within the Business Schools of Wharton, Yale, Cass, Strathclyde, Said (Oxford), Manchester and Columbia. The aim was to gain an understanding of the marketing practices used in each School, the benefits of their Web2.0 and Social Media use, problems faced in the implementation process and their future plans in terms of Web2.0 and Social Media engagement. Objectives six and seven were fulfilled in the fact that Chapter eight of this dissertation, presents the research findings and the implications for Business Schools as a result. Recommendations are then made, explaining Business Schools can improve their use and engagement with Web2.0 and Social Media. Figure 1.2 provides an outline of the dissertation process.

16 Figure 1.2 : The Dissertation Process Business School Marketing – Customer Marketing to the Net Business School Marketing A Traditional Approach Empowerment Generation – A New Marketing Mix Literature Review Phase One: Development of Frameworks for evaluating internal and external Web 2.0 use Phase One: Identification of the extent of use of Web2.0 technologies by Business Schools Presentation and Analysis of Research Findings Phase Two: The creation of three best practice case examples Phase Three: Understanding Business Schools‟ awareness about Web 2.0 impact and adoption barriers Recommendations for Business Schools made and potential for further research highlighted 1.4. Dissertation Structure An overview of the chapters of this dissertation is outlined below;  Chapter One introduces the research topic, outlines the aims and objectives of the dissertation and provides a clear overview of research process.  Chapter Two provides a background to the Business School sector and the Web2.0 and Social Media Revolution in order to set the context to the project.

17  Chapter Three presents and discusses four strands of literature including, Business School Marketing – A Traditional Approach, Customer Empowerment, Marketing to the Net Generation and Business School Marketing – A New Marketing Mix.  Chapter Four describes and justifies the research methodology adopted and provides a detailed description of the research process, as outlined in Figure 1.2 above.  Chapter Five presents the findings of phase one of the research, the website analysis. The results are analysed and discussed in relation to the objectives of the research.  Chapter Six presents three best-practice case examples (Phase two) which have been created through the analysis and evaluation of the results of phases one and two of the research.  Chapter Seven presents the findings of phase three of the research, the telephone interviews. The results are analysed and discussed in relation to the objectives of the research and are related back to phase one, the website analysis.  Chapter Eight reiterates the key conclusions drawn from the research and provides recommendations to Business Schools regarding their future use of Web2.0 technologies. The research limitations are also discussed and the potential for further research is highlighted.

18 CHAPTER TWO: INDUSTRY OVERVIEW

19 CHAPTER TWO: INDUSTRY OVERVIEW 2.1. Introduction The main aim of this dissertation is to examine the extent to which Web2.0 and social media are being utilised by the top Business Schools in the UK and in the USA. This chapter will present a background to the dissertation, explaining the terms „Web2.0‟ and „Social Media‟ and will provide an overview of the Business School industry, including the role of the Business School within a University and the challenges currently facing the industry. 2.2. The Web2.0 and Social Media Revolution All marketing activities occur through three channels: distribution, transaction and communication channels (Peterson, Balasubramanian & Bronnenberg, 1997). Marketing activities can be carried out via the internet which acts as all three of these channels.  Distribution – the distribution of information  Transaction – online retail  Communication – email, social media sites, chat rooms Kiang, Raghu & Shang (2000) argue that the rapid development of the internet and online computing technology has made it almost mandatory that companies develop a presence on the internet, to avoid losing competitive advantage. The internet has developed through these three channels and has embarked on a journey. There have been two major internet revolutions and there is still scope for many more. The following three revolutions are described by Prabhudesai (2008) and can be linked to the three channels of the internet (Peterson, Balasubramanian & Bronnenberg, 1997).  Web1.0 – This was the introduction of web pages using hyper-linking and bookmarking. (Distribution, leading to Transaction)  Web2.0 – This refers to sharing and interaction, with importance given to usability. (Transaction of information and Communication)

20  Web3.0 – The Web3.0 world hasn‟t quite arrived yet but when it does it will be made up of networks of applications and will take communication to new levels entirely. (Communication) The three internet revolutions can be also be described in the following way (Bhakdi, 2010, slide presentation);  “It all started with a simple idea: putting content on the web”.  Web1.0 – Media companies put content on the web and „push‟ it to users. This failed to take advantage of the possibilities of the internet.  UGC (User-generated Content) was invented by smart entrepreneurs and Web2.0 was born.  Web2.0 – New platforms allow users to generate content themselves, which has empowered internet users.  Web3.0 – Business platforms now empower everyone to be able to become an entrepreneur. The users are the entrepreneurs, they generate the business. Although Web1.0 technologies provided the basis for e-commerce and promotion through websites and Web3.0 seems to be starting to change the business world, Web2.0 is indeed a revolution of huge significance and will now be explained in detail. 2.2.1. What is Web2.0/Social Media? The term „Web2.0‟ was created by Dale Dougherty, Vice President of O‟Reilly Media, during a brainstorming session in 2006 (O‟Reilly Media Inc., 2006). According to Tim O‟Reilly himself, Web2.0 is a new way of thinking, with an entirely new perspective on the internet (O‟Reilly Media Inc., 2006, p.4). Web2.0 is described by O‟Reilly media as being: ―a set of economic, social, and technology trends that collectively form the basis for the next generation of the Internet—a more mature, distinctive medium characterised by user participation, openness, and network effects.‖

21 The terms „Web2.0‟ and „social media‟ are interchangeable and both will be referred to throughout this dissertation. „Social media‟ can be explained as: ―a group of new kinds of online media, which share most or all of the following characteristics; participation, openness, conversation, community, connectedness .‖ (Mayfield, 2008, p.5) From the definitions above, it is clear to see that these terms can be used interchangeably and are both referring to the same principles of openness, participation, conversation and networking. Mayfield (2008) explains the main types of social media and provides examples;  Social networks – Facebook, Bebo, MySpace  Blogs  Wikis - Wikipedia  Podcasts – Apple itunes  Content communities – Flickr, Youtube  Microblogging – Twitter Kagan (2008) explains that there is now a new communication model on the internet, „dialogue‟. Kagan (2008) explains that consumers are using Social Media to talk about brands „right now‟ and presents some interesting statistics;  36% of people think more positively about companies who have blogs.  32% of people trust bloggers‟ opinions on products and services.  Only 14% of people trust online advertisements.  Only 18% of television advertising campaigns generate a positive ROI (Return on Investment). These are all reasons, which Kagan (2008) gives for getting involved with Social Media and explains that companies shouldn‟t miss out. Frédéric Cavazza (2009) provides a helpful diagram (see Figure 2.1 below) which not only expands on the description provided by Mayfield (2008), but demonstrates the sheer scale of the Web2.0/social media landscape.

22 Figure 2.1 : The Social Media Landscape 2.2.2. The Growth of Social Media The scale of the social media landscape can clearly be seen in Figure 2.1 above, but these technologies are a relatively modern phenomenon. It is unclear when exactly social media was born, but around the years of 2005 and 2006, the term „Web2.0‟ was coined and the development of social media sites became apparent. Since then, the growth of social media has been staggering. To once again emphasise the scale of the social media landscape around the world, the following diagram is useful (Figure 2.2).

23 Figure 2.2 : Social Media Use Around the World Source: Universal McCann, Wave 3 (2008) in Ramos (2009) With millions of people using and engaging with these technologies worldwide, it‟s necessary to look at how the popularity of these social media sites has grown and the reasons for this growth. Kagan (2008, slide 7-14) presents figures which emphasise the scale of Social Media use:  Wikipedia has almost 4,000,000 articles.  There are over 100,000,000 YouTube videos.  Blogger hosts over 200,000,000 blogs.  Second Life (the virtual reality software) boasts 1.5 million residents.  73% of active online users have read a blog.  39% subscribe to RSS Feeds.  57% have joined a social network. Baring in mind that these statistics were presented in 2008 and the fact that Social Media has really taken off in the last few years, the amount of consumer involved in the Social Media arena will, in 2010, be staggering. The Nielson Company, produced statistics in January 2010, showing the growth of Social Media. In December 2009, Facebook was the most popular social networking destination, with 206.9 million unique visitors. The time spent one social networking sites was also on the increase (The Nielson Company, 2010). (see Figure 2.3)

24 Figure 2.3 : Global Web Traffic to Social Networking Sites The amount of time spent on these social networking sites is therefore increasing month on month, with the average person spending nearly 6 hours on them per month (The Nielson Company, 2010). Tapscott & Williams (2006) explain exactly what the Web has evolved into. In their book entitled „Wikinomics – How Mass Collaboration Changes Everything‟, they describe how people are taking part in economy more and why they no longer want to passively watch and listen. Instead, people now want to socialise, share things with each other, collaborate ideas and create Web content themselves. Tapscott & Williams (2006) coined the new trend of collaboration as „wikinomics‟, which is based on four main ideas; openness, sharing, peering and acting globally. Li & Bernoff (2008) describe the trend in a different way. In their book „Groundswell – Winning in a World Transformed by Social Technologies‟, Li & Bernoff (2008) explain that there is a fundamental change occurring in online behaviour. The term they use for this change is the „Groundswell‟, which is described as: ―A social trend in which people use technologies to get the things they need from each other, rather than from traditional institutions like corporations.‖ (Li & Bernoff, 2008, p.9)

25 To summarise and collaborate the thoughts of both Tapscott & Williams (2006) and Li & Bernoff (2008), there has been a shift in online behaviour. Whereas previously, internet users would source their information from companies (websites) on the internet, they now obtain their information from each other, share it with other users and pass it on to users on a global scale. The overriding reason for both the „Groundswell‟ and „Wikinomics‟, has been the growth in customer empowerment, which will be fully discussed in chapter three. Mayfield (2008) explains that the reason for the rapid growth of social media, is not because it‟s ―great, shiny, whizzy new technology‖ (Mayfield, 2008, p.7) but because it lets consumers be themselves. Consumers have become more and more empowered since the improvement in economic conditions in the early 1950s, which eventually led to what is called the „brand-conscious consumer‟ (Davies & Elliott, 2006). Customer empowerment has now grown to the extent that, „empowerment‟ can be equated with „the power to exercise choice‟ (Canniford, Cherrier & Shankar, 2006). Consumers are exercising their newly-found empowerment on social media sites, where they can comment on companies, rate products, select companies based on rankings and share information with each other on a global scale. It can therefore be said that social media and Web2.0 technologies allow consumer to exercise their power and provides an environment in which they can easily do so. 2.2.3. The Benefits of Using Web2.0 and Social Media Apart from benefits to the consumer, there are also many benefits which Web2.0 can bring to organisations. Cunningham & Wilkins (2009, p.24) describe several reasons for companies to become involved with Web2.0 and to leverage the opportunities it creates.  “They support collaboration across time and space”  “They are easily accessible and easy to use”  “Many people already have a comfort level using them”  “They are low cost (sometimes even free)”  “They do not require much IT support”  “They have very little „downtime‟”

26  “Because they are inexpensive and easy to use, there is little risk in trying them” There are certainly many reasons for the use of Web2.0 and it seems to also be changing the business landscape in many ways (Li & Bernoff, 2008). There have been many success stories from companies who have leveraged the potential of Web2.0, in particular social media and who have benefitted both financially and in reputation as a result. Li & Bernoff (2008, p.198) present one particularly interesting success story: the story of Unilever USA and its „Dove‟ brand. The company created an „Evolution‟ video for Youtube showing the time-lapsed transformation of an ordinary woman, into an airbrushed beauty. The video turned into a viral marketing video and was viewed more than 5 million times in a year. The video generated a large surge of internet traffic to Dove‟s Campaign for Real Beauty website, which was more than double the amount of traffic driven to the site by the brand‟s Super Bowl advert. The cost of airing a 30 second advert on the Super Bowl was $2.5 million, the cost of distributing the „Evolution‟ video on Youtube? – absolutely nothing. The benefits described by Cunningham & Wilkins (2009), fail to include one of the most important advantages of effective social media engagement and that is the „connection‟ and „conversation‟ with your customers. Often when organisations are being urged to use social media, they are urged to „join the conversation‟ which is already happening around them. Vitalari (2009) explains that there are many conversations occurring in the world around us and demonstrates this through the „Conversation Prism‟ (see Figure 2.4). Each segment of the prism indicates a different conversation which serves a distinct business purpose.

27 Figure 2.4 : The Conversation Prism It can be concluded that there are many benefits to the use of Web2.0 and social media, all of which can be reaped by any organisation who effectively engages with the technology. The power of social media has increased with the power of consumers and now consumers are able to utilise social media to demonstrate their power over companies, brands and indeed other consumers. In order to be successful in managing customer relationships, it‟s necessary for companies to „join the conversation‟ and engage with their consumers in an environment where they are already conversing: the social media landscape. 2.3. Industry Overview: Business Schools In order to provide further background to this dissertation, an overview of the Business School industry will now be presented, with reference to both the UK and the USA. The role of the Business School will be discussed, as well as the future outlook for the Business School in general.

28 2.3.1. Business Schools in the UK As a result of more students opting to go on to higher and further education and the high demand for paper qualifications coupled with the need for competent graduates, there has been a large expansion of Business Schools (Kilcourse, 1995). In August 2009 there were 166 Higher Education institutions in the United Kingdom, 116 of which were Universities (Universities UK Facts 2009). Within the UK, there are 15 Business Schools which are ranked in the top 100 Business Schools in the world for the provision of the global MBA program (FT.com, 2010 MBA Rankings). Competition in the Business School sector is strong (Starkey & Tiratsoo, 2007) and there is a constant need for each Business Schools to differentiate themselves from one another. The importance given to rankings, differs between Business Schools, but they act as a yearly goal for some. In order to achieve these rankings, which are complied by Business Week and the Financial Times, there are claims of some unethical behaviour, with cases of Dean involvement (Starkey & Tiratsoo, 2007). In order to differentiate themselves, several different degree structures are offered. Within most Business Schools in the UK, students have the option to complete an undergraduate degree, postgraduate degree, Masters degree, PHD or MBA. Students now also have the option of studying full-time or part-time and there are even online degree courses, an example of how technology had impacted on education in the past decade. As an academic subject, Business and Administration is extremely popular in the UK, with over 300,000 students studying the subject. The following diagram (Figure 2.5) shows the number of students enrolled on certain courses within the UK in 2007/2008 (Universities UK Facts 2009).

29 Figure 2.5 : Higher Education Course Enrolment 2007/2008 2.3.2. Business Schools in the USA Whereas the UK have 15 Business Schools in top 100 Business Schools in the world, for the Global MBA, the USA have over 45 (FT.com, 2010 MBA Rankings). With Business Schools such as Harvard, Wharton and MIT Sloan, the USA has always been at the forefront of Business education. The importance of rankings and reputation is apparent due to the presence of the „Ivy League‟ in the USA. The Ivy League is made up of 8 privately run Universities who enjoy an excellent reputation and attract the very best students all over the world (Admissionsconsultants.com). It could therefore be deduced that competition between Business Schools is much stronger in the USA than in the UK, increasing the need for differentiation. Harvard and Yale for example aim to educate the leaders of the future, whereas MIT Sloan pride themselves on being at the forefront of technological education. In order to stay ahead of the competition, Harvard and Yale have set up research centres in India, in order to attract the best of the Indian student population (Nargundkar, Rajashekar & Shahiada, 2009).

30 2.3.3. The Future for Business Schools The future for Business Schools is difficult to predict but in the opinion of both Kilcourse (1995) and Starkey & Tiratsoo (2007), education landscapes are changing and Business Schools will also need to change if they want to survive. In most cases, threats can pose great opportunities, which incidentally is the case for Business Schools. Starkey & Tiratsoo (2007) are of the opinion that if Business Schools continue to operate in the way in which they do currently, they will not survive: keeping up with the changing educational and business environment is the key to their future success. Business Schools must make sure that they do not lower their standards simply to recruit new students, they must not stretch their academics too far, risking a lower research quality and lesser contribution to society. Hawawini (2005) presents some of the many challenges and opportunities facing Business Schools in the years to come. The issues include;  The effect of globalisation on education and how Business Schools can respond to this.  The effects of information and communication technologies and how to integrate these into learning and teaching within a Business School.  The need to strengthen reputation and to build on the School brand in order to secure a long-term competitive position within Higher Education. This need to strengthen the Business School brand is also highlighted by Parker and Guthrie (2010) and Kilcourse (1995). The Business School is often not given the credit it deserves within a University and is seen as the ―institutional cash cow‖ (Parker and Guthrie, 2010, p.7). If the Business School is to be taken more seriously, then some changes will have to be made. In the opinion of Hawawini (2005) and Syvertsen (2008), the challenges and issues currently facing Business Schools, provide them with strategic objectives, which if met successfully, can create opportunities for each School, allowing for their differentiation from their competitors.

31 It is not clear whether Business Schools, although an integral part of society today, will still be as important in the future, therefore emphasising the need for Business Schools to embrace the opportunities they face, such as „social media‟, and strive for the differentiation they need to survive (Hawawini, 2005).

32 CHAPTER THREE: LITERATURE REVIEW

33 CHAPTER THREE: LITERATURE REVIEW 3.1. Introduction The main aim of this dissertation is to examine the extent to which Web2.0 and Social Media are being utilised by the top Business Schools in the UK and in the USA. This chapter aims to fulfil objective one of the dissertation and will present and discuss the relevant literature. The literature can be categorised into four main strands; „Business School Marketing – The Traditional Approach‟, „Customer Empowerment‟, „Business School Marketing – A New Marketing Mix‟ and „Marketing to the Net Generation‟ (see Figure 3.1 below). Each of these four strands will be discussed in turn and a conclusion will be presented at the end of the chapter, presenting any research gaps which the researcher could fill. Figure 3.1 : Literature Review Strands Business School Marketing - The Traditional Approach Marketing to the Customer Net Generation Empowerment Business School Marketing - A New Marketing Mix

34 3.2. Business School Marketing – The Traditional Approach As was previously deduced from the importance of rankings and reputation, differentiation is of great importance for most Business Schools. 3.2.1. Building the Business School Brand The emphasis on image and reputation, is highlighted by Ivy (2008) and emphasised by Maringe & Gibbs (2009) who state the importance of the „Oxford‟ brand in UK Higher Education. Berthon et al. (1999) explain that a Business School brand is no different to any other brand in the way that it must perform, as it must fulfil all the functions in a similar way. In many cases, the best brand management strategy is to analyse the competencies of the Business School, seeking something which can set them aside from the competition. In some cases, this involves a tighter focus on strategy, with the aim of achieving differentiation (Starkey & Tiratsoo, 2007). Business Schools provide a service and are therefore marketing themselves in this way (Kotler & Fox, 1995; Ivy, 2008). There are three key stakeholders of a Business School; students, faculty and corporate (Nargundkar, Rajashekar & Shahiada, 2009) and the importance of each of these must be recognised. A conceptual model has been developed for brand-building within Business Schools (Figure 3.2), which considers top management philosophy and stakeholders (Nargundkar, Rajashekar & Shahiada, 2009, p.62).

35 Figure 3.2 : A Conceptual Model for Brand-building for Business Schools As can be analysed from the brand-building model, there are four external variables which must be considered; technological upheaval, demographic shifts, global competition and Indian context (Nargundkar, Rajashekar & Shahiada, 2009), which should naturally be altered to the country in question. These factors influence the strategic direction chosen in the fast paced environment in which Business Schools operate. Kotler & Fox (1995) are also of the opinion that the external market is of great importance and stress the need for institutions to become responsive to any market fluctuations. Becoming an organisation which is responsive to market fluctuations requires a great deal of commitment and change (Kotler & Fox, 1995). Kilcourse (1995) explains that one of these changes is often the need to become a “flatter organisation”, allowing for ease of management and better information flows towards the top end of the organisation.

36 The author explains that becoming a flat organisation requires decentralisation and the fragmentation of business areas into customer-focused entities. It is also clear that in order to survive, let alone achieve success in the education industry, there is the need for management teams who are: ―clearly focused, integrated, flexible in response and aware of what is happening in their business environment‖ (Kilcourse, 1995, p.34). With senior management having more responsibility and control over strategy, it is they who must take into account the value of the stakeholders, termed as „customer- groups‟ by Kotler & Fox (1995), evaluate the market opportunities and create the vision to which the whole Business School will strive towards (Nargundkar, Rajashekar & Shahiada, 2009). Without a vision and without monitoring the external environment, it would become very difficult for a Business School to position themselves effectively in an ever-changing environment. 3.2.2. Traditional Business School Marketing Approaches Organisations use marketing to differentiate themselves from one another and Business Schools are no different. According to Kotler & Fox (1995, p.6): ―Marketing exists when people decide to satisfy their needs and wants through exchange‖. Educational establishments offer courses and career progression in return for tuition fees, donations and volunteers. It‟s necessary to establish the current role which marketing plays in the provision of the services provided by Business Schools.

37 Ivy (2008) emphasises the amount of competition in the education industry and explains that the need for differentiation has led to the increasing use of marketing as a means creating identity. Ivy (2008, p.294) believes that there has been a shift in the marketing mix elements for Business Schools, who now lend themselves to a „7P‟ model (see Figure 3.3 below). Figure 3.3 : Business School 7P Marketing Mix Through the analysis of the research conducted by Ivy (2008) on South African Business Schools, it‟s clear that there has been a shift from a 5/6 P marketing mix, to the new 7P mix presented above. He outlined the changes which have occurred in the marketing mix, allowing for the development of this new 7P structure;  The new „Programme‟ element of the marketing mix is the most important element and relates to curriculum aspects of the MBA degree.  „Prominence‟ was the second most important element. This was dominated by staff reputation and position on league tables/rankings.  „Promotion‟ was split into two sections: Promotion (mass media advertising) and Prospectus (hard copy promotional materials).

38  The „Price‟ element was unchanged in this new 7P marketing mix.  The „People‟ element was altered slightly to include „face to face tuition‟ and „personal contact‟ at recruitment events. The final element of the 7P Marketing Mix is:  „Premiums‟: This element includes class sizes, computer facilities and student exchange programmes. This element was considered by Ivy (2008) as being the least important of the marketing tools, but it was however noted that the absence of some of these items would affect the recruitment efforts of the Business School. Ivy (2008) has identified „Programme‟, „Prominence‟ and „Promotion‟ as being the three most important elements of the Business School Marketing Mix. These three elements could also be described as; information, reputation and communication, all of which are extremely important for the brand-building of a Business School (Nargundkar, Rajashekar & Shahiada, 2009). Despite the fact that Ivy (2008) has presented the new 7P Marketing Mix model for Business Schools, it is believed that changes need to be made in the marketing activities of Business Schools (Starkey & Tiratsoo, 2007). The simple truth that Business Schools provide a service to their customers, the stakeholders, means that Business Schools have been marketing themselves as services, in the same way as many other organisations (Nargundkar, Rajashekar & Shahiada, 2009). It is thought that Business Schools must break away from the concept of „services marketing‟ and must look for innovative ways to market themselves. In the model of Ivy (2008), it is clear that there is beginning to be more focus on the needs of the customer, with face-to-face contact included as part of the marketing mix.

39 This is emphasised by the model of Nargundkar, Rajashekar & Shahiada (2009), which demonstrates the presence of feedback from the stakeholders to the Business School, which in turn indicates „listening‟ to the needs and wants of the stakeholders in order to learn how best to meet their needs. Traditional marketing approaches do not seem to be effectively meeting the needs of consumers in general. Kagan (2008) presents the statistics that the average person is exposed to over 3000 advertising messages every day, but that only 14% of people trust advertisements. 78% of people on the other hand, trust the recommendations of other consumers (Kagan, 2008, slide 25). These statistics alone, present a problem. Organisations are obviously still trying to bombard consumers with advertising messages. The consumers, on the other hand, don‟t want to listen to these messages and obtain their product information in other ways. Kagan (2008) also presents the fact that 90% of people who can skip television adverts, do meaning that only 18% of television ad campaigns generate positive ROI (Return on Investment). It‟s therefore clear to see that traditional marketing approaches are no longer effective: ―It‘s a DIALOGUE, not a monologue.‖ (Kagan, 2008, slide 55) With traditional marketing approaches being rendered ineffective, there is definitely the need to engage more with consumers, interact with consumers and listen to their needs and wants more carefully than ever before. 3.3. Customer Empowerment 3.3.1. The Power Shift to the Consumer Lyon (2009) explains that there has been a shift in power from the institution to the consumer, which can be seen in the education sector by the growth in part-time, evening and online learning options – the consumer has forced the market to alter.

40 There are two ways of viewing this power shift; a re-distribution of power from the organisation to the consumer or a process of change and an infinite resource (Eylon, 1998), the latter of which is the preferred viewpoint of Eylon. There is nothing to say that the power will not shift back to organisations, but for the time-being, consumers have more power than ever before, collaborating, sharing information and exerting their opinions. A recent blog post by Lyon (2009) discusses this paradigm shift in power towards the consumer, and states that: ―In the most innovative marketing efforts, consumers are the creators, advocates, promoters, marketers and buyers.‖ Lyon (2009) discusses consumer empowerment in terms of “pull marketing” in which the consumer is now in control of marketing, choosing when and if they are going to take an interest in a product or service, rather than having it forced upon them. Companies must try and engage consumers in a variety of different ways in order to sustain their interest, in contrast to “push marketing” which encompasses all of the traditional forms of advertising such as billboards, television adverts and Radio adverts. This new form of marketing, known as „pull‟ marketing, combines viral, blogging, RSS Feeds and internet marketing and allows consumers to engage with a brand (Lyon, 2009). 3.3.2. The Drivers of Customer Empowerment This paradigm shift in power to the consumer has occurred gradually due to a number of factors, one of which is the internet, which enables consumers to collaborate, share information and voice their opinion on a global scale. The four main drivers of customer empowerment are; Internet, Market, Customer, Competition. These drivers can be related to the higher education sector and to Business Schools in particular:

41  Internet: the internet has allowed for online courses and allows students to easily check the Business School rankings, compare Business Schools, look at course ratings and comments about the academics, before making a decision on where to study. Just as there are price comparison websites for insurance (eg. www.gocompare.com), students can now compare Business Schools with online rankings (eg. www.ft.com).  Market: The Business School market is reaching saturation and with so many Business Schools to choose from, it‟s a „buyer‟s market‟, meaning that students can afford to choose their Business School carefully.  Customer: The generation current going through the education system is the „Net Generation‟ (Tapscott, 2009), a generation which is becoming more and more demanding. They will choose whichever Business School they want and will discuss their choice and the advantages and disadvantages with their friends.  Competition: With Business Schools so focused on rankings, sometimes the stakeholders are forgotten. The fierce competition between the Business Schools for students has given the customer (the student) the purchasing power, enabling them to carefully choose their Business School. To summarise the growth of customer empowerment in the Business School sector, it can be said that the market is saturated, which has led to hyper competition in a fast- paced sector. This has increased the power of the consumer in that industry, in this case, the student. The students have the power to choose carefully between Business Schools, comparing and contrasting as they go, with the abundance of information now available on the internet. According to Starkey & Tiratsoo (2007), hyper competition between Business Schools has led to the need for more “business” and less “school”. It is thought that in order to survive, Business Schools must be much more market-orientated and business minded (Nicholls et al., 1995) and instead of focusing on what they can provide, should be focusing on how they are providing it.

42 3.3.3. The Need for Business Schools to Become „Customer-Led‟? The concept of becoming more „market-orientated‟ (Nicholls et al., 1995) is in line with the view of Maringe & Gibbs (2009), who believe that the student is no longer the „customer‟ of higher education, but is instead an integral part of any institution, a development of the opinion of Kotler & Fox (1995). Maringe & Gibbs (2009) believe that student satisfaction and the improvement of the student experience, should be at the heart of any educational strategy. The student experience begins with their first contact with an institution, therefore Business Schools must make sure that their marketing strategy is customer-focused in order to ensure that their students and other stakeholders for that matter, are having the best experience possible – which is, in turn, necessary for their reputation. The first point of contact for most prospective students would be the Business School website. There are two types of website: an “inside-out” website and an “outside-in” website (Hamill, 2009). An example of an „inside-out‟ website would be one which explains all about the Business School, with a message along the lines of (Hamill, 2009): Figure 3.4 : Example of an „inside-out‟ Website Message

43 „Outside-in‟ websites on the other hand encourage feedback, interaction and collaboration. Most Business School websites are „inside-out‟ websites, which explain to students why they should study there, what they will learn, the awards the school has won etc. These websites treat prospective students as a number, another statistic on the web traffic statistics and may encourage, but will not engage with or develop a relationship with any prospective student. With the growth of Customer Experience Management, as a development from Customer Relationship Management, Business Schools are realising the need to build one-to-one relationships with their students through their marketing activities, even from the first point of contact (Nicholls et al., 1995). An example of this was presented in the model of Ivy (2008) with the inclusion of „face-to-face tuition‟ to the Business School marketing mix framework. This is where social media comes into its own. Social media and Web2.0 are interactive technologies which most students are already using, these students are part of the „Net Generation‟ (Tapscott, 2009). 3.4. Marketing to the Net Generation „Grown Up Digital‟, by Don Tapscott, author of „Wikinomics‟, is a book about the generation who are currently going through the education system – he has named it the „Net Generation‟. His 2009 book „Grown Up Digital‟ was inspired by a $4 million research project funded by large companies and was written to help everyone understand the Net Generation, in preparation for the future. Tapscott (2009) surveyed more than 11,000 teenagers and was surprised that instead of finding spoiled teenagers, with low attention spans, he discovered a (Tapscott, 2009, inside front cover): ―bright community, which has developed revolutionary new ways of thinking interacting, working and socialising.‖ The book gives companies and institutions an insight into how the Net Generation functions, what makes them tick and how they can be targeted.

44 It is first of all important to analyse the characteristics of the generation and to understand what makes this generation different to others. Tapscott (2009, p.6) describes the generation as: ―As the first global generation ever, the Net Geners are smarter, quicker and more tolerant of diversity than their predecessors.‖ Tapscott (2009, pp.4-5) explains that many journalists, academics and even parents, present negative and cynical views of the Net Generation, some of which are;  “They‟re dumber than we were at their age.”  “They‟re screenagers, Net addicted, losing their social skills and they have no time for sports of healthy activities.”  “Because their parents have coddled them, they‟re adrift in the world and afraid to choose a path.”  “They‟re bullying friends online.”  “They steal.” (referring to the illegal downloading of music)  “They have no work ethic and will be bad employees.”  “This is the latest narcissistic “me” generation.” One author who presents a cynical view of the Net Generation is Professor Mark Bauerlein (2008, p.201): ―They upload and download, surf and chat, post and design, but they haven‘t learned to analyse a complex text, store facts in their heads, comprehend a foreign policy decision, take lessons from history or spell correctly.‖ These criticisms are too common and straight-cut to be ignored: they make the future seem very bleak indeed and cannot be pleasant for member of the Net Generation to hear. Don Tapscott took note of the negative stereotypes and began his quest to find out the truth about this, in his opinion, mis-understood generation.

45 3.4.1. Characteristics of the Net Generation According to Tapscott (2009), the Net Generation is a very distinct generation, made up of the children of the Baby Boomers (US term). To understand the reasons for Net Gen behaviour, it‟s helpful to understand the demographics. The different generations are explained by Tapscott (2009, pp.11-16):  Baby Boom – born between 1946 and 1964, there are over 81 million Baby Boomers worldwide. This generation later became known as the “TV Generation”.  Generation X (The Baby Bust) – born between 1965 and 1975, a decade when birth rates fell dramatically. This generation are among the best educated in history and are now adults between the ages of 32 and 43.  Generation Y/Net Generation (The Echo of the Baby Boom) – born between 1977 and 1997. This generation has lasted so long because of the number of women putting off having children until their 30s and 40s.  Generation Z/Generation Next – born between 1998 and the present day. To gain a better idea of the proportion of each of the generations, Tapscott (2009, p.15) collates the demographic information into percentages of the US population (see Figure 3.5). Figure 3.5 : Demographic Breakdown of U.S Population by Generation Generation % of the US Population Pre-Boomers 17% Boomer Generation 23% Generation X 15% Net Generation 27% Generation Next 13% The fact that the Net Generation seem to be a very large generation in the USA, could be one of the reasons for the negativity they receive. There are however, positive characteristics to the Net Generation and more positive stereotypes being created as well.

46 Carlson (2005, p.1) described the Net Generation in a slightly more positive light to that of Bauerlein (2008): ―They are smart but impatient. They expect results immediately. They carry an arsenal of electronic devices -- the more portable the better. Raised amid a barrage of information, they are able to juggle a conversation on Instant Messenger, a Web-surfing session, and an iTunes playlist while reading Twelfth Night for homework.‖ Many would interpret that quote in a negative manner, but many, those with an open- mind to new innovations and technology, would think “what a clever generation”. Through analysing this quote in particular, it‟s clear that even though results are expected immediately, the Net Geners are given results immediately through the internet for example and have therefore been brought up with instantaneous action. Multi-tasking is evident in this situation, a skill which is invaluable in the world of work and education. There is also the mention of reading, a skill which many say is being eroded by the introduction of new technologies (Davies & Merchant, 2009). Due to the unclear message being sent to everyone about the Net Generation and their characteristics, Tapscott (2009) has generated what he calls the „norms‟, which are distinctive differences, differentiating one generation from another. The eight norms which Tapscott (2009, pp.74-97) created for the Net Generation are summarised in Figure 3.6 below;

47 Figure 3.6 : The Eight “Norms” of the Net Generation Source: Adapted from (Tapscott, 2009, p.74-97) „Norm‟ Description Freedom They choose what they want, when they want it, where they want to work, where they want to be and when they want to talk to friends. Customisation They can customise phones, cars, desktop computers, websites, clothes, calendars and many more. They can even customise their jobs eg. Working from home one day a week for change of scenery. Scrutiny Due to the large amount of information on the internet, the Net Geners have to be aware of the world around them and are able to distinguish between fact and fiction. Integrity They like to be able to trust other people and companies. They will also pass on information to their friends, so companies must be honest with this generation. Collaboration As previously mentioned, Net Geners are natural collaborators. They‟re known as the „relationship generation‟. Net Geners can work hand in hand with companies to create better products and services. Entertainment Net Geners value the experience of using a product very highly and always like to have fun with whatever they‟re using/doing. Net Geners become bored easily, so playing with their high-tech toys keeps them amused. Speed Net Geners are used to instant response, 24/7 and have grown up with and now expect speed. When Net Geners email a company, 80% expect a reply quickly – this isn‟t how most companies operate. Innovation This generation has been raised in a culture of innovation and now want new products every few months eg. Mobile phones. In the workplace, they exchange traditional work rules for a culture of collaboration and interaction.

48 Tapscott (2009) paints a positive picture of the Net Generation through his creation of the eight „norms‟. In a way, Tapscott is saying that these Net Geners have grown up with the technologies and now live in a way which only seems strange to their parents and grand-parents because they are the ones who are not used to the fast pace of life, the continuous technological innovations and the need to be instantly contactable at any time. One challenge exists, however, which Don Tapscott clearly realised and wanted to dissolve by creating an understanding of how this generation functions and what they expect of companies and institutions alike. 3.4.2. Strategies for „Tapping the Groundswell‟ Due to the digital divide between the Net Generation and companies/institutions, it has become clear that many institutions, including Business Schools are being left behind and are constantly playing „catch-up‟ with their consumers/students. Carlson (2005) explains that many educational institutions are simply being advised to use new technologies such as Web2.0 and social media even though they don‟t know anything about them – there is a lack of knowledge about these new technologies. Not only is Higher Education changing completely (Starkey & Tiratsoo, 2007), so too is the global marketplace, meaning that companies need to adapt just as much, if not more than Business Schools must. According to Tapscott (2009), in order to reach the Net Generation as a target market, it‟s necessary to adopt the strategy of „candor‟. Companies must provide their consumers with ample product information which is easy to access. This generation likes to „shop-around‟. With the amount of information available on the internet and with peer ratings and reviews taken very seriously on sites such as Tripadvisor and Amazon, companies must make sure that their products have the best possible chance of being noticed and scrutinised by the Net Geners (Li & Bernoff, 2009).

49 For companies or institutions who are struggling to reach this complex generation, Li & Bernoff (2009, p.67), in their book „Groundswell – Winning in a World Transformed by Social Technologies‟, have created a simple plan for them to follow: the POST method. The authors describe the method as: ―the foundation of groundswell thinking – a systematic framework for assembling your plan.‖ Li & Bernoff (2009, p.67) The POST method starts with questions and makes a company/institution think about what they‟re trying to achieve and who they‟re trying to target, which then helps them to build their groundswell strategy (see Figure 3.7 below). Figure 3.7 : POST Method for Developing a Groundswell Strategy Source: (Li & Bernoff, 2009, pp.67-68) Method Question Explanation People What are your customers ready for? Carrying out customer profiling will answer this question. You must find out how your customer will engage by monitoring what they‟re already doing. Objectives What are your goals? Are you more interested in talking with the groundswell for marketing purposes or do you want to energise the groundswell in order to increase sales? Strategy How do you want relationships with Do you want customers to your customers to change? become more engaged with your company? Do you want to get your customer talking to one another? By answering these questions, you will establish how to measure your results once your goals have been met. Technology What applications should you build? This stage must be completed after the other three. After you‟ve decided on the people, objective and strategy, it‟s time to choose the technologies eg. Blogs, social networks etc.

50 When analysing „Objectives‟ in particular, there are five main „Groundswell objectives‟ which companies or institutions can choose from (Li & Bernoff, 2009, pp.68-69);  Listening – Research your customers in the groundswell in order to better understand their needs and wants and how your company can meet these needs.  Talking – Spread messages about your company through the groundswell.  Energising – Locate your most valued customers and use the groundswell to generate or increase word of mouth amongst them.  Supporting – Help your customers support each other by setting up groundswell tools.  Embracing – Try and integrate your customers into your business, by letting them become involved in product design for example. Once companies have chosen their objectives and created their POST strategy, they should be on the right track to engaging with the Net Generation and their other customers. Thanks to Don Tapscott (2009) and Li & Bernoff (2009), many companies now have a clear frame of reference for use during their strategy creation. The Net Generation may be controversial and difficult to understand, but according to these authors, they‟re not impossible to target – all that‟s needed is change and adaptation. Companies and Business Schools alike will need to begin to use „Groundswell thinking‟ and their knowledge of the Net Generation to survive and prosper through further technologically innovative years. 3.5. Business School Marketing – A New Marketing Mix Through better understanding the „Net Generation‟, the growth of customer empowerment and realising the need for change in the Business School sector, it has become clear this change must begin with the way Business Schools are marketing themselves. Can the traditional marketing mix from Ivy (2008) be effective in today‟s highly competitive, technology driven world?

51 Hawanini (2005) believes that there are two options for the top Business Schools in times of crisis; transform themselves in order to meet the demands of the market, or be prepared to give some of their ground to other providers of education. Through a detailed evaluation of the literature on social media, customer empowerment and the Net Generation, it‟s clear that Business Schools need to develop a new mindset towards their marketing activities, in order to effectively reach and meet the needs of their stakeholders. Starkey & Tiratsoo (2007, p.223) believe that the Business School must change if it‟s to survive and: ―re-establish its social link to the outside world.‖ 3.5.1. A New „Business School Marketing Mix‟ Through the realisation that a new marketing mindset is needed, in order for the Business School sector to prosper, the 7P Business School Marketing Mix, as presented by Ivy (2008), must be scrutinised. Ivy (2008) has split „Promotion‟ into two sections; hard copy promotion and traditional promotion, including electronic marketing. The model is however, not technology-focused and fails to mention the importance of the Business Schools website and the use of technology in both marketing and relationship building activities. The 7P model fails to show any interaction between the Business School and its stakeholders, aside from „personal contact‟ and „face-to-face tuition‟, both of which cannot easily build long-lasting relationships. Daniel (1996) believes that since the foundation of the University of Bologna in 1088, Universities have provided a consistent, continuous service: they are masters of continuity. He has three firm beliefs; that the academic mode of thinking is “among the most precious assets of mankind”, that Universities know that they need to keep up with the times and that technology is “the key to the renewal of higher education” (Daniel, 1996, p.1).

52 The absence of technological aspects to this 7P Marketing Mix is evidence that Business Schools are either not yet aware of the need for change in their marketing activities, or are unaware that technology can aid them in doing so. The „7P Business School Marketing Mix‟ model can be altered in order to encompass the benefits which technology can bring to any marketing strategy and can enable the new mindset needed by Business Schools. The model has been adapted by the researcher in order to incorporate Web2.0 and social media technologies into the marketing mix. As can be seen from Figure 3.8 below, the „7P‟ model has become the „8P Business School Marketing Mix‟ model, with the addition of an 8th element: „Participation‟.

53 Figure 3.8 : The „8P Business School Marketing Mix‟ Adapted from: Ivy (2008, p.294) The „7P Business School Marketing Mix‟ 8P Business School Marketing Mix Participation Internal:  An „outside-in‟ website  A Business School blog External:  A presence on social and professional networking sites, such as Facebook and Linkedin.  The use of Twitter  A Business School channel on YouTube Internal  Website alterations towards a more „outside-in‟ approach to the marketing of the Business School will keep in line with what students of today intrinsically want, interaction and the opportunity to voice their opinion (eg. Feedback about the website, or about courses).

54  By creating a blog on the internal Business School website, the School can share news/events, it allows for user-participation in the form of comments and would allow for the stakeholders to feel more like a part of the Business School. External  By creating a profile on social and professional networking sites such as Facebook and Linkedin, the Business School would be indicating to stakeholders that they are engaging with these new technologies, they are there to be interacted with and that they are encouraging participation.  By using Twitter as another form of networking, Business Schools could develop a following of stakeholders who are interested in hearing the latest news/achievements of the Business School and whom they can interact with in real-time.  The creation of a Youtube channel would allow for the posting of podcasts eg. Of interviews with current students for example, showing prospective students that the Business School does interact with its students and cares about their opinions. Comments can be posted on the Youtube channel, again promoting participation and interaction. 3.5.2. Marketing as a Ongoing Conversation The term „Web2.0‟ is criticised by many as being a marketing buzzword, but there are also those who firmly believe that it‟s a new way of thinking (O‟Reilly, 2007). As Daniel 1996 believes, technology seems to be the key to the renewal of higher education and if Business Schools can adapt their marketing mix to account for these technological changes, then they will be adapting with the market in which they operate, an action deemed as necessary for survival (Kotler & Fox, 1995). If the 8th „P‟ of „Participation‟ is taken into consideration, it‟s necessary to highlight the fact that the adoption of these methods does not guarantee success for the Business School.

55 There is an emphasis on the long-term in the literature, with Eylon (1998) writing about the ongoing nature of the power shift to consumers and Kotler & Fox (1995) writing about strategic marketing strategies and vision. There is therefore the need for the „conversation‟ (Vitalari, 2009) to become an on-going conversation, rather than the delivery of a marketing message. Business Schools should view the „Participation‟ element of the marketing mix as a conversation with their stakeholders, who generally fall into the categories of; prospective students, current students, Alumni and companies. Social media and Web2.0 can be used to benefit the stakeholder groups in the following ways;  Prospective students: Social networking sites such as Facebook, can be used to answer questions about courses, entry requirements and give prospective students the opportunity to interact with the Business School and with other potential class-mates.  Current students: Current students can use Twitter as a means of „following‟ their Business School and keeping up with news and forthcoming events in real-time. Business Schools can gauge reactions instantly from their „tweets‟ and are be able to communicate messages to students easily and effectively.  Alumni: The Alumni can connect with the Business School and each other on sites such as Linkedin, where they can build an interactive community. In the age of social media, Alumni relations seem to be easier than ever, with many opportunities for interaction and communication with these past students.  Companies: Business School blogs can be of benefit to companies, as they may be interested in keeping up to date with the Business School news/events and may be on the look-out for award-winning students, who could be featured on the blog. The aim of Business Schools adopting social media and Web2.0 as a form of Marketing, is „engagement‟ with their stakeholders.

56 The diagram below (Figure 3.9) displays the meanings of the word „engagement‟, the most relevant of which are; „involvement‟ and „participation‟. Figure 3.9 : The Meaning of „Engagement‟ Source: www.visualthesaurus.com In order to engage with their stakeholders, there are five main strategies (Li & Bernoff, 2009) which Business Schools can adopt in order to ensure that their conversation (Vitalari, 2009) is an ongoing one and is helping to develop the Business School brand (Nargundkar, Rajashekar & Shahiada, 2009). The five strategies were previously presented in relation to any organisation (see section 3.4.2.), however the following diagram (Figure 3.10), explains how the strategies can be applied to Business Schools through the use of Web2.0 and Social Media.

57 Figure 3.10 : The 5 Groundswell Strategies in Relation to Business Schools Source: Adapted from Li & Bernoff (2009, pp.68-69) Strategy Method Related to Business Schools Listening Use the groundswell for research Facebook can be used to and to better understand your listen to what prospective customers. students are saying to each other about the Business School. Talking Use the groundswell to spread Facebook and Twitter can messages about your company. be used to spread news about Business School events or awards. This should become a two-way conversation between the Business School and its stakeholders. Energising Find your most enthusiastic User-generated content customers and use the could be integrated into groundswell to supercharge the the internal Business power of their word of mouth. School blog and could be used to set up a student competition eg. The student who writes the best article about the Business School, will win a weekly spot on the blog. Supporting Set up groundswell tools to help Linkedin is largely used your customers support each by Business Schools for other. creating Alumni communities. These communities provide support for newly qualified graduates who are embarking on their careers. Embracing Integrate your customers into the A feedback section could way your business works. be integrated into the Business School website, encouraging students to comment on the benefits and drawbacks of the current website. This feedback could then be utilised in the new website design process.

58 Starkey & Tiratsoo (2007) are adamant that the Business School landscape is changing and that the future of the Business School is in jeopardy, if strategies are not created quickly. If Business Schools can use the principles outlined by Li & Bernoff (2009), listening to and energising their stakeholders, then their brand has a good chance of surviving in this era of hyper-competition (Starkey & Tiratsoo, 2007) and consumer empowerment. Using the „POST‟ method of strategy creation (Li & Bernoff, 2009), Business Schools will be able to use their resources more effectively to realise their vision for the School. With the development of the new „8P Business School Marketing Mix‟, Business Schools have all the information they need to prosper, the question is, whether or not they will adopt these methods and will be able to change their educational structure, vision and mindset, to ensure their survival. 3.6 Chapter Conclusion and Research Gap This chapter has fulfilled the requirements of objective 1 for this dissertation: „To conduct a thorough review of the literature relating to the project in order to better understand the topics and to identify knowledge gaps.‟ This chapter has assimilated research on the issues of Business School Marketing, Customer Empowerment, Marketing to the Net Generation and the need for a new Business School Marketing Mix. Although the topic of Web2.0 and Social Media is very fresh and the amount of literature is not as abundant as with other forms of marketing, there remained sufficient literature for the creation of a new Business School Marketing Mix. What the literature failed to conclude is whether or not Web2.0 and Social Media marketing methods are currently being used by Business Schools and if so, if they‟re proving to be successful in the development of the Business School brand and the development of lasting relationships with stakeholders. It can therefore be assumed that there is a research gap which the researcher aims to close with the completion of this dissertation.

59 CHAPTER FOUR: METHODOLOGY

60 CHAPTER FOUR: METHODOLOGY 4.1. Introduction This chapter will outline the method and approach used to address the research gap identified during the review of the literature: to analyse the extent to which Web2.0 is being used by Business Schools for marketing purpose, their engagement with these technologies and to evaluate the benefits of doing so. After establishing the benefits of Web2.0 and Social Media being utilised in the Business School landscape and finding a research gap, it is valid for the research to proceed. This chapter will outline possible market research methods and the chosen method for this piece of research. The use of primary and secondary data will be explained, along with the use of both qualitative and quantitative research methods. The research was split into three main Phases and each will be fully explained in turn, with scoring methods also being outlined;  Phase One: To create a framework for the measurement of Web2.0 and social media utilisation and engagement using the „Engagement DB Study 2009‟ and previous theses by Attard (2008) and Barrie (2008).  Phase One (part two): To use the framework created to analyse the extent to which Web2.0 applications are currently being utilised both internally and externally by the top 10 UK and the top 10 US Business Schools, allocating them an „engagement profile‟.  Phase Two: The creation of three „best practice‟ case studies.  Phase Three: Understanding Business Schools‟ awareness about Web 2.0 impact and adoption barriers. Each of the research phases will be presented with reference to the research objectives, which can be seen below (see Figure 4.1).

61 Figure 4.1 : Research Objectives Objective Two: To create a framework for the measurement of Web2.0 and social media utilisation and engagement using the „Engagement DB Study 2009‟ and previous theses by Attard (2008) and Barrie (2008). Objective Three: To use the framework created to analyse the extent to which Web2.0 applications are currently being utilised both internally and externally by the top 10 UK and the top 10 US Business Schools. An „engagement profile‟ will then be allocated to each Business School, based on the methodology of the Engagement DB Study 2009. Objective Four: To use the findings from the analysis to present 3 „best practice‟ case examples – the top three Web2.0 adopters. Objective Five: To carry out interviews with the top Business Schools to understand more about their awareness about the impact and benefits of their Web2.0 activities and the barriers they have experienced in its implementation. Objective one was achieved through carrying out the literature review presented in Chapter Three. This chapter highlights the methodology used to successfully achieve objectives two, three, four and five on which recommendations to be presented through objective six are based. 4.2. Research Methods In order to meet the objectives of this dissertation and in light of the fact that there were three stages to the research, several research methods were used, including both qualitative and quantitative methods.

62 For Phase One of the research it seemed most appropriate to adopt a quantitative approach, whereas for Phase Two and Three, a qualitative approach would have been the best approach. In order to choose the correct method for each phase of the research, it was necessary gain a better understanding of the type of research methods available to the researcher. 4.2.1. Secondary Research Secondary research was defined by Wilson (2006, p.54) as: ―information that has been previously gathered for some purpose other than the current research project.‖ As explained by Wilson (2006), secondary data can be gathered from a number of sources including electronically or from printed sources such as newspapers and journals. The main benefit of secondary data when compared with primary data is the fact that it is almost always faster to access and less costly to acquire, which are things which any researcher must take into consideration. This is now even more so the case, as we‟ve seen an increase in the number of online databases, such as Emerald (www.emeraldinsight.com) which holds thousands of items of secondary data. Secondary data can also help define the research objectives of a particular project. Secondary information on consumer trends (target market trends) and company information can help to shape and narrow the focus of a research project. This information can also help in the design of the research, for example, when deciding who to target and where to find the respondents. If more informed primary research is then undertaken, this secondary data can be used for a comparison between the secondary data originally sourced and the primary data recently gathered, therefore emphasising and confirming/disconfirming the primary data collected (Wilson, 2006).

63 Despite the many advantages of secondary data collection methods, there are also limitations. Webb (2002) states the disadvantages as being; relevancy, availability, accuracy and bias. He states that the use of secondary data alone may also not be sufficient to answer the research problem identified, therefore forcing the researcher to carry out primary research anyway. For the purpose of this dissertation, secondary data was used to fulfil objective one, a review of the literature (Chapter three). Secondary data was also used in Chapter two, the industry review, where secondary sources were used to gather information about the Business School industry and the revolution of Web2.0 and Social Media. Furthermore, whenever a secondary source has been used in these chapters, it has been clearly marked, which allows the reader to take into account the fact that the data sources may be outdated when relating to the research topic. 4.2.2. Primary Research Primary research is undertaken in order to meet a specific research objective (Kumar et al., 2002). Primary research is first-hand research and is carried out by the researcher for the purpose of the research project. Primary data can be collected through a variety of different methods; observation, qualitative and quantitative methods or indeed a combination of these (Wilson, 2006). These methods are further outlined in the following section. Primary research is naturally more expensive than secondary research and can also be more time consuming, with a great deal of planning involved in the research process. For the purpose of this research, although secondary data formed an integral part of the research and shaped the research methodology, it was necessary to use primary data collection techniques to fulfil objectives three, four and five of the project. 4.2.3. Qualitative vs. Quantitative Research According to Baldry et al. (2002), market research falls into two distinct categories; qualitative and quantitative. Qualitative research focuses on observations and words (opinions) in order to analyse people in real situations.

64 Qualitative research on the other hand attempts to quantify these opinions in order to compare and contrast the findings easily. Quantitative research is described by Wilson (2006, p.135) as being: ―research that is undertaken using a structured research approach with a sample of the population to produce quantifiable insights into behaviour, motivations and attitudes.‖ According to Weinreich (2006), quantitative uses methods adopted from the physical sciences that are designed to ensure objectivity, generalisability and reliability. The researcher is considered to be external to the research and the results are considered to be replicable no matter who conducts the research (Weinreich, 2006). Quantitative achieves reliability and objectivity, as it is usually conducted with a larger sample size of the population, therefore allowing for the results to generalise more than qualitative results can. Qualitative data on the other hand, is described by Wilson (2006, p.105) as being; ―research that is undertaken using an unstructured approach with a small number of carefully selected individuals to produce non-quantifiable insights into behaviour, motivations and attitudes.‖ According to Weinreich (2006), when undertaking qualitative research, the researcher becomes immersed in the research and also becomes the research instrument, therefore having the ability to bias results. Qualitative methods are designed to help the researcher gain an insight into the reality of the sample group and to understand the meanings assigned to certain behaviours (Weinreich, 2006).

65 The advantages of the qualitative paradigm over the quantitative one is that the research focuses on finding out „the reasons why‟ rather than simply generating correlations between variables (Weinreich, 2006). Gordon & Langmaid (1988) present a comparison between the two research methods and explain that qualitative methods allow for a depth of understanding and give marketing and creative teams richer ideas, by its ability to tap into consumer creativity. Conversely, the advantages of the quantitative paradigm over the qualitative one is that the research is its ability to produce quantifiable results which can be used to generalise in a larger sample size (eg. the population). This type of research is less reliant on the skills of the researcher and allows for statistical and numerical measurement (Gordon & Langmaid, 1988) allowing for ease of understanding and less biased results. The disadvantages of qualitative research are described by Weinreich (2006) as being time consuming and labour-intensive, with more effort also required in the planning stages. Quantitative research is described by Weinreich (2006) as having one main weakness: it does not take variables into account. The situation is de-contextualised and the situation is no long a real-life situation, it‟s a fabricated one for the purpose of quantifying the results (Weinreich, 2006). In recent years, there has been an emphasis on a mixed-methods approach, one which combines quantitative and qualitative approach in order to benefit from each. This mixed-methods approach has been defined as „Triangulation‟ and is advocated by Patton (2001, p.247): ―Triangulation strengthens a study by combining methods. This can mean using several kinds of methods or data, including using both quantitative and qualitative approaches.‖

66 Not everyone agrees that using a mixture of research methods is of benefit to the researcher and the research results. Barbour (1998) argues that mixing paradigms may lead to a disconfirmation of any hypothesis made. The use of a single methodology is encouraged by several authors such as Miles & Huberman (1994), and Yin (1994) but there are advantages to using triangulation as a research strategy; by using a mixed-methods approach, the study can be limited more and therefore more focused. It can also be said that this allows for an accurate evaluation of the reality of a situation, by carrying out research into both opinions, as well as quantifying attitudes for ease of understanding. 4.3. Choice of Research Strategy The research process, as outlined in Chapter One of this dissertation, is shown below. The literature review, which met the objective one of this project, was presented in Chapter 3, so the research process will be explained in the format outlined below, explaining the research methods used for each Phase, as well as the sampling and evaluating methods (scoring for Phase One). In order to effectively meet the objectives of the project, it was necessary to adopt a mixed-methods approach, using quantitative data collection methods for the creation of the Web2.0 analysis framework and indeed the analysis stage of the research. Qualitative methods were then used for the final two stages of the research, as these stages were more opinion based and the results required detailed description. The decision to use this mixed- methods approach, allows for the data to be collected both numerically and qualitatively, therefore providing a “binocular view” of the research topic (McCracken, 1998, p.18).

67 Figure 4.2 : The Research Process Literature Review Phase One: Development of Frameworks for evaluating internal and external Web 2.0 use Phase One: Identification of the extent of use of Web2.0 technologies by Business Schools, followed by Engagement Profiling Findings, Analysis and Discussion of Phase One Phase Two: The creation of three best practice case examples Phase Three: Understanding Business Schools‟ awareness about Web 2.0 impact and adoption barriers Findings, Analysis and Discussion of Phases Two and Three As one of the main aims of the dissertation is to analyse the extent to which Business School are using and engaging with Web2.0 technologies, it was necessary for a framework to be developed to allow for this analysis. This framework was first developed in order to gauge the progress being made by Business Schools in terms of their Web2.0 and Social Media engagement. This framework is the first of its kind, making a major contribution to the research into the use and engagement with Web2.0 and Social Media technologies. Two frameworks had previously been utilised for the measurement of Web2.0 and Social Media use; the framework used by Attard (2008) and Barrie (2008) in their theses and the framework used in the Engagement DB Study (Elowitz & Li, 2009) carried out in 2009. The framework developed by Attard (2008) and Barrie (2008) was a suitable starting point for the creation of the new framework. What their framework did not measure, was the extent of Web2.0 engagement, something which the Engagement DB Study did do. The Engagement DB Study of 2009 was „the‟ leading-edge study of the World‟s top 100 brands, measuring their Web2.0 use and most importantly, their engagement.

68 For the purpose of this research project, a combination of the methodologies from both of these studies was used and a new, first of its kind framework was created for the measurement of Web2.0 use and engagement by the top 10 Business Schools in the UK and in the USA. The research methods adopted for each stage of the research were as follows;  Phase One: Quantitative research methods when creating and using the framework for the analysis (Phase One), as this framework was the first of its kind and there were no other results to refer to. It was used to analyse 20 top Business Schools and their use and engagement with Web2.0 technologies, thus addressing objective three of the project. This quantitative research set the basis for the qualitative research and provided a numerical context to the project, supporting the findings of the qualitative research conducted in the later phases.  Phase Two: For the creation of 3 best practice case examples, qualitative research methods were used. The 3 best practice case examples were created in order to shine light on what the highly engaged Business Schools are doing with regard to their Web2.0 activities.  Phase Three: Further Qualitative research methods were also used for the 7 interviews held with 7 of the top Business Schools in the UK and in the USA. The interviews were undertaken in order to gain a better understanding of how the Business Schools, the „Selectives‟ and the „Wallflowers‟ carry out their marketing activities, the impact their Web2.0 activities have had on their Business School, any barriers faced in the implementation stage and any future plans they have.

69 4.4. Phase One: Development of Framework The aim of the first phase of the research is to first develop a framework for evaluating the extent of Web2.0 use, and subsequently to use this framework to gauge the engagement of each Business School with Web2.0 technologies, both on an internal and external level (see Appendices One and Two). A quantitative approach was utilised for Phase One of the research, due to the need for quantification of the research findings and the fact that the framework created was the first of its kind. In order to meet the aim of the research for phase one of this dissertation, a framework was developed for the analysis of Web2.0 activities. After reading the literature on the topic of Web2.0, it was clear that there was already some Web2.0 measurement taking place. The framework developed for the purpose of Phase One of the research for this dissertation, was created through the merging of the two frameworks, as was previously explained: the first created by Attard (2008) and Barrie (2008) and the second taken from the Engagement DB Study of 2009 (Elowitz & Li, 2009) which was „the‟ leading edge study, analysing the social media engagement of the World‟s top 100 brands. The criteria used in each of these frameworks were combined in order to develop the framework (see Section 4.4) for Phase One of the research. The first framework consulted for the development of an integrated framework, was the framework developed by Attard (2008) and Barrie (2008), for the measurement of Web2.0 use. Both authors developed their framework with Dr Jim Hamill in order to undertake the research for their Masters Theses on the topics of „Destination Branding in the Age of Web2.0‟ and „Football Clubs and Web2.0‟ respectively. The Engagement DB Study (Elowitz & Li, 2009) is a study carried out by the Altimeter and Wetpaint groups and measures social media use and engagement of brands. The 2009 study was „the‟ leading edge study of the World‟s top 100 brands, including Starbucks, Coca Cola and Dell.

70 The groups measured brand engagement with social media and generated a report, outlining the criteria used in the analysis process and the methodology used for calculating the results. For the purpose of this dissertation, a new, first of its kind, integrated framework was created, combining the methodologies used by Attard (2008), Barrie (2008) and in the Engagement DB Study (Elowitz & Li, 2009). The framework used by Attard (2008) and Barrie (2008) only measured Web2.0 use and failed to measure the engagement of companies with Web2.0 and Social Media. The Engagement DB study measured engagement and the authors created an „engagement profiling‟ system which was of key importance to this dissertation. The following diagram (Figure 4.3) shows the four engagement profiles, as created by the authors of the Engagement DB Study and which were used as part of Phase One of the research in this dissertation. Figure 4.3 : The Engagement Profiles In the diagram above, „presence‟ relates to channel presence/use of the Web2.0 channel and „engagement‟ relates to the brand‟s engagement with Web2.0 and Social Media. This concept will be further explained in section 4.5.2. The methodology used for each phase of the research will now be presented.

71 4.5. Phase One: Internal and External Web2.0 Analysis The research framework created for the internal and external Web2.0 analysis of each of the 20 Business Schools‟ Websites was as follows: Figure 4.4 : Research Framework – Phase One Criteria for Internal and External Analysis INTERNAL Web2.0 EXTERNAL Web2.0 1. User Generated Content (UGC) 1. Social and Professional Networking Sites  Text and Blogs  Facebook  Images  MySpace  Video  Linkedin  Wiki 2. User Feedback, Opinion and 2. Twitter Discussion (FOD)  Forum  Twitter  Ratings, Review and Feedback  Online Chat 3. Rich Internet Applications (RIA) 3. Multimedia Sharing Sites  Widgits  YouTube  M-ups  Flickr  Podcasts/Vodcasts 4. Folksonomies 4. Podcasts/Audiocasts  Social tagging  ITunes  Social bookmarking  Tag Cloud 5. Feeds 5. Blogs  Content Feeds IN  Blogs  Content Feeds OUT 6. Community 6. Mapping Sites  Social Network  Google Earth 7. External Links  To presence on Web2.0 sites The template used was divided into two sections: the internal use of Web2.0 on the official websites of the Business Schools and also their external use of Web2.0. A detailed explanation of each of the Web2.0 channels and categories analysed can be found below.

72 Internal This relates to users being able to post User Generated Content (UGC) and edit text, upload images and videos, and add content to “wiki” files. Includes forums, interactive online chat, ratings and reviews such as rating videos User Feedback, Opinion and posted up by the Business School or web Discussion (User FOD) polls, for rating classes for example. Utilisation of web applications or widgets that can be downloaded from the Rich Internet Applications (RIA) Business School website onto the users‟ computer desktop or social network page. Also, Mash-ups and Podcasts/Vodcasts are part of the RIA category. Used by Business Schools to enable users to organise and categories information Folksonomies through; social tagging, social book marking and tag clouds. Content Feeds IN are the use of live content feeds used to bring information from an external source into the Business School website, allowing users to keep Feeds up-to-date with information about the School from other internet sites. Content Feeds OUT, such as RSS Feeds, allows users to personalise the information and news they want delivered to them directly. The efforts made by the Business School to create a “social network” on their own website, rather than depending on external sites. This includes users being Community able to create personalised accounts and to display personal information about themselves, it also involves the users being able to share content and interact with one another in numerous ways. These are links which are made by the Business School officially to external External Links Web 2.0 sites, such as social networking sites for example “Facebook”. The criteria used to evaluate the external presence of Web 2.0 applications for Business Schools can be explained as follows;

73 External The most associated social networking sites to Business Schools are Facebook, Social & Professional Networking Sites Myspace and LinkedIn. Social networking and micro-blogging service, where users send and read tweets. Users can become followers of Twitter their Business School and every time there is a new tweet displayed by the School, followers will be informed. Image and video content sharing sites, Multimedia Sharing Sites e.g. YouTube, where personalised „YouTube Channels‟ can be created. External sources allowing users to Podcasts/Vodcasts download Podcasts/Vodcasts from the internet. These are blogs that are linked from the Blogs Business School‟s official website to external blogs that the School is seen to associate with. Google Earth allows for internet users to add markers for photos of specific areas. In the criteria used, Business Schools are Mapping Tools only linked externally with Google Earth and other mapping tools, if there is a link on their site taking them to the Google Earth images or there is a mash-up of the image on the official website. Following the development of the analysis framework, it was necessary to generate the research sample for Phase One of the research. The sampling method is outlined below, followed by an explanation of the methods used to complete Phase One of the research. 4.5.1. Sampling In light of the main aim of Phase One of the research, the Business Schools selected for inclusion in this dissertation, were taken from the website www.ft.com.

74 This method of sampling is described by Wilson (2002) as „convenience sampling‟, as the researcher used the information available to them in order to generate a research sample. An element of „judgement sampling‟ (Wilson, 2002) was also employed here, as the researcher chose to utilise the Global MBA Rankings as opposed to the Undergraduate or Post-Graduate rankings. The list of Business Schools was taken from the Global MBA Rankings 2009 (FT Global MBA Rankings, 2009). The top 10 UK and the top 10 US Business Schools were selected for the purpose of the research (see Figure 4.5 below).

75 Figure 4.5 : Business School Rankings from www.ft.com Business School Country Global MBA Rank 2009 MBA Rank in UK/USA 2009 London Business UK Joint 1 1 in UK School University of UK 17 2 Cambridge: Judge University of Oxford: UK 20 3 Saïd Lancaster University UK 27 4 Management School Manchester Business UK 32 5 School Cranfield School of UK 35 6 Management Warwick Business UK 37 7 School Imperial College UK 39 8 Business School University of UK 41 9 Strathclyde Business School City University: Cass UK 41 10 University of USA Joint 1 1 in USA Pennsylvania: Wharton Harvard Business USA 3 2 School Columbia Business USA 4 3 School Stanford University USA 6 4 GSB MIT Sloan School of USA 9 5 Management New York University: USA 19 6 Stern University of Chicago: USA 11 7 Booth Dartmouth College: USA 13 8 Tuck Yale School of USA 19 9 Management North Western USA 21 10 University: Kellogg

76 4.5.2. Engagement Profiling As previously explained, the Engagement DB Study is an analysis of brand Social Media engagement. After analysing the extent to which Business Schools use Web2.0 technologies, the next step was to measure engagement, using the methodology adopted by Elowitz & Li (2009) in the Engagement DB Study. The scoring methods used were replicated for the purpose of this dissertation (see section 4.4.3.). The Engagement Profiles used were explained at the beginning of this chapter, but will now be described in more detail. Following the analysis of the top 100 brands, Elowitz & Li (2009) recorded their results in the form of „profiles‟. Dependent on their channel presence and engagement score, each brand was allocated an „engagement profile‟ (see Figure 4.6 below). Figure 4.6 : Engagement Profiles used in the Engagement DB Study In summary:  Selectives have a low channel presence but are highly engaged in the few channels in which they are present, demonstrating a cautious but pro-active approach to Web2.0 activity.  Mavens have a high channel presence and are also highly engaged in those channels, showing their position as innovators and regular users of Web2.0.

77  Wallflowers have a low channel presence and are barely engaging in those channels, demonstrating their position as „laggards‟ (Moore, 1999) and non- adopters of Web2.0.  Butterflies have a high channel presence but very low engagement in those channels, demonstrating an attempt at Web2.0 involvement, but a lack of commitment or knowledge. The „Engagement Profiling‟ will be further discussed in the sections below. 4.5.3. Scoring System As far as scoring is concerned, two different methods were required. The method used for analysing channel presence, both internally and externally, was a simple „yes/no‟ system, where „yes‟ inferred a presence in the channel and „no‟ inferred no presence (see section 4.5.3.1 below). The second scoring method used was required for the „engagement analysis‟ of each Business School. This scoring method was taken from the Engagement DB Study (Elowitz & Li, 2009) and adapted for use in this dissertation. As explained above, the Study categorised the 100 brands into profiles, but it‟s important to understand how the profiling was carried out and the system that was used. There are no specific scoring details available about the 2009 Engagement DB Study, but there was enough information available for the researcher to use the same scoring principles for the purpose of the research. In the Engagement DB Study (Elowitz & Li, 2009), the brands in each engagement profile had the following characteristics;  Mavens: these brands were engaged in 7 or more channels and had an above- average engagement score.  Butterflies: these brands were engaged in 7 or more channels and had a lower than average engagement score.  Selectives: these brands were engaged in 6 or fewer channels and had a higher than average engagement score.

78  Wallflowers: these brands were engaged in 6 or fewer channels and had a below-average engagement score. In order to adapt the scoring system used in the survey, it was necessary for the researcher to calculate the percentage of channels in which each brand had to present, in order to be given each engagement profile – the method for doing so is explained below. Channel Presence for Engagement Profiling The total number of Web2.0 channels analysed in the Engagement DB Study 2009 (Elowitz & Li, 2009) was 11, therefore the channel presence of each profile was as follows; Channel presence/total number of channels analysed=channel presence %  Mavens: channel presence of 7/11=63.6% or more, and above-average engagement.  Butterflies: channel presence of 7/11=63.6% or more, and below-average engagement.  Selectives: channel presence of 6/11=54.5% or fewer, and above-average engagement.  Wallflowers: channel presence of 6/11=54.5% or fewer, and above-average engagement. These percentages for channel presence were used for the purpose of engagement profiling in this dissertation (see section 4.4.3.2.). Average Engagement Score for Engagement Profiling There was no information provided in the Engagement DB Study about the calculation of the „average engagement score‟ but it is clear from the name, that it involved the total engagement score for all of the brands being added together and divided by the total number of brands. Brand engagement scores added together to give a total. Total engagement score/total number of brands analysed=average engagement score. Eg. 500/100 brands=5

79 This will be further discussed in section 4.5.3.2. in relation to the research conducted into Business Schools and their use of Web2.0, for the purpose of this dissertation. The following sections will explain how the scoring systems were utilised for the research conducted for this dissertation and will be split into two sections, the analysis of channel presence and the analysis of engagement. 4.5.3.1. Channel Presence Scoring for this Dissertation The method used for analysing channel presence, both internally and externally, was a simple „yes/no‟ system – Appendix One can be referred to in order to see how the system was used. Figure 4.7 below outlines the criteria for allocating a „yes‟ or a „no‟ in each channel. Figure 4.7 : Channel Presence Yes/No Scoring System Score Characteristic „Yes‟ The Business School is uses the Web2.0 channel. „No‟ The Business School does not use the Web2.0 channel. When calculating the amount of channels a Business School was present in, it was necessary to effectively count the number of „Yes‟ scores. In order to use a formula in excel, a „1‟ was used to replace every „Yes‟ in the analysis table, therefore allowing for the quantification of the results (see Appendix Three). The quantification of the analysis allowed for the researcher to present a table in the results section, which shows the number of Business Schools present in each Web2.0 channel. 4.5.3.2. Engagement Scoring for this Dissertation As was previously explained in section 4.4.3., in order to profile each Business School, two things must be calculated; the channel presence and the engagement score.

80 The engagement score must be calculated in order to assess if the Business School displays above or below average engagement, which is required for the engagement profiling section of the analysis. An engagement score was allocated to each Business School for each Web2.0 category eg. UGC, FOD and External Links, as opposed to each individual Web2.0 channel eg. Facebook, Linkedin and Itunes (refer to Appendix One to see how this system was used). The engagement score was between 0 and 5 and the levels of engagement were as follows (Figure 4.8). Figure 4.8 : Engagement Scoring Engagement Level Score Low engagement 0-1 Medium engagement 2-3 High engagement 4-5 Due to the fact that there were 13 Web2.0 categories in total, the total possible engagement score was 13*5=65. In order to determine the engagement score, an element of judgement was used. It was necessary for the researcher to use their judgement with regard to how engaged they believed the Business School to be with each Web2.0 category. The researcher took many aspects into account when allocating an engagement score for each category, including the „4Is‟, which are KPIs (Key Performance Indicators) of Social Media involvement (Hamill, 2009). The performance indicators are displayed in Figure 4.9 below.

81 Figure 4.9 : Key Performance Indicators for Web2.0 involvement Key Performance Indicator Description Involvement Network/community numbers, time spent updating content, frequency of content updates Interaction Actions taken ie. Reading, posting, commenting, recommending Intimacy Affection or aversion to the brand ie. Community sentiments, opinions expressed Influence Advocacy, viral forwards, social bookmarking The total engagement score for each Business School was calculated by adding up the engagement scores for each category (see Figure 4.10) internally and externally. Figure 4.10 : Web2.0 Categories Internal/External Number of Categories Category Names Internal 7 UGC, User FOD, RIA, Folksonomies, Feeds, Community, External Links External 6 Social and Professional Networking Sites, Twitter, Multimedia Sharing Sites, Podcasts/Audiocasts, Blogs, Mapping Tools To better understand how the „total engagement score‟ was calculated, an example can be taken from the research carried out. Figure 4.11 below shows the engagement scores of one Business School, both internally and externally and explains how they were added to give the Business School‟s total engagement score. A detailed explanation follows this diagram.

82 Figure 4.11 : Engagement Score Calculation Example Internal Engagement External Category Engagement Category Score Score UGC 2 Social + Professional 3 Networking Sites User FOD 0 Twitter 3 RIA 2 Multimedia Sharing 3 Sites Folksonomies 1 Podcasts/Audiocasts 0 Feeds 3 Blogs 2 Community 3 Mapping Tools 0 External Links 2 - - TOTAL Internal 13 TOTAL External 11 Engagement Engagement As can be seen from the example above, the total engagement score would be calculated in the following way: Internal engagement score + External engagement score = Total engagement score 13 + 11 = Total engagement score of 24 This score was then used for the next section of the analysis, which was the engagement profiling, where the total engagement scores of all 20 Business Schools were used to calculate the average engagement score, for use in the engagement profiling. 4.5.3.3. Engagement Profiling The final section of the analysis was to use the methodology from the Engagement DB Study (as explained in section 4.4.3.) for the profiling of the 20 Business Schools. In order to allocate each Business School a profile, several things had to be calculated: Step One: Calculate the channel presence of each Business School as a percentage. Step Two: Calculate the average engagement score using the total engagement scores of all 20 Business Schools. Step Three: Assess which Business Schools displayed below average engagement and those who displayed above average engagement.

83 Step Four: Allocate an engagement profile to each of the 20 Business Schools. The method used for each stage of the results analysis will now be explained in depth, with examples provided for reference. Step One In order to calculate the channel presence of each Business School as percentage, the following numbers were required; the number of channels in which each school was present (see section 4.4.3.1.) and the total number of channels analysed (26). The calculation was as follows: (Channel presence / Number of channels analysed) * 100 = Channel Presence % Example: (22 / 26) * 100 = 84.6% So in the example above, the Business School is present in 84.6% of Web2.0 channels. This figure will be required for use in Step Four of the Engagement Profiling process. Step Two In order to calculate the average engagement score, it‟s necessary to add up the total engagement scores (see section 4.4.3.2.) of each of the 20 Business Schools to give a total. This total is then divided by the number of Business Schools analysed, giving the average engagement score. The calculation was as follows: Total of the 20 engagement score totals / The number of Business Schools analysed = Average Engagement Score Example: 506 / 20 = 25.3 In this example, the average engagement score is therefore 25.3 and will be used in Step Four of the Engagement Profiling process. Step Three In order to assess which Business Schools displayed above or below average engagement, the following figures were required; the total engagement score of each of the 20 Business Schools and the average engagement score, which had just been calculated in Step Two.

84 Using the example above, those Business Schools with total engagement scores (internal engagement + external engagement) of 25.3 or above, displayed „above- average engagement‟ and those with a total engagement score of below 25.3, displayed „below-average engagement‟. This information, those below and those above the average, will be needed for Step Four of the Engagement Profiling process. Step Four With all of the necessary information collected, it was then necessary to allocate each Business School an „engagement profile‟. In order to do so, it was necessary to use the method used for the Engagement DB 2009 Study (Elowitz & Li, 2009). Figure 4.12 below shows the scoring requirements of each engagement profile, using the average engagement figure calculated in the example for Stage Two. Figure 4.12 : Engagement Profile Scoring Requirements

85 4.6. Phase Two: Best Practice Case Examples In order to fulfil objective four of the project, three best practice case examples were created in Phase Two of the research. As the results of Phase Two of the research did not need to be quantified, a qualitative approach was undertaken, in that the researcher displayed the results in a non-numerical format, for the purpose of providing examples to the reader of „best-practice‟. 4.6.1. Sampling The sampling for the creation of the three best practice case examples was carried out using „judgement sampling‟ (Wilson, 2006). Judgement sampling, as described by Wilson (2006, p.206) refers to: ―any procedure where a researcher consciously selects a sample that he or she considers to be most appropriate for the research study.‖ Judgement sampling involves the deliberate choice of each sample member (Wilson, 2006) and was used for Phase Two of the research due to the results presented in the presentation of the research findings for Phase One. The sample for this phase of the research was taken from the final engagement profiling results from Phase One of the research and involved the in-depth analysis of three out of the 20 Business Schools from the original sample. The three Business Schools chosen, were the three Business Schools with the engagement profile of „Maven‟ which meant that they had a very high engagement score and were present in a large number of Web2.0 channels (see Figure 4.13 below). Figure 4.13 : „Maven‟ Characteristics

86 This sample was chosen due to their clear progress and engagement with Web2.0 technologies and in an effort to provide examples of their good practice for the benefit of the reader and other Business Schools who are in the process of improving their Web2.0 involvement. 4.6.2. Creation of the Case Examples There were three main stages involved in the creation of the best practice case studies (see Figure 4.14); Figure 4.14 : „Best Practice Case Example‟ Creation Process Sample chosen from the „engagement profiles‟ allocated to the 20 Business Schools. Step One: Channel presence and category engagement analysed from the results of Phase One. Step Two: Most engaged categories chosen and good practice examples from several Web2.0 channels chosen eg, Facebook. Step Three: Good practice examples presented with explanations and screen-shots of those examples to compliment the explanation. Step One: The results of the research from Phase One were analysed; the channel presence analysis and also the engagement analysis, from which the sample for this stage of the research, was selected. They were analysed to assess which channels and categories, the three Business Schools were most engaged in and to look for good examples of how other Business Schools should be engaging with Web2.0 technologies. Step Two: The categories in which the Business Schools were most engaged, were chosen to be examples of good practice – around 3 categories were chosen for each Business School. For example; UGC, FOD and External Links.

87 These categories and the channels within them were once again analysed on the internal Business School website and on external websites in order to locate good practice examples to include in the case examples. Step Three: Examples of each of these categories were presented along with screen- shots from the websites displaying the examples of good practice, in order to show the reader exactly what was meant by the explanations provided. These screen-shots also provide other Business Schools with an idea of where on the website these Web2.0 applications are used and where they can be successfully integrated. The screen-shots also include examples from external social networking sites, allowing for the reader to see the interaction occurring between the Business School and their audience. The case example of the top „Maven‟, Wharton, was presented in more detail, with reference to ROI (Return on Investment) and the impact of their Web2.0 and Social Media activities. 4.7. Phase Three: Interviews In order to meet objective five of this dissertation: To understand Business Schools‟ awareness about the impact and benefits of their Web2.0 activities and the barriers they have experienced in its implementation‟, interviews were conducted with 7 of the top Business Schools in the UK and in the USA . Interviews fall into the category of „qualitative research‟ which aims to gain insight into the opinions and thoughts of the sample (Wilson, 2006). Following the quantitative internal and external website analysis and in order to adopt a mixed-methods approach to the research, a qualitative method was chosen for carrying out the interviews. The interviews allowed the researcher to understand what could not be understood from the website analysis, including; information about web marketing activities, Web2.0 implementation and future plans for the Business Schools.

88 The results of Phase Three of the research were presented in a quantitative manner, in order to give the reader a quantifiable insight into the situation for the „Selctives‟ and „Wallflowers‟ in comparison to that of a „Maven‟. 4.7.1. Sampling The sample for the Phase Three of the research, the interviews, was generated using „convenience sampling‟. Convenience sampling is described by Wilson (2006) as: ―a procedure in which a researcher‘s convenience forms the bias for selecting the potential respondents.‖ Of the 20 Business Schools analysed, all 20 were contacted in the hope of organising an interview with their Marketing department. A standard email was created for the purpose of contacting them all individually (see Appendix Four). This email was then tailored to each individual Business School, addressed to a certain member of staff and the name of their Business School was also displayed. The personalisation of emails is said to improve response rates which was the reason for this approach (Schaefer & Dillman, 1998). Interviews were arranged with the Business Schools who replied to the sent emails and who were interested in participating in the research. The interviewees were; Figure 4.15 : Interviewed Business Schools ranked in order of Engagement Score Business School Country Total Total Engagement Channel Engagement Profile Presence Score Wharton USA 24 49 Maven Manchester UK 13 33 Selective Columbia USA 12 30 Selective Cass UK 13 28 Selective Said: Oxford UK 13 24 Wallflower Yale USA 9 22 Wallflower Strathclyde UK 4 6 Wallflower It was convenient for the researcher that 6 of those who replied, happened to be either „Selectives‟ or „Wallflowers‟ which allowed for Chapter Seven to be entitled:

89 “Issues and Challenges facing Selectives and Wallflowers”. One of the Business Schools who replied was Wharton, the top Maven from the research conducted, allowing the researcher to present a stark contrast between the activities of „Selectives‟ and „Wallflowers‟ and those of the top „Maven‟, Wharton. Figure 4.16 below outlines the name of the person interviewed and their position within their Business School. Table 4.16 : Interviewed Business Schools: Interviewee Details REMOVED FOR CONFIDENTIALITY REASONS 4.7.2. Interview Methods As can be seen from the Table above, two communication mediums were used when conducting the interviews; telephone and face-to-face. Due to the fact that 6 of the Business Schools were located out-with Scotland, telephone was chosen as the most convenient method of communication. According to Smith (1998; in Webb, 2002) the communication method adopted for the 6 interviews was „tele-depth interview‟. These are short interviews which are conducted in a semi-structured way (Webb, 2002). The telephone interviews carried out by the researcher, lasted between 20 and 50 minutes, depending on the rapport build with the interviewee (Wilson, 2006) and the willingness of the interviewee to share information. Due to the fact that the researcher is carrying out this research in fulfilment of an Honours Marketing degree at the University of Strathclyde, the chosen method of communication for the Strathclyde interview, was „face-to-face‟. Wilson (2006, p.107) describes the process of „face-to-face‟ interviewing as; ―interviews that are conducted face to face, in which the subject matter of the interview is explored in detail using an unstructured and flexible approach‖ The interview with Strathclyde took the same structure as the other interviews, however the researcher conducted this interview is a more flexible way, collecting as much information as possible about the marketing activities of Strathclyde Business

90 School. This was also due to the fact that Strathclyde Business School were not as involved with Web2.0 technologies as the other Business Schools interviewed, therefore there was a need to generate conversation about other aspects of their web marketing activity. 4.7.3. Interview Content The interviews were conducted in a very flexible manner but did have an underlying structure. There were four main sections to the interviews and four main areas which the interviewer asked questions about;  Organisation of Web Marketing activities  Issues/Barriers to the implementation of Web2.0  Benefits/Effects of Web2.0 implementation  Future plans in terms of Web2.0 implementation Depending on the results of Phase One of the research and how engaged each Business School was with Web2.0 and Social Media, the topics were altered slightly to account for this. For example, Yale School of Management were asked why they‟re not as engaged with Web2.0 as other Business Schools are, instead of simply being asked about their Web2.0 activities. Notes from all 7 of the interviews conducted can be found in Appendix Five and the results of Phase Three of the research are presented in chapter five. 4.8. Chapter Conclusion This chapter has explained the way in which objectives two, three, four and five were fulfilled by the research conducted for this dissertation.  Objectives two and three were met by undertaking Phase One of the research: creating a framework for the internal and external Web2.0 analysis and subsequently using this framework and quantitative data collection methods to carry out the analysis and „engagement profiling‟ of the 20 Business Schools.

91  Objective four was met by undertaking Phase Two of the research: the creation of 3 best practice case examples, where examples of good practice were taken from the 3 „Mavens‟ identified.  Objective five was met by undertaking Phase Three of the research: interviews carried out using qualitative data collection methods and a convenience sampling approach. The 7 interviewees were a selection of „Selectives‟, „Wallflowers‟ and „Mavens‟ and they were interviewed in a semi-structured way (6 on the telephone and 1 face-to-face), in order to gain an insight into their marketing activities, implementation of Web2.0 and their future plans with regard to Web2.0 integration. The following chapter will present the findings from each Phase of the research conducted.

92 CHAPTER FIVE: PRESENTATION OF RESEARCH FINDINGS (Phase One: Internal and External Analysis)

93 CHAPTER FIVE: PRESENTATION OF RESEARCH FINDINGS (Phase One: Internal and External Analysis) This chapter presents and analyses the findings of the research conducted. The first phase of the research involved a detailed analysis of each of the 20 Business School websites, in order to find out which Web2.0 technologies each was using. A second part to Phase One of the research was to measure the „engagement‟ of these Business Schools with Web2.0 and Social Media, assessing the extent of their participation both internally and externally to their own website. The findings of each stage of the research have been analysed and discussed in relation to the research aims and objectives. In order to present the findings of the primary research undertaken, it is necessary to once again outline these aims and objectives. Figure 5.1 shows the research objectives in the form of a flowchart, clearly outlining the structure of the research. Figure 5.1 : Research Objectives Objective Two: To create a framework for the measurement of Web2.0 and social media utilisation and engagement using the „Engagement DB Study 2009‟ and previous theses by Attard (2008) and Barrie (2008). Objective Three: To use the framework created to analyse the extent to which Web2.0 applications are currently being utilised both internally and externally by the top 10 UK and the top 10 US Business Schools. An „engagement profile‟ will then be allocated to each Business School, based on the methodology of the Engagement DB Study 2009. Objective Four: To use the findings from the analysis to present 3 „best practice‟ case examples – the top three Web2.0 adopters. Objective Five: To carry out interviews with the top Business Schools to understand more about their awareness about the impact and benefits of their Web2.0 activities and the barriers they have experienced in its implementation.

94 5.1. A Summary of the Research Findings (Phase One) The key findings from Phase One of the research will now be presented. There were three main areas to Phase One of the research; Internal analysis, External analysis and Engagement Profiling. A detailed explanation of the results will follow as Chapter five proceeds, however the main findings for each of these areas were as follows (Table 5.1: Internal, Table 5.2: External, Table 5.3: Business School Performance): Table 5.1: Internal Analysis Summary Finding Description Number of Business Schools Most commonly Rich Internet Applications 19 used internal Community 17 categories External Links 17 Most commonly Social Network 17 used internal Links to External Web2.0 Presence 17 channels Podcast/Vodcast 16 Least commonly User-Generated Content 8 used internal User Feedback, Opinion + Discussion 8 categories Least commonly Wiki 0 used internal Online Chat 0 channels Table 5.2: External Analysis Summary Finding Description Number of Business Schools Most commonly Social and Professional Networking 20 used external Sites categories Twitter 17 Most commonly Linkedin 18 used external Facebook 17 channels Twitter 17 Least commonly Blogs 11 used external Mapping Tools 12 categories Podcasts/Audiocasts 12 Least commonly MySpace 2 used external Flickr 7 channels

95 Table 5.3: Business School Performance Summary in order of Engagement Profile Business Global Channel Total Engagement Type of School MBA Presence Engagement Profile Adopter Rank (%of 26 Rating 2009 channels) University of Maven Progressive Pennsylvania: Wharton Joint 1 92% 49 Harvard Maven Progressive Business School 3 61.5% 42 MIT Sloan Maven Progressive School of Management 9 61.5% 35 Lancaster Selective Cautious University Management School 27 53% 31 Imperial Selective Cautious College Business School 39 50% 31 Manchester Selective Cautious Business School 32 54% 28 Warwick Selective Cautious Business School 37 50% 28 City University: Selective Cautious Cass 41 50% 27 North Western Selective Cautious University: Kellogg 21 38% 25 Columbia Selective Cautious Business School 4 57% 24 London Wallflower Non- Business School Joint 1 50% 33 adopter University of Wallflower Non- Oxford: Saïd 20 46% 30 adopter Cranfield Wallflower Non- School of adopter Management 35 50% 24 Stanford Wallflower Non- University GSB 6 35% 22 adopter Yale School of Wallflower Non- Management 19 27% 18 adopter University of Wallflower Non- Cambridge: adopter Judge 17 38% 17 New York Wallflower Non- University: adopter Stern 10 27% 17 Dartmouth Wallflower Non- College: Tuck 13 27% 11 adopter University of Wallflower Non- Strathclyde adopter Business School 41 15% 8 University of Wallflower Non- Chicago: Booth 11 15% 6 adopter

96 Engagement Profiling After analysing their internal and external use of Web2.0 and their engagement, the Business Schools were allocated an engagement profile, following the careful analysis of the data collected. The engagement profiles allocated were as follows; Figure 5.2 : Engagement Profiling of the Business Schools In the Engagement DB Study 2009, the results of channel presence (X-axis) and engagement (Y-axis) were displayed on a graph, making it easier for the reader to gauge the performance of each brand. The same has been done for the 20 Business Schools analysed (see Figure 5.3).

97 Figure 5.3 : Business School Channel Presence and Engagement Graph Business School Channel Presence and Engagement 60 50 Wharton MIT Sloan 40 Engagement Manchester Harvard 30 Stanford 20 London 10 Booth Strathclyde 0 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 Channel Presence The key for the graph is below: 5.2. Adoption of Web2.0 by Business Schools The third objective of the research related to analysing the extent to which each Business School is using Web2.0 applications, both internally and externally. After evaluating each website using the method described in Chapter 4, the results were entered into two tables.

98 Two separate tables were used to clearly show the results of the website analysis; one to show the use of Web2.0 on the Business School‟s own website (Internal Analysis, see Appendix One) and the other to show the presence of each Business School on external Web2.0 websites (External Analysis, see Appendix Two). There were 17 channels analysed internally and 9 channels analysed externally, making a total of 26 channels, in which each Business School could be present or not. There were 13 categories of Web2.0 application eg. UGC (User-generated content) and Social and Professional networking sites. For each of these 13 categories, an engagement score was given, based on the Business Schools engagement with the applications in the given category. As previously explained in Chapter 3, the engagement score was between 0 and 5 and was taken from the Engagement DB study. The maximum score which could be achieved was therefore:  Channel presence: 26  Engagement: 13 categories * possible 5 points = 65 This score would show that the Business School was fully utilising the Web2.0 applications on offer and was not only present in all 26 channels, but that the School was engaged with the channels, maximising their performance. An overview of the results is presented in Table 5.4 below. The results are ranked according to Web2.0 ie. Channel presence.

99 Table 5.4 : Business School Ranking in terms of Web2.0 Use (Channel Presence) TOTAL CHANNEL GLOBAL PRESENCE MBA (out of 26 RANK BUSINESS SCHOOL channels) 2009 University of Pennsylvania: Wharton 24 1 Harvard Business School 16 3 MIT Sloan School of Management 16 9 London Business School 15 1 Lancaster University Management School 14 27 Imperial College Business School 14 39 University of Oxford: Saïd 13 20 Manchester Business School 13 32 Warwick Business School 13 37 City University: Cass 13 41 North Western University: Kellogg 13 21 Columbia Business School 12 4 Cranfield School of Management 10 35 Stanford University GSB 10 6 Yale School of Management 9 19 University of Cambridge: Judge 7 17 New York University: Stern 7 10 Dartmouth College: Tuck 7 13 University of Strathclyde Business School 4 41 University of Chicago: Booth 4 11 An initial analysis of the results indicates that there is a large spread of Web2.0 adoption by Business Schools. 70% of the Business Schools analysed were found to be using less than 50% of Web2.0 channels, which indicates quite a limited adoption of Web2.0 technologies by these Business Schools. As expected, many of the US Business Schools were present in many channels. Wharton Business School was present in 92% of the channels available, Harvard and MIT Sloan School of Management were both present in 61% of channels and London Business School flew the flag for the UK with its presence in 58% of channels.

100 When the results of the analysis are compared with each Business School‟s Global MBA Rank taken from the Financial Times List 2009 (Financial Times Online, 2009), it can be said that the use of Web2.0 applications and technologies is not in line with the ranking of the Business School. It should however be noted that the Business Schools nearer the top of the Global MBA Rankings (2009) are those which are present in the most Web2.0 channels. 5.2.1. Internal Evaluation: Use of Web2.0 applications on Business Schools‟ own website Table 5.5 and Figure 5.4 below show the internal uptake of Web2.0 technologies by the 20 Business Schools analysed. In terms of categories, Table 5.5 shows how many of the Schools were using each Web2.0 category. Table 5.5 : Internal Category Presence Internal Categories Number of Business Schools User-Generated Content (UGC) 8 User-Feedback, Opinion and Discussion 8 (User FOD) Rich Internet Applications 19 Folksonomies 11 Feeds 16 Community 17 External Links 17 Figure 5.4 below shows the number of Business Schools present in each internal Web2.0 channel.

101 Figure 5.4 : Internal Channel Evaluation – Use of Web2.0 on Business Schools‟ own website Internal Criteria Internal… 20 18 17 17 Number of Business Schools 16 16 16 14 12 10 9 8 8 8 8 6 5 5 5 4 4 4 3 2 2 0 0 0 Internal Web2.0 Channel When evaluating the specifics of the internal Web2.0 analysis, it was clear that the most commonly used Web2.0 category was RIA (Rich Internet Applications), with a total of 19 out of the 20 Business Schools using them on their websites. Podcasts/Vodcasts was the most adopted application with 16 Business Schools utilising this Web2.0 application on their website. The majority of the podcasts on the websites were informative, telling prospective students all about the Business School, the campus and telling them what to expect when going there to study. Although extremely popular and definitely informative for stakeholders of the Business School, this is a very “inside-out” approach to marketing (Hamill, 2009). The better podcasts were those which were created by student teams and featured conversions with recent graduates. These podcasts would make the listener feel less „shouted at‟ (“Choose us! We‟re the best business school!”) and as if they can relate more with the video.

102 User Generated Content (UGC), considered one of the main features of Web2.0 was only adopted by the minority (8) of Business Schools. 8 Business Schools offered the facility for user generated text/blogs on their websites. There was however a drawback to this, as most blog posts had to be firstly sent to the webmaster, before they would be shown on the website – this is not “outside-in” UGC. Only 5 websites allowed for the upload of videos and images, which could be part of the internal blog or learning environment on the site. In terms of User „Feedback, Opinion and Discussion‟ (User FOD), the situation is very similar to that of UGC, with only 8 Business Schools utilising this category of Web2.0 on their website. 5 websites offered the user the opportunity to participate in an online forum, where they could benefit from the opinions of others. The opportunity for the user to provide „feedback, ratings and reviews‟ was even less common, with only 4 websites offering this on their website. One application which was quite widely adopted was the social network. 17 out of the 20 Business School websites offered some sort of social community, most of which were an online learning community, where students in certain classes could network with each other and gain access to learning materials. None of the websites analysed offered an „online chat‟ facility and the social networks which existed were not very advanced and could be improved. From analysing the internal situation of the websites, it could be argued that Business Schools are willing to adopt Web2.0 technologies and implement Web2.0 applications on their website, but that they would much rather implement those applications which they have the most control over, such as mapping mashups and news and weather widgets. The results suggest that Business Schools would rather avoid the uncertainty which comes hand in hand with implementing UGC and User FOD on their website. The Business Schools who would rather avoid these Web2.0 categories are operating a very „inside-out‟ approach to the marketing and management of their website, whereas those websites who dare to let their users contribute to the website content, will in time reap the rewards.

103 It can however be argued that this might not be the case, as simpler Web2.0 applications, such as content feeds and links to external Web2.0, were not implemented by all 20 Business Schools. This does suggest a lack of knowledge about Web2.0 technologies and a lack of understanding about the benefits they can bring to an organisation – two issues which were explored in detail later, during the third phase of the research, the interview phase. 5.2.2. External Evaluation: Business Schools‟ presence on external Web2.0 sites It tends to be the case the organisations are more likely to implement Web2.0 in the form of external activities, such as becoming involved with social and professional networking websites eg. Linkedin and Facebook. This does show a willingness to embrace new technologies and is a progressive approach towards become technologically aware and advanced. The number of Business Schools present in each external Web2.0 category is shown in Table 5.6 below: Table 5.6 : External Category Presence External Category Number of Business Schools Social and Professional Networking 20 Sites Twitter 17 Multimedia Sharing Sites 13 Podcasts/Audiocasts 12 Blogs 11 Mapping Tools 12 In order to measure each Business Schools‟ presence on external Web2.0 sites, 6 channels were analysed, ranging from social networking sites to the use of mapping tools (Figure 5.5).

104 Figure 5.5 : External Evaluation – Presence in external Web2.0 Channels External Criteria Number of Business Schools 20 18 18 17 17 16 14 12 12 12 12 11 10 8 7 6 4 2 External Criteria 2 0 External Web2.0 Channel As expected, all 20 of the Business Schools analysed were in some way involved with social and professional networking sites, which proves that most of them are pro-actively trying to become involved in the world of Web2.0 and social media. The most popular social/professional networking site used by the Business Schools was Linkedin (90%) closely followed by Facebook, which was used by 85% of the schools analysed. When analysing a presence on Facebook and Linkedin, it was necessary to analyse only the official pages/profiles, which did prove difficult, with so many unofficial pages on these sites. The official pages had thousands of „fans‟ and displayed official information about the Business School, such as the address, the reason why the groups were set up and the names and occupations of the administrators. It was occasionally noticed that the unofficial pages had more of a following than the official pages – this implies a lack of focus on Web2.0 and also a lack of strategic focus, sometimes doing more harm to the Business School‟s reputation than good.

105 The fact that „Twitter‟ was allocated a category of its own, is testimony to its power and potential. Business School involvement on Twitter was a surprising 85%, with 17 Business Schools registered with the social tool. Despite quite a high channel presence, it was noticed than only a handful or Business Schools are really engaging with the technology, again implying experimentation, rather than strategic decision. Many of the accounts were not regularly updated, the Business Schools were not „following‟ many other Twitter users and the number of followers of their accounts were extremely low compared to the potential number of followers they could attract, had they implemented a social media strategy from the outset. A similar conclusion was met after analysing the use of Multimedia sharing sites such as YouTube and Flickr. As can be seen from Table 5.7 below, 13 out of the 20 Business Schools are registered as using multimedia sharing sites, the majority of whom choose YouTube as their preferred channel. Table 5.7 : External Presence on Multimedia Sharing Sites Multimedia Sharing Sites 13 YouTube 12 Flickr 7 The comparison between the use of social networking sites and multimedia sharing sites is clear to see, as most of the Business Schools were not engaging with the applications – the pages were not regularly updated, there were no comments on the content and the channels was not professionally presented. There were however a few Business Schools who were attempting to regularly use their YouTube and Flickr channels, updating content every couple of weeks for the benefit of their users. Said Business School, for example, which is part of Oxford University in the UK had uploaded a total of 62 videos and had 1118 subscribers to their YouTube channel. As far as podcasts are concerned, internally there were 16 Business Schools who had podcasts on their website. Externally however, only 12 Business Schools had published podcasts on itunes.

106 There was a large variety of the quality of these podcasts, with some Business Schools excelling at engaging their listeners. In addition to internal blogs, external blogs were also analysed, despite the fact that they were difficult to identify. It was difficult to assess which blogs were official and which were not, but after careful analysis it was concluded that 55% of Business Schools had an external blog. These blogs were used for a variety of purposes and were aimed at a variety of audiences, ranging from prospective students to alumni of the Business School. The involvement in blogging was not as high as one would think, showing a lack of commitment for staff at each of the Business Schools, who do not want to spend time blogging when they could be attending to other tasks day- to-day. A comparison between the internal and external channel use highlighted the fact that there is no link between those Business Schools who have a higher presence in internal channels and their presence in external channels. As can be seen from Table 5.8 below, the Business Schools with a high internal channel presence, such as London Business School, didn‟t necessarily also have a high external channel presence. This again shows a possible lack of awareness about the benefits and opportunities available through the use of external Web2.0 channels.

107 Table 5.8 : Internal and External Channel Presence as a % of the number of channels, ranked in order of internal channel presence % Internal Channel External Channel Business School Presence (% of 17) Presence (% of 9) University of Pennsylvania: Wharton 88.2% 100.0% London Business School 58.8% 55.6% Harvard Business School 52.9% 77.8% MIT Sloan School of Management 52.9% 77.8% Imperial College Business School 47.1% 66.7% North Western University: Kellogg 47.1% 55.6% Lancaster University Management School 41.2% 77.8% Warwick Business School 41.2% 66.7% Stanford University GSB 41.2% 33.3% Manchester Business School 35.3% 77.8% City University: Cass 35.3% 77.8% Columbia Business School 35.3% 66.7% University of Oxford: Saïd 35.3% 77.8% Yale School of Management 35.3% 33.3% University of Cambridge: Judge 23.5% 33.3% Cranfield School of Management 23.5% 66.7% New York University: Stern 17.6% 44.4% Dartmouth College: Tuck 17.6% 44.4% University of Strathclyde Business School 5.9% 33.3% University of Chicago: Booth 5.9% 33.3% When comparing the internal with the external involvement of each Business School, it was concluded that on the whole, Business Schools are utilising external Web2.0 technologies far more than they are utilising the internal applications. For some more than others, the gap between their internal and external use is relatively large, showing a bias towards the easier to implement, less risky, external Web2.0 technologies. Creating a Facebook page or a YouTube channel is far easier than having to spend time and resources on creating an internal community or online chat facility within the Business School‟s own website. Lack of resources and technical knowledge are two issues which were explored later, during phase three of the research.

108 5.3. Web2.0 Engagement As was previously explained, each Business School was allocated an „engagement rating‟ for each of the 13 Web2.0 categories. A rating of 0-5 was awarded and then a total was calculated by adding the internal engagement rating to the external engagement rating for each Business School. Table 5.9 below shows the results of the engagement analysis alongside the channel presence of each Business School. It was evaluated that there had to be a link between their total channel presence and their total engagement rating, due to the fact that presence in more channels means a higher possible engagement rating. The reason for carrying out the engagement analysis on top of the website (internal and external) analysis, was to better understand the way in which the 20 Business Schools were using each Web2.0 category. Throughout the analysis process it was clear that many Business Schools were present in some channels, but they weren‟t necessarily using the channel to its full potential, as described above in section 1.1.2. when speaking about Facebook pages not being regularly updated. It was therefore necessary to gauge which Business Schools were actively using these channels and which were doing their reputation harm by idly watching potential students go by.

109 Table 5.9: Business School ranking in order of Total Engagement with Web2.0 technologies both internally and externally TOTAL TOTAL CHANNEL ENGAGEMENT BUSINESS SCHOOL PRESENCE RATING University of Pennsylvania: Wharton 24 49 MIT Sloan School of Management 16 42 Harvard Business School 16 35 Manchester Business School 13 33 Imperial College Business School 14 31 North Western University: Kellogg 13 31 Columbia Business School 12 30 Lancaster University Management School 14 28 City University: Cass 13 28 Warwick Business School 13 27 Stanford University GSB 10 25 London Business School 15 24 University of Oxford: Saïd 13 24 Yale School of Management 9 22 University of Cambridge: Judge 7 18 Cranfield School of Management 10 17 Dartmouth College: Tuck 7 17 New York University: Stern 7 11 University of Chicago: Booth 4 8 University of Strathclyde Business School 4 6 After calculating the average engagement score and splitting the Business Schools into „above average‟ and „below average‟ sections, they were each allocated one of the following engagement profiles. The criteria for the profiling were:  Mavens: present in 16 or more channels and above average engagement  Butterflies: present in 16 or more channels and below average engagement  Selectives: present in 15 or fewer channels and above average engagement  Wallflowers: present in 15 or fewer channels and below average engagement

110 Figure 5.6 : Results of the Engagement Profiling of 20 Business Schools It is clear to see from Figure 5.6 that the majority of Business Schools are not engaging with Web2.0 as much as others are, the „Wallflowers‟. There are three clear leaders in terms of Web2.0 adoption and engagement, the three „Mavens‟. The „Selectives‟ are engaging in certain channels but are not present in enough channels to be leveraging the benefits of Web2.0. Another way of profiling the Business Schools is to look at them as progressive, cautious and non-adopters (adapted from Moore‟s (1999) „Technology Adoption Life-Cycle‟). Innovators  Mavens: Progressive Adopters – representing a more advanced level in the adoption of Web2.0 technologies. Early Majority  Selectives: Cautious Adopters – representing some progress, albeit basic adoption of Web2.0 technologies. Some proof is needed that the technologies can be successful.

111 Laggards  Wallflowers: Non-adopters – representing no or very minimum use of Web2.0 technologies. Firm proof and evidence of success is required. Based on the profiling of each business school, it is clear to see those who are clearly knowledgeable about Web2.0 technologies and those who aren‟t. Table 5.10 below presents an easily-understandable table, presenting the level of adoption of each Business School. Table 5.10 : Technology Adoption Level of Business Schools Progressive Adopters Cautious Adopters Non-Adopters University of Pennsylvania: Lancaster University London Business School Wharton Management School Harvard Business School Manchester Business School University of Cambridge: Judge MIT Sloan School of Warwick Business School University of Oxford: Saïd Management Imperial College Business Cranfield School of School Management City University: Cass University of Strathclyde Business School Columbia Business School Stanford University GSB North Western University: New York University: Stern Kellogg University of Chicago: Booth Dartmouth College: Tuck Yale School of Management Using the Engagement DB methodology, the Business Schools‟ channel presence and engagement ratings were plotted on a graph (Figure 5.7) in order for the reader to gauge the performance of each Business School and to allow for easy comparison.

112 Figure 5.7 : Business School Channel Presence and Engagement Graph Business School Channel Presence and Engagement 60 3 50 Wharton 1 MIT Sloan 40 Engagement Manchester Harvard 30 Stanford 20 London 2 4 10 Booth Strathclyde 0 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 Channel Presence As is presented on the graph, the four engagement profiles can clearly be identified and the Business School within each of these quadrants are clear to see. 1 = Mavens 2 = Butterflies 3 = Selectives 4 = Wallflowers The quadrants are separated by red lines which represent the average engagement score of 25.3 (horizontal line) and the minimum channel presence required for the profiles of „Butterflies‟ and „Mavens, which is 16 (vertical line).

113 As can be seen from the graph, although the three most highly engaged Business Schools all share the engagement profile of „Maven‟, it‟s clear to see that Harvard and MIT Sloan are much closer to the „Selectives‟ in terms of channel presence and engagement, than they are to Wharton. Wharton seems to be out there on its own, highly present in Web2.0 channels and highly engaged. At the other end of the spectrum, in quadrant number 4 (Wallflowers), there are Strathclyde and Booth, who both have a low channel presence and low engagement, but who are not as far away from the other Wallflowers, as Harvard and MIT Sloan are away from Wharton. It is also important to mention that there are several Business Schools which appear to be borderline and between profiles. Harvard and MIT Sloan are borderline between Selectives and Mavens and Stanford is not quite into the „Selectives‟ category. Perhaps with attention to Web2.0 marketing strategy, these Schools could improve on their positions and it‟s possible that the Business Schools in each profile will alter accordingly. 5.4. Chapter Conclusion As can be seen from Table 5.10 above and the other findings of the research conducted, despite the fact that some Business Schools are quite progressive in their adoption of Web2.0 technologies, there are a large number who are being left behind, the „laggards‟, the „non-adopters‟. If these Business Schools don‟t increase their adoption of new technologies, in particular, Web2.0 then other Business School will have the competitive advantage with regard to marketing and will be more likely to be providing a better overall experience for their students, staff and alumni. Having analysed the extent to which the 20 Business Schools are using Web2.0 and Social Media, both internally and externally to their own websites, and having analysed the results of this analysis, one clear question remains: why are the majority of Business Schools not engaging with this revolutionary technology?

114 Chapter six attempts to answer this question, presenting the results from Phase Two of the research undertaken: best practice case examples.

115 CHAPTER SIX: BEST PRACTICE CASE EXAMPLES (Phase Two)

116 CHAPTER SIX: BEST PRACTICE CASE EXAMPLES (Phase Two) Chapter six aims to meet objective four of this dissertation: to use the findings from the analysis to present 3 „best practice‟ case examples. Using the findings from the „Engagement Profiling‟, each case example will be split into internal and external activities, in order for the reader to better understand what each of these Business Schools are doing with regard to Web2.0. The Business Schools used for this chapter were the three „Mavens‟ identified; Wharton School, MIT Sloan School of Management and Harvard Business School. Each Business School is clearly engaging with Web2.0 technologies, but it is beneficial to analyse the way in which they are each doing so. Ranked in order of engagement, the results of the internal and external Web2.0 analysis for each of the three Business Schools were follows: Table 6.1 : Phase One Results for „Mavens‟ Business School Internal External Total Engagement Channel Channel Channel Score Presence Presence Presence Wharton School 15 9 24 49 MIT Sloan School of 9 7 16 42 Management Harvard Business 9 7 16 35 School The three case examples will be presented in order of „engagement score‟ with the top Business School, „Wharton School‟ being presented in more detail referring to the ROI (Return on Investment) for Wharton and the drivers of future business performance (4Is). 6.1. University of Pennsylvania: Wharton The Wharton School of the University of Pennsylvania was found to be the most engaged Business School out of the 20 schools analysed. Wharton had a total channel presence of 24 and an engagement score of 49, therefore earning it the engagement profile of „Maven‟.

117 The website in question can be found at: http://www.wharton.upenn.edu/. For this case example, the internal and external best practice examples will be presented and then a deeper description of Wharton‟s activities will be given. The future business performance of Wharton will be discussed in terms of the „4Is‟ previously presented; Involvement, Interactivity, Intimacy and Influence and their ROI (Return on Investment) will also be analysed. 6.1.1. The Wharton School: Internal Wharton was present in 15 channels internally, which helped the School to gain a high total engagement score. On the home-page of the website, visitors to the website are greeted with links to Wharton‟s external social networking presence (Figure 6.1), which instantly tells the visitor that Wharton is Web2.0 aware. Figure 6.1 : Wharton – Links to External Social Networking Presence Links to external social networking presence eg. Facebook and Linkedin. It‟s also important to note, that Wharton have links to their external social networking presence throughout their website, not just on their home-page. The text box „Find Wharton On..‟ appears on many pages throughout the website.

118 This provides a consistent message to website visitors who will know that Wharton is a Business School which likes to interact and is waiting for the visitor to join them on these Web2.0 channels. Content Feeds As far as feeds are concerned, Wharton has both types (IN and OUT) on their website. There is a section of the website called „Knowledge@Wharton‟ which involves bringing in content about Wharton, automatically from outside sources (content feeds IN). This indicates to users that Wharton is in touch with its environment and wants to share this information with its stakeholders. Figure 6.2 : Knowledge at Wharton User-Generated Content There are several student blogs on the Wharton site which are aimed at informing and helping prospective students to the Business School. User-generated Content was only adopted by 8 out of the 20 Business Schools and Wharton was one of them. The students blogs are called „Student Diaries‟ (see Figure 6.3) on the site and allow the students to write about any aspect of student life, from walking to school on an Autumn morning, to employment after graduation. A „tag cloud‟ (see Figure 6.3) is used in this section of the website, something which is not used by many Business Schools. It‟s an effective way of giving website visitors what they want, much faster.

119 The visitor can simply click on one of the tags and will then be presented will all the content relevant to their chosen topic. Figure 6.3 : Wharton Tag Cloud and Student Diaries The „Student Diaries‟ on the Wharton website. The „Tag Cloud‟ on the Wharton website. User Feedback and Discussion Very few of the Business Schools analysed had any form of „User FOD‟, but Wharton has an excellent variety of applications. Their website boasts a large discussion section, where students can speak to each other about many different topics (see Figure 6.4 ). Figure 6.4 : Wharton – Discussion Forum

120 This forum allows for students to interact with each other and collaborate on ideas before they have even been accepted to the Business School. Not only does Wharton have a discussion forum, but details of the conversations in that discussion forum are displayed throughout the Wharton website, on the appropriate page eg. On the „Leadership in Action‟ section of the website, there is a discussion bubble (see Figure 6.5) displaying relevant discussion threads. Wharton are leading the way with this technology on their website. Figure 6.5 : Wharton – Relevant Discussion Forum Threads displayed throughout website 6.1.2. The Wharton School: External Wharton is present in 9 external channels with most engagement occurring in the categories of „Twitter‟ and „Social and Professional Networking Sites‟. Wharton is also involved in „Multimedia Sharing Sites‟ such as Flickr and YouTube. Twitter Wharton have over 4,000 followers on Twitter and are following 463, a large number compared to other Business Schools. Tweets are made regularly: at least one a day and the content is again about achievement, as well as about the economy. Wharton clearly sees itself as a pioneer in the Business School world and feel as if they can offer advice to their followers regarding economic and business issues.

121 Social and Professional Networking Sites On Facebook, Wharton has over 5,000 fans with whom Wharton tries to interact. The content on Facebook is not so much geared towards prospective students, but more so towards current students and alumni, who would be interested in the achievements and podcasts of Wharton Professors (Figure 6.6 below). Wharton do engage with the students on Facebook, replying to comments and posting useful links for them to look at. Figure 6.6 : Wharton – Facebook Content Linkedin is also widely used by Wharton, but mainly as an Alumni network. Many American Universities look after their Alumni well and Wharton are no exception to that – they‟re clearly very proud of their students, past and present. Multimedia Sharing Sites Unlike other Business Schools, Wharton is involved with Multimedia Sharing sites such as YouTube and Flickr. On Flickr (Figure 6.7 below), the Business School post photos of events and of the campus eg. In Winter, when the first snow has fallen. The benefit of posting such photos is the sense of the relationship between the students and the Business School - perhaps also a feeling of nostalgia for the Alumni of the Business School, as they remember their time at Wharton.

122 Figure 6.7 : Wharton Flickr Photostream On YouTube, Wharton has their own channel with the opportunity for stakeholders of the Business School to comment and rate the videos shown there. The majority of the videos on the Wharton YouTube channel (Figure 6.8 below) are interviews or speeches from Academics on a particular topic of interest. Figure 6.8 : Wharton YouTube Channel

123 6.1.3. Return on Investment (ROI) and Impact of Wharton‟s Web2.0 Activities Wharton are clearly using Web2.0 channels and Social Media to their advantage, but how effective are their activities? Is there any sort of return on their investment (ROI)? What has the impact of such activities been on the Business School and on their students? It is possible to answer these questions to some extent, using purely the data collected from the analysis conducted and by looking at the Wharton website. By analysing Wharton‟s activities in terms of performance indicators (the „4Is‟), the impact on the Business School can be measured. These 4Is (Hamill, 2009) as previously introduced in Chapter 5, can also be thought of as „drivers of future business performance‟. Figure 6.9 : Drivers of Future Business Performance Driver of Future Business Description Performance Involvement Network/community numbers, time spent updating content, frequency of content updates Interaction Actions taken ie. Reading, posting, commenting, recommending Intimacy Affection or aversion to the brand ie. Community sentiments, opinions expressed Influence Advocacy, viral forwards, social bookmarking ROI (Return on Investment) can be calculated using the following formula: Effectively, the „money saved – money spent‟ is the benefit or the return of the investment and when this is divided by the cost of the investment, „money spent‟, the result is called the ROI. When it comes to Web2.0 and Social Media, however, the ROI is not as straight- forward to calculate.

124 Measuring the ROI of Social Media has been said to be impossible, however the social media guide website, www.mashable.com claim that it‟s absolutely possible, although difficult and with the help of analytical tools, anyone can try it. Mashable.com explains that the ROI of Social Media may not be monetary and that in actual fact, the formula is: ROI = (X – Y) / Y where X is your final value and Y is your starting value. The 4Is can be used as performance indicators, allowing Business Schools to gauge the return on their „investment‟ without actually having to make any calculations and without having assign monetary values to their activities. These performance indicators are also drivers of future business performance. The following diagram (Figure 6.10) takes Wharton‟s Web2.0 use and engagement into account and relates these to the „4Is‟:

125 Figure 6.10 : Wharton – Drivers of Future Business Performance Driver of Future Business Description Performance (Wharton School) Involvement  4,000 followers on Twitter.  „Tweets‟ are made every day.  Over 5,000 fans on Facebook.  Facebook page is not updated as often, however it is active.  Flickr channel content is updated regularly, with albums of photos being uploaded Interaction  Good interaction on Twitter, where Wharton also follow 463 people – a large number compared to other Business Schools.  Interaction between Business School and prospective students on Facebook is high. The Business School comments on student posts and provides helpful information.  There is a new „online chat‟ function on the Wharton website, where prospective students can speak with other students and employees of the Business School. Intimacy  The Wharton brand sentiment is positive, with members of the Facebook page „liking‟ a lot of posts created by the Business School.  On Twitter, the sentiment towards Wharton is also positive, with many „tweets‟ about achievements and events.  The „Student Diaries‟ section of the website provide positive insights into life at Wharton, with the main tags being „parties‟, „student‟, „life‟, „summer‟ and „recruitment‟. Influence  Students are clearly acting as advocates for the Business School as they‟re writing in their online student diaries, describing their Wharton experience with prospective students at the Business School.

126  There is „Alumni News‟ on the website, which shows prospective and current students what can be achieved with a qualification from Wharton. The main benefits to Wharton of using Web2.0 and Social Media can be said to be;  Development of relationships with students on social networking sites such as Facebook and Linkedin.  Having a following of stakeholders in one place (ie. On Twitter) waiting to interact with the Business School.  Using Web2.0 and Social Media to generate a conversation between prospective students and their current students.  Creating brand advocates who are now able to share their opinions and experiences of Wharton through many different channels. The cost of setting up these social networks and integrating Web2.0 into their website would have been very low for Wharton, as it is for any organisation who wants to use them. It can therefore be said that the ROI (Return on Investment) for Wharton is extremely high, making Web2.0 and Social Media engagement an extremely worth-while and beneficial activity. 6.1.4. Summary Internally, Wharton is far ahead of many other Business Schools. Wharton use „User Feedback and Discussion‟, which is hardly used at all by most of the other Business Schools analysed. Their discussion forum allows prospective, current and past students to interact with one another and to collaboratively answer questions which any prospective students may have. Wharton display links to their external social networking and multimedia sharing site presence, not just on their home-page or in a „connect with us‟ section, but throughout the website, allowing visitors to the website to instantly see that they can connect with Wharton in many different ways and are encouraged to do so.

127 Externally, Wharton are engaged with social networking sites such as Facebook and Linkedin and do interact with students on these platforms. As opposed to using Facebook for recruiting new students, the Wharton Facebook site also benefits current students, who can see the latest news from Wharton Academics and the Business School itself. YouTube and Flickr allow Wharton to extend their reach even further. Posting photos on Flickr and videos on YouTube add to the sense of community within the Business School and do encourage interaction. 6.2. Harvard Business School Harvard Business School had a total channel presence of 16 and an engagement score of 35, earning it the engagement profile of „Maven‟ (see section 5.2.). The website in question can be found at: http://www.hbs.edu/. 6.2.1. Internal At first glance, the website doesn‟t look very extensive, but within the sections such as „MBA‟ and „Alumni‟, there is more content. It is within these sections of the website that Web2.0 applications are used. Harvard Business School was present in 9 out of the 17 internal Web2.0 channels analysed and was most engaged in the categories of „Community‟ and „External Links‟. Community Harvard have tried to create small communities within their Business School. There is, for example, an MBA community and a larger „Alumni community‟ on the website. The Harvard alumni site boasts a private community forum, new bulletin, links to social networking sites and the opportunity to follow the community via RSS Feed (Content Out RSS Feed). There is also an „Events‟ section, which is regularly updated, allowing the alumni to become further involved with the Business School, helping the Business School to develop relationships with its past students.

128 Having a strong „community feel‟ to the website helps the newly empowered students, as a result of the paradigm shift in power to consumers, to share their views with Harvard and to be part of a community in which there is a common-interest: the Business School. External Links There is a large section of the website dedicated to networking, called „Stay Connected‟, which is displayed on the home-page of the Harvard Business School MBA Website. Within this section are the many links to the various external Web2.0 networking sites, such as Facebook, Linkedin, Twitter and there are also links to the Harvard YouTube channel. The Twitter section of the website is particularly impressive. As can be seen from Figure 6.11 below, a picture of the academic, their name and a link to their Twitter account are presented in order to encourage interaction between website visitors and the Business School. “ Follow on Figure 6.11 : Harvard Business School – Stay Connected Twitter”, with the link taking the user to the Twitter page of Niall Ferguson.

129 This effort by Harvard to involve stakeholders with current academics at the Business School by providing detailed contact information, is an effort to encourage interaction between the two. These „follow me on Twitter‟ links are drawing attention to the fact that not only does Harvard have its own Twitter account, but so to do most of the academics in the Business School, who also have a number of blogs between them. In a way, this „Stay Connected‟ section of the Harvard website is encouraging the engagement between stakeholders eg. students and members of staff at the Business School, allowing for possible 1-to-1 relationships to develop between academics and their „followers‟. Prospective students can not only follow members of staff from Harvard Business School, but they can also gain an insight into life as an MBA student by following a selection of current MBA students. These students have created Twitter accounts in order to share their experiences of the MBA Program in real-time with prospective students. This is an extremely helpful resource for prospective MBA students, but it also allows for the Business School to establish how their course is being perceived by current students. 6.2.2. External Present in 7 external channels, Harvard Business School was discovered to be most engaged with the external Web2.0 categories of „Twitter‟ and „Social and Professional Networking Sites‟, whilst also having the asset of the Harvard Business Review (http://hbr.org/) both as a website and as a blogging platform. Harvard also use YouTube to their advantage. Twitter Harvard Business School have 3,602 followers on their News account and tweet almost every day. As can be seen from Figure 6.12 below, their HBS News Twitter account is very active, with over 1,045 tweets on their account.

130 Figure 6.12 : Harvard Business School News Twitter Account For many Business Schools, the main benefit of using Twitter would be the real-time conversation they can have with prospective, present and past students. Using a Twitter account regularly and effectively can add to the „buzz‟ around the Business School, with stakeholders easily able to keep up to date with news, achievements, competitions and events at the Business School. Twitter adds to the „ongoing conversation‟ which needs to be maintained between a Business School and its publics, in order to build and maintain strong relationships. Social and Professional Networking Sites Harvard Business School used Facebook for the purpose of engaging with prospective students for the MBA program. The page is updated 4 or 5 times every month and there is a degree of interaction between HBS and their prospective MBA students, as there are comments made by students on the posts written by the Business School. Figure 6.13 below shows the HBS MBA Facebook page and shows that several students „like‟ posts made and do in fact comment on what the Business School is saying.

131 Figure 6.13 : Harvard Business School MBA Program Facebook Page Despite the fact that the page is used well for marketing purposes and for keeping in contact with prospective students, there is still scope for Harvard to respond more to their students when they have enquiries, scope to engage more – this is perhaps done via private mail, but the information could be useful to all students if displayed on the MBA Program Facebook page. YouTube Harvard Business School also have an effective YouTube channel, which is used for recruitment purposes, displaying videos from students and academics about the benefits of studying at Harvard and providing information on recruitment. The Harvard Business School YouTube channel also displays links to the „Stay Connected‟ section on the Harvard website and to the Business School‟s Twitter account. This is an excellent way of driving traffic from one Web2.0 platform to another and therefore increasing the Business School following on each (see Figure 6.14).

132 Figure 6.14 : Harvard Business School YouTube Channel Harvard YouTube channel uses links to drive traffic to other Web2.0 platforms, such as Twitter 6.2.3. Summary In summary, Harvard Business School have created a sense of community on their website, with students, both past and present, being able to interact with each other and keep up to date with Business School events. The Business School are clearly also encouraging interaction with their students (prospective, present and past) and stakeholders by having an excellent „Stay Connected‟ section on their website, providing links to the Harvard Twitter, Facebook, Linkedin and YouTube channels. Externally, Harvard are using Web2.0 and Social Media for marketing purposes, in order to attract and inform prospective MBA students. There is scope here for more interaction between the Business School and the individual students, but all in all the Business School has the right idea with regard to the use of the Social Networking platforms.

133 6.3. MIT Sloan School of Management MIT Sloan School of Management had a total channel presence of 16 and an engagement score of 42, therefore earning it the engagement profile of „Maven‟. The website in question can be found at: http://mitsloan.mit.edu/. 6.3.1. Internal Present in 9 internal channels, it was analysed that MIT Sloan were most engaged in the categories of „Rich Internet Applications‟, „User-Generated Content‟ and „External Links‟, as well as having an Alumni network and excellent RSS Feed options. Rich Internet Applications The MIT Sloan website has several rich internet applications, including a large „Podcast‟ section. There are many mp3 podcasts available and instructions are provided, allowing users to easily listen or download their favourite podcasts. A variety of these podcasts were created by students and the fact that current and prospective students can listen to these, provides an insight into the lives of successful students who have achieved during their time at MIT. These students podcasts are called „Student Stories‟ in the podcast section of the website and can be found on itunes, podnova or simply downloaded from the MIT website in an mp3 format. To allow the inclusion of all students, there are also download instructions provided at the side of the page, to help those who don‟t know how podcast software operates. MIT Sloan also use a small widget on the podcast section of the website, which cleverly allows students/companies to input their email address, in order for them to be informed when a new podcast is uploaded to the website.

134 User-Generated Content There are also many video blogs available, created by MBA students for the benefit of other students, both present and prospective (see Figure 6.15 below). UGC was a Web2.0 category which was not highly adopted by the 20 Business Schools analysed. Only 8 out of the 20 Business Schools had some sort of User-generated Content on their websites and MIT Sloan has integrated this very well. Figure 6.15 : MIT Sloan Video Blog Section Current MIT Sloan MBA students In addition, there is also a very good feedback section on the MIT Sloan website, which allows users to contact the School of Management about the website itself or simply with questions about the courses on offer. The growth of customer empowerment has led to an increase in the need for students to express themselves and the need for them to be in communication with their Business School. Having a feedback section on their website allows MIT Sloan to learn from their students, learn what they like, what they don‟t like, new features they‟d like to see on the website etc. Adopting the Groundswell strategy of „listening‟ (Li & Bernoff, 2009) is of paramount importance in the age of customer empowerment.

135 External Links The MIT Sloan website has many links to external social networking sites, driving traffic to these websites and demonstrating to all website visitors that MIT Sloan has a presence on other sites, for the purpose of networking. The most obvious links appear on the Alumni section of the website (Figure 6.16 below). Figure 6.16 : MIT Sloan - Links to External Social Networking Sites Links to Facebook and Twitter from the MIT Sloan Alumni page of the website. There are also links to external social networking sites on the MIT Sloan School of Management home-page which allows users to instantly see that the school is involved with external sites and has a presence there. This instantly widens the potential following for the Business School, because as opposed to only having information centrally on one website, there are many places on the internet, where stakeholders of the Business School can interact and collaborate with the Business School. By showing that they are in these Web2.0 channels, waiting to interact, the Business Schools is encouraging the participation of their stakeholders and are effectively saying „we value your loyalty, come and talk to us‟. 6.3.2. External Externally, MIT Sloan School of Management were analysed to be present in 7 channels and to be most engaged with the categories of „Twitter‟, „Social and Professional Networking Sites‟ and „Blogs‟.

136 Twitter MIT Sloan School of Management have 3,627 followers on Twitter and the tweets are regular, almost every day. MIT Sloan are relatively new to Twitter, with only 195 tweets so far, as opposed to Harvard‟s 1,045 tweets. The content of the tweets is very relevant to the School of Management and are normally about Professors or students who have achieved. There are also tweets about research which is being conducted – this would help to „create a buzz‟ around the research, generating interest in the subject area. It would be interested to see whether or not Twitter is also used as a recruitment tool at the appropriate time of the year. As MIT Sloan are relatively new to Twitter, this is perhaps something they could look into in the future, along with the promotion of Business School events. Social and Professional Networking Sites MIT Sloan Management School are also involved in social networking on Facebook and Linkedin. The MIT Sloan Facebook page has 1,700 fans and is used for providing information to prospective students. There is a good deal of interaction between the School and prospective students, with the School responding to comments posted by students. Figure 6.17 below shows an example of the interaction between students and the School. Figure 6.17 : MIT Sloan School of Management Facebook Interaction Example Comment from prospective student, followed by MIT Sloan providing a useful link to their admissions website. Reply from a member of the MIT Sloan MBA Admissions team, in response to the prospective student‟s question.

137 This level of interaction between a Business School and its students is of great benefit to both parties. Interaction on the part of the Business School, says to the student „we care about you as an individual‟ and interaction on the part of the students, says to the Business School that their students are interested in what they have to say and that they should be engaging with them more in order to build up strong relationships with them. Blogs MIT Sloan School of Management are highly engaged with blogging. As well as having video blogs and written student blogs internally, there are also several external MIT Sloan blogs. The MIT blog at http://mitsloanblog.typepad.com/ is a platform for student blogging, with very regular postings and links to the MIT website and MIT Flickr site. Figure 6.18 shows the student blogging site. Figure 6.18 : MIT Sloan Student Blog Site 6.3.3. Summary In summary, MIT Sloan are utilising „Rich Internet Applications‟ such as Podcasts and „User-Generated Content‟ such as blogs, internally on their website and have links to their external social networking presence.

138 Externally, MIT Sloan use social networking sites such as Facebook and Linkedin to communicate with prospective and past students (Alumni). Twitter is possibly used more frequently than Facebook, with regular tweets from the Business School. There could be improvement in the amount of interaction between MIT Sloan and their students, but the Business School is present in several channels and in those channels is quite well engaged already, with much more interaction than many other Business Schools. 6.4 Chapter Conclusion Chapter six has successfully fulfilled objective four of this dissertation: to use the findings from the analysis to present 3 „best practice‟ case examples. Firstly, the case example of Wharton was presented in great depth, explaining the Business School‟s internal and external activities and linking these to business performance and their ROI. Harvard Business School and MIT Sloan School of Management case examples were also presented with best-practice examples provided to illustrate what can be achieved through the use of Web2.0 and Social Media. The Wharton School example was presented in more detail, with reference to the ROI (Return on Investment) for the Business School. The Wharton School can be utilised as a benchmark for all other Business Schools who wish to become involved with Web2.0 and Social Media. With a presence in 24 out of 26 channels and a total engagement score of 49 out of 65, The Wharton School of the University of Pennsylvania is clearly focused on engaging with prospective students, current students and their Alumni, who all show a keen interest in interacting with the Business School and adding to their student experience. The Business School exhibits a „customer-led‟ approach to Marketing (Gay, Charlesworth & Esen, 2007), whereby the Business School converses with its students in order to find out what they want and then the School uses Social Media and Web2.0 to try to satisfy those needs.

139 Since the analysis of the Business Schools Web2.0 use and engagement, Wharton have introduced an excellent example of Web2.0 in practice: an online chat facility, where students can converse and collaborate in real-time (see Figure 6.19 below). Chats are hosted bi-weekly and is mainly for the use of applicants to the Business School ie. Prospective students. Figure 6.19 : Wharton Live Chat After presenting the case example of Wharton, it is clear to see that they are by far the most Web2.0 engaged Business School out of the 20 who were analysed. Harvard Business School and MIT Sloan School of Management are also on the right track to leveraging the full potential of Web2.0. It is the hope of the researcher, that the 17 other Business Schools will see the activities of these „Mavens‟ and will actively try to follow suit, improving their educational Marketing and developing their relationship management systems.

140 CHAPTER SEVEN: ISSUES AND CHALLENGES FACING „SELECTIVES‟ AND „WALLFLOWERS‟ (Phase Three)

141 CHAPTER SEVEN: ISSUES AND CHALLENGES FACING „SELECTIVES‟ AND WALLFLOWERS‟ (Phase Three) This chapter aims to fulfil objective five of this dissertation: „To understand Business Schools‟ awareness about the impact and benefits of their Web2.0 activities and the barriers they have experienced in its implementation‟. As was explained in the methodology chapter (Chapter 4, section 4.5.), interviews were conducted out with 6 of the top Business Schools in the UK and in the USA, who were given the engagement profile of „Selective‟ or „Wallflower‟ and 1 interview with the top Business School in the USA and the top „Maven‟, Wharton. Table 4.15 on page 88 shows the Business Schools involved, ranked in order of engagement score, calculated in Phase One of the research. This chapter will present an analysis of the 6 interviews conducted with the „Selectives‟ and „Wallflowers‟, providing comparisons and trends found during the analysis of the conversations. The interview with the top Business School from this research and the top „Maven‟, Wharton, will then be presented in an attempt to compare the strategies, activities and future plans of a „Maven‟ to the common trends of the „Selectives‟ and „Wallflowers‟. 7.1. „Selectives‟ and „Wallflowers‟: Interview Analysis Detailed notes from each interview are to be found in Appendix Five of this dissertation, but this section aims to provide an evaluation of the interviews, comparing and contrasting the issues discussed. The evaluation of the interviews will be organised into the same format as the interviews themselves were - into four main sections; the impact of Web2.0, the drivers for Web2.0 integration, barriers to the implementation and future plans for the Business School.

142 7.1.1. Performance, Impact and Benefits of Using Web2.0 The first area discussed in the interviews was the issue of „performance measurement‟ relating to the impact of Web2.0 on the Business School. The key trends here were found to be; Table 7.1 : Performance Measurement and Benefits of Web2.0 Use Issue Trend % of Business Schools Performance/Impact Performance/Impact of 83% have not yet Measurement Web2.0 involvement analysed the effects of had not yet been Web2.0 in statistical measured. terms. A steady increase has 50% specifically said been seen in the number they had witnessed this of „fans‟ and trend. „followers‟ on Facebook and Twitter. Benefits of Web2.0 Web2.0 engagement 33% specifically said Engagement drives traffic to the that „driving traffic to main Business School the main website‟ was a website. benefit of Web2.0 involvement. Web2.0 engagement 33% related to „building has assisted the relationships‟ as a development of benefit of Web2.0 relationships eg. With involvement. Alumni. It is clear to see from the table above, that all but one of the Business Schools have not yet analysed the effectiveness of their, although minimal for some, Web2.0 and Social Media involvement. Several of the Business Schools gave a reason for this lack of analysis: that Web2.0 and Social Media impact is difficult to measure. This may be the case, but as previously explained in Chapter six, it‟s perfectly possible for organisations to measure the impact of their activities in some way, using the many analytical tools available. Several of the Business Schools explained that, although they hadn‟t yet quantified the success of their efforts, they did monitor their Twitter and Facebook followers regularly and that the detailed analysis of their activities was in their future plans.

143 There has been a steady increase in the number of Facebook fans and Twitter followers, This steady increase in the number of followers/fans, may not be down to the actions of the Business School and could simply be the students/stakeholders wanting to become more involved with their educational establishment. There is demand, but the Wallflowers and Selectives are not meeting that demand effectively. Web2.0 and Social Media involvement has had the benefit of driving traffic to the main Business School. When students for example, see on the Business School‟s Facebook page that there is a recruitment event happening in the near future, they are likely to click through to the Business School website in order to find more information. It is at this point that the Business School website must meet the needs of the website visitors. Ease of navigation, for example, is important when website visitors are trying to find important information that can mean the difference between recruiting a new student and not. One of the main benefits of Web2.0 and Social Media which was identified was the development of some sort of relationship with the stakeholders of the Business School. QUOTE REMOVED FOR CONFIDENTIATLITY It was however surprising that the current students of the Business Schools were seldom mentioned, with the focus remaining much more with prospective students and developing relationships with Alumni, something of great importance in the USA. An excellent example of the benefits of Web2.0 and Social Media integration was provided by QUOTE REMOVED FOR CONFIDENTIATLITY. SECTION REMOVED FOR CONFIDENTIATLITY This example provided by Cass Business School highlights the benefits which Social Networking sites can bring, not only in terms of relationships with students and Alumni, but also generating industry links, which are very important for Business Schools.

144 7.1.2. Drivers for Web2.0 Integration The second issue discussed during the interviews was the drivers for Web2.0 utilisation, in other words, the reasons for the Business Schools‟ involvement or non- involvement with Web2.0 and Social Media. The key trends were as follows (Table 7.2);

145 Table 7.2 : Drivers for Web2.0 Integration Issue Trend % of Business Schools Drivers for Web2.0 Through listening to students, 50% said that integration it was clear that they had to they became become involved with Web2.0 involved with in order to „hang out‟ where Web2.0 after their students did. realising where their students were interacting on the web. The need to drive visitors to 33% said that a the Business School website main driver was was a main driver of Web2.0 the need to drive utilisation. traffic to the main Business School website. The need to connect and 83% said that one engage with students was felt. of the main reasons for their engagement with Web2.0 was to build relationships with their students. It is clear to see from the table above, that the main reasons for the Selectives and Wallflowers starting to involve themselves with Web2.0 were the need to connect with students (prospective, present and past), the need to drive more student visitors to their main website and the fact that after listening to their students and realising where they interacted on the internet, they knew they had to become involved in some way. The fact that 50% of the Business Schools said that they „listened to their students‟ was a step in the right direction. „Listening‟ is one of the key strategies for „tapping the Groundswell‟ (Li & Bernoff, 2009) and it is clear some of the Business Schools are taking the need to listen, into consideration. SECTION REMOVED FOR CONFIDENTIATLITY

146 SECTION REMOVED FOR CONFIDENTIATLITY The second trend identified was the need to drive traffic to the main Business School website, the need to generate an interest in students. Before Web2.0 and Social Media, many of the Business Schools relied heavily on their website for providing information to students, but now, their website acts as an information platform which students can „click through‟ to from the social networking sites. Information can be given to students through these networking sites and the website acts as an information portal, where more detailed information can be found. Several of the Business Schools interviewed have clearly realised that by having a presence on social networking sites, they can drive internet traffic to their website, through simple text links (see Figure 7.1).

147 Figure 7.1 : Yale Facebook Website Link Example Through a simple link to Yale‟s main website: http://mba.yale.e du, the Business School can drive traffic easily from Facebook to their website. The need to „connect more with students‟ was recognised as one of the main drivers of Web2.0 and Social Media integration. SECTION REMOVED FOR CONFIDENTIATLITY SECTION REMOVED FOR CONFIDENTIATLITY 7.1.3. Organisation of Web Marketing The third issue discussed was regarding the organisation of the Business Schools‟ current web marketing activities. Issues such as strategy and department size were discussed and the following trends were found; Table 7.3 : Organisation of Web Marketing Activities Issue Trend % of Business Schools Department Size Small marketing 66% said that their department, meaning that department is very small it‟s not possible to eg. With 3-4 people in it. completely engage with Web2.0. Autonomy Business School very 33% specifically separated from the main mentioned that their University. Business School is very separated from the main University. Strategy There is no strategy and 66% have no formalised

148 Web2.0 involvement is strategy and their Web2.0 very experimental. activities began very experimentally. From looking at the table above, it‟s clear to see that the attitude of Business Schools towards Web2.0 is very informal. Many don‟t have a formalised strategy and many aren‟t given enough support from the main University. With small departments and un-trained employees, it‟s understandable that these Business Schools are „Selectives‟ and „Wallflowers‟ rather than „Mavens‟ and „Butterflies‟. Small marketing departments was identified as being a key characteristic of the Business Schools interviewed to and as it has been recognised that activities such as blogging, takes time and effort, the „Selectives‟ and „Wallflowers‟ are not as engaged with Social Media as they could be. SECTION REMOVED FOR CONFIDENTIATLITY SECTION REMOVED FOR CONFIDENTIATLITY The second characteristic of the marketing departments of the Business Schools interviewed, was that the Business School seems to be very separate to the main University. SECTION REMOVED FOR CONFIDENTIATLITY The Business Schools seem to have free reign over their Web2.0 activities, as long as they keep in line with the University objectives, something which is important in any organisation. SECTION REMOVED FOR CONFIDENTIATLITY SECTION REMOVED FOR CONFIDENTIATLITY The third characteristic of the organisation of marketing activities with the Business Schools was the lack of Web2.0 strategy and the fact that most of the Web2.0 implementation was purely experimental. From conducting interviews with the 6 Business Schools, it was clear to the researcher that the vast majority of Web2.0 and Social Media use was entirely experimental in the beginning and that no formal

149 strategy was ever developed before the implementation process began. SECTION REMOVED FOR CONFIDENTIATLITY SECTION REMOVED FOR CONFIDENTIATLITY SECTION REMOVED FOR CONFIDENTIATLITY Although, in the beginning, most of the Web2.0 implementation was very experimental, most of the Business Schools interviewed, said that they are in the process of or are planning to develop a formalised Web2.0 and Social Media strategy. 7.1.4. Issues, Challenges and Barriers to Implementation In most cases, the barriers and challenges faced, are the reason why these Business Schools are not as advanced in their use of Web2.0 technologies as the „Mavens‟. The main trends analysed were;

150 Table 7.4 : Issues, Challenges and Barriers to the Implementation of Web2.0 Issue Trend % of Business Schools Issues, Barriers and Lack of knowledge about 66% said that there is a Challenges to the Web2.0 and the benefits it general lack of implementation of can bring to an knowledge about how to Web2.0 organisation. implement a Web2.0 strategy and the benefits it can bring. Lack of vision from senior 50% said that although management, meaning that there may be support strict objectives must be from senior management, followed. there is a distinct lack of vision and the strict University objectives don‟t give much scope to the use of Web2.0 Lack of resources: time 66% said that a lack of constraints, lack of staff. resources (staff etc.) and time, are large barriers. Concerns about the lack of 50% said that they had control with UGC for concerns about being able example. to control the content posted on social networking sites and on internal forums etc. And that‟s a barrier to their implementation. It‟s interesting to take these barriers as reasons for the lack of engagement with Web2.0 technologies. On the most part, they seem like valid reasons. 66% of the Business Schools said that there was a lack of knowledge about the benefits Web2.0 can bring and how to implement the technologies. SECTION REMOVED FOR CONFIDENTIATLITY

151 SECTION REMOVED FOR CONFIDENTIATLITY Senior management posed another problem, in that there is also a lack of vision when it comes to the implementation of new technologies, meaning that Business Schools must follow the strict objectives of the University and some aspects of Web2.0 are therefore unachievable. SECTION REMOVED FOR CONFIDENTIATLITY A lack of resources mean that Web2.0 cannot be implemented and controlled properly and with many Business Schools not having a Social Media Manager, it would be hard for the Marketing department to find the time to monitor its use. The fact that many Business Schools must keep in line with company (University) objectives, means that some Web2.0 activities are simply not possible. SECTION REMOVED FOR CONFIDENTIATLITY SECTION REMOVED FOR CONFIDENTIATLITY With such small marketing departments and already heavy workloads, perhaps it cannot be expected that Business Schools should be completely engaged with Web2.0 and Social Media. Is it too much to ask of such small marketing teams? The final trend identified as being a barrier to the implementation of Web2.0 and Social Media, was the lack of control which Business Schools would have over the content on the websites. This seems to also be a common worry among companies using Web2.0. If the Business Schools were to implement UGC on their website, they would have to take the bad feedback and the good feedback, that‟s the way Web2.0 technologies work, they encourage all sorts of participation and empower consumers (students) to air their opinions. SECTION REMOVED FOR CONFIDENTIATLITY SECTION REMOVED FOR CONFIDENTIATLITY

152 7.1.5. Future Plans The final issue discussed in the interviews was with regard to future plans for the Business Schools. Are they planning on becoming more involved with Web2.0 technologies in the years to come? Table 7.5 : Future Plans for Web2.0 Implementation Issue Trend % of Business Schools Impact measurement There are plans to analyse 50% said that there are the impact of Web2.0 plans in place for the activities. measurement of the impact Web2.0 has had on their Business School. Strategy There are plans to 33% said that they are implement a formalised planning the Web2.0 strategy. implementation of a formalised Web2.0 specific strategy. Website Improvements There are plans for the roll- 50% are planning the out of a new website. launch of a new main website for their Business School. There are plans for 66% said that there are experimentation with plans to introduce more internal Web2.0 Rich Internet applications such as Applications to the introducing „Portalisation‟. website and some are planning for „portalisation‟ in order to create more 1-1 relationships with website visitors. From the table above (Table 7.5), it‟s clear to see that although these Business Schools have been profiled as „Selectives‟ and „Wallflowers‟ and aren‟t as engaged with Web2.0 as they could be, there are plans in place for some changes to be made. There are Web2.0 strategy plans currently being drawn up, there are new website designs being created and there are statistics being gathered in order to measure the impact and benefits of Web2.0 for the Business School.

153 50% of the Business Schools plan to measure the impact of their Web2.0 and Social Media use, in the near future. SECTION REMOVED FOR CONFIDENTIATLITY As well as measuring the impact of their activities, many of the Business Schools are generating Web2.0 strategies in order to improve the focus of their Web2.0 and Social Media activities. SECTION REMOVED FOR CONFIDENTIATLITY Many of the future plans of the Business Schools were related to website improvements or the roll-out of a completely new website. SECTION REMOVED FOR CONFIDENTIATLITY Something which a few of the Business School plan to integrate into their website is „portalisation‟. Portalisation is the creation of personal homepages, something along the lines of the Google homepage, where each user is greeted with a personal home- screen. SECTION REMOVED FOR CONFIDENTIATLITY The aim of „portalisation‟ is for the Business Schools to develop one-to-one relationships with their website users ie. the stakeholders of the Business School.

154 7.2 The Wharton School: Impact, Challenges and Future Plans SECTION REMOVED FOR CONFIDENTIATLITY

155 Table 7.6 : Chapter 7 Conclusions Conclusion Description Conclusion One There is a distinct lack of knowledge about Web2.0 and the benefits it can bring to an organisation. Due to this lack of knowledge, management are unable to support the Marketing teams appropriately. Conclusion Two There are very few formal Web2.0 strategies in place, with the initial uptake of Web2.0 being on an experimental basis. The Marketing teams therefore have no clear direction as to where they want and need to be with their Web2.0 implementation. Conclusion Three For the little Web2.0 implementation which has occurred, there has been no measurement of the impact of such actions. This leaves the Business Schools with the reality of wasting their time on applications and campaigns which are really of no benefit to them. Conclusion Four Most of the Business Schools (the Marketing teams) are aware that they should be implementing Web2.0 technologies, both internally and externally and are in the stages of planning for the expansion of their Web2.0 activities – better late than never. These conclusions are of course very general and will not apply to all of the „Selectives‟ and „Wallflowers‟. If the 6 „Wallflowers‟ and „Selectives‟ interviewed, do represent the norm across those profiles, then at least it can be said that there are plans in place for Web2.0 progression. Perhaps in a year‟s time, some of them will have become „Mavens‟, like Wharton, who is by far the most advanced Business School in terms of Web2.0 and Social Media use. Business Schools should use Wharton as a benchmark and should aim to adopt some of the methods used by Wharton in their quest for meaningful, lasting relationships with prospective, current and past students of the Business School.

156 CHAPTER EIGHT: CONCLUSION, RECOMMENDATIONS AND LIMITATIONS

157 CHAPTER EIGHT: CONCLUSION, RECOMMENDATIONS AND LIMITATIONS Chapter eight aims to fulfil objective six of this dissertation, by presenting the research findings and the implications for Business Schools as a result of these findings. The findings of each Phase of the research will be presented, along with conclusions from the industry and literature review conducted in fulfilment of objective one of this dissertation. Based on the findings of the research and the evaluation of the literature and Business School industry, recommendations will be presented (fulfilling objective seven), explaining the way in which Business Schools can and should improve their Web2.0 and Social Media activities, in order to engage more with students and build lasting relationships with their stakeholders. The chapter will be concluded by the presentation of the limitations of this research, followed by the potential for further research into the area of Web2.0 and Business Schools. 8.1. Key Research Conclusions This section of the chapter will present the research conclusions for each of the three research Phases. 8.1.1. Phase One The conclusions for this Phase of the research can be broken down into three areas; internal, external and engagement. Internal The internal Web2.0 analysis highlighted that Business Schools are not using Web2.0 categories such as UGC (User-generated Content) and User FOD (User Feedback, Opinion and Discussion) as much as they are using RIA (Rich Internet Applications) and Communities on their websites.

158 It was noticed that simpler Web2.0 applications, such as content feeds and links to external Web2.0, were not implemented by all 20 Business Schools. This does suggest a lack of knowledge about Web2.0 technologies and a lack of understanding about the benefits they can bring to a Business School. It can be concluded that Business Schools are aware of the risks involved in implementing UGC and allowing students to air their opinions on the main Business School website. This does however mean that Business Schools are not embracing the meaning of Web2.0 and do not have mindset needed to implement internal Web2.0 applications effectively. If the Business Schools are not willing to allow UGC on their websites, then they are not embracing the philosophy of Web2.0 technologies, which are based around collaboration, empowerment and interaction. Is it that the Business Schools are not willing to implement these applications, or is there a lack of knowledge about how to do so and the benefits it could bring to the Business School. External The external Web2.0 analysis highlighted the popularity of social networking sites (Facebook and Linkedin) and Twitter, with almost all of the 20 Business Schools using them. The least commonly used external categories were Blogs and Podcasts, which for Business Schools, is somewhat surprising. With blogs such a well-used resource by many organisations around the world, it was surprising to the researcher that Business Schools are not more involved in blogging and that many of them do not use „video‟ as a medium for providing students/stakeholders with information. It was occasionally noticed that the unofficial pages on sites such as Facebook, had more of a following than the official Business School pages – this implies a lack of focus on Web2.0 and also a lack of strategic focus, sometimes the Business School‟s reputation more harm than good. The results of the analysis highlighted the fact that more Business Schools are using external Web2.0 channels, than they are internal Web2.0 channels.

159 This is perhaps due to the accessibility and ease of use of external channels such as Linkedin, Facebook and YouTube. When comparing the internal with the external involvement of each Business School, it was concluded that on the whole, Business Schools are utilising external Web2.0 technologies far more than they are utilising the internal applications. For some more than others, the gap between their internal and external use is relatively large, showing a bias towards the easier to implement, less risky, external Web2.0 technologies. Creating a Facebook page or a YouTube channel is far easier than having to spend time and resources on creating an internal community or online chat facility within the Business School‟s own website. This again shows a possible lack of awareness about the benefits and opportunities available through the use of external Web2.0 channels and also a lack of commitment or strategy on the part of the Business School. Engagement The engagement profiling highlighted that most of the Business Schools analysed are either „Cautious‟ or „Non-adopters‟ putting them in the engagement profiles of „Selectives‟ and „Wallflowers‟. 3 of the 20 Business Schools were given the engagement profile of „Maven‟ or „Progressive‟ adopters, those with an above average engagement score and who were present in 16 or more Web2.0 channels. The Business Schools in each engagement profile were clear to see, with Wharton at one end of the scale (with high channel presence and high engagement) and Strathclyde at the other end of the scale (with low channel presence and low engagement). It is however important to mention that there are several Business Schools which appear to be borderline and between profiles. Harvard and MIT Sloan are borderline between „Selectives‟ and „Mavens‟ and Stanford is not quite into the „Selectives‟ category, leaving it a „Wallflower‟ for the time being. Perhaps with attention to Web2.0 marketing strategy, these Schools could improve on their positions and earn themselves a better engagement profile.

160 With 3 „Mavens‟, 7 „Selectives‟ and 10 „Wallflowers‟, it‟s apparent that Business Schools are clearly not engaging with Web2.0 and Social Media as much as they could and should be. The following two Phases of the research aimed to establish what the top „Mavens‟ were doing well, in the form of best practice case studies and why the „Selectives‟ and „Wallflowers‟ were not engaging much at all. 8.1.2. Phase Two Phase two of the research presented three best practice case examples of the following Business Schools, the three „Mavens‟; Wharton, MIT Sloan and Harvard. The creation of these best practice case examples of the research emphasised the fact that Wharton, the top „Maven‟, is by far the most advanced Business School when it comes to Web2.0 utilisation and engagement. The Wharton School Wharton use external links very effectively, showing website visitors that the Business School has a large presence on external Web2.0 sites, such as Facebook and Linkedin. Wharton uses UGC (User-generated Content) and User FOD (User Feedback, Opinion and Discusson) very effectively on their website. These are Web2.0 categories which have not been widely adopted, but Wharton has shown that not only can they be implemented into a Business School website, but that they can also be used to improve the online experience for all website visitors. With a large discussion area on their website and a new online instant chat section, Wharton is leading the way in internal Web2.0 application integration, allowing their visitors to communicate, collaborate and interact with one another. Externally, Wharton is also very engaged. Not only does Wharton engage with prospective, present and previous students on social networking sites such as Linkedin and Facebook, they also use Multimedia sharing sites such as Flickr and YouTube for connecting with students.

161 Wharton have an active Flickr page, where albums are posted, showing images of the Wharton campus at certain times of the year for example. This is an attempt at tapping into the nostalgia which would be felt by the Alumni, as they look back on their time at Wharton and also an attempt to involve current students with their Business School, developing the relationship between student and School. MIT Sloan School of Management Internally, MIT Sloan are using the Web2.0 categories of RIA (Rich Internet Applications) and UGC (User-generated Content) extremely well. The website boasts a large Podcast section, where students/stakeholders can choose from a wide variety of podcasts to download. For the benefit of both prospective and current students, there is an impressive „video blog‟ section, in which current MBA students blog about their experiences at MIT Sloan. Not only does this encourage the participation of current students, but it creates a connection between the current students and the prospective students who may relate to the video blogs more than they would to a „Business School brochure‟ for example. Externally, MIT also engage highly with Twitter and Social networking sites such as Facebook. The Business School interacts with prospective students on Facebook, replying to comments posted and providing helpful links to students who may one day study at the Business School. This level of interaction is what other Business Schools should strive for and what MIT should now build on in order to generate a very active Facebook community. Harvard Business School Harvard Business School provide a good example of community and that‟s what their website was analysed as doing best. The website boasts a large Alumni section, events section and several private communities for students at the Business School. Harvard are keen on the interaction between their academics and their students, which is highlighted by the presence of an extensive „Stay Connected‟ section on their website, which provides contact information (Name, Position in the Business School, Twitter account, Blog links) of the academics of the Business School.

162 Externally, Harvard also use Web2.0 to their advantage, engaging with Twitter and other social networking sites. The Harvard Twitter account is very active, with over 1,048 tweets so far and daily updates for their „followers‟. Harvard are engaging with prospective MBA students using the social networking sites, but there is scope for more interaction and further engagement in order to build lasting relationships with these students. 8.1.3. Phase Three Phase three of the research aimed to understand Business Schools‟ awareness about the impact and benefits of their Web2.0 activities and the barriers they experienced in its implementation. From the interviews conducted with 7 of the top Business Schools in the UK and in the USA, several conclusions could be made; Conclusion Description Conclusion One There is a distinct lack of knowledge about Web2.0 and the benefits it can bring to an organisation. Due to this lack of knowledge, management are unable to support the Marketing teams appropriately. Conclusion Two There are very few formal Web2.0 strategies in place, with the initial uptake of Web2.0 being on an experimental basis. The Marketing teams therefore have no clear direction as to where they want and need to be with their Web2.0 implementation. Conclusion Three For the little Web2.0 implementation which has occurred, there has been no measurement of the impact of such actions. This leaves the Business Schools with the reality of wasting their time on applications and campaigns which are really of no benefit to them. Conclusion Four Most of the Business Schools (the Marketing teams) are aware that they should be implementing Web2.0 technologies, both internally and externally and are in the stages of planning for the expansion of their Web2.0 activities.

163 These conclusions are generalisations, but from the information gathered from carrying out the interviews with the 6 „Selectives‟ and „Wallflowers‟, these four conclusions were clear to see. When comparing the activities of the „Selectives‟ and „Wallflowers‟ with those of the top „Maven‟, Wharton, the researcher concludes that Wharton should be used as a benchmark for the other Business Schools. SECTION REMOVED FOR CONFIDENTIATLITY SECTION REMOVED FOR CONFIDENTIATLITY SECTION REMOVED FOR CONFIDENTIATLITY 8.2. Industry and Literature Conclusions The conclusion section aims to summarise the background to the project, with regard to the Business School industry and the literature which was reviewed. Aspects such as the growing importance of Social Media and the characteristics of the Net Generation have led to the need for a new Business School Marketing Mix and are all factors which must be considered when developing recommendations for Business Schools in terms of their future Web2.0 implementation. 8.2.1. The Growing Importance of Social Media According to Tim O‟Reilly himself, Web2.0 is a new way of thinking, with an entirely new perspective on the internet (O‟Reilly Media Inc., 2006). Web2.0 is described by O‟Reilly media as being: ―a set of economic, social, and technology trends that collectively form the basis for the next generation of the Internet—a more mature, distinctive medium characterised by user participation, openness, and network effects.‖ (O‟Reilly Media Inc., 2006, p.4)

164 It is unclear when exactly social media was born, but around the years of 2005 and 2006, the term „Web2.0‟ was coined and the development of social media sites became apparent. Since then, the growth of social media has been staggering, with millions of people worldwide using and engaging with these technologies. Tapscott & Williams (2006) coined the new trend of collaboration as „wikinomics‟, which is based on four main ideas; openness, sharing, peering and acting globally. Li & Bernoff (2008) describe the trend in a different way. In their book „Groundswell – Winning in a World Transformed by Social Technologies‟, Li & Bernoff (2008) explain that there is a fundamental change occurring in online behaviour. The term they use for this change is the „Groundswell‟, which is described as: ―A social trend in which people use technologies to get the things they need from each other, rather than from traditional institutions like corporations.‖ (Li & Bernoff, 2008, p.9) To summarise and collaborate the thoughts of both Tapscott & Williams (2006) and Li & Bernoff (2008), there has been a shift in online behaviour. Whereas previously, internet users would source their information from companies (websites) on the internet, they now obtain their information from each other, share it with other users and pass it on to users on a global scale, through social networking sites. It has been said that the reason for the huge uptake of Web2.0 is not down to the fact that it‟s a great, shiny, whizzy new technology‖ (Mayfield, 2008, p.7) but because it lets consumers be themselves, in a world where collaboration and interaction is of key importance. The growing importance of Web2.0 and Social Media is due to the paradigm shift in power from the company to the consumer: customer empowerment. Consumers are exercising their new-found power on social media sites, where they can rate products, write good or bad reviews, share information with others and exercise their opinion easily.

165 For Business Schools, customer empowerment has led to the increase in online courses, part-time courses and online learning. In terms of Web2.0, Business Schools have found that their students and stakeholders are currently using the technology for personal use and there are even unofficial Business School pages on Facebook. The problem is, that Business Schools are now realising that they too should be in the Social Media arena and should be using Web2.0 and Social Media to connect and engage with their students, the Net Generation (born between 1977 and 1997). 8.2.2. The Net Generation The majority of students going through the education system in 2009 belong to what Don Tapscott (2009) termed the „Net Generation‟. There are many stereotypes of this generation which are summarised by Bauerlein (2008, p.201) as: ―They upload and download, surf and chat, post and design, but they haven‘t learned to analyse a complex text, store facts in their heads, comprehend a foreign policy decision, take lessons from history or spell correctly.‖ In his 2009 book „Grown Up Digital‟, Tapscott (2009) aims to put these accusations to rest and discover the truth about this mis-understood generation. Instead of finding spoiled, attention-seeking, „dumb‟ teenagers, he came across a: ―bright community, which has developed revolutionary new ways of thinking interacting, working and socialising.‖ (Tapscott, 2009, inside front cover) Tapscott (2009, pp.74-97) presented some „norms‟ of the Net Generation (see Figure 8.1 below), which help readers to understand more about the generation which has shaped the Business world in the last few years. The Net Generation, the students of today, are in the Social Media arena already, doing what they do best and what they know how to do: interacting and collaborating. What Business Schools need to do, is first of all, realise that this is the case and then go about connecting with their students and building lasting relationships with them.

166 Figure 8.1: The Norms of the Net Generation Source: Adapted from (Tapscott, 2009, p.74-97) „Norm‟ Description Freedom They choose what they want, when they want it, where they want to work, where they want to be and when they want to talk to friends. Customisation They can customise phones, cars, desktop computers, websites, clothes, calendars and many more. They can even customise their jobs eg. Working from home one day a week for change of scenery. Scrutiny Due to the large amount of information on the internet, the Net Geners have to be aware of the world around them and are able to distinguish between fact and fiction. Integrity They like to be able to trust other people and companies. They will also pass on information to their friends, so companies must be honest with this generation. Collaboration As previously mentioned, Net Geners are natural collaborators. They‟re known as the „relationship generation‟. Net Geners can work hand in hand with companies to create better products and services. Entertainment Net Geners value the experience of using a product very highly and always like to have fun with whatever they‟re using/doing. Net Geners become bored easily, so playing with their high-tech toys keeps them amused. Speed Net Geners are used to instant response, 24/7 and have grown up with and now expect speed. When Net Geners email a company, 80% expect a reply quickly – this isn‟t how most companies operate. Innovation This generation has been raised in a culture of innovation and now want new products every few months eg. Mobile phones. In the workplace, they exchange traditional work rules for a culture of collaboration and interaction.

167 8.2.3. The Need for a New Mindset and Marketing Mix With the growth of customer empowerment, came hyper-competition in the Business School industry, emphasising the need for differentiation (Starkey & Tiratsoo, 2007). The future for Business Schools is difficult to predict but in the opinion of both Kilcourse (1995) and Starkey & Tiratsoo (2007), education landscapes are changing and Business Schools will also need to change if they want to survive. Hawawini (2005) presents some of the many challenges and opportunities facing Business Schools in the years to come. The issues include;  The effect of globalisation on education and how Business Schools can respond to this.  The effects of information and communication technologies and how to integrate these into learning and teaching within a Business School.  The need to strengthen reputation and to build on the School brand in order to secure a long-term competitive position within Higher Education. There is therefore the need for a new mindset, the need for change. The emphasis on image and reputation, is highlighted by Ivy (2008) and emphasised by Maringe & Gibbs (2009) who state the importance of the „Oxford‟ brand in UK Higher Education. In order to differentiate themselves, maintain their reputation and strengthen their brand, Starkey & Tiratsoo (2007) believe that Business Schools require a tighter focus on strategy. When generating strategies for survival, it‟s necessary to remain focused at all times. In relation to Business Schools, Kilcourse (1995, p.34) believes that there is a need for Business Schools to become flatter organisations, with management teams who are: ―clearly focused, integrated, flexible in response and aware of what is happening in their business environment‖ It has been established that there is a need for a new mindset within Business Schools and the researcher also believes that there is a need for a new Business School Marketing Mix. Ivy (2008) presents a 7P Business School Marketing Mix, but leaves out a crucial element, which is growing in importance every day, „Participation‟.

168 It has become apparent that due to customer empowerment, the characteristics of the Net Generation and attitudes towards marketing, the traditional methods of marketing a Business School (eg. using brochures, direct mail and through the website) are declining in effectiveness and there is the need for this new mindset to be demonstrated through a Business School‟s marketing activities. Marketing is now to be seen as an „ongoing conversation‟ (Vitalari, 2009) between the Business School its stakeholders, rather than the delivery of a message. In light of this, the researcher created a new 8P Business School Marketing Mix (see Figure 8.2 below), which takes into account the characteristics of the audience (the Net Generation), the need for radical rejuvenation within the industry and the fact that technology needs to be included more in the marketing strategy of Business Schools. Figure 8.2 : 8P Business School Marketing Mix 8P Business School Marketing Mix Participation Internal:  An „outside-in‟ website  A Business School blog External:  A presence on social and professional networking sites, such as Facebook and Linkedin.  The use of Twitter  A Business School channel on YouTube

169 8.2.4. Conclusion It can be concluded that as a result of the need for a new Business School mindset and the creation of the new 8P Business School Marketing Mix, Social Media of great importance to Business Schools and their survival/development. The main benefits of Social Media are outlined by Cunningham & Wilkins (2009, p.24) as being;  “They support collaboration across time and space”  “They are easily accessible and easy to use”  “Many people already have a comfort level using them”  “They are low cost (sometimes even free)”  “They do not require much IT support”  “They have very little „downtime‟”  “Because they are inexpensive and easy to use, there is little risk in trying them” The benefits described by Cunningham & Wilkins (2009), fail to include one of the most important advantages of effective social media engagement and that is the „connection‟ and „conversation‟ with your customers, which is now to be an „ongoing conversation‟ in order to develop a one-to-one relationship with those customers. The benefits can also be clearly seen in the case example of Wharton (USA), the top „Maven‟ from the analysis, who have excellent relationships with prospective students, current students and Alumni as a result of their Web2.0 and Social Media engagement. If other Business Schools can follow in their footsteps and take the following recommendations into account, then they too will be well on their way to developing and maintaining strong school-student relationships and will be in touch with what their students want from their Business School experience.

170 8.3. Recommendations for Business Schools Section 8.3 aim to fulfil objective seven of this dissertation: „To provide recommendations for Business Schools based on the research conducted and present how Business Schools can improve their Web2.0 and Social Media engagement.‟ From the results of the research carried out, it is clear to see that there is very limited progress being made by most Business Schools in terms of Web2.0 and Social Media involvement, with 17 of the 20 Business Schools being allocated the engagement profile of „Selective‟ or „Wallflower‟. The researcher would like to present three recommendations to Business Schools, which will guide them in the right direction towards becoming more like Wharton, the top „Maven‟, who are engaging with stakeholders at a deep level and are enjoying the benefits of doing so. The three recommendations are; to embrace the new 8P Marketing Mix, to make some organisational changes and to develop a Web2.0 and Social Media strategy. Each of these recommendations will be discussed in turn in sections 8.3.1.– 8.3.3. The need for change in the mindset of Business School has come at a time of many possibilities, giving Business Schools a chance to differentiate themselves and break away from the hyper-competition present in the industry. Web2.0 and Social Media, if implemented correctly, could help Business Schools engage with their students, listen to what they have to say and then tailor their offering appropriately, therefore enhancing the student experience. With students being so empowered to share their opinions with others, listen more to the opinion of others and with so much freedom of choice, it‟s necessary for Business Schools to engage with these students, interact with them, make them feel valued as part of the Business School, build up relationships with them which will continue into the Alumni years of their education.

171 Most of the Business Schools interviewed, for Phase three of the research, were aware that they need to be engaging with students and stakeholders, however most of them are not doing so. The question is therefore, why? How can Business Schools improve their Web2.0 and Social Media involvement in order to engage more with their audience? 8.3.1. Recommendation One: Implement a Degree of Organisational Change Recommendation One has been developed in order to address the problem highlighted in Conclusion One of Phase three of the research (the Interview Phase): ‗There is a distinct lack of knowledge about Web2.0 and the benefits it can bring to an organisation. Due to this lack of knowledge, management are unable to support the Marketing teams appropriately.‘ The recommendations for implementing these organisational changes are;  To hold technological training days in order to educate employees in the marketing department and senior management on the benefits of Web2.0 and Social Media involvement.  After realising the benefits Social Media can bring to the Business School, senior management should speak with the University and try to come to some agreement about the flexibility of the rules regarding internet technology.  To employ, or allocate one member of staff the job of being the Social Media Manager for the Business School. This member of staff should be in constant communication with the marketing department, with senior management, liaising also with students and also with the IT department, who are usually in charge of the Business School website. The Social Media Manager should be given the time to carry out their Web2.0 activities effectively and should be supported by senior management in order to implement the new vision which the Business School has.

172 Hasan (1993) is of the opinion that Business Schools need to move away from their tendency to adopt „ostrich syndrome‟, where they bury their heads in the sand and don‟t focus on improving their situation in the industry, choosing to ignore the problems they face. Hasan (1993) is also of the opinion that Business Schools are becoming obsolete and irrelevant, emphasising the need for radical change. As was concluded in Phase three of the research, the interview Phase, many of the Business Schools highlighted organisational issues as being a barrier/challenge to the implementation of Web2.0 and Social Media. For example;  66% of Business Schools said that there was a general lack of knowledge about how to implement a Web2.0 strategy and the benefits Web2.0 can bring.  50% said that although there may be a degree of support from senior management, there is a distinct lack of vision and that the strict University objectives don‟t give much scope for the use of Web2.0 and Social Media.  66% said that there is a lack of resources (including staff, time and money) and that this is a very large barrier to the implementation of Web2.0 and Social Media. In order to embrace the new 8P Business School Marketing Mix and to be able to use Web2.0 and Social Media effectively, there is a need for a degree of organisational change. If these changes can be made, the Business Schools will have much more chance at effectively engaging with their audience and becoming an „outside-in‟, customer-focused institution. 8.3.2. Recommendation Two: Formulate a Winning Web2.0 Strategy Recommendation Two has been developed to address the problem highlighted in Conclusion Two from the interview Phase of the research (Phase Three): ‗There are very few formal Web2.0 strategies in place, with the initial uptake of Web2.0 being on an experimental basis. The Marketing teams therefore have no clear direction as to where they want and need to be with their Web2.0 implementation.‘

173 During the research conducted, it was established that 66% of the Business Schools interviewed, had no strategy in place for the implementation and monitoring of Web2.0 and Social Media. In order to effectively engage with Web2.0 and Social Media, the Business Schools must develop a strategy, whilst keeping in line with the organisational goals, objectives and branding guidelines. Maringe & Gibbs (2009) believe that student satisfaction and the improvement of the student experience, should be at the heart of any educational strategy. Student satisfaction and an improved student experience can be achieved through the implementation of Web2.0 as a marketing tool, as the student experience begins with first contact with the Business School. If the Business Schools is in the social networking arena and interacting with students, then prospective students will feel immediately included in the culture of the Business School and valued as a person. One method of strategy development was already presented in Chapter three, when the „POST‟ method of Li & Bernoff (2009) was introduced. Another method of strategy development is „the balanced scorecard approach‟ (adapted by Hamill, 2009). The approach is aimed at helping Business Schools to establish a strong link between their overall vision and strategy for Web 2.0, their specific goals and objectives and the key actions that are required to achieve such objectives. The key feature of this approach is „alignment‟ – making sure that the Web 2.0 actions and initiatives are fully aligned with and supportive of the agreed strategic objectives of the organisation (Kaplan & Norton, 1996). By linking the strategy to the actions, the balanced scorecard approach helps with the tedious task of translating one into the other. When utilising the balanced scorecard approach, there are five key questions which must be answered (Hamill, 2009);

174 1. What is our overall vision/mission for Web 2.0? 2. What are the key financial/strategic objectives we wish to achieve? 3. Who are we targeting, with what value proposition? 4. What are the key Web 2.0 initiatives and actions we need to introduce to achieve our objectives? 5. People, organisation and IT aspects These five questions can also be depicted on a balanced scorecard strategy map, which can be seen in Figure 8.3 below. Figure 8.3: Balanced Scorecard Strategy Map Strategic Theme/ Mission: Brief Statement of Overall 2.0 Mission/Vision Financial Perspective Financial Goals and Objectives Marketing Effectiveness Marketing Efficiency Customer Perspective: Customer Segments Customer Group 1 Customer Group 2 Customer Group 3 etc Customer Value Proposition Internal Management Perspective: 2.0 Initiative 1 Initiative 2 Initiative 3 Initiative etc Objectives Objectives Objectives Objectives KPI KPI KPI KPI Targets Targets Targets Targets Actions Actions Actions Actions Management Organisation People IS and IT Organisation Perspective: Culture Business Schools therefore need to take the following perspectives into consideration when developing their Web2.0 strategy;

175 1. Strategic Vision: A clear statement should be given, detailing the overall objectives to be achieved through Web2.0 activities eg. building strong relationships with students. 2. Financial Perspective: In order to ensure Return on Investment (ROI) from Web 2.0 efforts, the specific financial objectives to be achieved should also be agreed. These can be measured in terms of „marketing effectiveness‟ (eg. the number of students visiting the Business School website) and „marketing efficiency‟ (eg. costs in relation to the return generated). 3. Customer Perspective: This relates to the quality of the student base and the need to attract „quality students‟, who will remain with the Business School and join the Alumni at the end of their education. This perspective requires the mindset of „marketing as an ongoing conversation‟, which was previously discussed. 4. Internal Management Perspective: The Business School should prioritise the internal and/or external Web 2.0 initiatives to be developed and decide how much resource and effort should be allocated to each initiative. This will also involve having specific targets within each initiative. 5. Organisation Perspective: Business Schools finally need to address the cultural, organisational and management issues within the organisation, in order to implement a successful Web2.0 strategy. The development of a Web2.0 strategy is of key importance if success is to be achieved. If Business Schools use the „balanced scorecard approach‟ to strategy development, they will be able to keep in line with organisational objectives and branding guidelines but will also be utilising Web2.0 to its full potential. 8.3.3. Recommendation Three: Measure the Effects and Impact of Web2.0 Activities Recommendation Three has been developed in order to address the problem highlighted in Conclusion Three of Phase three of the research (the Interview phase):

176 ‗For the little Web2.0 implementation which has occurred, there has been no measurement of the impact of such actions. This leaves the Business Schools with the reality of wasting their time on applications and campaigns which are really of no benefit to them.‘ By measuring the impact of their Web2.0 activities, Business Schools would be able to assess many aspects of their efforts, including;  Which Web2.0 categories are effective for engaging with students, both internally and externally.  Which Social Media sites are the most appropriate for each stakeholder group eg. Linkedin for Alumni and Facebook for prospective students.  Which Multimedia Sharing sites are most effective for engaging and interacting with students eg. YouTube or Flickr.  How often the Business School should be using Twitter.  The most popular topics of conversation on blogs, Social Media sites and in discussion forums. This would allow for the Business School to tailor the content in order to encourage interaction and response. SECTION REMOVED FOR CONFIDENTIATLITY Once the Business Schools have increased their Web2.0 use and engagement, they should measure the effectiveness of their actions, using simple observation techniques or easy-to-use and mostly free, social media monitoring tools. These tools will give the Business School an idea of what works, what doesn‟t work and where to focus their efforts in the future.

177 8.3.4. Recommendation Four: Embrace the New 8P Business School Marketing Mix Recommendation Four has been developed in order to address the problem highlighted in Conclusion Four of Phase three of the research (the Interview Phase): ‗Most of the Business Schools (the Marketing teams) are aware that they should be implementing Web2.0 technologies, both internally and externally and are in the stages of planning for the expansion of their Web2.0 activities.‘ In order for Business Schools to improve their engagement with their audience (Prospective students, current students, Alumni and industry partners), they must accept the fact that technology now has a significant role to play in marketing and in the Marketing Mix. Social Media and Web2.0 in particular, if implemented and managed correctly, can be of huge benefit to Business Schools. With the creation of the new 8P Business School Marketing Mix, there is more of an emphasis being place on the interactive aspect of Marketing, as opposed to the „message delivery‟ aspect, which is dwindling in effectiveness (Kagan, 2008). The important of the „People‟ and „Participation‟ aspects of the new Marketing Mix, should be highlighted (see Figure 8.4). Figure 8.4: The Key Elements of the 8P Business School Marketing Mix Participation Internal:  An „outside-in‟ website  A Business School blog External:  A presence on social and professional networking sites, such as Facebook and Linkedin.  The use of Twitter  A Business School channel on YouTube

178 As the whole concept of Web2.0 and Social Media surrounds the actions of interaction, communication and participation, the two „Ps‟ which should be primarily focused on are; „People‟ and „Participation‟. If Business Schools can improve aspects of the „People‟ area and become more engaged with their students through the use of Social Media in the „Participation‟ area, then the area of „Prominence‟ will develop on its own. With deeper engagement with students and more focus on providing the students with the education they would like, reputation will grow and the Business School should see improvements in their league table positions. Their league table positions would also improve if Web2.0 was used to enhance the „learning experience‟, however this is further discussed in the „further research‟ section. 8.3.5. Conclusion to Recommendations If Business Schools can follow the recommendations proposed by the researcher and; make some organisational changes, develop a Web2.0 strategy, utilise the new 8P Business School Marketing Mix and then measure the effects of their Web2.0 activities, we could be seeing many more „Mavens‟ appearing in the Business School industry in the months to come. 8.4. Limitations Even though every effort was made to reduce the impact of the limitations encountered on the results produced, these are nonetheless highlighted in this section. Due to the short time frame of around three months, the researcher had to set limits on the scope of the research. Limits had to be set on the number of Business Schools analysed and the depth of the industry analysis for example. Since the study was also confined to a small sample of Business Schools, the analysis techniques were kept very basic. The Web2.0 analysis was considered to be very subjective as a method, as the researcher had to use an element of judgement when awarding an engagement score to each of the Business Schools.

179 However, the fact that all of the Business Schools were analysed in the same way, by the same researcher, means that there was no bias involved in the analysis. It should also be noted that, as this research was carried out in October 2009, some changes may have occurred on the Business School websites and the analysis, if repeated in February 2010, could generate different results. As the topic of Web2.0 and Social Media is relatively new, there was a lack of literature on the topic, leading to a very specific literature review. There were also very few items of research which had been conducted on this topic. This does however mean that the research carried out for the purpose of this dissertation, makes a significant contribution to the topic area and has not been seen before. This is also due to the fact that a brand new, cutting-edge framework was developed for the Web2.0 analysis section of the project. The seven interviews which were conducted were from a very small sample of Business Schools and could be considered unrepresentative. Due to access and time constraints, six out of the seven interviews were conducted over the telephone, which can be considered as a limitation, as it‟s more difficult to develop an interviewer- interviewee rapport over the telephone. Face-to-face interviews could have allowed the researcher to probe certain aspects of the interview further. 8.5. Areas for Further Research Since this research was conducted from the point of view of the Business School, further research could be conducted into the importance of each Web2.0 category for students and comparing this with the importance assigned to each category by the Business School. The research would highlight which Web2.0 applications students want to engage with most and which are not as important for them, in terms of their Business School experience.

180 Since Web2.0 is a relatively new technology, future research could be aimed at enhancing the evaluation framework developed for the fulfilment of Phase one of the research. Since only 20 of the top Business Schools in the UK and the USA were analysed, it would be interesting to evaluate the Web2.0 use and engagement of Business Schools in other countries, such as China, a leading developer of technology, or in mainland Europe, where it is presumed that Web2.0 is not as highly adopted. There is also scope for further research into the way in which Web2.0 and Social Media technologies can be used to enhance the learning experience of Business School student, moving away from the Marketing uses. There is a wide variety of literature, both old and new, on the way in which technology can enhance learning and the benefits of using Web2.0 in the classroom. The researcher would also find it very interesting to monitor the changes which occur in terms of the Web2.0 use and engagement of the 20 Business Schools analysed, as the 6 „Wallflowers‟ and „Selectives‟ interviewed, stated that they had plans for improvements and some were in the process of developing new websites and implementing Web2.0 strategies. Perhaps in the near future, there could some changes to the Engagement Profiles allocated.

181 REFERENCES Admissionsconsultants.com., 2010. Ivy League College Admission Summary. [Online] Available at: http://www.admissionsconsultants.com/college/ivy_league_table.asp [Accessed 4 February 2010]. Attard, D., 2008. Destination Branding in the Age of Web 2.0 – A study of European Destination Marketing Organisations. MSc International Marketing. Glasgow, UK: University of Strathclyde. Baldry, D., Amaratunga, D., Sarshar, M. & Newton, R., 2002. Quantitative and qualitative research: application of “mixed” research approach. Work Study, 51 (1), pp: 17-31. Barbour, R. S., 1998. Mixing qualitative methods: Quality assurance or qualitative quagmire? Qualitative Health Research, 8(3), pp. 352-361. Barrie, L., 2008. Football Clubs and Web2.0. MSc Marketing. Glasgow, UK: University of Strathclyde. Bauerlein, M., 2008. The Dumbest Generation: How the Digital Age Stupifies Young Americans and Jeopardizes Our Future. New York: Penguin Tarcher. Berthon, P., Hulbert, J.M. & Pitt, L.F., 1999. Brand management prognostications. Sloan Management Review, 40 (2), pp. 191-199. Bhakdi, J., 2010. Web3.0. Slideshare Online [Online] Available at: http://www.slideshare.net/JohannesBhakfi/web30-986081 [Accessed 10 February 2010].

182 Canniford, R., Cherrier, H., & Shankar, A., 2006. Customer empowerment: a Faucauldian interpretation. European Journal of Marketing, 40 (9/10), pp. 1013- 1030. Carlson, S., 2005. The Net Generation Goes to College. The Chronicle of Higher Education: Information Technology, 52 (7), p. A34. Cavazza, F., 2009. Social Media Landscape Redux. FredCavazza.net. [Online] Available at: http://www.fredcavazza.net/2009/04/10/social-media-landscape-redux/ [Accessed 5 February 2010]. Cunningham, P. & Wilkins, J., 2009. A walk in the Cloud. Information Management Journal, 43 (1), pp22-30. Daniel, J.S., 1996. Mega Universities & Knowledge Media: Technology Strategies for Higher Education. London: Kogan Page. Davies, A., & Elliott, R., 2006. The Evolution of the Empowered Consumer. European Journal of Marketing, 40 (9/10), pp.1106-1121. Davies, J. & Merchant, G., 2009. Web 2.0 for schools: learning and social participation. New York: Peter Lang. Elowitz., B. & Li., C., 2009. Social Media Brand Engagement. The World‘s Most Valuable Brands. Who‘s Most Engaged?. [Online] Available at: http://www.engagementdb.com/ [Accessed 1 October 2009]. Eylon, D., 1998. Understanding empowerment and resolving its paradox. Journal of Management History, 4 (1), pp. 16-28.

183 FT.com., Financial Times Online., 2009. Global MBA Rankings. [Online] Available at: http://rankings.ft.com/businessschoolrankings/global-mba-rankings [Accessed 10 October 2009]. FT.com., Financial Times Online., 2010. Global MBA Rankings 2010. [Online] Available at: http://rankings.ft.com/businessschoolrankings/global-mba-rankings [Accessed 2 February 2010]. Gay, R., Charlesworth, A., & Esen, R., 2007. Online marketing – a customer led approach. New York, USA: Oxford University Press. Gordon, W., & Langmaid, R., 1988. Qualitative Market Research: A Practitioner‘s and buyer‘s guide. England: Gower Publishing Company. Hamill, J., 2009. Online Learning Resource – Web2.0 CPD [Online] Available at: http://web2cpd.ning.com/ [Accessed 20 November 2009] Hasan, J.S.M., 1993. Business Schools: Ostrich Syndrome. Journal of Organisational Change, 6 (1), pp. 47-53. Hawawini, G., 2005. The Future of Business Schools. Journal of Management Development, 24 (9), pp. 770-782. Ivy, J., 2008. A new higher education marketing mix: The 7Ps for MBA Marketing. International Journal of Education Management, 22 (4), pp.288-299. Kagan, M., 2008. What the F**k is Social Media? Slideshare Online [Online] Available at: http://www.slideshare.net/mzkagan/what-the-fk-social-media [Accessed 10 February 2010].

184 Kaplan, R., & Norton, D., 1996. The Balanced Scorecard: Translating Strategy into Action. 1st ed. Harvard Business School Press. Kiang, M.Y., Raghu, T.S., & Shang, K.H.M., 1999. Marketing on the Internet — who can benefit from an online marketing approach? [Online] Available from: www.elsevier.com or http://ebrc.ntpu.edu.tw/~cko/Research_DB/EC%20Research/Marketing%20on%20th e%20Internet%20%A1X%20who%20can%20benefit%20from%20an%20online%20 marketing%20approach.pdf [Accessed 2 January 2010]. Kilcourse, T., 1995. The Business of Business Schools. The Learning Organisation, 2 (2), pp. 32-35. Kotler, P., & Fox, K.F.A., 1995. Strategic marketing for educational institutions. 2nd Ed. USA: Prentice-Hall. Kumar, V., Aaker, D.A., & Day, G.S., 2002. Essentials of Marketing Research. London: John Wiley and Sons. Li, C., & Bernoff, J., 2008. Groundswell: Winning in a World Transformed by Social Technologies. Boston: Harvard Business School Publishing. Lyon, E., 2009. Digital Marketing and the New Push / Pull Dynamic [Online] Available at: http://www.brandingstrategyinsider.com/2009/06/digital-marketing- and-the-new-push-pull-dynamic.html [Accessed 29 November 2009] Maringe, F., & Gibbs, P., 2009. Marketing Higher Education: Theory and Practice. UK: McGraw-Hill Companies.

185 Mashable.com., 2009. HOW TO: Measure Social Media ROI. [Online] Available at: http://mashable.com/2009/10/27/social-media-roi/ [Accessed 4 February 2010]. Mayfield, A., 2008. What is social media?. E-books from Icrossing.co.uk. [Online] Available at: http://www.icrossing.co.uk/fileadmin/uploads/eBooks/What_is_Social_Media_iCros sing_ebook.pdf [Accessed 4 January 2010]. McCracken, G., 1998. The Long Interview. London: Sage Publications. Miles, M.B., & Huberman, A.M., 1994. Qualitative Data Analysis. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications. Moore, G.A., 1999. Crossing the chasm: Marketing and Selling High-Tech Products to Mainstream Customers. Revised Edition. New York, USA: HarperBusiness. Nargundkar, R., Rajashekar, H., & Shahiada, P., 2009. A conceptual model of brand- building for B-schools: an Indian perspective. International Journal of Commerce and Management, 19 (1), pp. 58-71. Nicholls, J., Harris, J., Morgan, E., Clarke, K., & Sims, D., 1995. Marketing Higher Education: The MBA Experience. International Journal of Education Management, 9 (2), pp. 31-38. O‟Reilly Media Inc., 2006. Web 2.0 Principles and Best Practices. O‟Reilly Radar [Online] Available at: www.oreilly.com/catalog/web2report/chapter/web20_report_excerpt.pdf [Accessed 4 January 2010].

186 O‟Reilly, T., 2007, What is Web 2.0: Design patterns and business models for the next generation of software, Communications and Strategies No. 65, [Online], Available at: http://oreilly.com/web2/archive/what-is-web-20.html [Accessed 20 January 2010]. Parker, L.D., & Guthrie, J., 2010. Business schools in an age of globalisation. Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal, 23 (1), pp. 5-13. Patton, M. Q., 2002. Qualitative evaluation and research methods. 3rd ed. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications, Inc. Peterson, R.A., Balasubramanian, S., & Bronnenberg, B.J., 1997. Exploring the implications of the internet for consumer marketing. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 25 (4), pp. 329–346. Prabhudesai, A., 2008. Web1.0, Web2.0 and Web 3.0: Simple explanation for non- techies. [Online] Available at: http://trak.in/tags/business/2007/08/13/what-is-web10-web20-and-web- 30-simple-explanation-for-non-techies/ [Accessed 2 January 2010]. Ramos, A., 2009. Using Social Media for MBA Marketing. BAM Conference, Chicago, USA. Schaefer, D. R. & Dillman, D.A., 1998. Development of a Standard Email Methodology: Results of an Experiment. Public Opinion Quarterly, 3 (62), pp. 378- 390. Starkey, K., & Tiratsoo, N., 2007. Business Schools and the Bottom Line. USA: Cambridge University Press.

187 Syvertsen, C., 2008. What is the Future of Business Schools?. European Business Review, 20 (2), pp. 142-151. Tapscott, D., & Williams, A.D., 2006. Wikinomics: How Mass Collaboration Changes Everything. Atlantic Books: London. Tapscott, D., 2009. Grown Up Digital: How the Net Generation is Changing Your World. New York: McGraw Hill. The Nielson Company., 2010. Led by Facebook, Twitter, Global Time Spent on Social Media Sites up 82% Year over Year. [Online] Available at: http://blog.nielsen.com/nielsenwire/global/led-by-facebook-twitter- global-time-spent-on-social-media-sites-up-82-year-over-year/ [Accessed 10 February 2010]. Universities UK Facts., 2009. Higher Education in Facts and Figures. [Online PDF] Available at: http://www.universitiesuk.ac.uk/Publications/Documents/Facts09.pdf [Accessed 1 January 2010]. Visualthesaurus.com Online, 2009. Engagement. [Online] Available at: www.visualthesaurus.com [Accessed 1 January 2010]. Vitalari, N., 2009. The Conversation Prism: Making Sense of Social Media. [Online] Available at: http://www.wikinomics.com/blog/index.php/2009/10/27/the- conversation-prism-making-sense-of-social-media/ [Accessed 3 February 2010]. Webb, J.R., 2002. Understanding and Designing Marketing Research. 2nd Ed. UK: TJ International.

188 Weinreich, N.K., 2006. Integrating Quantitative and Qualitative Methods in Social Marketing Research. Social Marketing Quarterly. Available at: http://www.social- marketing.com/research.html [Accessed 15 January 2010]. Wilson, A., 2006. Marketing Research: An Integrated Approach. 2nd ed. Pearson Education: England. Yin, K., 1994. Case Study Research: Design and Methods. Newbury Park, CA: Sage Publications.

189 APPENDICES Appendix One: External Analysis Due to the size of the analysis tables, larger, more detailed versions have been attached to this dissertation, at the end of the appendices. SECTION REMOVED FOR CONFIDENTIATLITY

190 Appendix Two: Internal Analysis SECTION REMOVED FOR CONFIDENTIATLITY

191 Appendix Three: Channel Presence Scoring SECTION REMOVED FOR CONFIDENTIATLITY Appendix Four: Standard Email SECTION REMOVED FOR CONFIDENTIATLITY

192 Appendix Five: Interview Notes SECTION REMOVED FOR CONFIDENTIATLITY

193 Appendix Six: Interview Structure Telephone Interview Questions for PROGRESSIVE ADOPTERS 1. Performance, Impact and Benefits  Say which kind of adopter they are (progressive, limited, non-progressive)  What have the benefits been? (eg. Increased visits to website, more enquiries?)  Have you measured the impact?  Which channels seem to be performing well? 2. Process of getting there  Did you have a clear strategy and vision for the implementation of Web2.0?  Who led this vision? Who pushed the idea forward?  How long have you been using Web2.0 applications?  How is it managed and controlled? Eg. A social media manager? 3. Issues, Challenges, Barriers to implementation  Resources?  Time?  Lack of knowledge (organisation)?  Opposition? 4. Future Plans  Are there plans to engage more with Web2.0?  Will the impact be monitored in the future? Telephone Interview Questions for CAUTIOUS and NON-ADOPTERS 1. Why are you not engaged with Web2.0?  Lack of knowledge?  Don‟t see the benefits?  Tried it and it wasn‟t successful?  Lack of vision?  Barriers/Opposition? 2. Organisation of web marketing  Who is in charge of the marketing of the Business School?  How is marketing carried out if not through social media?  Perhaps the marketing is carried out by a computer team, but sometimes the marketing department can see the potential of Web2.0 more 3. Future Plans  Are there plans to implement a Web2.0 strategy in the Business School?

Web2.0 And Business Schools Dawn Henderson

by Dawn Henderson

Accessibility

Upload Details

Usage Rights

1 Embed 2

Statistics