Findings & Reflections: CASE/mStoner/Slover Linett Social Media Survey 2011

601 views

Published on

This presentation presents data from an international survey in spring, 2011, of how schools, colleges and universities use social media in their advancement activities (alumni relations, external relations, marketing, fundraising). We reflect on what some of what we learn means as far as staffing and managing social media. We also explore characteristics of institutions that are successful with social media.

Published in: Education, Technology, Business
0 Comments
0 Likes
Statistics
Notes
  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

No Downloads
Views
Total views
601
On SlideShare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
3
Actions
Shares
0
Downloads
4
Comments
0
Likes
0
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide

Findings & Reflections: CASE/mStoner/Slover Linett Social Media Survey 2011

  1. 1. CASE Summit 2011 Findings and Reflections 2011 case/mstoner/slover linett social media survey 11 July 2011Monday, 11 July 2011 1
  2. 2. Agenda ‣ Research overview ‣ Major themes ‣ Success ‣ Management & staffing ‣ Policies & guidelines ‣ Implications/Lessons Learned ‣ DiscussionMonday, 11 July 2011 2
  3. 3. Overview ‣ Purpose: learn how institutions are using, managing and measuring social media ‣ Sponsors: CASE, mStoner, Slover Linett ‣ Methods: Link emailed to 18,000 representative CASE members; 951 responses ‣ Second annual studyMonday, 11 July 2011 3
  4. 4. Everyone’s on board ‣ Nearly all use Facebook (96%) ‣ About 3 in 4 use Twitter ‣ Two-thirds use LinkedIn or YouTube ‣ About 40% have blogs, use Flickr or offer a social community via an outside vendor ‣ Only 4% weren’t using any social mediaMonday, 11 July 2011 4
  5. 5. We like SM, but haven’t fully embraced it ‣ Most (73%) believe SM have great potential for achieving their goals ‣ Fewer have institutional support& buy-in (45%) or expertise for SM efforts (28%) ‣ We use SM to sustain our brands (90%) ‣ But we’re also very motivated by external factors like constituent demand (79%) or competition from peer institutions (84%)Monday, 11 July 2011 5
  6. 6. What we hope to achieve ‣ Top goals overall ‣ Engage alumni (84%) ‣ Strengthen brand image (75%) ‣ Marketing also uses SM to ‣ Engage prospective & admitted students (68% and 63%) ‣ Increase awareness and rankings (61%) ‣ Development more likely to use SM to engage alumni (86%) than raise funds (38%)Monday, 11 July 2011 6
  7. 7. What we’re not doing with social media ‣ Recruiting faculty and staff ‣ Crisis management ‣ Raising private funds ‣ Conducting audience research ‣ Engaging the mediaMonday, 11 July 2011 7
  8. 8. How SM use varies by geography US ‣ Engage parents, prospects, donors more ‣ Use YouTube more ‣ Have more institutional buy-in ‣ Have more in-house expertise International ‣ Control more of their own activities ‣ Use LinkedIn more ‣ Want to be more planful ‣ More influenced by others’ success storiesMonday, 11 July 2011 8
  9. 9. How SM varies by institutional size Large ‣ Use Twitter, Flickr & YouTube more ‣ Target government more Small ‣ Use a social network aggregator site or in-house community tool (e.g. Ning) more ‣ Target parents, friends + supporters, alumni, prospects and students more ‣ More centralized ‣ More influenced by peer SM activityMonday, 11 July 2011 9
  10. 10. Major ThemesMonday, 11 July 2011 10
  11. 11. 1. Success How successful are our SM activities? ‣ Moderately successful (62%); very successful (25%) ‣ Main success metric = number of “touches” (friends, click-throughs, participation) ‣ Facebook is most successful platform (87% compared to 27% for next most successful platform, Twitter)Monday, 11 July 2011 11
  12. 12. 1. Success Characteristics of institutions that succeed with SM ‣ Have specific goals ‣ More planful, less spontaneous ‣ Have broad institutional buy-in, support for SM ‣ Control SM activities (content & staff) within own dept. ‣ Have enough expertise in-house & don’t need to look for outside resourcesMonday, 11 July 2011 12
  13. 13. 1. Success Other success factors ‣ Go beyond Facebook: incorporate Twitter, Flickr, YouTube, blogs, Ning ‣ Target multiple audiences ‣ Including media, employers, guidance counselors, parents ‣ Multiple measures of success ‣ More likely to have policiesMonday, 11 July 2011 13
  14. 14. 1. Success Who tends to succeed with SM? ‣ Larger institutions (5K+ students) ‣ Marketing + Communications depts ‣ Those with more SM staff ‣ Slight skew toward central depts ‣ NOT driven by peer SM activitiesMonday, 11 July 2011 14
  15. 15. 1. Success Barriers to success ‣ Lack of staffing and expertise ‣ Site development ‣ Content management ‣ Ongoing implementation ‣ Lack of institutional clarity ‣ Slow pace of change ‣ Lack of commitment; uncertainty about SM usefulnessMonday, 11 July 2011 15
  16. 16. 2. Management & Staffing At most institutions, SM tends to be ... ‣ Controlled by the unit, including the staff & resources assigned to social media ‣ Local & dispersed throughout institution rather than centralized & coordinated ‣ Led predominantly by in-house resources rather than freelancers or vendorsMonday, 11 July 2011 16
  17. 17. 2. Management & Staffing Other observations about staffing SM ‣ Institutions that are more successful with social media have more staff devoted to it ‣ 4-yr+ colleges more likely to have staff working on SM full-time at unit level ‣ At schools, SM more likely led by director or manager; at 4-yr+ colleges, someone junior ‣ At larger institutions, SM managed by staff who are more juniorMonday, 11 July 2011 17
  18. 18. 2. Management & Staffing How institutions staff social media At the institutional level, one-quarter have someone working full-time, 100% dedicated to SM 80% 74% 30% 26% 23% 60% 23% percent of respondents percent of respondents 15% 16% 40% 15% 12% 9% 20% 16% 8% 10% 0% 0% 0 1 2+ 0 1 2 3 4 5+ Number of staff who work FT on SM (100% of their job) Number of staff who work PT on SM (25%+ of their job)Monday, 11 July 2011 18
  19. 19. 2. Management & Staffing Department-level Staffing At the department level, 80% of departments have some part-time focus on SM 90% 85% 50% 41% 68% 38% percent of respondents percent of respondents 45% 25% 23% 20% 17% 23% 13% 11% 4% 0% 0% 0 1 2+ 0 1 2 3+ Number of staff who work FT on SM (100% of their job) Number of staff who work PT on SM (25%+ of their job)Monday, 11 July 2011 19
  20. 20. 2. Management & Staffing How Institutions organize for SM ‣ Distributed ‣ Centralized ‣ Coordinated mstnr.me/mpePqpMonday, 11 July 2011 20
  21. 21. 2. Management & Staffing Staffing levels and reports ‣ Level ‣ One-third are specialists/coordinators ‣ One-third are associate/assistant directors/mgrs ‣ One-quarter are directors/managers ‣ Who do they report to? ‣ Majority report to a manager/director ‣ 30% to someone above a manager/director ‣ 13% to someone below a manager/directorMonday, 11 July 2011 21
  22. 22. 2. Management & Staffing Distributed mstnr.me/mpePqpMonday, 11 July 2011 22
  23. 23. 2. Management & Staffing Centralized mstnr.me/mpePqpMonday, 11 July 2011 23
  24. 24. 2. Management & Staffing Coordinated mstnr.me/mpePqpMonday, 11 July 2011 24
  25. 25. 3. Policies & Guidelines Growth & use of policies & guidelines ‣ Adoption of policies or guidelines for social media growing slowly ‣ Most institutions don’t have guidelines or policies ‣ If they do, branding or graphics guidelines are most common ‣ Some have content management guidelines but few tackle privacy, ethical, or legal guidelinesMonday, 11 July 2011 25
  26. 26. 3. Policies & Guidelines What policies & guidelines address not at not quite policy area somewhat extensively mean all much a bit branding & graphics 11% 12% 27% 33% 16% 3.3 content management 16% 20% 34% 24% 6% 2.8 & control privacy 18% 24% 32% 19% 8% 2.8 negative postings 20% 24% 33% 18% 5% 2.7 ethical issues 22% 27% 31% 15% 5% 2.6 legal issues 22% 28% 29% 16% 5% 2.5Monday, 11 July 2011 26
  27. 27. 3. Policies & Guidelines Policies and guidelines ‣ Creating, monitoring & enforcing policy is responsibility of Communications (55%) or Marketing (36%) ‣ 40% of institution are seriously considering developing policies; 29% are unconcerned about themMonday, 11 July 2011 27
  28. 28. 3. Policies & Guidelines Resources & samples ‣ University of Oregon: mstnr.me/UofOSM ‣ Ball State University: mstnr.me/n7nJV4 ‣ Vanderbilt University: mstnr.me/ohCuiD ‣ DePaul University: mstnr.me/DePaulSMMonday, 11 July 2011 28
  29. 29. Implications/ Lessons LearnedMonday, 11 July 2011 29
  30. 30. Changes since 2010: Good news ‣ Twitter use is up ‣ More believe that SM has value, is here to stay ‣ But more also say others in their department aren’t interested in SM ‣ More have IT & content mgmt resources they need ‣ More have policies on legal and privacy issues, negative postingsMonday, 11 July 2011 30
  31. 31. Looking ahead This year, we’ll see institutions: ‣ Creating a comprehensive SM plan (51%) ‣ Expand SM program to new audiences (46%) ‣ Add new SM tools to current programs (44%) ‣ Develop formal policies (37%) But we won’t see: ‣ Getting help from prof. association (15%) ‣ Hiring staff (14%) ‣ Getting help from SM consultants (9%) ‣ Hiring a vendor for SM evaluation (4%)Monday, 11 July 2011 31
  32. 32. Possible tensions or conflicts ‣ Most plan to expand SM but few will add resources ‣ Key barriers are lack of expertise & staffing: but few will hire staff or use consultants ‣ Low concern about privacy, ethical issues; yet the more involved you are, the more you encounter them ‣ Want resources, don’t want to give up control ‣ Successful SM orgs are happy with how things are. Are they complacent?Monday, 11 July 2011 32
  33. 33. Lessons learned: Deployment of SM ‣ Focus on one tool, get it right, move on. ‣ “Figure out how to do one well, rather than 10 in a so- so manner.” ‣ Keep in mind your audience needs. ‣ “The content and conversation must be relevant. In other words, your message will only be effective if the audience cares about the subject.” ‣ “...make sure they’re participating in a service before you invest your time. Don’t listen to one or two people—there’s always a cool new platform to explore.”Monday, 11 July 2011 33
  34. 34. Lessons learned: Targeting of SM ‣ Twitter helps to engage media ‣ “It has actually become more effective in some cases than formal press releases.” ‣ Audiences are fickle. ‣ “Prospective students seem to want to participate after a decision is made ... i.e. admitted or deposited.” ‣ “ ... the opinions, feelings, and interests of your specific audience will wax and wane. What works today will probably not work tomorrow. So keep an eye on what people are responding to.”Monday, 11 July 2011 34
  35. 35. Lessons learned: Policies ‣ Don’t be afraid of negative comments! ‣ “It’s OK to post a disclaimer that clarifies some content may be deleted. This spares you from having to keep profanity- laden posts or inappropriate content.” ‣ “Don’t be afraid of negative comments about the institution. Faithful alumni will usually chime in....” ‣ We’ve had a few incidents that could have gone horribly wrong when students reacted to incidents on campus and became vocal on Facebook. By sticking with our guidelines we managed to avoid any major fallout from the situations.”Monday, 11 July 2011 35
  36. 36. Cheryl Slover-Linett cheryl@sloverlinett.com SloverLinett.com +1.773.348.9204 Michael Stoner michael.stoner@mstoner.com mStoner.com +1.312.622.6930 @mstonerblogMonday, 11 July 2011 36
  37. 37. FROM 2010 bit.ly/eqlTsV bit.ly/c1CQvCMonday, 11 July 2011 37

×