Rondeau's Roundtable

Larry Rondeau, Sr. Director Research & Content Development The Allied Group
lrondeau@thealliedgrp.com |  401.946.6100 x 3230

My new assignment at The Allied Group centers on writing high-quality content for our website. This is an enjoyable, yet serious responsibility. Material published here must be innovative, interesting and accurate.  It shall always be well-researched and will reflect reality. While blog posts will sometimes be based on my understanding of the facts, established knowledge will always prove to be its foundation. 

Higher education provides valuable services to the community. It substantially increases the lifetime incomes of its graduates. It also teaches students how to think critically and encourages them to broaden their outlook. Education can change lives and educators have serious responsibilities towards their students, their institutions and their communities. Thus, this blog will often consider research that can help admissions officials and advancement professionals effectively accomplish their goals. It will also consider studies that bear on the effect the college experience can have on students. The themes may be familiar, but I will always search for facts education professionals may not have yet considered.

If you like what you read, please indicate that by clicking on the Like button or, better yet, leave a comment. If you disagree, please feel free to express that as well. The goal of any “roundtable” is a lively, enjoyable discussion. My hope is to have one take place here. Please email me to continue any conversation privately or with any subjects you would like to see researched and considered in this blog.

“Why Won’t People Listen to Good Ideas?” discussed research showing that those with strongly ingrained views won't mentally process sound evidence presented by the other side. Is there anything we can do to encourage parents, students, colleagues or faculty to consider solid facts we raise?

First, it’s important to understand why many won’t listen. One reason became apparent in a series of studies starting in 1959. Eminent social psychologist Dr. Elliot Aronson explains that research began in a southern town deeply divided over racial segregation. Most today clearly recognize the evils of apartheid, but in 1959 it was a burning issue, particularly in the South. Researchers selected people with strong feelings for or against segregation. Then they presented a series of arguments on both sides of the issue. Some were plausible, others were lame. A survey on the points each recalled was telling. People remembered the logical arguments supporting their position and the illogical arguments that backed the opposing view.

A number of follow up studies produced similar results. The answer was clear. People ignored or quickly forgot points that might prove their opinion wrong. They focused on the opposition’s lame arguments because these strengthened their position. This phenomenon is called Confirmation Bias. Finding the right answer took a back seat to proving they were right. The highly respected Dr. Aronson explains:

During the past half-century, social psychologists have discovered that one of the most powerful determinants of human behavior stems from our need to preserve a stable, positive self-image. Most of us want to believe that we are reasonable, decent folks who make wise decisions, do not behave immorally and have integrity.

Thus, when confronted with factual information that might show us mistaken or foolish, we automatically tend to ignore or dismiss it, focusing instead on any piece of data that might prove us right.

One study found smokers who tried but failed to quit were least likely to recognize the dangers of smoking. Clearly, dismissing inconvenient facts can prove destructive to individuals and businesses. It’s important, then, to recognize that while those on the opposite side of an issue may ignore sound evidence, we too are fully capable of making that mistake.

Removing the blinders

First, we must realize that every party in a discussion, including us, may display confirmation bias. How can we combat it? One way is to remind ourselves that our willingness to honestly consider all evidence takes moral courage and strength, highly admirable traits. That realization may help us past the tendency to protect our ego by defending a position. Researcher Dr. David Myers recommends that senior managers require their staff members who present arguments to give one good reason why they could be wrong.

To help others avoid ignoring valid evidence, we can try a psychological technique called “labeling.” We could begin a discussion by praising our associates for the open-mindedness and fairness they’ve previously shown. This technique was used to great advantage by former Egyptian President Anwar Sadat. Communications psychology expert Robert Cialdini, PhD relates,

Before international negotiations began, Sadat would assure his bargaining opponents that they and the citizens of their country were widely known for their cooperativeness and fairness.

Did his technique work? Despite the notoriously entrenched positions in the Middle East, Sadat and former hard-liner Menachem Begin negotiated the only modern peace treaty between an Arab nation and Israel.  I rest my case.

The Allied Group is a marketing communications company providing integrated marketing communications programs and full service fulfillment services including Search, Stealth and Yield programs as well as publication design, printing and distribution to colleges and universities.

Senior administrators, admissions officers and college marketers frequently have to persuade others to agree and act on their point of view. At times that can prove extremely difficult. Senior staff members may want to include important new initiatives in their institution’s priorities for the coming year. Admissions officers need to influence colleagues, faculty, guidance counselors parents and students. Senior marketers are required to come up with marketing communication strategies to achieve the college’s goals and evaluate plans for individual campaigns.

In each case, the key players involved must agree. But at times agreement can be extremely hard to achieve. Sometimes it seems that people just won’t listen to good ideas. Researchers have carefully studied this phenomenon using controlled scientific experiments. The results may surprise you.

Why can’t they see the point?

Social psychologist Lee Ross’ research led him to conclude that people often express what he calls “naive realism.” Each person assumes that they perceive events as they really are. Eminent social psychologist Dr. Elliot Aronson explains that since we are sure we recognize reality, our tendency is to assume that others who are reasonable should be able to see things our way. If they don’t, we assume that they aren’t reasonable. But are we ourselves always able to see the facts clearly?

NBC news reported on a study done on “seeing the facts” in the political arena. During the 2004 presidential race between George W. Bush and John Kerry, Drew Westen, Director of Clinical Psychology at Emory University conducted a study using functional MRI (fMRI) equipment. This machine allows researchers to monitor blood flow to different parts of the brain, revealing how people’s minds react in various situations. One study found, for example, that the brain area normally involved in reading did not activate when those coping with dyslexia attempted to read. Another neural region tried to do the job for which it was not equipped (like star quarterbacks Tom Brady or Drew Brees playing nose tackle).

In Dr. Westen’s study, staunch Republicans and Democrats heard contradictory statements released by Bush or Kerry on important issues while monitored by the fMRI equipment. When hearing their own candidate’s points, supporters’ brain regions involved in reasoning and emotion lit up. They paid close attention and liked what they heard.

But when listening to the opposing candidate, the reaction was quite different. "We did not see any increased activation of the parts of the brain normally engaged during reasoning," the researcher reported. People paid little attention to a viewpoint that contradicted their own. According to NBC, “The test subjects on both sides of the political aisle reached totally biased conclusions by ignoring information that could not rationally be discounted, Westen and his colleagues say…The study points to a total lack of reason in political decision-making.”

That’s a scary finding. And if people whose minds are made up can discount or ignore inconvenient facts in a crucial matter like national leadership, what hope do we have of winning colleagues to our point of view on institutional initiatives or admissions matters? Fortunately, research has not only revealed human biases, but some helpful approaches for overcoming them as well. Stay tuned.

The Allied Group is an award-winning marketing communications company that provides search, conversion,yield and stealth programs for college admissions. Allied is a leader in employing one-to-one communication programs for admissions and advancement based on important research in marketing and social psychology.

Have you or your staff ever had an experience like this one? You have a conversation with a high school student who’s appears to be a perfect fit for your institution. He/she is responding with enthusiasm to your message. You’re certain that this student will be a member of your incoming freshman class. And then…you never hear from them again.

What happened? Did you say or do something wrong? Often, the answer is no. Everything you said and did clicked with the student. But in the time between your conversation and the time to inquire, apply or enroll, something or someone else got in the way.

Technology to the Rescue

Fortunately, as often happens, new technology can help you prevent situations like this one from happening over and over again. That technology is mobile marketing. Mobile marketing allows you to capture a response from students while they feel like responding. Is there an event you’d like them to attend? Tell them about it, and then give them an easy way to register right there on the spot with their mobile phones. Do you want them to visit a website to respond to your college’s offer or inquire in some other way? Mobile technology can allow them to do it while they’re in the mood.

Mobile Rated Effective

The Noel-Levitz report “2011 Marketing and Student Recruitment Practices at Four-Year and Two-Year Institutions” shows that 64% of admissions officials responding rated mobile apps as “somewhat effective” or “very effective” in recruiting freshmen, yet only 16.9% actively use them. Could this be due to the fact that mobile apps must be created by talented but overworked college IT departments? 

An Easier Way

Using QR codes (two-dimensional bar codes) can provide an easier way to reap a major benefit of mobile marketing – immediate response – while avoiding the hassle of creating your own mobile apps and getting students to download them. Every smartphone user can download a free QR code reader, and new initiatives by Coca-Cola, Best Buy, Macy's and other major retailers will encourage your prospects to install them on their phones.

Displaying QR codes on admissions marketing materials or posters can allow students to immediately visit mobile websites created and sponsored by qualified partners. There they can respond to an offer, get a customized electronic brochure for the program of their choice or register for an on-campus or online event. This can prove an excellent way to “strike while the iron is hot,” increasing qualified inquiry, application and yield rates.

Is your institution looking to improve in any of these areas? Using mobile marketing and QR codes might just be the way to accomplish it.

The Allied Group is a marketing communications company that offers mobile marketing along with Search, Stealth, Conversion and Yield programs for colleges and universities. 

As Student Search letters hit the mail, it’s important to recognize what many institutions are up against. Students may have never heard of the college that would prove to be their best choice. If they choose a better-known institution that’s not a good fit, both they and their ideal school will lose. How can worthy but less-than-famous colleges get students’ attention?

Direct mail is still the best way to reach out to students initially. In a College Board survey, 81% of students said that personal letters from colleges increased their interest. Another 75% indicated that brochures mailed to them had a similar effect. Emails came in at 61%.  All should continue to be employed by many institutions.

But crowded mailboxes are the bane of lesser-known schools. One study presented at NEACAC this year found that 40% of prospects’ names were available for only one year. Institutions must therefore make the best use of their opportunity to engage these prospects. Time-pressed Millennials often take mental shortcuts and choose brand name institutions. Many rely on the advice of parents and friends. Although 74% respected their guidance counselor’s recommendations, these alone may not be enough to help unknown but creditable institutions.

Getting noticed in a crowded Search market

After PSAT, SAT and ACT results become available, many students are deluged with Search letters and emails. As these crowd their mail boxes, two types will stand out: 

• Those from familiar institutions   
• Those whose message is relevant

The first point is obvious. It’s also proved by research. When students feel overwhelmed with choices, familiar names will stand out. But if your college is not a household name, personal relevance may be your best chance at getting your letter or email opened. Studies cited by eminent social psychologist Dr. Elliot Aronson reveal that when a message is personally relevant, people will pay attention to it even if the presenter doesn’t have the benefit of fame and prestige.

How can you know what’s personally relevant?

Relevant text and/or photos on a mailer or envelope will make it stand out and increase its chances to be opened and read. But what’s relevant? If Search names are from a recent test, student-provided data on intended major, sports and extracurricular interests are likely to be fairly accurate. This information could be an excellent source of relevant data to be used in a one to one communication campaign starting with Search letters and emails. If test results are not recent, data on intended majors will spoil rather than improve with age.  How can institutions make sure student interest information is up-to-date? 

Some college websites employ a Stealth Program, offering visitors a customized electronic, and sometimes printed, brochure. Students wanting to receive one must give contact information and indicate their intended major and extracurricular interests. This tool can be used effectively in a number of settings.

Links included on college Facebook pages and targeted display ads can turn an electronic brochure offer into a great outreach tool. It gives students exactly the information they request, gets institutions the fresh data they need, and has proved to get substantially higher conversion rates than traditional Search. And, of course, prospects requesting e-brochures have thereby inquired and may not need to be searched again.

Could a relevant message help your institution stand out in a crowded field?

The Allied Group is a marketing communications company offering award-winning Search, Stealth, Conversion and Yield Programs for traditional and nontraditional college admissions.

Admissions officials are often reminded of advantages that higher education can bring to students. These unquestionably include substantially higher lifetime earnings, ability to think critically and a broadened outlook. But research shows that the college experience can have an impact that neither students nor parents anticipate. It’s important for administrators, faculty and admissions officials to understand this effect, since they want to truly help those they educate.

Learning more than academics

A point observed by many is backed by science. Social psychologist and textbook author Dr. David Myers writes, “The teens and early twenties are important formative years (Krosnick & Alwin, 1989).  Attitudes are changeable during that time and the attitudes formed then tend to stabilize through middle adulthood.” Research beside that quoted here by Dr. Myers bears this out. For although some adults clearly change their opinions and beliefs, convictions formed during the college years have proved remarkably resilient.

Researcher James Davis (2004) combed through the National Opinion Research Center archives and found, for instance, that Americans who reached age 16 during the 1960s became more politically liberal than average and maintained that view for many years. 

This validates a groundbreaking study conducted with students from Bennington College. During the 1930s and early 1940s, Bennington students were primarily women from wealthier, more conservative families. The young professors who taught them leaned toward leftist political views. Their influence was strong and its effects long-lasting. Bennington women became much more liberal than others from the same social background. Some fifty years later, in the 1984 presidential election, Bennington alumnae in their 70s voted Democratic by a 3 to 1 margin while the same percentage of college educated women in that age group voted Republican. Dr. Myers noted, “Their views embraced at an impressionable time had survived a lifetime of wider experience.”

This highlights the power the college experience has to impact young people, perhaps for the rest of their lives. As often noted, this learning is not done in the classroom alone. Roommates, fraternity/sorority members and others can exert considerable influence as well, as illustrated by research conducted at Columbia University. It asked subjects, alone in a darkened room, to estimate how much a pinpoint of light moved.  This was an optical illusion – natural movement of their eyes made the stationary light appear to shift. 

Understandably, estimates varied widely - until researcher Muzafer Sherif put subjects in groups and asked them to look again. Participants were surprised that their companions’ assessments were so different than theirs.  But soon each group reached a middle-of-the-road compromise. When invited back a year later, each group member estimated the light’s movement by themselves, but still stuck to the group’s viewpoint. As eminent social psychologist Dr. Elliot Aronson put it, “These results suggest that people were relying on each other to define reality and came to privately accept the group estimate.”

Thus, students who come to campus for a degree in nursing, business or engineering may receive an education they didn’t expect. We ourselves may find that some of our views still reflect opinions expressed by professors and college friends. Said Dr. Myers, “Young people might therefore be advised to choose their social influences - the groups they join, the media they imbibe, the roles they adopt – carefully.” This research also highlights the serious responsibility institutions have toward undergraduate students. The entire college experience will mold their thinking. Do they realize that? Will all the features of that mold truly benefit them? 

The Allied Group is a higher education marketing firm offering Search, Conversion and Yield Programs to the admissions community.

Research shows that time-pressed Millennial hs students prefer well-known brands. What chance do worthy but lesser-known colleges have to compete? Consider:
 
While researching ways to increase inquiries last spring, I found myself in a parking lot packed with hs students at the NACAC College Fair in Boston and decided to hold an impromptu focus group. To my amazement, the juniors I spoke with already had already put together their short lists and planned on talking with just 3-5 institutions at the Fair. I asked if there was anything a college that wasn’t on their list could do to gain consideration. They gave two answers: 

• Give away free stuff (NACAC wouldn’t be thrilled with that!)
• Make an impressive presentation

This experience reinforced two important points. First, it showed the wisdom of a recommendation made in a Search Expert presentation at NEACAC this year:  “Starting early is key.” As Strauss and Howe point out, Millennials are big brand shoppers. Research shows that people who are pressed for time look for shortcuts, and a strong brand provides an easy one. Therefore, it’s crucial that students learn about your institution very early in the process. And if your college is not in the news regularly, it’s clear that you’ll need to do some good PR work with freshmen and then search sophomores if you’re going to make many short lists.

Students may have learned this approach from their parents. Internationally respected research firm Global Reviews conducted a marketing study on people buying insurance on the Internet. It showed that, just like prospective freshmen, those who buy insurance online often start their search with a preferred list of providers in mind. But a full 35% of those who did ended up buying their insurance from a firm that was not on that list.

What made the difference? Global Reviews CEO Greg Muller stated our second key point: “Strong brand awareness can get people to your website, but a better customer experience from a lesser known brand can often win out.” College websites are often well-designed, but actual experience shows that sites that get the right kind of commitments from visitors generate more applications and higher yield rates.  In addition, one state institution broke the mold at the Boston NACAC College Fair, displaying videos in their double-size booth. Their VP of Enrollment reported that her inquiry level for that fair was the best yet.

When students approach your website or your booth, the better experience they have, the more likely they are to investigate further. And when they do, the enjoyable encounter they have may help your institution leapfrog the big brand universities and enroll students who had hardly heard of you when they began their college search.

The Allied Group is an award-winning marketing communications company offering personalized direct marketing, publications/web design and full service fulfillment to higher education institutions.

Educators and marketers alike have genuine respect for the value of research. Putting good marketing research to use helped one New England university more than double undergraduate enrollment over a four-year period. Learning studies have assisted educators to find ways to more effectively teach traditional and nontraditional students alike. 

Social psychology research can prove just as valuable in undergraduate and nontraditional admissions marketing as well as advancement programs. Fundraising campaigns that use it have doubled participation. An undergraduate yield website designed by The Allied Group, a marketing services company, effectively employs such research. That website helped three universities get yield rates for accepted students who visited it ranging from 43.2% to 44.8%.

Eminent psychologist Dr. Elliot Aronson defines social psychology as “the scientific study of the way in which people’s thoughts, feelings and behaviors are influenced by the real or imagined presence of other people.” Established research in this discipline can tell educators and marketers how students, prospects and alumni are likely to react in certain situations. This is extremely important. Controlled, peer-reviewed experiments often produce results that are quite different than we might expect.  Understanding the findings of scientific studies can help institutions avoid serious problems.

For example, to focus students’ attention on a growing campus problem, administrators may emphasize how many have contributed to it. Messages like, “Many students leave trash in the cafeteria” or “Far too many people text while they’re driving” may communicate the fact that these issues are significant. But research finds that statements like these actually add to the problem. To illustrate, the National Park Service has been greatly concerned over the theft of irreplaceable petrified wood from the Petrified Forest National Park. Park visitors take some 14 tons of it per year. Rangers put up large signs decrying the fact that visitors steal so much wood that someday much of this national treasure may disappear. 

Renowned social psychologist Robert Cialdini, PhD and colleagues put the effectiveness of these signs to the test. They replaced some with placards that simply asked visitors in text and symbols not to take petrified wood. In other areas they took down all signs. Then they put marked pieces of petrified wood along pathways in each area to monitor theft rates. The results, according to Dr. Cialdini, “should petrify the National Park’s management.” Note how many pieces of marked wood were stolen during a brief period:

     • “Far too many visitors steal wood” sign:       7.92 pieces
     •  No sign (control group):                                2.92 pieces
     • “Please don’t remove petrified wood” sign:   1.67 pieces

The park’s commonsense approach to reduce theft by alerting visitors to the enormity of the problem actually made it worse – more than 2 ½ times worse than doing nothing at all! Numerous studies reveal that in certain circumstances people are automatically moved to do what others are doing. This illustrates the fact that including the right social psychology research in well-designed marketing communications strategies can make or break their success.    

Early in their educational lives, students are told that a truly bright economic future depends on a degree from an elite college or university. Is that really true? Not according to Dr. Alan Krueger, Professor of Economics and Public Affairs at a most elite institution, Princeton University. Dr. Krueger was interviewed for the June, 2011 issue of Money magazine, where he stated:

My colleague Stacy Dale and I tracked more than 26,000 students who were freshmen at a group of about two dozen colleges, which included schools such as Penn State and Yale. Over the course of their careers, the students who chose not to attend the most selective school to which they were admitted earned about as much as those with similar grades and test scores who went to the highest-ranked college they got into.

This research demonstrates that the quality of student and program outranks the elite status of the institution in determining earning power. This reminds one of research published by Malcolm Gladwell in Outliers. It was a list of where the last 25 Americans to win the Nobel Prize in Medicine prior to 2008 got their undergraduate degrees. As expected, the list included institutions like:

• Harvard University
• Columbia University
• Yale University
• Brown University
• MIT
• Amherst College

But Nobel laureates in Medicine were just as likely to have gotten their bachelor’s at:

• Antioch College
• Holy Cross
• Hunter College
• DePauw University
• University of Minnesota
• Union College, Kentucky

Clearly, the quality of pre-med programs at these institutions was sufficient to put high achieving students on a path to greatness. As Dr. Krueger put it: 

There is far too much pressure on high school students to go to the most elite schools…My advice is if you have a child applying to college, ignore the various rankings.  No one school is automatically better for all kinds of students.

Admissions officers and marketers at all but the 24 most elite institutions will undoubtedly find this message one they will want to get out to students and parents. But even with a great story, it’s not easy to wrestle with giants like the elite schools studied by Professor Krueger. 

How can good colleges consistently succeed in the shadow of great universities? One way is to consider how other organizations in similar circumstances have found ways to thrive.  With one such organization the unique nature of its integrated marketing communications program is key. We will examine this in “Keeping Admissions Marketing on Target,” It will be the next post in this blog on The Allied Group website.

Now that May 1st has come and gone, admissions officers across America are pausing to catch their breath. After what may have been an exhausting yield campaign, admissions officers might well wonder if there’s an easier, more effective way to improve their yield programs and enrollment rates. Recent research demonstrates that there is, and its ROI can be substantial.

A few years ago The Allied Group, a marketing communications company, won a national award for its Yield Program. It helped the University of Hartford set an institution record for deposits. The following year another New England university tailored Allied’s program to its needs and got an 11% deposit increase. In 2010 their Director of Admissions decided to add Allied’s Yield Website to further boost the university’s yield rate. This wise admissions marketer set up a controlled test to measure the exact impact Allied’s enrollment initiative and its print and web components had on enrollments. It was important to do this, because Allied’s Yield Program may be unique in college admissions.

This recruiting procedure includes sending a customized publication to admitted students. That publication highlights information of greatest interest to the individual and invites him or her to visit a yield website to register for a contest. The yield website is far from elaborate – while it can be customized to the interests of each student, it merely asks two ordinary survey questions.  But social psychology research shows that asking these questions at this point in the cycle can have a powerful impact on students, further increasing their interest in enrolling.

As the final results demonstrated, social psychology research accurately predicted the results. The contest sponsored by the admissions office drove a full 20% of admitted students to the website. That was crucial to the program’s success, as shown by the final numbers:

• Allied Yield Website deposit rate:                     38.6%
• Allied Yield Website enrollment rate:                32.5%
• Allied Yield Program overall enrollment rate      28.9%
• Control Group enrollment rate                          27.5%

Thus, this well-conceived yield program actually helped the university’s admissions office enroll 44 more students in 2010 than they would without it. The Director of Admissions’ method for driving students to the website was a key – of the 44 additional students the university enrolled with the Allied program, 35 came from the Yield Website. The ROI was excellent, exceeding $25 in first-year tuition for every $1 spent.

If you have any questions about this highly cost-effective marketing communications program, please feel free to email me or call me at (401) 946-6100 x3230.

Part One considered one technique taught in college that has clearly earned its place among marketing communications strategies. The foot-in-the-door (FITD) technique has helped savvy undergraduate Student Search providers generate large inquiry pools for colleges and universities across America. FITD is just one aspect of what psychologists call the Consistency Principle. It’s people's tendency to change their attitudes to make them consistent with their actions. The Consistency Principle was once viewed as a theory. It has been verified by some 1,000 controlled scientific studies and is now considered a fact.

Why do humans change their feelings to make them consistent with their actions? Some psychologists feel it’s due to society's negative view of wishy-washy people. Eminent psychologist Elliot Aronson, PhD describes it as a way to maintain a stable, positive self-image. But whatever the reason, study after study shows that, under the right conditions, most people will not only take actions based on how they feel, they’ll feel emotions that are consistent with their actions.

Recruiting with Consistency

Consistency has a long and storied role in admissions marketing. It’s among the most effective academic lead generation methods. A major undergraduate Student Search company employs it to get high inquiry rates for hundreds of colleges. If it’s done right, prospective students who respond to Search initiatives using this approach are significantly more likely to apply.

The Allied Group recently deployed an undergraduate Yield Website to help admissions departments improve their yield of accepted students. That website used the Consistency Principle to increase students’ desire to enroll. In a controlled marketing test at one New England university, a considerable number of students visited the interactive site. They enrolled at a rate of 32.53%, a full five percentage points higher than the control group’s 27.5%.

Nontraditional Recruiting Application

Higher education programs for adults can make good use of the Consistency Principle to help them generate qualified adult inquiries. After all, the original studies that led to its acceptance used adult participants. Graduate, continuing education and professional development Search programs can adapt the techniques that work so well in undergraduate Search to the particular interests of adult learners. 

One program in particular demonstrates the viability of the Consistency Principle in recruiting nontraditional students. A few years ago, all-adult Franklin University’s website offered web visitors a customized electronic brochure in exchange for their contact information. Students who requested it had to take action to fill out the questionnaire and choose their preferred field of study.  Did it increase interest? Marketing officials at Franklin reported that this program improved their adult inquiries by 35% and helped them convert an astounding 48% of participating web visitors into applicants. A similar Stealth Program provided by The Allied Group has converted traditional undergraduate “stealth students” into qualified inquiries at a number of institutions in the Northeast, with conversion rates as high as 63.9%.

Could this proven scientific principle increase your inquiries and applications?

This is a familiar question for educators and admissions officials. Students and employers alike want to know if what is taught at your college will translate into good results in the business world. Will it?

As a higher education marketer with a national award for admissions marketing, I can say without hesitation, “Yes.” Techniques taught in college really can work in real-world situations. The Allied Group has helped institutions significantly increase enrollments using these techniques. One example of this if what social psychologists call the Foot-in-the-Door Phenomenon. The widely-used textbook, Social Psychology by David Myers, PhD defines it as:

The tendency for people who have first agreed to a small request to comply later with a larger request.

The Foot-in-the-Door (FITD) Phenomenon (see page 121 in the linked text) has been taught by such luminaries as textbook authors Elliot Aronson, PhD, the only psychologist in history to win each of the APA’s top awards for teaching, writing and research and Robert Cialdini, PhD, Professor Emeritus at ASU, who has trained and advised scores of business leaders, the Prime Minister of Great Britain and the President of the United States. It has been the subject of more than 100 controlled scientific studies and is considered a fact of human behavior.

Does FITD work in the real world? Yes. It plays a big role in marketing to college students. During the traditional college search process, marketing communication strategies based on FITD bring in large numbers of admissions inquiries to colleges and universities across America. In these programs, institutions send out personalized direct mail featuring an offer to prospective students. Many will respond to receive the offer. If (and only if) the offer and program are structured correctly, a significant number of those who inquire in this way will also apply.

Foot-in-the-Door Development Campaigns

FITD-based campaigns have excelled in others ways as well, particularly in charitable giving. In one controlled study a development campaign for the Canadian Cancer Society requested that some prospective donors make a small commitment to cancer research. The next day, volunteers asked them and many others for contributions. Those who had made a smaller commitment the day before were twice as likely to donate. Similarly, an Israeli research study found that making the right small request of householders two weeks before a fundraising drive increased donor participation by 84%. 

Studies have shown that FITD works under certain conditions and not in others. But when it’s done correctly it has significantly increased the likelihood that students will inquire and apply to college, adults will donate money (and even their organs) and teenage smokers will join Stop Smoking programs. This is clearly an example of a technique taught in college that really works in real life. Could an integrated marketing communications program using techniques like this help your institution reach its goals? If you’d like to investigate you can email me at lrondeau@thealliedgrp.com.

As we saw in Part One, communicating the right message to the right adult student is crucial to the success of your marketing efforts. Choosing the right media to transmit that message is every bit as important. All media have strengths and weaknesses.  Sending your message through a single medium will rarely perform as well as using an integrated marketing communication (IMC) plan. IMC plans are among the most effective marketing communications strategies, employing several media in a coordinated campaign.

For example, to reach prospects in the surrounding area, many continuing education programs use radio. Radio has a number of advantages – it can reach a large audience at relatively low cost compared to television. It’s selective - education marketers can use it to get their message out to the demographic group best suited to their programs. One Arbitron study found that 92% of the radio audience continued to listen during commercial breaks.

But expecting radio spots alone to carry a continuing education or professional development marketing program will likely lead to disappointment. Most radio stations carry up to 10 minutes of advertising every hour. So, while an adult learner is still processing your message, several other commercials are vying for his or her attention. Even effective radio spots are fleeting – they’re heard and then they’re gone. Few but the most interested listeners will call you before they arrive at their destination – and when they get there they face many distractions. Radio can raise awareness of your programs and increase interest.   But to turn that interest into inquiries requires a trigger.

Triggering a Response 

Direct mail and the Internet can provide that trigger. Targeted direct mail, especially customized one to one communication can further develop the interest your radio ad sparked. It’s a relatively permanent message – unlike a radio ad, prospects can put a postcard or flyer up on the refrigerator as a reminder. It can provide an easy way for students to respond through a prefilled inquiry postcard or response website. And since, to quote adult learner expert Carol Aslanian, “adults are the ultimate stealth students,” a number of your prospects will respond by quietly investigating your institution’s website.   

While your college website can provide detailed information on relevant programs, prospects can browse without ever letting you know they’re interested. Interactive sites like The Allied Group’s Stealth Program can engage them by offering students exactly the information they want in a customized eBrochure in exchange for their contact information. A similar vehicle helped Ohio’s Franklin University increase adult inquiries by 35% and convert an astounding 48% of them into applicants.

Coordinating radio, direct mail and the web can give programs for adult learners much better results than using any one of these media by itself. That’s why marketing experts George and Michael Belch wrote, “IMC is undoubtedly the major communications development of the last decade of the 20th century. Could it make a difference at your institution?

A lot of people are competing for the attention of your prospective adult students.  Each day, every one of them may see or hear hundreds of advertisements for a dizzying array of products.  Some may be from competing institutions seeking to enroll students who might be a perfect fit for your program.  Are there effective ways to rise above the clutter and effectively communicate with them?

Your marketing communication strategy, the media you use and the marketing tactics you choose can make a big difference.  Sending the wrong message to the right people can make you look bad to your best prospects.  Sending the right communication to the wrong people wastes both opportunities and limited resources.  Using the wrong media may mean that your best prospects may never receive your message – or won’t act on it if they do.

And, if your message is the right one, how you present it can make a big difference.  An experience from private industry illustrates this point.  When sales of their Wave Radio were flat a few years ago, Bose Corporation of Cambridge, Massachusetts hired persuasion expert Robert Cialdini, PhD to review their advertising.  He recommended changing one line, the headline on their print, Internet and public advertisements.  Store traffic increased so much that sales rose by 45%.
 
One to One Communication Gets the Right Help to the Right People

In establishing a marketing communication strategy for your program, it is, of course, vital to accurately assess the needs of the groups you’re trying to reach.  Are you trying to promote a graduate or degree completion program? Your prospective students recognize the value of higher education; with this group you need to differentiate your institution from your competitors. But if you’re trying to reach students who have no college background, discussing your programs’ merits will mean little.  These prospects might need to be convinced that furthering their education will truly help their job opportunities. Or they may need to be helped to see that college is not beyond their reach. 

How can you deliver the right message to the right people?  Having the right data can make all the difference.  Knowledgeable marketers can access data on the demographic groups that live within certain zip codes.  They can help you narrow down lists for targeted direct mail campaigns.   Is this approach truly effective?  Professors George and Michael Belch of San Diego State University reported,

Porsche developed a direct-mail piece that was sent to a precisely defined target market:  physicians in specialties with the highest income levels.  This list was screened to match the demographic of Porsche buyers and narrowed further to specific geographic areas.  The direct-mail piece was an X-ray of a Porsche 911 Carrera 4 written in the language of the medical audience.  This creative campaign generated one of the highest response rates of any mailing Porsche has done in recent years.

You may feel that students have little in common with doctors shopping for sports cars.  But studies with college students show that they really do pay attention to relevant communication.  No medium can do this better than customized, personalized direct mail.  Integrating this approach with other media and using research to further focus your message can magnify its effectiveness.  You’ll see how in Part Two of this series. 

To tell or not to tell.  That is the question for any student applying to college with a less-than-stellar disciplinary record.  Students, parents and guidance counselors worry about the effect disclosing negative information might have on the admissions process.  If the student is a good kid who made one mistake, is it really necessary to strongly admonish him to reveal everything?

According to eminent social psychologist, researcher and author Elliot Aronson, PhD, failing to be honest can affect the student in ways that go far beyond admittance to college.   Dr. Aronson’s award-winning research has proved many aspects of the theory of cognitive dissonance.  That theory effectively explains much of the psychology behind marital discord, racial prejudice and public corruption.  In Mistakes Were Made (but not by me), Dr. Aronson and coauthor Carol Tavris, PhD explain:

Cognitive dissonance is a state of tension that occurs whenever a person holds two cognitions (ideas, attitudes, beliefs, opinions) that are psychologically inconsistent, such as “Smoking is a dumb thing to do because it could kill me” and “I smoke two packs a day.”  Dissonance produces mental discomfort, ranging from minor pangs to deep anguish; people don’t rest easy until they find a way to reduce it.

Completing a college application is an undertaking fraught with cognitive dissonance if you’re a student with a past.  What will you do?  You know it’s wrong to lie, and worse if you certify you’ve told the truth. But if you tell the truth, you risk rejection by an institution you’d like to attend.  Either course is uncomfortable. In the widely used textbook, Social Psychology, Dr. Aronson and his coauthors frame the dilemma in terms of cheating on a college exam:

Supposed that after a difficult struggle you decide to cheat.  How do you reduce the dissonance?...It is likely that you would try to justify the action... You would adopt a more lenient attitude involving cheating, convincing yourself that it’s a victimless crime, that everybody does it and so it’s really not so bad.

In contrast, a student who decides not to cheat will reduce dissonance by convincing himself that cheating is unquestionably wrong; otherwise he would not risk an important grade to avoid it. His truthful actions actually make him a more truthful person.

Students who lie to get into college have started down a slippery slope, setting themselves up to lie and cheat in other situations as well.  This can become a way of life.  In matters of ethics, it truly is “In for a penny, in for a pound.”  Many corrupt public figures started out honest, but then “lost their moral compass.”  Anyone in a position to influence students should help them avoid that pitfall.

The Allied Group is an award-winning marketing communications company and full-service fulfillment provider.  Our Yield Programs have been proven to increase enrollment.

In Part One we discussed how cultivating a spirit of liking or respect for a challenging faculty member or colleague can pay dividends in increasing their willingness to cooperate.  We saw how a strategy that once served Ben Franklin well can warm relations with coworkers today.  Research reveals some further communication strategies that can help you turn difficult associates into allies.

At times, colleagues who are at odds try to catch each other doing something wrong, hoping to find usable leverage.  Often, a more effective strategy is to try to catch a contentious coworker doing something right and immediately commend him or her for it.  This will not only reinforce desirable behavior but will allow you to label them as a helpful ally.  Why would you want to attach such a label to a person who may have withheld their cooperation in the past?  Eminent psychologist Elliot Aronson, PhD and his coauthor answer:

One of social psychology’s best documented phenomena is the self-fulfilling
prophecy – the tendency for a definition of a situation to evoke behavior that makes the definition come true.  Dozens of experiments have shown that students who are randomly labeled “smarter” tend to act smarter…and women who are labeled “beautiful” behave as if they are beautiful.

In one experiment outlined by persuasion expert Robert Cialdini, PhD and his coauthors, researchers interviewed a large number of registered voters and told half of them that their responses showed they were “above average citizens likely to vote and participate in political events.”  The others were told that they were average in this area.  Those labeled as good citizens proved 15% more likely to vote in the election held one week later.  In another study, New Haven residents who were told they were generous later contributed significantly more than others to a worthy cause.

A word of caution:  Using the labeling technique insincerely could easily backfire. Praising someone for a desirable trait he or she hasn’t displayed could be readily seen as an overt attempt to manipulate.

But even the most unhelpful associate will usually assist someone.  Be alert for occasions when they do and commend them for their accommodating actions.  Let them know that this shows the kind of helpful person they are.  This was a favorite negotiating tactic of former Egyptian President Anwar Sadat.  As Dr. Cialdini put it:

Before international negotiations began, Sadat would assure his bargaining opponents that they and the citizens of their country were widely known for their cooperativeness and fairness...  According to master-negotiator Henry Kissinger (1982), Sadat was successful because he got others to act in his interests by giving them a reputation to uphold.

In summary, to turn a challenging colleague into an ally, here are some strategies to use:
 

1. Warm up your own feelings by thinking about your associate’s good qualities. 
2. Use Ben Franklin’s tactic to gain a friend: ask them for a favor and, when they grant it, let them know how much they helped you.
3. Catch them doing a helpful act and commend them for it, giving them a good reputation to live up to.

You will find that many people will respond favorably.  And you may just gain the comrade-in-arms you need.


Yield Programs using one-to-one communication have proved extremely effective in enrolling accepted students.  If you'd like to read a case study, click here.
 

Cooperation between admissions officers and faculty members can be crucial to a college’s strategic marketing efforts. This is particularly true when transfer credits need to be approved, when accepted students or their parents have detailed questions about academics and when yield events are taking place on campus. But developing collaborative relationships with faculty members may not be the easiest of tasks. Some colleagues may be stubborn and difficult. How can you develop a beneficial alliance with a colleague who doesn’t want to cooperate?

Set the Stage for a Mutually Supportive Relationship

Before trying to persuade a difficult person it’s important to prepare your mind. Persuasion expert and bestselling author Robert Cialdini, PhD makes this recommendation: ‘First, think of qualities and traits of this person that you can like and admire. Reflecting on these will cause you to like that person (at least a little bit). Studies show that people can instinctively sense when others like them, and when they don’t. We tend to like those who like us,’ so if your colleague senses that you appreciate him or her, they will be inclined to like you in return. Cialdini concludes, ‘We are much more easily persuaded by those we like.’

Next, Get your “Foot in the Door”

Now that you’ve set the stage you’re ready to take the next step in getting your colleague on your side. In order to get cooperation, people will often argue with those who block their efforts or make obvious attempts to “butter them up.” This can backfire and leave you in a worse position.

If the one you’re trying to influence is stubborn or resistant, you may need to take another step first. The Foot-in-the-Door technique can effectively warm up relations – and a spirit of collaboration with faculty members or other colleagues. Benjamin Franklin discovered this when America was still a British colony. His experience was analyzed by Dr. Elliot Aronson, a social psychologist voted to the list of The 100 Most Influential Psychologists of the Twentieth Century and coauthor Carol Tavris, PhD. They wrote: “While serving in the Pennsylvania legislature, Franklin was disturbed by the opposition and animosity of a fellow legislator. So he set out to win him over. He didn’t do it, he wrote, “by paying any servile respect to him” – that is, by doing the other man a favor – but by inducing his target to do a favor for him – loaning him a rare book from his library” In Franklin’s own words:

He sent it immediately and I returned it in about a week with another note, expressing strongly my sense of the favor. When we next met in the House, he spoke to me (which he had never done before), and with great civility; and he ever after manifested a readiness to serve me on all occasions, so that we became great friends, and our friendship continued to his death. This is another instance of the truth of an old maxim I had learned, which says, “He that has once done you a kindness will be more ready to do you another than he whom you yourself have obliged.
 

Franklin’s experience illustrates, as Dr. Aronson observes, that the favor a difficult colleague has done you conflicts with any negative feelings about you he or she may have in mind. Minds don’t rest until such conflicts are resolved. Controlled experiments have replicated Franklin’s experience – that those who do a favor for another usually justify their actions by feeling that the recipient deserved their generosity. That can warms things up considerably.

Use Ben Franklin’s strategy to jumpstart a spirit of partnership

So, to get a stubborn faculty member or colleague to stop blocking your efforts and start cooperating with you, why not use a communication strategy endorsed by luminaries like Ben Franklin and Elliot Aronson? Start by asking him or her to accommodate you in some small way. Make it a request that would be hard to refuse. Then, once they’ve done what you asked, be sure to warmly thank them for helping you out. This is one of the marketing communication strategies used by airlines when they say, “We know that you have a lot of airlines to choose from, so we want to thank you for choosing us.” Like Franklin’s fellow legislator, we all tend to think that if we’ve chosen to do something, it must be a good idea. So, getting a truculent associate to assist you in some way will often warm him or her up to helping you in the future. It can at least get the ball rolling in the right direction.

What further creative steps can you take to forge partnerships with previously unhelpful faculty members and coworkers? You’ll find the answer in “Getting Cooperation from Faculty and Colleagues - Part Two.”

Admissions officials for both traditional and nontraditional programs have often heard that the fit between institution and student is most important factor in admissions. Getting good information out to prospective students has been seen as a primary tool for recruiting them. But in this difficult economy, institutions that would achieve success must do much more than just inform prospective students of the programs available to them.

College and university marketing departments often do an excellent job of disseminating information about their academic and extracurricular offerings. Marketing communication strategies follow a predictable pattern: Advertising by mass media, personalized direct mail or email often drives prospective students to the college’s website where they can get detailed information on the program of their choice. This can help traditional and nontraditional students who know they want to go to college find out the information they need to make an informed decision.
 

Unfortunately, what it rarely does is persuade anyone to actually enroll. Researchers Herbert Hyman and Paul Sheatsley of the American Association for Public Opinion Research discovered years ago that information campaigns often fail to effectively impart ideas, much less inspire action. In fact, according to Stanford Graduate of Business Professor Chip Heath and his coauthor, information designed to persuade the intellect can actually deter prospects from taking action. 

Detailed factual information can actually inhibit action

The authors described a controlled study. College students were paid five $1 bills for completing a task. Inside the envelope containing the money was a donation request from the Save the Children foundation. The study was designed to measure what kind of message would best move college students to action – in this case by donating some of the money they had just been paid. One letter outlined convincing facts and figures that showed the critical need to prevent malnutrition among African children. The other message was designed to appeal to the emotions. It described the serious problems facing one African child, Rokia, with a request to help her and others like her. 

The results were quite revealing. Those who read the statistics contributed an average of $1.14. Those who read the heart-rending problems faced by a single child donated more than twice as much, averaging $2.38. Interestingly, when other students were given both sets of information – the statistics and Rokia’s story - were they inspired to give more? On the contrary, they gave less – just $1.43 on average! Adding facts and figures to a personal story designed to evoke emotion actually lessened its effectiveness, cutting the response rate nearly in half.

This lesson was put to a rather cynical use by the tobacco industry, which used the “anti-vilification” clause in the 46-state tobacco lawsuit settlement to pull a highly effective emotion-based nonsmoking ad (The Truth Campaign) in favor of an ad with the tag line, “Think, Don’t Smoke.” A survey published in The American Journal of Public Health found that teenagers who saw The Truth Campaign ads were 66% less likely to smoke. However, those who saw the “Think, Don’t Smoke” ads were 36% more likely to smoke. The appeal to the rational thinking side of teenagers’ brains produced an effect that was the opposite of what the anti-smoking marketers intended. 

Now, determining whether or not to enroll at college can be less life-altering than a decision on smoking. It is far more consequential for the decision-maker than the choice of whether or not to donate to a worthwhile charity. But from the marketing communications perspective, these examples show that just providing good information to a target audience can clearly backfire. The manner in which colleges provide information to prospects can make a big difference in whether or not they are moved to inquire, apply or enroll. 

Why does information dissemination seem to work?

The information campaign approach taken by many colleges does accomplish one thing. It helps the institution “pick some low-hanging fruit” by attracting those who have already decided to further their education and have that institution on their short-list. But for every prospect committed to going to that college there are several others who would consider it, or are considering it, with a much smaller degree of certainty. They may be good future prospects – but undergraduate, graduate and continuing education admissions professionals need to cultivate their interest, often through one to one communication.  There are some important psychological principles to keep in mind in doing this, and some institutions have benefited from creative, low-cost ways to employ them. Stay tuned.

The University of Phoenix’s parent company expects adult enrollments to drop as much as 40% this year, Bloomberg Businessweek reported this week in ”Apollo, Educations Shares Slide on Bleak Enrollment Outlook.” This expected drop, due to proposed new government regulations tying federal financial aid dollars to outcomes, will present new opportunities and dangers to private and public colleges alike.

New Opportunities

While the marketing communication strategies of many for-profits are no doubt above-board, the predatory practices of other institutions are now under the watchful eye of Congress and the national media.  For instance, earlier this year a Time Magazine article asked, “For-Profit Colleges – Educators or Predators?”  Adverse publicity may cause prospective students to look more closely at nonprofit public and private institutions. This could increase enrollments in both graduate and continuing education programs.

Dangers to Nonprofits

Nonprofit colleges and universities cannot afford to sit back and wait for an influx of students into their institutions. It may not happen. As unemployment continues to hover around 10%, students realize that even with their chosen degree there’s no guarantee they’ll get the job they seek. As a result, a number of institutions no longer have the number of inquiries and applications they saw just a year or two ago.

Facing declining revenues, many nonprofits will likely work harder to enroll the students who are still out there. Their marketing communication strategies will be better focused and their campaigns more appealing. Even in a traditional education center like New England, marketing expenditures by aggressive for-profits will undoubtedly increase. How can traditional private and public institutions effectively compete for a shrinking pool of prospective students?

Competing for a Shrinking Pool of Students

One way nonprofits can compete successfully is to carefully target their marketing communications to the factors that motivate their students.   After all, every student who returns to college does so for one main reason – his or her own reason. Of course, no college or marketing communications company can understand an individual student’s motivation ahead of time. But clearly there are a few common themes, including:

·         Career Advancement

·         Career Change

·         Job Security

Research by social psychologists has found that a key to capturing an audience’s attention is personal relevance.   In one study, adults were much more likely to pay careful attention to a message only if it personally affected them.  An interesting message without personal relevance got little response. But coming to know what is personally relevant to individual prospects isn’t easy.   

Direct Marketing to the Rescue

Personal direct marketing campaigns, if conceived and designed well, can help you learn who is interested in furthering their education and what will motivate them. This medium allows for the kind of segmentation that’s impossible with mass media. College marketing officers can use a one to one communication approach, tailoring the message each demographic group will receive to appeal to the probable needs of that group.  They can send a series of tailored communications to each group, each appealing to a different motivation. If they drive prospects to a response website with personalized URL (pURL) technology, they will know which message generated their response. And even if this campaign doesn’t produce an application they will know each prospect's motivation,  information they need for further, even more effective communications.

A Strategy with Increased Effectiveness

Research and some twenty years of experience shows that there is one additional strategy that can significantly increase response rates with prospective students. What is it? Stay tuned.