Month: September 2006

Liveblogging from CASE: some final thoughts and a request for feedback

My first adventure in liveblogging from a conference is now behind me. While it was fun — and challenging — to try to capture the immediacy of presentations in real time, it was also stressful. It didn’t allow me to soak up some of the knowledge that was shared, and since I couldn’t be at all of the sessions, the dispatches from Philly gave an incomplete picture about the conference.

(Also, for this old-school reporter used to scribbling down notes and quotes in a reporter’s notebook, trying to compose on-the-fly blog posts on the laptop wasn’t quite as easy as I thought it’d be.)

I hope the nuggets that I and Karine Joly passed along from the conference sessions were of some value to our readers who could not attend in person. Of course, there’s nothing like being there, and I would encourage anyone who missed this year’s conference to make plans now to attend next year’s.
This also was my first experience co-chairing a national-level conference for CASE. This, too, was a rewarding experience, because I got to work with and get acquainted with so many terrific folks in the advancement field. My conference co-chair, Lynette Brown-Sow of the Community College of Philadelphia, helped keep the energy level high throughout the conference (even as she had to deal with some brushfires — or maybe they were wildfires? — back on campus). Lisa Schooley, the educational programs manager for CASE, kept everything organized and on track, and was always, somehow, at the right place at the right time. Our faculty — the aforementioned Karine Joly, Joe Hice, Kathi Swanson, Larry Lauer, bloggers Dave and Dan, Rae Goldsmith from CASE, and all the rest — were top-notch. It was great, too, meeting so many of the conference attendees. I learned much from them in personal conversations and small groups. (I ‘ll stop now, before this post starts sounding too much like an acceptance speech.)

A request for input

To those who read this blog during the conference, and to those who attended the conference live, I would like to ask for some input, either in the comments to this post or via email (andrew DOT careaga AT gmail DOT com).

  • For the readers: How beneficial was this little three-day experiment in sharing information from the conference? Was there enough information? Too little? Too much? Was it relevant? Irrelevant?
  • For conference attendees: What did you like best about the conference? What suggestions do you have for improving this annual meeting?

I’ll be certain to share your thoughts with the folks at CASE. (Unless you request otherwise. Of course, if you post on this blog, then anyone who reads will see your comments. That’s one of the beautiful things about the blogosphere.)

Thanks for reading, and for sharing.

Liveblogging from CASE: Legislative update and forecast

One of this morning’s two sessions had to do with the national legislative outlook. The short answer: fiscal growth in defense and homeland security, not so much elsewhere, but a few glimmers of hope for higher education — even though the federal fiscal year ends in 15 days and elections are less than two months away.

Panelists for today’s session:

  • David Baime, vice president for government relations, American Association of Community Colleges.
  • Becky Timmons, director of govenment relations for the American Council of Education.
  • Matt Owens, assistant director of federal relations, Association of American Universities.

A little bit about the session before I check out of the hotel:

A common agenda

David Baime opened by emphasizing that the U.S.’s “big six” higher education associations (listed below) work jointly to promote a common agenda.

‘Tough fiscal climate’

In terms of the federal budget, it’s a “tough fiscal climate” in D.C., Matt said. Increases in defense funding and homeland security but not much for non-defense discretionary funding (for student aid, federal research, etc.) makes up about 13 percent of the budget, and “that’s what everybody’s fighting over.” David added that fiscal conservatives have homed in on this piece of the budget pie.

In student financial aid, there is one small bright spot, Matt said. One House bill that includes a $100 increase in the Pell Grant need-based student aid. The funding level hasn’t been increased in five years. Even though it’s a small increase, it’s important to fight for it, Becky said.Research funding: The outlook is mixed, Matt said, with good news for large agencies, but “other ones are suffering.” President Bush’s American Competitive Initiative includes proposals that could benefit higher education, particularly in the areas of science, technology, engineering and math (STEM) educational programs, and research agencies such as the National Science Foundation, the National Institute of Standards and Technology and other similar agencies.

In response to a question about promoting education to legislators as a “public good” rather than an “individual benefit,” Becky talked about the Solutions for Our Future program (the subject of an earlier session at this conference). “If we allow higher education to be viewed in those narrow terms, it creates an atmosphere where funding can easily be withdrawn, even in student aid. Because if it is a personal benefit, then you should pay for it.” Initial research by the Solutions program indicated that the public didn’t see education as being a common good but found that people did see public benefits.

“One of the things that is so clear to us is that we’re not doing a good enough job of explaining higher education to the Congress or anyone else,” Becky said. Individual campus solutions to problems related to access, retention, etc., need to be communicated to legislators, who typically perceive colleges and universities as out of touch, “closed entities.” “We need to find a better way of telling our story.” Issues such as tenure and academic freedom “don’t translate well” to legislators, she added.

‘A little bit wonky’

One of the communications challenges higher education policy groups faces has to do with discussing policy in “a sound-bite world,” Becky said. “We’re policy people, a little bit wonky, and our issues are complicated,” she said. “We live in a sound-bite world.”

The “big six”

The six main lobbying associations for higher education are:

  • The American Council on Education
  • The American Association of Universities
  • The National Association of State Universities and Land Grant Colleges (NASULGC)
  • The American Association of Community Colleges
  • The American Association of State Colleges and Universities (AASCU)
  • The National Association of Independent Colleges and Universities (NAICO)

Liveblogging from CASE: The Dan and Dave show

This post is out of synch because I was moderating this particular session so couldn’t blog in real time, as they say.

One of this morning’s sessions — “Bloggers as Journalists and Journalists as Bloggers” — featured two terrific Philly bloggers: Dan Rubin, who has a full-time blogging gig at the Philadelphia Inquirer (the blog is called blinq), and Dave Ralis, who blogs for Phillyburbs as well as on his own site. Both of these guys have enjoyed long and successful careers as reporters but have made the transition to new media. Even so, they still consider themselves reporters and use that skill set in their blogging.

This session stirred a lot of discussion about the role of blogs and other social media in terms of traditional vs. non-traditional delivery of the news. A few of the points that came up:

  • Higher ed PR people should monitor the blogosphere — just as we do traditional media — to see who is talking about their institutions and how. This is easily done by searching for your institution’s name on Technorati, a popular blog search engine/aggregator. One of the conference attendees mentioned that she shares a “blog report” of mentions with upper-level administrators on her campus, just as many of us do with our “clips reports” of media mentions. (A good idea! Wish I’d thought of it.)
  • Bloggers are journalists, too. One question came up about whether media relations staffers should grant bloggers’ interview requests with college presidents. Both Dave and Dan agreed that PR folks should have policies for dealing with bloggers’ requests, just as we may have similar policies for granting interviews with journalists. (Another good idea I wish I’d thought of.) We discussed possible criteria such as blog popularity (the assumption being that granting interviews to popular or influential bloggers might be preferred, while requests from small-time bloggers could safely be ignored), but Dan noted that a post by some little-known blogger could be picked up by an A-list blogger and spread the story virally.
  • Correcting misleading information in the blogosphere can be tricky. If you discover a misleading blog post about your institution, it’s a good idea to post correct information in the comments section of that blog (if it has a comments section, and many of them do). Or if your institution has a blog of its own, you can post the correct information there.
  • We don’t control the message. Neither does the mainstream media. At best, we can help to influence the message by becoming part of the conversation in the blogosphere.

Similar themes came up in an afternoon session about crisis communications in the web 2.0 era. Does your institution’s crisis communications plan consider the potential impact of the blogosphere? The recent tragedy at Dawson College in Montreal serves as an immediate and evolving case study of the power of blogs, the photo-sharing site Flickr and other social networking phenomena to tell and shape the story of an ongoing crisis — and to become a big part of the story.

Liveblogging from CASE: The politics of branding

This afternoon I’m sitting in on a panel discussion on integrated marketing called “The Politics of Branding.” (I’m struggling mightily to resist the urge to sing lyrics from an early ’80s song by Re-Flex, “The Politics of Dancing.”)

The panelists:

Lynette, a former deputy mayor for Philadelphia who has been involved in politics for years, said she really didn’t understand the nature of politics until she got into higher education. The politics of Philly had nothing on higher ed politics.

Larry noted that politics is “something they don’t teach you in PR school” and added that higher ed PR/marketing folks need to “learn to love the politics” of higher education. Marketing is still a dirty word among some academics, but not as bad as it used to be. The idea of “giving the students what they want” is also a thorn in the side for some faculty. “You have to be prepared to educate the educators. It’s a long-term process in some institutions.”

Some key points from Larry’s presentation:

  • Sometimes you have to substitute words. Instead of talking about a dirty word like “branding” with academics, you might want to talk about “institutional identity” at first. But eventually, you should use the real term.
  • Make your institution’s competitive edge apparent. “Differentiation is what branding is ultimately all about.”
  • Think strategically — and politically. Know who’s for you, who’s against you, and who’s neutral. Educate those who are neutral, get the academics who are for you to rally for the cause, and avoid those who are against you. Usually, the pros and neutrals can make up the majority. Once the train begins to move, those who don’t get on board will be left behind.
  • Stick with it. You have to “have the constitution to lose a few battles to win the war.” Exercise “calm persistence.”
  • Lead the cause. “Ultimately, over time, you can make it work.”

During Q-and-A, Larry gave one of the best descriptions of a campus that I’ve heard: “A university is more like a city than a corporation.” Meaning, consistency of brand identity may threaten deans and department heads who want to maintain their unique identity. Larry advises thinking of these departments as “sub-brands” and the university as the primary brand. “We don’t always have the control that we might have in a corporate setting.”

Kathi, who works with Lynette on the CCP branding and marketing effort, talked about the characteristics of institutions who make progress.

  • Understand who your current students are. Often the data exists but the marketing people don’t have that information, or don’t know it. Conductmarketing research in order to understandwhat perceptions exist for an institution. Often, “There’s a disconnect in what the institution is saying and what the consumers think about the institution.”
  • Understand board — and institution — politics. Get buy-in from the board as well as from influentials on the campus — your VPs, etc.
  • Think of a branding study as an educational process. “The biggest thing you’re doing in a branding campaign is educating your institution,” Kathi said.

Liveblogging from CASE: ‘You 2.0,’ a 10-step program

As part of this morning’s CASE conference presentation on web 2.0, Karine Joly of CollegeWebEditor.com presented “10 steps to You 2.0,” or 10 ideas to help communications and marketing professionals get up to speed on the new web. Karine also posted the 10-step program on her site. It’s good advice — especially No. 10.

Karine and Joe Hice, associate vice president of marketing and public relations in the Office of University Relations at the University of Florida, presented a primer on the world and words of web 2.0, with another top 10 list of web 2.0 speak:

Blogs

Podcasts

Facebook

MySpace

LinkedIn

Wikipedia

Del.icio.us

RSS

YouTube

Flickr

I would add Technorati to the list.