Category: communication

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“If we allow higher education to be viewed in those narrow terms, it creates an atmosphere where funding can easily be withdrawn, even in student aid.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 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.