Category: leadership

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: 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.