Now cybersquatters are invading higher ed’s social media presence by starting Facebook groups.  Fortunately, Brad Ward at squaredpeg has their number.  If you haven’t already seen it, go and read this article and protect your brand’s presence on Facebook before someone else takes control.

Big Brother Goes to College

Margaret Spellings’ Plan for Higher Ed: Standardizing College, Putting Salary Outcomes on a Pedestal

Margaret Spellings’ Plan is Fraught with Contradictions

Now, with little fanfare, her plan is being quietly executed in a somewhat more benign form. Fortunately, Inside Higher Ed has been keeping an eye on it. However, the plan is still far from friendly and still tantamount to an ‘unfunded mandate’ for privates.

It looks as if these changes are aiming at requiring institutions to participate in ’student learning assessment’ tests and to report their scores publicly (although that is not stated as the immediate goal). What is part of the immediate changes are asking about a bunch of self-assessment documents (like fact books) as part of an institution’s website and then aggregating those web links as part of the Education Department’s ‘College Online Opportunities Locator‘ (COOL). They are also asking questions about Financial Aid data to try and provide a report on the net cost of an institution for different types of students as opposed to the sticker price. This data will also be included on the COOL site.

In the short term, I’ve already started the ‘not me!’ shouting and talking about what a great thing a PDF is as opposed to hand-coded HTML. I sure don’t want to be the one that has to mark-up our fact book and assessment data.

Otherwise I’m too zonked this morning to get all fired up about it. Have a look at Andrew’s response at Higher Ed Marketing. Need some coffee…

So for prospective students they offer:
- zany videos, a new one each month
- a chance to use their brain to work out a puzzle
- chance to win an iPod

The current video is really quite good. It’s kind of campy in places, but in a way that will make it more endearing. The use of a teenager cliché in it gives it a forced feeling, and it might make teens wonder if SCAD is taking the cliché seriously or using it consciously for humor. I think most of them will get it. We’ll see if it’s really ‘viral’ or not, but the level of originality in the whole setup is enough to earn my respect.

Since the campaign is being put on by SCAD, you can expect some great design work. The folks at the Dandy Dwarves who put the campaign together did a bang-up job in that respect. The design is incredible–daring, edgy, funny, and relevant. My only complaint was a horizontal scroll bar that appeared at a screen resolution of 1024×768.

The “about the artist” page brings the whole concept back around to the college–the artist, Britt Spencer, is a SCAD alum. You get to read an interview with Britt about the background of the short film and see some of his other work. A problem with this section is that it’s long and you don’t find out about the artist’s connection to the school until fairly far down. That connection should be up top where hyper, scanning teenagers will see it alongside Britt’s incredible illustration work.

On the whole, this is one of the first higher ed viral projects I have seen that has potential for real prospect appeal. With art & design schools leading the way, it would be nice to be able to get edgier with recruitment material for liberal arts institutions. I know any mention of a “third nipple” on our pages would have some eyes (and heads) rolling.

Bob Johnson turned the E-Expectations study results into a sort of contest, recognizing schools that offer 10 of the top 15 web gimmicks features that the study identified as being most important to incoming students. Topping the list were financial aid and tuition calculators. For many institutions (WWC included) this is simply an impossibility–there are too many small grants and scholarships and human decisions built into our financial aid process to allow for the creation of a calculator.

It doesn’t help that WWC doesn’t discount heavily because our price is already very low–we don’t have any big, instant scholarships to throw at nearly every student to apply. This was a conscious branding decision. Instead of using the psychological tricks of perceived value from a higher sticker price and delivering tuition-funded scholarships, we’ve opted for a more transparent “what you see is what you get” approach. Call it anti-marketing. Done right, it really resonates with our niche audience. The problem is that all too often, instead of transparency, we’re obscuring our financial aid information because it lacks pizzazz compared to our competitors who blatantly buy students. A financial aid calculator is the friend of the sticker-price-spinster, allowing them to create an illusion of transparency and simplicity, and that’s one place where WWC is falling down. Our financial aid program and sticker price is very simple compared to a lot of schools, but we can’t offer the illusion of simplicity precisely because it is simple!

Fortunately for WWC and others, the bottom line is that prospects want to know about how much an education from your institution will cost. If you can deliver that information in a helpful, personable way, then you win. It doesn’t take fancy Web 2.0 calculators with pop-up video podcasted student blogs. In fact, the less barriers you put between the visitor and the information they want, the more likely you are to make an impression.

Here are Stephanie Geyer’s two excellent examples:
Arizona State University
Lawrence University

I really like what Arizona State is doing. Not only do you get the facts, but you also meet actual people. Look at both sites and notice how much more powerful the facts and figures are when given to you about a real person at Arizona State rather than Lawrence’s hypothetical family of four. Using a conventional approach that tells a story, makes an emotional connection, and provides information in a clear way will deliver what prospects are looking for just as much (if not more) than a calculator, so for those of you losing the Bob Johnson/Noel-Levitz Challenge: you can still win the students.

Here’s the meat:

Here are the top activities students said they would like to complete on college Web sites:
1. Complete a financial aid estimator form (88%)
2. Complete a tuition cost calculator form (83%)
3. Complete an admissions application online (81%)
4. Request a campus visit by completing a form (81%)
5. Exchange instant messages with an admissions counselor or student worker (72%)
6. Complete a form to RSVP for a campus event (72%)
7. Inquire online (70%)
8. Read profiles of faculty (64%)
9. E-mail a faculty member (64%)
10. Read a blog written by a member of the faculty (64%)
11. Read profiles of current students (63%)
12. Read a blog written by a current student (63%)
13. View a virtual tour (63%)
14. Personalize a Web site (62%)
15. E-mail current students from the site (61%)

Notice anything strange? How about the conspicuous absence of “Read about my major”? For that matter, the absence of students saying that they wanted to do anything conventional, such as reading a plain, old webpage. Every single item deals with some sort of higher ed web gimmick or trend (admittedly many–like online applications and inquiries–are very useful and have become essential). As Bob Johnson says about Financial Aid and Tuition Calculators “Not too many of those out and about the land.”

So if there aren’t too many of the top two items actually implemented on college websites, then where did these random thousand students get the idea that they wanted them?

I would like to see the survey questions, because I believe that the students were given a menu of flashy items to choose from–many of which they may have never known were possible before seeing them on the survey. In other words, the questions led the responses. Every other survey I have seen that did not lead the students resulted in students mentioning researching or reading about their chosen major, financial aid, etc. I’m sure you can see the problem with leading students in this way–I could create a survey with the option “get a free Ferrari” and then announce that is what students want most from their college when it inevitably turned up at the top of the list.

Colleges and universities, because they have access to .edu domains and leave other top-level domains unregistered, are heavily victimized by cybersquatters. You only have to look at an example of a squatted domain to see the danger they pose.

In particular, Robert Wolfson of Las Vegas, Nevada has registered a very large number of infringing domain names (here is an example of a Wolfson domain). He owns no less than 39 domains that misuse the marks of 28 of North Carolina’s 36 independent colleges and universities (not to mention untold numbers of domains misrepresenting institutions nationwide). Wolfson contracts with Australia-based company DBS Administration Pty. Ltd., operators of fabulous.com, to provide pay-per-click advertising and to broker each of these domains. Not only is Wolfson earning money at the expense of these schools’ brands, but he would also sell these domains to any unsavory individuals that sought to buy them. In the past, such domains have been used frequently in fraud schemes and “phishing” campaigns that can lead to identity theft. Wolfson also provided incorrect contact information when registering the domains–giving the Las Vegas information number 702-555-1212 as his own. However, his address seems to be correct and is corroborated by other public records.

Fortunately, the law is in favor of the rightful owners of these marks. Usually a cease and desist letter with a demand to transfer the domain is enough to convince a squatter to give up the offending domains, but a victimized institution can also take action under either The Anticybersquatting Consumer Protection Act (ACPA) or ICANN’s Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (UDRP). There are lawyers who specialize in internet and domain name action who are most familiar with pursuing legal action under the ACPA and UDRP. While a UDRP action is quickest and has the least initial expense, a lawsuit under the ACPA is the only way to collect damages or seek other injunctions. In addition to securing these domains, Wolfson’s continuing registration of domains with a false phone number may expose him to action under the Fraudulent Online Identity Sanctions Act if the bill is passed, but the bill has been in committee for more than two years.

Relevant contact information:

[At time of writing, Robert Wolfson's address was publicly available.]

Fabulous.com
DBS Administration Pty. Ltd.
GPO Box 278
Brisbane, QLD 4001 AU

Information about the Anticybersquatting Consumer Protection Act:
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c106:S.1255.IS:/

Information about ICANN’s Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy:
http://www.icann.org/udrp/udrp.htm

Information about the Fraudulent Online Identity Sanctions Act:
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c108:h.r.3754:/

Today’s keynote speaker was Nick Fink, founder of Digital Web Magazine, and Director of User Experience for new media company Blue Flavor. Nick seemed like a really nice guy. He got on my good side right off the bat by looking uncomfortable about using the term “Web 2.0″ and then giving us a little bit of real history on the word, conceding that it didn’t really mean anything.

His talk on next generation web was not exactly a futurists drama of what the next fifty years will bring. It was mostly a practical exploration of how today’s leading-edge media will evolve and become more mainstream. He discussed the continuing decentralization of media power (a kind of “the meek shall inherit the earth” sort of idea), and he encouraged us to find a “guru” on a subject and start staking out a niche right now through blogging or participation in online communities. To name a few subjects he touched on: access-anywhere gps-enabled mobile devices, self-publishing moving to media outside of just web, marketing and business turning more and more to people-centric public faces that encourage consumer involvement in the brand, various standards allowing information to be mined and shared through feeds and networks, and non-traditional marketing becoming more prominent.

He gave this very vivid example: the subject of Yahoo acquiring Flickr came up and he mentioned how Yahoo had linked their mapping API with Flickr to allow geo-tagging of images. He got this thoughtful, excited expression and said “imagine going to a restaurant and, using a mobile device, being able to get a detailed map with pictures of any location along the way as well as message the restaurants owner.” To add to that, you could pull up a menu, make a reservation, or just old-fashioned call them. I’m ready to be there—I want that world that’s always on, “tagged and tracked and ambient and pervasive and ubiquitous and geolocative… Jesus, I love those words…” Makes me giddy.

Word of Mouth Marketing

Peter Waldheim is a very engaging speaker. I feel like I could’ve listened to his stories of action in the civil rights movement and rubbing elbows with foreign dignitaries at posh Washington dinner parties for most of the day. An older man with an acerbic, slightly self-ingratiating wit, he gave us a vibrant introduction to the Word of Mouth Marketing Association (WOMMA) and the concept of Word of Mouth Marketing.

“Word of mouth,” he said, “is powerful not because it’s new but because it’s old.” Word of mouth marketing, often introduced as this exciting new thing, he argues is easily older than the bible “where the only command given more than ‘go forth and multiply’ is ‘go forth and spread the news.’” He said that the difference, the thing that’s changed, is that now word of mouth is “actionable.” Basically, American society has reached a kind of saturation point at the end of traditional marketing. Americans on average receive over 3000 marketing impressions per day, he said. The result is that we tune them out, we question and disbelieve them. As a result, Americans have turned once again to that most trusted of sources: word of mouth. Suddenly a little time and effort expended generating good buzz easily outperforms the best Superbowl commercials when it comes to generating successful conversions. In addition to word of mouth coming round again, Peter says, it can now be spread and multiplied nearly effortlessly via digital media.

In answer to this, WOMMA was founded primarily as an advocacy association that worked across marketing disciplines, taking a little from CS and a little from blogging and several other sources, to form the concept of word of mouth marketing for new media. “The key is motivating people to get involved,” he said. “It’s about instigating and facilitating discussion about your products.” Consumer-generated media is quickly outstripping corporate-generated media in dominating the mindspace of the consumer. It’s the cry we’ve heard for quite some time: brand awareness is dead, now it’s all about engagement. In response to those that have balked at the idea of fostering conversation about their brands and products, he responds: “the conversations are going on, you’re just not taking part in them. You can’t be a bully, you can’t control them, but you can participate.” There it is again: authenticity.

His advice is to get involved and get started now. He says to grab students, grab faculty members, and start facilitating that conversation internally first and then let it move out naturally. He pointed us to a book, The Influentials by Ted Keller and John Barry. He said that about one of ten people are “influentials,” or experts of some type that have some platform of knowledge and respect in the community—whether small or large—that can be harnessed and used to generate buzz and discussion. Whether it’s a world-renowned celebrity or a kid looked up to by a small group of folks, provide the influentials at your school with a platform like a blog and connect them to the world.

If you’d like to get the lowdown on Word of Mouth, then check out this document from WOMMA.

If I don’t go to bed now, then I’m going to end up sleeping through tomorrow’s sessions. Until next time.

To catch up with yesterday’s sessions, I attended one on Mobile Applications, one on Managing a Redsign, and one on … “Feature Feast.”

Mobile: A Technology Going Nowhere Fast

Webster Lewin, a Mobile Marketing Strategist for the company VML, put on the Mobile Applications session. I sure hope Webster isn’t in charge of hooking new clients for VML, because the message he sent the clearest was: mobile technology is an immature technology, prohibitively expensive, and horribly crippled by a tangle of proprietary barriers. Where once I thought that mobile would the next Big Thing, I now am much more skeptical. If manufacturers, software developers, and service providers can’t work together towards creating a set of standards and working on making the mobile world more accessible to smaller businesses and individuals, it’s not going to go anywhere with anything approaching the speed and saturation of the internet.

Now when I say mobile, I’m not talking about just talking on the phone—that’s already everywhere. Webster broke things into three categories, which are mobile applications (programs), SMS (text messaging, multimedia messages), and the mobile web. In brief, mobile applications are actually programs written to operate on a mobile phone. Mobile applications cannot be created to work on all phones, or even a majority of phones. They have to be written in one of five or six operating systems that these phones run. To make matters worse, different handsets have different capabilities that must be taken into account, and the distribution of these programs is largely up to the abilities and cooperation of the network service providers. The end result, says Webster, is that the “cost of mobile applications can easily reach over $100,000.” Now at this point I stopped and thought, what institution has that kind of money to dump into a kind of experimental, fringe marketing avenue? And why did Stamats invite this guy to talk exactly?

Webster went on to detail SMS-based add campaigns that, while a little cheaper than mobile apps, had even more 3rd party barriers to work through. Basically, it looked to me like the only thing colleges and universities could hope to work with is the mobile internet, which was the area he focused on the least. At least it’s free for developers, doesn’t require you to program for some obscure environment, and is something that all phone providers seem to be supporting more or less.

Redesign and Miscellany

The Managing a Redesign session was not one that I took extensive notes on. The presenter, Cori Merritt with Stamats, went through a set of procedural steps towards a successful redesign. She moved pretty quickly, which was great to listen to but not conducive for note taking, and her system seemed geared towards larger schools. Allot of what she covered dealt with committee-building and the politics of college websites at large universities. It assumed a CMS. A few of the suggestions were good for anyone, such as getting sign-off on a design while it’s still in the draft stage and before the work has been done to convert it to HTML/CSS. She recommended a book that sounded good: Web Redsign 2.0: Workflow that Works by Kelly Goto and Emily Cotler.

The last session of the day was entitled Web Feature Feast by Adam Blyth of Stamats. Adam went through very topically and covered several website features common to college websites while giving examples (mostly of Stamats’ work). Adam, avowedly a Mac user, had problems with the PC hooked to the projector while the internet again flaked out with the result that we missed several examples. On the whole, the session was too topical to be useful. If you’re reading this blog, then you already know more about what Adam presented than the information he provided.

The keynote speaker today was okay, and there was a really great presentation by Peter Waldheim of WOMMA. Stay tuned…

Anyhow, the first session of the afternoon was Fritz McDonald, who presented yesterday. The session was on web branding, and it was pretty good—a whole lot of information in a short time. I definitely won’t do it justice here. Fortunately, much of what Fritz covered can be found in the articles over at Ubrander.

Fritz started off by trying to get the idea through that a brand is much more than just a logo. (It amazes me that people in positions of power over college marketers still think that and associate the word “branding” with just insuring that the logo is presented uniformly across the campus.) Fritz defined a brand as being primarily:
* A Signifier – A physical representation of your institution, be it a logo, tagline, etc.
* A Repository – A collection of experiences
* An Expectation – Something people expect, associations that have been built around your institution

Fritz said that his definition of a brand differed from the poplar authors on the subject because of his idea of a brand as a repository of experiences. I found the idea very similar to how Scott Bedbury defines a brand in New Brand World. Wherever it comes from, it’s a great way to think about branding and to realize that your brand absorbs the bad experiences as well as the good—you can never fully control it. Riffing some more on popular thinkers in branding, Fritz discussed storytelling as an important way to convey information about your brand. He cited James Twichell who wrote Branded Nation, and most of us will also recognize Seth Godin’s All Marketers are Liars here as well. Fritz inferred that brand storytelling strikes the same cord as fables intended to teach social behavior and norms did in the past.

A strong brand, he said, has a single overarching relevant story that conveys a promise. This overarching story can be represented in any number of different ways. A brand also defines a category (or a niche or audience). A strong brand rallies its community. Blake Ross, speaking earlier today, told how Firefox’s excellent brand decisions helped galvanize a strong community of supporters who generated on-brand messaging on their own. Fritz went on to say that brands have episodes and evolve. The main soul or identity of the brand remains largely the same, but the way it manifests changes in order to remain fresh and relevant. Above all, a strong brand is durable—it is something that will be remembered long after a certain specific add campaign has runs its course. It forms a part of a business’s identity that isn’t easily ignored or discarded. However, Fritz stressed that you have to tell real stories and not just extol lofty values.

Fritz went on to cover some of the challenges in communicating your brand, which are familiar to most of us already. He stressed the issue of authenticity, which is refreshing every time I hear it.

Where Fritz’s pitch became particularly different, to my mind, is when he began advocating the web as the starting point and central hub for any branding effort or campaign. Basically, Fritz believe that an institutions website should occupy the position of dominance that the viewbook and print pubs largely do now. All effort in a campaign should start with the web and emanate outwards from that. Design ideas, messaging, copy—all should move from a planned website into print materials, signage, etc. Multimedia should start online and only then move to TV or radio. As an example, Fritz discussed the recent efforts of YorkU. They started with a web campaign and then expanded it into their viewbook, campus signage, flyers, and even dominated a subway station by buying every available slot for advertising. Despite the compelling case study, I don’t think he was able to justify his notion of the web as the primary hub of all marketing efforts (not that I don’t think that the case can’t be made, just that I don’t think he provided much support).

There was more than this in his presentation—much more. I’ll leave you with one notion that I found powerful. Fritz suggested that there was no reason that we shouldn’t attempt to create a web brand that occupies a position in the culture. I love that phrase: “a brand that occupies a position in the culture.” It’s a good place to stop. More to come later.