alumni futures

Three Models for Alumni Membership: Pros and Cons

Paul Prewitt asked recently whether the membership dues-based association model is hurting alumni organizations, instead of helping them. Having recently stepped down from the leadership of a membership association, I exchanged some ideas with him via email. I've boiled down my thoughts to some simple pros and cons of the various association membership models.

The two alumni-centric models I mention here are 

1. The Membership Dues Model: Alumni choose to pay annual or life member dues, in exchange for a set of benefits and privileges not available to non-members.
2. The Inclusive Model: All alumni have equal access to the same set of programs and services provided by alma mater via the alumni office.
   
   There is also a fundraising-focused offshoot of this:
    
3. The Donor Benefits Model: Individuals (including non-alumni) who donate at least a specified amount of money to the institution receive exclusive benefits for their contribution.

Some Advantages of the Membership Dues Model    

• Generates revenue in the form of dues. 
• Life dues can be placed into endowment for 1) growth and 2) long-term higher return (life members pass away and no longer use benefits, but the association retains and reinvests their dues). 
• Helps you identify who really is a more active than passive supporter (ie, they bothered to join, which is a form of engagement). 
• Members feel privileged to some extent ("first class citizen").
• Places the school in front of constituents through cyclical marketing and renewal process.

Some Disadvantages of the Membership Dues Model

• Members may think that they are donating to the institution when they join an autonomous ("independent") alumni association. 
• There's overhead associated with maintaining dues programs (benefits administration, renewals, payment processing, marketing) so, generally, only larger organizations can justify the relative opportunity cost. Most small shops will do better to allocate their membership management position to events or programs instead.
• Non-members resent the paying for things they think should be free (e.g., library access, publications, discounts, merchandise...).
• Marketing can leave non-joiners with a negative feeling toward the institution.

The primary alternative to due-based associations are so-called "inclusive associations," where all alumni automatically are welcome to participate in activities without regard to having actively joined an association or other alumni organization.

Some Advantages of the Inclusive Model

• Saves on overhead of marketing and administering a separate membership and benefits program. 
• Reduced marketing and sales aspect to alumni relations.
• Helps creates the impression that the association has something of relevance to all alumni.

Some Disadvantages of the Inclusive Model

• Alumni are not aware of the alumni association (or, they're not aware of their "membership" in it).
• All benefits potentially accrue to all alumni, which is a cost ineffective way to model service and product delivery. 
• Removes a potentially significant revenue stream from the balance sheet.

In our brief exchange, Paul also mentioned an off-shoot of the dues model, the Donor Benefits Model. This is a system where benefits accrue to individuals who contribute to the institution above a specified financial threshold. 

Some Advantages of the Donor Benefits Model

• Allows you to identify, cultivate, steward and reward those who support the institution financially. 
• Helps identify prospects for future giving, increased giving, and more diversified giving.
• Can generate attention and gifts from people who otherwise wouldn't bother (for example, they like having access to the institution's president or senior administrators and professors).
• Creates a framework for "more equal than others" outreach, which reinforces the culture of giving at higher levels (e.g., travel programs for President's Circle).

Some Disadvantages of the Donor Benefits Model

• Alienates people who feel their non-financial contributions (e.g., career expertise, volunteer time at events, service on boards) is not valued at same level or in the same way as financial donations.
• Reinforces stereotype that only people who give money are "important" to the school.
• Distracts people from seeing relative value of volunteerism, and may discourage people from engaging non-financially. 

Additional Thoughts

I think that many alumni offices tend to program for a mythical average alumnus who, all things being equal, is 1) interested in alma mater, 2) prepared to engage or join, and 3) willing to donate. 

But there is no such thing as the "average alumnus." The fact is that the vast majority of alumni 1) don't have an active interest in the school, 2) don't join local or comprehensive alumni groups, and 3) don't contribute financially. 

Some associations are already programming more for the minority of alumni who are predisposed toward engagement, while largely ignoring the rest of the constituents. Of course, there will be periodic efforts to attract newly-interested or available alumni as volunteers and donors as well, but alumni who have exhibited low or no engagement over some length of time will be dropped from mailing and invitation lists. 

Bottom Line

Dues-based associations are not "bad" for alumni relations. So long as an association has the scale to justify the overhead cost, dues structures are still justified. But to thrive, membership associations must deliver real benefits that people truly need or want, and that they cannot get elsewhere.

Photo of a members only chair at the Royal & Ancient Golf Club, St. Andrews, Scotland, from Flickr member Son of Groucho via Creative Commons.

Alumni Affinity Credit Card Update

Last week the popular Huffington Post initiated a campaign urging readers to have their college and university alumni associations disclose their affinity credit card agreements. HuffPo, as it is known, mentioned that the Credit Card Accountability Responsibility and Disclosure Act of 2009 requires these groups to explain certain aspects of their card contracts.

Huffington also provided a sample letter, and instructions for how to be "polite but persistent" in your query to the university or its alumni group.

As a follow up, CASE's Director of Government Relations & Institutionally Related Foundations, Brian Flahaven, circulated some information highlighting key aspects of the legislation (which is known by its clever acronym: the Credit CARD Act...get it? Credit Card? Credit CARD?).

According to Flahaven, disclosure obligations vary, depending on the kind of "alumni group" involved. 

I'll quote Brian's note at length, since his explanation is detailed and clear:

Alumni Associations Not Separate From Institution
The law requires institutions of higher education to "publicly disclose any contract or other agreement made with a card issuer or creditor for the purpose of marketing a credit card." This means that alumni associations that are not separate from their colleges and universities will now have to disclose all affinity credit card marketing agreements. Final regulations released by the Federal Reserve Board indicate that institutions can meet this requirement by posting the contract or agreement on [their] Web site or by making it available upon request.

Alumni Associations Organized as Separate 501(c)3 Organizations
The law requires credit card companies to disclose any marketing agreements with institutions of higher education, alumni associations and affiliated foundations under which credit cards are issued to college students. This means that any card agreement where a student has been issued a card would be subject to disclosure by the credit card company, not the alumni association. Final regulations released by the Federal Reserve Board...

...Clarify that "an agreement may qualify as a college credit card agreement even if marketing of cards under the agreement is targeted at alumni, faculty, staff and other non-student consumers, as long as cards may also be issued to students in connection with the agreement."

...Define college student broadly. The definition includes students of any age attending an institution of higher education and applies to students enrolled in graduate or joint degree programs.

Finally, Flahaven provides additional links as resources:

• The section of the Credit CARD Act of 2009 affecting alumni association affinity credit card programs [may require CASE member log in]
  

and

• Section of the Federal Reserve Board's final regulations on the Credit CARD Act of 2009 affecting alumni association affinity credit card programs. [333kb PDF]

Brian closes with this advice: "If you receive a request for a copy of your association's affinity credit card agreement, we encourage you to review the law with your legal counsel to determine your disclosure requirements." 

I would say, even if you don't receive a request for a copy of the agreement, go ahead and review the law with general counsel. You should know your legal obligations.

Contact Brian Flahaven at CASE directly with your questions:

telephone: 202/478-5617 or 

email: flahaven@case.org .

Photo of credit card by Ed Ivanushkin via Creative Commons. 

Facebook, Privacy, and Alumni: Guest Blogger Andrew Gossen

This is the second of Andrew Gossen's two guest posts about Facebook's Open Graph initiative. Andrew is Senior Director of Social Media Strategy at Cornell University and co-chair of the Task Force on Social Media for CASE's Commission on Alumni Relations.

My previous posting addressed the potential of Facebook's Open Graph Protocol to enhance your institutional website, adding new social and dynamic dimensions as well as the possibility of a personalized browsing experience. It sounds great. 

But what about the privacy issue?

Ahh, the Facebook privacy issue. Over the past week, it has been unavoidable. Several observers have maintained an excellent, broader conversation about the evolution of privacy on Facebook and the higher-level philosophical debate. Andrew Careaga highlighted a number of the most influential recent blog postings on the subject. Michael Stoner provided a nice overview of some of the issues, and there are interesting visualizations of the evolution and complexity of privacy on Facebook. All of these are worthy of careful reading and reflection. 

But back to the Open Graph. If you deploy parts of the Open Graph toolkit, are you putting your alumni in jeopardy? Consider the two main tools:

• Social plugins 
  I'm not particularly worried about these. If people don't want to click on "like" or "recommend" buttons, they don't have to. If their browser isn't logged in to Facebook, or if they don't have a Facebook account, they'll only see very generic social information (click images to enlarge):

 

The counterargument is that users may not realize that clicking the links is a public action, and that their activity may be shared with third parties. Some IT security companies are developing tools that allow organizations to control or monitor social plugin functionality in the name of data and network security. This concern should be balanced, however, against early evidence that use of the social plugins does, in fact, generate additional referral traffic to websites.

• Open Graph API 
  Here, things get more complicated. Some interesting criticism argues that neither Facebook nor its Open Graph launch partners have implemented their own protocol very well. At this point, we may just be seeing the tip of the iceberg in terms of what a website fully personalized with these tools might look like. 

So how are privacy options communicated on sites using the Open Graph API thus far?

• To start with, people can opt out as soon as they land on a web page for the first time:

• The "Learn More" link provides more detail, although the amount of detail depends on the site in question – Pandora, for instance, uses a generic Facebook explanation while Yelp offers more specific information. A more specific option definitely would play better to alumni.
• Every time you return to a page that is personalized through Facebook, you are reminded of that and given options:

 

• You can also disable much of this functionality through Facebook's privacy settings.

There is no doubt that Facebook has defaulted users' privacy settings to public sharing in a way that will make the Open Graph ecosystem work more smoothly, but you can also make the claim that privacy control tools are readily available. The presence of tools does not guarantee that they'll be used, however – recent research by Consumer Reports indicates that 23% of Facebook users are not aware of, or do not use, any privacy settings to control access to their information.

Bottom Line
At this point, I'd be reluctant to implement the Open Graph API too aggressively. Concern about privacy is one element of this wariness, but I also don't yet feel like I have a solid grasp of what the end product would look like. I'd prefer to see whether some of the more dire loss-of-privacy scenarios come to pass, as well as examine some fully-implemented examples of the Open Graph API first. Ironically, increasing levels of concern about privacy on Facebook may provide advancement offices with an opportunity to provide a valuable service to alumni by using social media channels to apprise them of privacy best practices, as well as providing this training in face-to-face or virtual formats. I'll be doing a Social Media 101 webinar with Cornell class volunteers, and I'll certainly devote a portion of it to privacy concerns.

Second, what about the institutional perspective? Should we be comfortable with Facebook gathering data on what Facebook users are doing on our web pages and sharing that information with third parties? That's a cost/benefit question whose answer may vary from institution to institution, and from various vantage points within each institution. Do the additional functionality and the potential for increased connectivity outweigh the risks? Does anyone have an accurate sense of the real risk at this point? There are far more questions than answers, but the questions are worth asking. It seems shortsighted to discard a tool as potentially powerful as the Open Graph API out of hand, especially since, as noted before, we're yet not really sure what a full implementation looks like.

And remember, in a Web 2.0 world, letting institutional considerations determine too much about how you engage your alumni may result in them leaving you behind. 

The important decision about the Open Graph protocol isn't really in your hands; it's in the hands of your alumni. If they continue to flock to Facebook and they like the additional functionality, you need to be there with them and use the tools they use themselves. Or you need to be comfortable with the consequences of not doing so. If they depart for greener pastures en masse, it's not worth your time to stay, anyway. 

Fortunately, social media is a great tool for finding out what your alumni are thinking. Ask their opinion. Listen. Engage. You'll make a better decision on the Open Graph initiative, and you'll advance your relationship with your alumni on the social web.

Student Comment Via Facebook? Our Lawyers Will Be In Touch

[Updated 22 October: See response to this topic from Ohio State's Ted Hattemer in the comments.]

The October 2009 issue of CASE CURRENTS magazine was sure to make it into this blog. But this posting isn't about what I thought I'd be writing about.

I was ready to launch a rant about whether private label social networks are a good investment for cash-strapped under-staffed alumni operations (answer: No). Then I noticed the informative article about reputation management by Kim Fernandez (Operation Reputation: How to manage and protect your institution's online image, p. 32. CASE member log in required for online access). This is a good resource for educational institutions navigating the sometimes turbulent waters of unmoderated online discussions.

The two paragraphs that caught my attention were about Ohio State University's reaction last spring when a student questioned university president Gordon Gee's membership on the board of an energy company. The company was under scrutiny for questionable environmental practices. Rather than ignore the question, answer the question, or thank the student for participating in the discussion, university officials deleted the question and disabled the comments function on that page.

A few days later, after some negative publicity, the school reinstated the commenting capability on its Facebook Page. I recently presented this as an example of a school that "learned how social media work, and how to live with the uncertainties of Web 2.0." I believed – or rather, I assumed – that OSU's decision resulted from a thoughtful understanding of the new landscape we face, and an awareness that someone who complains or challenges the school is an engaged constituent. The most important thing, I explained, is not whether they agree with everything the school does, it's that they care enough to participate in the discussion.

But it turns out I was wrong about OSU's reasons for reinstating Facebook fans' ability to leave comments. 

In CURRENTS I read that 

Ted Hattemer, director of new media at the university, says the policy reversal boiled down to a free-speech issue. 'What we found is that...Ohio State property has the requirement of meeting a basic freedom of speech. We quickly reversed the decision [to remove the post] once we figured that out, thanks to good advice from our legal affairs departments.'

I'm all for free speech, but that's not what this is about. Making this decision on the basis of a legal opinion makes OSU technically correct, but reveals a lack of awareness as to why "free speech" is important in online forums.

Students, alumni and friends expect to be heard because they can be heard – not because a lawyer said it's OK for them to be heard.

The silver lining may be that the next time a well-intentioned senior administrator asks of your Facebook Page, "But what if a student criticizes us?" you can say that it's not a problem: OSU's new legal precedent - finally - allows people to use the internet to express their opinions.

Baylor University Cuts Ties to Alumni Association

[Updated 13 November, 2009: Inside Higher Ed reports that Baylor's independent association cannot perform its traditional role at Commencement.]

[Updated 28 October, 2009: Inside Higher Ed reports that Baylor has rescinded its offer to absorb the independent association. Article includes links to several prior background accounts.]

[Updated 26 October, 2009: Dallas Morning News reports on the relationship between the university and its Alumni Association.]

"I am just as confused about the Baylor Alumni Association and Baylor University parting ways completely as everybody else. And I too feel like there are holes in the story and some things aren't being said..."

That was one reader's reaction to a story on the Waco Tribune-Herald's web site yesterday, under the headline:

Baylor University removes alumni association's link from its Web site

Why would a university remove from its site the link to its own alumni association? And shut off the toll-free telephone number the school had previously provided for the association? I don't know the history of this, but the presentation of the story by the Waco paper combines with readers' comments for an interesting narrative.

Apparently part of a planned separation so that Baylor's Alumni Association could take on independent status, differing versions of the split are causing friction between the school and its support organization. In particular, the ongoing presidential search on the Texas school's campus is mentioned by both sides' supporters as a point of contention. The University's site dedicated to the search is appropriately peppered with press releases and background information from the school and its governance group. In contrast, the Alumni Association's version of the same site provides links to a number of published commentaries about the process itself and the actors involved.

A quick scan of Facebook shows official groups and pages for the school itself and the Association, but as yet no discernible discussion around these topics (other than passing comments about the last president's departure). If these issues are truly of broad interest to alumni, we might expect to see Facebook groups appear supporting one side or the other.

Meanwhile, with most independent associations moving from independent to dependent status over time, it's unusual to see a school's association moving in the opposite direction. Whatever the background or political and personal battles may involve, the reader quoted above may well have it right: some things haven't yet been explained publicly and if there's more to report that seems worthwhile I'll pass it along here.

Baylor Alumni Association

Waco Tribune-Herald story about the debate

Inside Higher Ed's summary of the situation

Baylor's "Alumni & Friends"

Photo of sign from Baylor campus by Flickr user Alan Levine via Creative Commons.

Antioch Update: Alumni to Buy College

Quick update to the Antioch story. 

The University has agreed to transfer ownership of the campus to a group of alumni who hope to re-open the school in a couple of years. However, many hurdles remain before the financially troubled institution can be revived – not least of which is the school's run-down physical condition, as well as legal and financial steps involving bond holders and the Ohio state Attorney General's office.

These links provide background and updates:

Chronicle of Higher Ed: Update on Antioch

New York Times: Alumni Group to Buy College

Inside Higher Ed: A Deal to Revive Antioch

Prior coverage from Alumni Futures:

Antioch Alumni and the "Angry Wake"

Antioch College Will Close As Previously Planned

Antioch's Second Chance? Alumni Step Up

Anonymous Donations: Should We Care About the Source?

Two weeks ago I submitted a topic to the CASE Group discussions on the LinkedIn web site [free registration required]. I am posting an updated version of my question here to generate additional discussion.

Anonymous Donations: Anyone concerned about the source of the funds?:

There has been ample news coverage recently about a series of anonymous donations to US colleges and universities, totaling some $80 million so far. The gifts come with the stipulation that the receiving institution must not attempt to identify the source of the gifts, or the donations may be rescinded.

Should the receiving institutions have concerns about accepting donations of this size without any information about the donor, business or enterprise that generated the funds? I can imagine a circumstance in which an institution later wishes it were not linked to the donor or his/her line of business. 

In reply, Judy Piercey (University of California - San Diego) quoted an article in which her UCSD colleague Juli Larsen (Associate Vice Chancellor of Development) commented about having been approached with a similar offer: 

As a public institution, we do have very stringent rules on gift acceptance. The only way we were willing to enter into this discussion was if the bank itself...was willing to verify [that] the source of the funds was legal and attest in writing to the legitimacy of the donor and the donor's intent.

As it happened, that donor did not make the donation, but the point, said Larsen, is that 

This was definitely new territory. It was frustrating....Our work is about trying to connect donors with our people and programs. So obviously we want to meet these [donors].

What do you think? Should we be grateful for any large donation in tough economic times, or should we be suspicious (or at least, extra curious) about large gifts from donors who don't want anyone to know who they are?

Additional coverage of the topic from Inside Higher Ed:

http://www.insidehighered.com/news/2009/05/08/donor 

Credit Card Transparency: U.S. Legislation May Affect Alumni Affinity Contracts

[Updated 28 May, 2009: The Credit Card Act of 2009 (H.R. 627) has been signed into law, and includes disclosure requirements for alumni association affinity credit card contracts. The language, according to CASE, is identical to the language mentioned in my original post below, and requires credit card companies to disclose marketing agreements with alumni associations and affiliated foundations. The agreements covered are any of the agreements where a student has been issued a card, regardless of whether cards are marketed to students.

The disclosure requirement says that U.S. institutions of higher education must

publicly disclose any contract or other agreement made with a card issuer or creditor for the purpose of marketing a credit card.

While it doesn't mention alumni associations per se, the breadth of the language will likely make all or almost all marketing agreements subject to disclosure.

Thanks to CASE's Brain Flahaven for keeping us all updated.]

CASE's director of government and foundation relations, Brian Flahaven, recently circulated an update on legislation introduced by two US congressmen. According to Brian,

...the Student Credit Card Transparency Act of 2009...would require credit card companies to disclose to Congress their contracts, terms and agreements on affinity credit card programs with colleges, universities and alumni associations. 

Although focused on schools marketing credit cards to students, the bill's broad language might require credit card companies to disclose all their agreements with colleges and universities. 

If you're at a US alumni association with an affinity credit card program, how might this affect you? CASE believes that the legislation, if voted into law, might result in unintended, but negative, consequences.

Brian adds that it's unclear when Congress might take up the bill for discussion or vote. And the Senate is working on its own version of related legislation, and CASE will let us know if any language from the House bill mentioned above makes it into the Senate's final product.

Have an opinion or concern about the pros or cons of these proposed laws? Have anything to share about the changing role of alumni affinity agreements? Share your feedback in a comment.  

Meanwhile, CASE has a web page for monitoring legislation and regulations that may affect higher education advancement:

CASE Legislative & Regulatory Affairs page

Also check out the CASE Issues Watch

Note that I'll be taking a break from blogging for a couple of weeks. See you late in May.

Place-Based Media: a New Alumni Experience

What if alumni could return to campus and view virtual pictures and signs; could experience spoken stories and written memories of other alumni, students and faculty?

What if students could learn about campus history and personalities the same way, and all they needed to view and hear these stories was a PDA or a cell phone?

A few years ago, during a cross-country flight, I looked out at the landscape below and thought about how cool it would be if someone invented an interactive overlay for the window, like a heads-up display. It could tell you the name of that river, the town in the distance, the height of that peak, and even the history of the places you were flying over.

Now something like this is within reach, with prototypes being created, deployed and tested.

Dean Terry and others are working on it. Dean is the director of the new Emerging Media area at the University of Texas – Dallas. He's also director of Mobile Lab & the Online Worlds Lab. He thinks and writes about mobile media, virtual worlds, social networks, and more. He's also a film-maker, and he teaches.

Dean recently gave a talk titled Conversations in Place – Research, Collaboration and Art in the Emerging Mobile Space. A core project Dean is driving revolves around what he calls a "virtual visual layer of place-sensitive data" or "place-based media."

"When you're on the web," he points out, "it doesn't matter where you are physically." So something local, something geographic is missing from our web experience. We do create virtual "places" online (such as Second Life). But, he asks, why not turn that paradigm on its head and add virtual content to real places?

Mobile devices, he says...

...can be context sensitive so that where you are not only matters, but is a primary driver of interaction and use of the device. We can create a kind of "augmented reality" by delivering information about place. Hold your device up and view the data in real time on the screen, or hear a recorded message delivered to the spot where you're standing.

Now picture a campus landscape like the one outside your office, but silently and virtually augmented by content from alumni, faculty and students.

Dean's group is working on an application for iPhone called Placethings. It's still not quite in beta, but it's not too early to think about its potential for higher ed advancement or instruction.

In his talk, Dean also mentioned that the legal, political and ethical implications of this technology are potentially enormous: would you like it if your neighbor hung a virtual sign on your house that said "The person who lives here is a jerk"?

These "annotated experiences" raise many complex issues: social filtering, community standards, and the question, "how much information is too much?" It's all part of the world beyond Web 2.0. And it's coming, with or without our participation. But if we engage in the discussions and planning, and anticipate the benefits and potential pitfalls, we'll be positioned to evaluate these tools for our constituents' benefit.

Can you go outside the box and suggest alumni relations, admissions, development or communications uses for a technology like this on your campus, at events, or elsewhere in higher ed? Leave a comment.

Think this is going too far, or that it represents a risk? Leave a comment.

And if you're interested in hanging out with the people making these things happen, check out the Where 2.0 Conference in San Jose, California:

Where 2.0 Conference 2009

Photo of Where 2.0 attendee using analog recording device, copyright James Duncan Davidson.

Not to Be Outdone, Dartmouth Gets Another Lawsuit

Although, as we saw yesterday, MUW has had its share of legal issues, perhaps no college in America is as encumbered by alumni litigation as Dartmouth College, with its ongoing battles over control of alumni seats on the governing board of the institution.

To give a full accounting of the history of this conflict would require many more hours than I have for blogging. People who want a snapshot into the cases can dive in mid-stream by reading about the latest lawsuit. The Dartmouth, the school's student-run paper, reported on the legal wrangling today (November 25, 2008):

Several Dartmouth alumni filed a lawsuit against the College last week, the second form of legal action the school has faced from its alumni in the last 14 months. The suit, filed on Nov. 18, states that the College violated an 1891 agreement to maintain parity on the Board of Trustees. The Order of Notice states that legal action has become more relevant in light of Dartmouth’s current presidential search.

As with Mississippi University for Women, there is a technical and legal aspect to the case, and a functional aspect as well. The legal issue here is whether an 1891 agreement between the Association of Alumni and the College is binding, and if so whether it has been "breached."

The operational issue of the case has to do with

1. the degree to which alumni representation in institutional governance should be systematized and prescriptive, and
2. who gets to decide when it's time to review that system, and how it can be changed.

This one is far from over and I'll try to check in on proceedings in Hanover from time to time. Although it's a serious issue for the college and its alumni, some people are trying to keep it in perspective; the IvyGate blog referred to the new litigation as "the most boring lawsuit ever. Again."

Photo of Dartmouth's Baker Memorial Library by Andrew Walsh, courtesy of Creative Commons.