alumni futures

Benchmarking Alumni Social Networks: What's the Plan?

Benchmarking is discussed more and more frequently in advancement, especially in alumni relations. PCUAD (Private College and University Alumni Directors) has pushed the practice more than any other group has in the past few years, with its development of ARAMP, the Alumni Relations Assessment & Metrics Program.

Among other things, this benchmarking tool collects data about PCUAD members' online communities. For example, it measures:

• the number of registered users within a school's private online alumni community;
• the number of alumni email forwarding addresses activated;
• unique logins to the online community per month;
• the number of people who have registered for an event online...

...and so on. E-newsletters, online communities and directories, staffing of the web site...it's all there.

But there's something missing. Something so obvious that it seems hard to believe PCUAD didn't build it into the ARAMP system: there are no questions about online social networks. Facebook, LinkedIn and MySpace are not part of the measurements, despite the fact that perhaps every PCUAD member school is using these (and other) sites for alumni relations.

There's a good explanation for this omission: the original benchmarking instrument was developed a couple of years ago, when many alumni directors still believed that they had to "compete" with these sites, which were "stealing" their alumni. Having a large number of alumni using Facebook (or perhaps, at the time, Friendster) was interpreted to mean that your own alumni site had failed. I expect that ARAMP, however, will be updated to reflect alumni groups' growing use of third party sites.

Soon, CASE will launch its own benchmarking tool for member institutions, which will probably include metrics describing the use of social networks in higher ed as well. If it is designed to be flexible, it will allow its users to specify the aspects of social networks they wish to measure and compare.

Whatever metrics we decide to benchmark, we should be building social networks into our strategies and planning right now, by:

• incorporating electronic media into engagement strategic plans;
• setting goals for outreach and participation (and ROI) for online efforts; and
• drafting road maps for the next 18 to 36 months, to maintain our flexibility, creativity and effectiveness online.

This last item could cover anything from how you'll gather structured data from alumni in social networks, to how you'll integrate Twitter into event communication planning.

And we should always remember to ask why we're using these sites at all. A good answer might be "because they help us connect alumni with each other and the institution in novel, effective ways." A bad answer might be "because everyone else is rushing to do these things already."

As for benchmarking our use of these third party sites, what aspects do you think we should be measuring?

Leave a comment.

Announcing the CASE Survey on Alumni Online Social Networks

[Updated June 20, 2008: The survey is now closed]

The Council for Advancement and Support of Education is conducting the first profession-wide survey to look at alumni associations' use of online social networks. In a recent email to members in the alumni field, CASE's research staff asks:

• Have you launched an online social community for your alumni?
• Do you want to see what systems your peers are using, and hear what their experiences have been?
• How does the profession measure "success" with online social communities?

Professionals who complete the survey will receive a courtesy copy of survey results.

The deadline for completing the survey is was 5:00 PM EDT (that's local time in Washington, DC) on Wednesday, June 18, 2008.

Survey results will be the focus of a special workshop at the Summit for Advancement Leaders in New York City July 13-15, 2008. That workshop is called Online Communities, Institutional Strategy and Advancement: What the Future Holds. Facilitators Dan Guhr (Illuminate Consulting Group) and Chris Thompson (CASE Vice President for Research and Information Services) will guide the discussion from 12:30 to 3:00 PM on the 15th.

Important Note: The survey is focused on third-party online networking systems and externally-based alumni social networks (such as Facebook, LinkedIn, and MySpace). It is not a survey about your campus-based online community, such as those using online community software from vendors like Harris Connect, PCI, iModules or others.

Click here to go to the survey

Click here to view the postconference workshop description

Working With Vendors as Conference Presenters

In July I have a couple of speaking engagements. Each offers interesting potential dilemmas — to the conference planners, to the audience, and to me and my co-presenters.

First, I am speaking at a user conference for iModules, a software company. The following week I'll be in New York City for the CASE Summit for Advancement. These programs have me thinking about the role of speakers at meetings of professional organizations (like CASE and CCAE) and at conferences hosted by private companies.

First up is the iModules client meeting. My office is not their client and I have no business relationship, personal or commercial connection, or other stake in their success. But they are gathering a large group of people with an interest in many of the topics I write about on this blog, topics that I believe should be discussed regularly in our profession. I want feedback from colleagues at other schools about the future of online communities, and a couple of hundred of these colleagues will be there.

There's a dual risk involved here. Because I am speaking at this event, others may infer that I endorse the host's products and services. I don't — I've never used them. I'm taking a risk by associating myself with a company with which I have no direct working experience, and they're taking a risk by bringing me in without knowing what I'm going to say.

Then comes the CASE Summit in New York. I'm on two panels there (details provided under Upcoming Presentations), one of which mixes higher ed professionals with reps from companies that do business with advancement offices. This is not an unusual practice, but it's worth thinking about for a few minutes.

Meetings sponsored by professional associations (or communities of interest) should separate sales-oriented presentations from those that are merely educational. Commercial presentations should never be scheduled at the same time as educational sessions, and should always be listed as product showcases or as commercial. This is usually an issue if a panel consists solely of a vendor and  that vendor's clients.

Unfortunately some conferences (including the 2008 CASE Summit) include potentially one-sided presentations. The presenters' challenge is to stick to the issues and avoid promoting their products and services. Can they do it? Yes. Do they? Often, but not always.

And here's the audience's challenge: as paying participants, hold the speakers to a high standard. CASE  and other organizations have little insurance against someone abusing the privilege of addressing a large audience of decision-makers. And you shouldn't pay $1,000 to sit in on commercials for a private company. Just being included on the program gives the companies a lot of visibility.

Some think that fear of censure by the audience — i.e., potential clients — is enough to prevent sales talks from the podium. But it's not always the case. I am not suggesting an embargo on industry reps as presenters. They often speak as "subject matter experts" in objective and helpful ways. Yet some reps can't resist a large, captive audience of decision-makers, and their sales pitch likely sounds factual, even-handed and objective to their own ears. But that doesn't make it appropriate for a conference breakout.

The CASE Summit panels which I'm participating in do not pair vendors with paying clients (as far as I am aware), but those of us on the institutional side should question presenters on the spot if they launch into an explanation of why their product or service is so great. Of course, for a company rep there's a very delicate balance between explaining 1) why his company thinks it's important to do something, and 2) why his company thinks I should choose them to do that thing. Satisfied clients may also want to sing their service providers' praises, but should do so only in response to questions about what services they use.

Meanwhile, independent consultants face additional challenges. They are invited to speak at conferences that are prominently sponsored by companies the consultants would prefer not to be associated with. Someone glancing at the schedule may assume that the sponsor has the presenters' endorsement (or at least their tacit acceptance), when in fact, the opposite is true. Conference organizers don't always specify well in advance whether corporate sponsors will be part of the program, or which sponsors they will be.

Final thoughts about sharing the podium with vendors: The alumni association which I serve as executive director has a business relationship with one of the companies joining me on the panel in NY, but no money has changed hands in the creation or execution of that relationship. In fact, I've been told by colleagues that I give the company free publicity by writing and talking publicly about them, and that they "owe me." But some of the things I have said about them have been very critical, not complimentary. And under the auspices of Alumni Futures, I'm hosting a private workshop which representatives of another company are paying to participate in.

Should I not serve on a CASE panel with these reps? Or is an awareness of the issues enough to ensure fair and reasonable participation? Regardless of your views on what the "right" answer might be, it's a good idea for us to ask these questions.

I think higher ed professionals can and should interact publicly with consultants and company reps, as long as we keep in mind potential conflicts. It's important for us to collaborate across sectors, to:

• share knowledge and experience;
• encourage our colleagues at other schools (and other companies) to innovate to improve the professions, and
• show that we can discuss trends, issues, and strategies without hawking wares.

What do you think?