Most Higher Ed professionals are familiar with the importance of social media and the effect on alumni relations and overall advancement.  More and more schools are looking to this niche area to target support for the institution and for the alumni association/alumni relations.  For many schools, alumni are already utilizing these platforms to network and connect with fellow alumni, and thus schools are doing their best to better capitalize on this growing trend.  Alumni already have an affinity to their alma mater, and depending on their availability, will choose whether or not to contribute to the institution with time, talent, or treasure; perhaps all three.  Through social media, alumni are now more connected than ever, and seeing the events and opportunities to give back at the click of a button or an update to their mobile phone has wide-spread appeal.  As the evolution of social media reaches unfamiliar heights, colleges and universities alike are hoping this is another way to keep alumni engaged and further encourage alumni to give back to their alma mater.

Where this becomes even more interesting to institutions is the ability to measure the effectiveness of their social media efforts.  Are the schools hitting their target audience?  Are alumni interfacing with the schools profiles and/or becoming more engaged?  If schools are not effectively measuring their performance and accuracy of their efforts using social media, they may quite likely be going the way of the duffer, “hitting and hoping.”  Developing a plan of action to strategically target alumni is where an institution will be most effective at engaging their alumni through social media.  One of the easiest (and most efficient) ways to develop an action plan is to canvass alumni about their volume and usage of these social media platforms.  Based on the direct alumni feedback, you will know where to focus your time and what resources are needed to address the different social media sites; and how to target specific age groups most effectively.  At the same time, you will be more in tune with the type of content your alumni are looking for based on the feedback from your survey results.

The AAS continues to be a valuable resource to the Higher Ed industry, and because of that, we know that we must also focus attention and resources on a strong social media presence.  For some time now, the AAS has had a small place in the social media arena, but is now focused on utilizing it more effectively to provide communication and insight into alumni attitudes and related material.  Through our social media sites and fan pages, we can publish articles and present findings, as well as welcome new clients and share data that relate to effective alumni programs, communication, and participation.  As you begin (or continue) to utilize social media for the benefit of your alumni engagement efforts, we encourage you to stay connected with the Alumni Attitude Study.   Please see below for links to AAS social media sites.

AAS Twitter Page: http://www.twitter.com/alumniattitudes

AAS Facebook Fan Page http://www.facebook.com/home.php?#!/pages/Alumni-Attitude-Study/101191039999

AAS Blog: http://www.alumniattitudestudy.org/s6/blog/

1. Create a more enhanced partnership with alumni and donors.
2. Create consensus within your department and with your board about what matters to alumni so that the discussion about how to better engage alumni shifts from a discussion about what they think to one focused on what actions are needed next.
3. Establish a prioritized list of actionable items and how this varies across key segments.
4. Create a heightened focus on alumni and donor engagement with other departments and colleges across campus.

In addition to the checked box or scales questions, most surveys also include open-ended questions.  These questions offer the respondent an opportunity to talk about his or her feelings in their own language or talk about issues that were not included in the other questions.

When creating a survey instrument it is always tempting to use a lot of these open-ended questions because they feel like the kind of question we might ask if we were talking to the respondent.  We would like to ask a question like:

• What are the things most important to you in your relationship with your alma mater?
• What do you remember most fondly about your experience as a student?
• What is it about the university that inspires you to give?

Unfortunately the responses to these open-ended questions are difficult to translate into actionable findings.  They do not easily provide measurable information that is comparable between segments or to other groups.

Our relationship with donors or alumni is, by definition, anecdotal.  The last conversation we had with a happy or disgruntled donor weighs heavily in our thinking about what all donors or alumni think.   This anecdotal world view is unavoidable unless we have the ability to take a step back and gain a perspective of the entire population.  This is one of the roles for a donor or alumni survey.  It gives us a way to see what that silent majority is thinking and how to best communicate with them.  They may or may not be like that last donor we talked to but unless we check, we can never know.

This brings me back to the question about open-ended responses.  Since they are personal responses to a question, they are also anecdotal.  And, unless we figure out a way to categorize them, they are not very valuable in helping us better understand what our donors or alumni think across the population.  Breaking responses to open-ended questions into categories and then looking at them through this lens allows us to move past the individual nature of these responses; however, this is a very clumsy and time consuming process.  Further, if we did our homework in the beginning and constructed a good instrument we should already be testing attitudes around the categories that drop out of an open-ended question.

Given this, what is the value of these questions?  In our opinion they serve three very important functions:

1. The open-ended questions provide respondents a chance to “speak their mind,” positively or negatively.  This is important and can play a pivotal role in enhancing their future engagement.
2. Open-ended questions provide opportunities to quote anonymous comments from different decades or just generally about an experience, relationship with a professor, or feelings about the institution.
3. Open-ended questions provide a context within which we can better understand the statistical findings we acquire from the rest of the survey.  If the survey is thought of as a meal, the scaled questions and the analysis of them is the meat and potatoes of that meal while the open-ended responses in the spice.  These questions provide flavor to the substance gained through the other analysis.

In the end, it is important to keep in mind the multi-faceted benefit of asking about the opinion of those we care about.  The answers are important but so is the process, and there are many ways to gain insight, target actions, steward a relationship, and to enhance engagement through a good feedback process.

Attendance at the Conference was yet another indicator of its success.  Based on our conversations with the Summit’s Committee members, what originally was projected to be 400-500 attendees turned out to exceed 700.  Of course, hosting the Summit in the heart of Times Square in New York City was enticing itself.  All in all, from the Summit attendees, to the facilities and location, down to the hard work applied by all the conference volunteers, the 2010 Summit should go down as one of the more successful CASE events in recent memory.

Another success at this year’s Summit came amidst one of the conference’s first sessions. AAS Managing Consultant, Rob Shoss co-presented with representatives from The Napa Group and The University of Tennessee Alumni Association to discuss the topic of “Re-envisioning Alumni Associations for the 21^st Century”.  This presentation was highlighted by the results of a very extensive and successful strategic planning project at The University of Tennessee and how the outcome has helped define the foundation for a successful alumni relations program.  The presentation drew over 100 of the conferences 700+ attendees; sparking several attendees to stop by our exhibitor booth to compliment the presentation and learn more.  For details about this presentation and for the materials presented, please use the following link.

http://www.case.org/conferences_and_training/summit2010nyc.html

Being an education partner this year, it was truly a pleasure to get to visit with many of the Advancement leaders in attendance.  Through our work with the Alumni Attitude Study, we have developed a solid reputation as being an industry leader in attitudinal research.  It is this reputation that enables us to have so much success at CASE events; and this could not have ringed truer at the 2010 Summit.  Many of the conference attendees (including several conference committee members) were very intrigued by our work engaging alumni and donors, and thus may provide future opportunities to work with them at their institutions.

The Summit has been and continues to be the flagship of all the CASE conferences.  The AAS has shared that great success being an educational partner of the Summit and will continue to support CASE and associated events.  We would like to thank everyone who attended our presentation or visited our exhibitor booth to talk more about how the AAS can help increase overall alumni engagement and affinity towards their institution.  We look forward to seeing you all again at Summit 2011 in Chicago.

Response rate is important.  It tells us a lot about the target population’s attitude regarding the survey and their belief in our willingness to listen and take action.  Response rate, however, is not as important as the number of responses.  If we have a population of 100 people and 20% of that population respond to our survey (20 responses) we do not know much about the 100 people.  There is a high probability that the 20 responses could be substantively different than the 80 non respondents because it is composed of only 20 different people.  If, however, we have a 20% response rate from a population of 200,000 (40,000 responses) there is a very low probability that 40,000 different people could collectively be way outside of the norm.

Additionally, response rate will vary for many different reasons.  Understanding this variation and its causes is informative about respondent attitudes and affinity but does not necessarily give more information about the accuracy of the findings.

Since 2001 we have completed alumni and donor survey projects with over 140 universities and colleges.  Within that group, we have had response rates as low as 5% and as high as 35%.  The distribution sets have ranged from 3,000 to 150,000.

In my judgment, response rate is a function of:

1. Affinity between target group and the institution doing the survey,
2. Demographic characteristics of the distribution pool,
3. Structure of the survey instrument,
4. Belief of the respondents that someone will read the surveys and take action as a result of the findings.

For instance, current givers or current members will usually respond at a rate that is two to 5 times larger than never givers.  If the database is oversampling never givers then the response rate will be lower.

Finally, I cannot overemphasize the last consideration.  If your alumni believe that you will actually listen to their responses and take action on the results they are much more likely to respond.  When you survey, always let them know what you heard and what you are going to do as a result of what you heard.  When you take action that is based on what you heard, let them know!  Finally, ask again.  We call this the Alumni Partnership

Model(c) and it is a critical part of a successful feedback systems, higher response rates, and more engagement.

One other thing to keep in mind is that response rate is much less important than having a sufficiently large number of responses. Statistical confidence is not a function of response rate but is based on the number of responses, their demographic distribution, and the methodology of participant selection, survey methodology, and instrument design.

In addition, PEG is pleased to announce at the CASE Summit 2010, a new line of research products designed to complement the AAS in the form of Donor Enhancement Services.  We welcome you to stop by our booth to talk about the new Donor Development Study and the Donor Stewardship Study, and to find out more about all of our services related to enhancing stakeholder engagement with their alma mater.

For more information about the presentation or to join in on pre-presentation discussions online, please visit www.alumniattitudestudy.org/summit10.

We hope to see you there.

Detailed below is a brief description of the topic.

Alumni associations, along with the universities they serve, are reinventing themselves to become essential strategic partners for institutional growth, development, sustainability and advocacy. A new comprehensive strategic planning model, illustrated by the University of Tennessee Alumni Association, applies data acquisition and analysis, workforce redesign and technology advancements to expand the alumni community and to strengthen and focus the association’s role in fostering support for critical institutional priorities. Key partners in this project will share the thinking behind this comprehensive approach to alumni association strategic planning and the highlights, findings, benefits and outcomes of the process at UTAA.
Speakers: Janis Johnson, Principal, Johnson Consulting Strategic Communication; Henry Nemcik, Vice President for Development and Alumni Relations, University of Tennessee Alumni Association; Rob Shoss, Founding Member, Performance Enhancement Ltd.; Lofton K. Stuart Jr., Executive Director, University of Tennessee Alumni Association; and RJ Valentino, President, The Napa Group

Many people start by thinking about the questions they want to ask rather than thinking about what they hope to achieve by conducting the survey.  Good survey processes and questionnaires start with a clear understanding of the following five operational guideposts:

1.       “Begin with the end in mind.”  Know what results you’re looking for; and what you want to do with the results.  Question design and structure make a huge difference in allowing for insightful analysis, but only when they are correctly drafted in the first place.

2.       Everything needs to be actionable.  Some questions like “overall opinion of the institution?”  are not actionable on their face but are critical to very actionable inferential analysis.

3.       Make sure the process facilitates prioritizing opportunities.  It is unlikely that you will find out things that are totally surprising.  The power is in helping you pick those things to do that will have the most impact/benefit.

4.       Avoid compound questions or questions that confuse the point.  One issue per question is not only a good rule of thumb; it is critical to meaningful analysis.

5.       Make sure the effort is part of your Alumni Partnership.  You are asking them what is most important to them, their opinion.  Make sure you carefully deploy your brand as part of the process.

When you launch a survey you are entering into a conversation with your alumni.  Let them know that their opinion matters to the institution by using a high-quality process/instrument.  Conducting a study of this nature is more than just an assessment; it’s also a great communication piece to allow your alumni to voice their opinion on things the institution does well and those areas where the institution can improve.

A survey process is generally viewed as a one-way communications device. Clearly a survey is asking for input/feedback – one direction. But, a survey is really a dialog – two-way communication.

The dialog begins with questions. The very act of asking specific questions sets context and establishes expectations; expectations which must be addressed through the complete communication cycle. With most survey initiatives the dialog abruptly – and regrettably – stops when the questions get answered. This is a serious mistake.

You take a positive, bold step when you ask your alumni to critique your institution.  You bolster the alumni relationship further when you show them you heard what they had to say. You seal the relationship when you show your alumni that their input drives the decisions you make.

Demonstrate your commitment to a two-way partnership by sharing the results of your Study with a broader audience throughout the university.

From an in-depth presentation of findings to executive summaries and articles for publication, an alumni survey will help you cultivate the relationship between institution and alumni.

Your alumni feel empowered when voicing their opinions.  When you ask alumni “How important is this program?” and “How well is your university/association doing it?” you do not just gain insight into alumni perceptions, you also take the first step in improving those perceptions, by demonstrating your desire for an active, two-way dialogue with alumni.

Survey Distribution Options

Using a combination of distribution methods allows us to minimize non-response and selection bias, and to maximize insight into alumni perceptions within each specific alumni segment.

• A vital part of any successful survey is selecting a sample of participants that is both random and representative of the population at-large.
• Initially, we recommend distributing your customized survey by email to at least 7,500 randomly selected alumni.  This usually generates 500-1000 responses, more than enough to ensure confident statistical analysis.
• While we recommend an initial distribution of 7,500 randomly selected email addresses, we also recommend that, if possible, you send the survey to everybody in your email database.  Use the survey process to tell as many alumni as possible that their opinion is important and that it matters to you as you enhance your relationship with them.
• When using random selection make sure the database is well-stratified and is representative of your overall alumni population.

Survey Results

Your research should provide a credible, quantitative, and powerful method for assessing alumni opinions and perceptions.  Use your findings to go beyond the limited insight of anecdotal evidence and hearsay to measure and compare alumni opinions objectively and thoughtfully.

• Depend on the Study’s validity – use it to target and improve communication and messages across direct mail, annual fund, phone campaigns, and more.
• Trust the Study’s results and findings – make sure that each alumni segment is adequately represented.
• Compare your results with those from similar institutions – find out where you fit in the range of results and findings from peer universities.
• Be confident in the instrument’s effectiveness – use a well-validated instrument.

Sophisticated statistical considerations ensure reliability.

• Use random sampling and distribution to guarantee that your data reflect how your alumni actually feel.
• To alleviate non-response bias, distribute surveys appropriately across membership status, age, and gender, and consistently rank question groups.
• By keeping your institution’s email address database up-to-date, you can survey a truly random, representative sample where each member of the population has an equal opportunity to be selected (eliminating selection bias).
• By ensuring an adequate number and variation of responses for each alumni segment, AAS surveys consistently reveal a high confidence interval.*

The Power of Segmentation

Through carefully defined segmentation uncover the different perceptions of alumni from key age groups, eras, and lifestyles.  We rarely present Study results only for “alumni overall.”  Rather, after ongoing extensive analysis of the over 100,000 survey responses in our database, we’ve created stratified alumni profiles using factor modeling, correlation, and regression analysis.  We refer to these strata as “Era of Graduation” and “Alumni Life Cycle” groups.

Broaden your traditional understanding of alumni opinion by examining specific alumni segments.  Generational segmentation, while important, is not enough.  Examine era of graduation, stage of life, and lifestyle market-segmentation to create a more complete and vivid picture.

• Get inside the numbers – differences in perception are common among alumni from different eras of graduation.
• Learn what motivates alumni from different eras to engage, participate, and respond.
• Learn what drives loyalty and giving for specific alumni segments – use this information to customize communications and create programs that have the greatest impact.

CASE Summit 2010 in NYC

For the second year in a row, the AAS will be featured not only as an exhibitor, but also as a speaker and co-presenter at the CASE Summit for Advancement Leaders in New York, July 18-20.  The topic for the Summit presentation will be Re-envisioning Alumni Associations for the 21^st Century: Alumni associations, along with the universities they serve, are reinventing themselves to become essential strategic partners for institutional growth, development, sustainability, and advocacy. Similar to last year, we will put out a web blog to open a conversation about our topic ahead of the conference.  The more you participate, the better we can speak to your interests.  Please keep a look out for that link in the next couple of weeks.

Upcoming AAS Webinars

The AAS will be producing two upcoming webinars that seem to be hot topics for the Higher Ed arena.  This month (May), the presentation will cover best practices for surveying alumni.  We often receive inquiries from institutions throughout the industry requesting assistance in developing an effective alumni survey.  As the need for data and benchmarking in alumni relations continues to increase, the need for an effective method of gaining alumni feedback becomes critical.  We will use over 15 years of experience gathering alumni/constituent data to provide some best practices and give proper recommendations.  The second topic (scheduled for June) is one that is sure to create much energy and interest among the industry.  We will discuss social media and their effects on alumni relations.  We will have a guest presenter who will be sure to intrigue anyone who participates with his expertise, insight, and guidance towards effective use of social media in your alumni efforts.

AAS transition into Development/Donor Relations

For the past 10+ years the AAS has focused primarily on helping institutions (mostly through alumni relations/associations) enhance overall alumni engagement in areas such as, but not limited to: communication, giving, membership, programs, etc.  As we continue to work with universities and colleges to increase alumni engagement, we see a common trend for development offices.  While many do a great job of stewarding the “top donors” there is less focus on the rest of the donor list.  It is important to find new prospects, but probably more important to keep the donors involved. It is easy for an organization to be more focused on the “ask” than the nurture of the relationship with all of the donors.  We believe that the core processes of the AAS offer a direct opportunity for Donor Relations.  We are working hard on developing this new application and will keep you posted on its progress.

The relationship or difference between importance and performance is an indicator of agitation.  This “agitation gap” reflects the level of irritation that exists when performance isn’t living up to expectations. PEG’s previous research has indicated that one’s perception of importance increases as agitation increases and declines once performance meets or exceeds expectations.

For Example:

A salesperson whose clients are not dependent on his products or services in any kind of emergency environment has traditionally been very responsive to calls from his clients. Generally, the salesperson returns the phone calls of his clients within an hour and has followed this pattern for some time. Suddenly, the client begins noticing that the salesperson is taking 2 to 3 days to return his/her phone calls. This delay in response has no real influence on the ultimate service or delivery of the product being sold.

However, after six months of this behavior and upon receipt of a “satisfaction survey,” the client indicates that returning phone calls in a timely manner is extremely important to them, and that current performance is very low. Upon seeing these results and having a conversation with his manager, the salesperson resumed his old behavior of returning phone calls within an hour.  When the next survey went out the next year, the salesperson’s clients now indicated that returning phone calls in a timely manner wasn’t so important (about halfway up the scale), and performance was currently above average.

The perception of importance was, in part, a function of performance.  When the client was not agitated importance and performance went to a neutral position.  When agitated by bad service importance went up in proportion to the perceived lack of performance.

This question design provides insight into the ranking of importance for a set of items as well as the ranking of performance.  Further it allows us the ability to identify the institutions that have the highest performance measures as compared to their peers. And we can actually describe – with metrics – the energy alumni have on a given issue by looking at the agitation gap.

Asking people only for perceptions of performance frequently leads to gross misunderstanding of the dynamics of the relationship we have with our constituents.  By incorporating perceptions of importance, we can dramatically reduce the potential for that misunderstanding, and ensure that the priorities are correctly assessed.