Northern Arizona University Marketing

Marketing Resources

< Marketing Home

Tips, Tricks, and Helpful Marketing Hints

When creating a marketing piece, write with the readers in mind. They will care more about benefits than features.

Marketing Plan

Click for Marketing Plan helps fund materials.

Executive Summary

Background

In spring 2004, as part of a comprehensive project to craft a market positioning and develop a strategic marketing plan for Northern Arizona University, NAU commissioned Lipman Hearne to conduct research among key constituent groups. The research was designed to accomplish the following goals:

Determine NAU's current image and reputation
Identify features and attributes associated with high-quality universities and high-quality student-faculty interaction
Assess NAU's performance on those features/attributes
Inform strategies to influence opinions of and attitudes toward NAU

In order to accomplish these objectives, the following research was undertaken:

Interviews and group discussions with NAU faculty, staff, and administrators
Interviews and groups discussions with Phoenix and Flagstaff community and business leaders
Focus groups with Phoenix area high school teachers and parents
Focus groups with San Diego area high school counselors and teachers
Telephone survey with undergraduate prospects (high school juniors)
Web-based survey with NAU faculty and staff
Web-based survey with NAU alumni
Web-based survey with currently enrolled NAU undergraduate and graduate students
Telephone survey with former NAU undergraduates

An important part of the surveys was assessing constituent views on the most important characteristic that define a high-quality university and those that describe high-quality student-faculty interaction. The list of characteristics for each of these categories was developed during the interviews and discussions on-campus with faculty, staff, and administrators.

The details of this research, including the methodology and findings, appear in the full report. In this Executive Summary, we distill the key findings of the research and present strategic implications that flow from those findings. The findings and implications are intended to help shape the market positioning yet to be crafted as well as a detailed strategic marketing plan.

We are grateful for the collegiality and cooperation of Northern Arizona University staff, as well as many members of the surrounding community, that have made this work possible.

Key findings

Faculty and staff

The opinions of NAU faculty and staff were garnered through a Web-based survey. The faculty respondent contingent numbered 359 for a response rate of 51 percent, while 704 staff responded to the same survey for a response rate of 39 percent. Key findings included the following:

These two constituencies were asked in an open-ended format to name strengths of NAU. Several came to the forefront:
Small classes, personal attention
High quality faculty committed to teaching (though more faculty than staff held this opinion)
Attractive location

Faculty and staff were presented a list of institutional characteristics and asked to rate the importance of each in defining a "high-quality" university. They were also asked to assess NAU's performance on these same characteristics. NAU's performance was strongest on those characteristics deemed to be of least importance. Its performance was weakest on those characteristics deemed to be most important. More specifically, while they agreed on the following as the most important characteristics, both faculty and staff felt that the University's performance on the characteristics was well below the importance they had assigned to them:

University reputation
Reputation of the departments
Access to quality student support services
Small class sizes
Wide range of undergraduate programs and majors

When analyzed by race/ethnicity, minority faculty and staff rated none of the characteristics of a high-quality university as a "strong" part of NAU's reputation. They ranked every characteristic but one as weaker than did their Caucasian counterparts.
Faculty and staff diverged in their opinions on several issues including the reasons they ascribe to student attrition; how NAU might improve as a high quality institution; and how communications to them about University news and events might be improved.
The two most frequently mentioned reasons for high attrition rate were each favored by either faculty or staff: Faculty were more likely to mention can't afford tuition/cost of living while staff were more likely to mention not prepared for the academic rigors of college.
Both faculty and staff agreed that appropriate financial compensation and recognition, better campus facilities/resources, and build and maintain reputable programs were key factors in NAU's improvement. Beyond that, faculty placed greater importance on enhance research and keep class sizes small, while staff placed greater importance on student-centered/attention/focus on undergraduates and provide superior advising/mentoring.
Both faculty and staff (but particularly staff) felt more informative/better quality email information and better/more specific Website for events would keep them better informed about the University.

Business and Community Leaders

Through interviews and small group meetings, the opinions of representatives from the Arizona Board of Regents, the Valley Advisory Board, and Flagstaff community were tapped. Key findings included:

These influencers and opinion leaders believe that NAU must establish its own identity, separate and apart from its two presumptive competitors - the University of Arizona and Arizona State University. There was broad support and appreciation for the University to engage in marketing efforts in order to clarify its distinctive place in the state's higher education landscape.
Numbered among NAU's assets were small class sizes that allow for access to and interaction with faculty; senior faculty who are committed to teaching undergraduates; enthusiastic and supportive alumni; and a distinctive community environment.
Some leaders in Flagstaff believed that the value of the University to Flagstaff itself was questioned, misunderstood, or undervalued by some residents of the area.

Student influencers

The opinions of parents, guidance counselors and teachers were offered through focus groups and highlights included the following:

Parents

Despite their children's protestations to the contrary, it was clear that these parents expect to play an important role in their son's or daughter's college search. They expressed concerns about costs and distance from home as they talk about finding a safe and comfortable environment where their children will be able to grow and develop into independent and capable adults.

These discussions with parents in both Phoenix and San Diego parents led to the impression that Northern Arizona University has considerable opportunity to more assertively tell its story in a way that supports the real value of attending the University: A good student-centered experience for the cost.

Teachers and Counselors

The familiarity and generally good feelings that these student influencers expressed for Northern Arizona University, suggests opportunity to leverage their relationships with students to create distinctiveness and affinity for the University. Dominant among the counselors' and teachers' associations with NAU were those that relate to Flagstaff and the campus environment.

Phoenix area teachers were aware of the opportunities they have for continuing education through NAU's distance learning programs. They encouraged the University to reach out to them more frequently and clearly. At the same time, it was evident that there was opportunity to coordinate distance learning promotion for educators and Mountain campus marketing for their students to present a complete picture of Northern Arizona University.

Alumni

A Web-based survey provided the basis for alumni opinions regarding the image and reputation of NAU. The survey was completed by 440 alumni, for a response rate of 17 percent. Key findings from this survey included:

While a strong majority of these alumni hold positive attitudes about the value of their NAU degree (88 percent) and are proud to be alumni of the institution (82 percent), these alumni did voice concern over how others perceive their NAU degree. Less than half of those surveyed said that their employers respected their NAU degree, and only one-quarter said they believe the people they meet are impressed with their NAU credentials.
This disappointment may translate into dollars: of those surveyed (both donor and non-donor), only 40 percent said that NAU merits strong financial support from its alumni, and of the donors only, just 61% of those who gave in the past year said that NAU was worthy of alumni contributions.
Less than half of the alumni surveyed indicated an interest in what was happening at their alma mater, and only one-quarter felt they were up to date on current University events.

Prospective undergraduate students

From a list of 9,109 high school juniors provided by Northern Arizona University, 440 individuals participated in a telephone interview during May 2004. All students had inquired about NAU in the last year. Key findings included:

Prospective students were presented a list of institutional characteristics and asked to rate the importance of each in defining a "high-quality" university. They were also asked to assess NAU's reputation on these same characteristics. Prospective undergraduates rated the following characteristics as most important for a high-quality university:
A wide range of undergraduate programs and majors
Access to quality student support services
The reputation of the departments
As for rating the reputation of NAU across the same characteristics, an unusually high percentage of these students responded "no opinion," suggesting they did not know the University well enough to rate it. When asked about the reputation of Arizona State University and the University of Arizona, however, considerably more prospective students were able to reply.
For those students who did provide importance and reputation ratings, NAU's reputation was strongest on those characteristics deemed to be of least importance (an attractive campus, a climate and seasons that suit me, and opportunities for outdoor activities). Its reputation was weakest on those characteristics deemed most important (wide range of undergraduate programs and majors, access to quality student support services, and the reputation of the departments).
When asked their opinions of the reputations of the University of Arizona and Arizona State University, these two institutions outperformed NAU in every instance with the exception of the characteristic small class sizes.
These students were also asked to rate the importance and reputation of characteristics associated with "high-quality" student-faculty interaction. In order of importance they rated the following characteristics:
Faculty who demonstrate a strong commitment to teaching
Professors who identify professional opportunities (internships, research, etc.) for students
Faculty who are leaders in their fields
Opportunities for in-class discussion
Opportunities to meet with faculty outside of the classroom
Again, on each of these measures, student perceptions of NAU's performance was significantly lower than the importance rating they had assigned.
For these characteristics, NAU ratings were similar to the University of Arizona and Arizona State.

Current NAU students

A Web-based survey of current NAU graduate and undergraduate students received responses from 1,417 undergraduate students (296 freshmen and 1,118 returning undergraduates), for a response rate of 16 percent, and 203 graduate students, for a response rate of 14 percent. Key findings from this survey included:

A significant number of current undergraduates (43 percent) had applied only to NAU and to no other institution. The most often-cited reasons for having chosen NAU included beautiful location/Flagstaff and close to home. Third on the list of reasons for applying to NAU was desired program.
As with prospective students, current students were presented a list of institutional characteristics and asked to rate the importance of each in defining a "high-quality" university. They were also asked to assess their experience of NAU on these same characteristics. Students rated the following characteristics as most important for a high-quality university:
Wide range of undergraduate programs and majors
Small class sizes
The reputation of the departments
Access to quality student support services
The reputation of the university
As with the faculty/staff and prospective student segments, NAU's performance was weakest on these characteristics deemed most important. NAU's performance was strongest on the characteristics deemed of least importance (typically non-academic in nature).
On each of these characteristics, the current students' actual experience was that NAU underperformed significantly on all but one of these characteristics. The underperformance factor for small class sizes was not significant. Current student ratings generally were lower than prospective student ratings.
Current students were also asked to rate the importance of characteristics that might describe high-quality student-faculty interaction. In order of importance they rated the following characteristics:
Faculty who demonstrate a strong commitment to teaching
Opportunities to meet with faculty outside of the classroom
Professors who identify professional opportunities (internships, research, etc.) for students
Faculty who are leaders in their fields
Opportunities for in-class discussion
Again, on each of these measures, current student perceptions of NAU's performance was significantly lower than the importance rating they had assigned.
Minority students, and Hispanic students in particular, diverged from the opinions of their peers in a number of instances regarding the reputation of NAU. In most cases, experience did not keep pace with importance for the minority students.

Former NAU students

NAU undergraduate students who had left the University before graduating were asked their opinions about NAU's image and reputation as well as their experience of the University. The responses were gathered via telephone survey from 127 former NAU students. All students were in good academic standing when they left NAU. Key findings from this survey included:

Two-thirds of the students surveyed had applied to other universities in addition to NAU. The largest number of applications were submitted to Arizona State University and to the University of Arizona.
Half of those who had left NAU enrolled elsewhere. Of them, only 38% enrolled at the other two state universities. Many of the remainder had gone on to attend community college.
The chief reasons given by these students for having left NAU were financial and personal, such as a family problem or homesickness. Least likely to be mentioned were a change of major, not liking the University, or lack of commitment.
In making their decision to leave NAU, almost half said that they had reached out to no one. In fact, according to over half of all the former students surveyed, it appeared that there is little NAU could have done to keep them at the University. This rings true for two-thirds of the students who decided to enroll at Arizona State, the University of Arizona, or drop out of college altogether.
As with prospective and current students, these former students were presented a list of institutional characteristics and asked to rate the importance of each in defining a "high-quality" university. They were also asked to assess their experience of NAU on these same characteristics. Students rated the following characteristics as most important for a high-quality university:
Wide range of undergraduate programs and majors
The reputation of the departments
Access to quality student support services
The reputation of the university
Small class sizes
On each of these characteristics, the former students' actual experience was that NAU underperformed or matched their importance rating. Interestingly, former student ratings were generally higher than those assigned by either current or prospective students.
These students were also asked to rate the importance and experience of characteristics that contribute to high-quality student-faculty interaction. In order of importance they rated the following characteristics:
Faculty who demonstrate a strong commitment to teaching
Opportunities for in-class discussion
Faculty who are leaders in their fields
Opportunities to meet with faculty outside of the classroom
Professors who identify professional opportunities (internships, research, etc.) for students
On each of these measures, former student perceptions of NAU's performance was lower than the importance rating they had assigned, in all cases significantly so.

Strategic implications

NAU seems to have successfully portrayed its physical environment as attractive and appealing. It is possible, however, that this feature has been oversold to the detriment of the institution's academic image. Although the location message is a strong one that rings true with key constituencies, it is not nearly as important to them as the quality of the academic characteristics of an institution of higher learning. So while location and environment might differentiate NAU from its likely competitors, that differentiation might be less than meaningful. Put another way, "where" has been powerfully cemented in the public's mind; now the "what" must receive communications attention.
The institution's overriding image as "friendly" and "safe" is, on one hand, a positive indicator. On the other, however, this reputation may lead to the impression that NAU is not an academically aggressive or intense university. Melding the concept of comfort with that of academic repute will be important.
Prospective students, to the extent that they have an opinion, hold a positive assessment of NAU. Current students, however, evidence a considerable and significant gap between the expectations they held upon enrolling and the reality of their experience once they have attended the institution. Why these students' experience falls so short of their expectations - especially in those areas they consider to be the most important elements of a college education - must be understood more fully in order to ensure that the brand claim made by NAU is one that the University can fulfill.
The fact that such a large proportion of prospective students surveyed in this study were unable to respond with opinions to questions related to NAU's image and reputation is extremely telling. It indicates that this key audience is unaware, in large measure, of the benefits that the University might hold for them as future students. Whether the responsibility for this lack of awareness and knowledge lies with NAU, with the students, or elsewhere is immaterial. What is important is that this situation be aggressively addressed by the University's marketing efforts through image-enhancing strategies and tactics, an initiative that would be applauded by the local Flagstaff community among other constituencies.
The high number of current NAU students who applied only to NAU is of particular interest. Because almost half of these students considered the application process to simultaneously be a decision process means that that the University has one fewer step in the admissions funnel to communicate with these students.
Many have assumed that NAU's chief competitors are Arizona State University and the University of Arizona. The results of the attrition research indicate that many who leave NAU prior to graduation are indeed transferring to those institutions, but a larger proportion transfer to others, suggesting an expanded group of competitors - that includes community colleges - deserve heightened attention in the University's future marketing, recruitment, and retention plans.
Minority constituencies - especially Native Americans - appear to experience NAU differently than do other groups of prospective and current students. This knowledge should inform both recruitment and retention strategies if NAU truly desires to claim the position as the "nation's leading university serving Native Americans."
The position of NAU's alumni vis-à-vis the University is troubling in several ways. Although alumni are solidly positive about their NAU experience, they clearly worry that others in their professional and personal lives are not nearly as impressed. While partisans of the product, alumni are not at all convinced of the power of the brand.
Of even greater concern perhaps is that only a slight majority of current alumni donors to NAU feel that the University is worthy of financial support. In other words, almost half of those who do contribute financially to NAU do not believe that the University merits that same support. Add to this that less than half of the alumni were even interested in current University events and that only a quarter considered themselves well informed about NAU, the picture of a fairly unengaged and unenthusiastic cadre of alumni emerges. Given that alumni should be the institution's most strident cheerleaders and most engaged ambassadors, NAU will need to invest considerable energy in turning these attitudes around.
Although NAU has presented itself as a student-centered university, the results of this study beg the question. The opinions of current students and staff - who are most likely to interact with students and learn of their experiences - indicate that the institution is not as student-friendly as it believes itself to be. This has important implications in developing a value proposition for the University as a quality undergraduate institution.
The faculty and staff at NAU appear to operate from divergent opinions on many key issues regarding the institution's image and reputation. In order to successfully live out the promise that the University's eventual positioning will offer, these two critical constituencies must be brought closer together in their understanding of NAU's distinctiveness and value proposition.