IUCRC Marketing & Recruiting Survey, Descriptive Data

1. IUCRC Marketing & Recruiting Survey, Descriptive Data Data collected in May-June 2005 Report prepared for NSF-IUCRC Annual Meeting, January, 2006

2. Motivation • Recruitment of new members is one of the most, if not the most, important challenge a CD confronts • A variety of factors probably affect the success of member recruitment efforts • Marketing strategy used by the center • Center Characteristics • Industry Characteristics • Firm Characteristics (e.g., size, strategy, decision making) • Individual Characteristics: Attitudes, beliefs etc. of the firm representative • Marketing is the only factor the center has direct control over

3. Purpose • Identify which advertising, marketing and recruiting strategies directors currently use, and which they think are most effective. • A follow-up phase of research will involve industry firms that either joined, remain undecided, or did not join an IUCRC.

4. Overview • Web-based survey • 15+ minutes • Pilot tested with directors and evaluators • Fielded in May 2005

5. Sample • 47 responses • Response rate: 55% • 41 different centers were represented. • 36 were currently active (plus 3 retired; 1 new/ re-competed; and 1 Science & Technology Center) • 25 reported to be multi-site centers; 16 reported to be single site centers • Sample characteristics (Source: IUCRC program evaluation database.)

6. Relationship Development Model Termination Initiation Establishment Development Maintenance Dormant • Influenced the survey design Rao, S. & Perry, C. (2002). Thinking about relationship marketing: Where are we now? The Journal of Business and Industrial Marketing, 17 (7), pp 598 –614.

7. Director Experience 24) How would you describe your professional experience prior to becoming a center/site director? (n=46) • 61%: Most of prior career in academia • 24%: A balance of academia and industry or entrepreneurship • 15%: Most of prior career in industry or entrepreneurship

8. Marketing Plans 19) Does your center/site have a formal, written marketing plan? (n=47) • 9% Yes 20) Does your center/site set formal goals for the recruitment of new industry members? (n=47) • 34% Yes 21) Aside from staff time, about how much does your site have budgeted for recruiting in the current year? (n=36) • Mean: $6,917 • Median: $5,000 • Std dev: $9,741 • Range: $0 - $50,000

9. Identifying potential members 1) Consider how your center/site identifies potential industry members. How effective have you found the following activities in generating leads for new members? Scale 4= highly eff. 3= Moderately eff. 2= Somewhat eff. 1= Not at all eff. 0= Do not use

10. Marketing activity outcomes • r = .012 between the number of different marketing activities (count of Q1a-Q1j) and the number of new leads generated (Q2). • On average, 72% of new leads emerge from existing relationships (Q3 / Q2).

11. Marketing Tools 4) How effective are the following marketing materials, documents or similar information pieces at communicating the strengths of your center/site? Scale 4= highly eff. 3= Moderately eff. 2= Somewhat eff. 1= Not at all eff. 0= Do not use

12. Recruiting approaches 6) For those organizations interested in learning more about your center/site, how effective have you found the following approaches at securing new members? Scale 4= highly eff. 3= Moderately eff. 2= Somewhat eff. 1= Not at all eff. 0= Do not use

13. Recruiting responsibilities 7) To what degree are the following individuals or groups actively involved in the recruitment of industry members? Scale 4= To a great extent 3= To a moderate extent 2= To some extent 1= To a little extent 0= Not at all

14. Multi-site center recruiting [If your site is part of a multi-site center, please answer item 9] 9) Which of the following best describes how your multi-site center handles recruiting? (n=32) • 50%: Each site handles recruiting independently of other sites • 25%: Each site establishes their own leads, but other sites help 'sell' the center • 25%: Sites work closely together throughout the recruitment process

15. Recruiting Success Rates • On average, directors reported a 29% success rate in recruiting new members (Q10b / Q10a), and a 15% rejection rate (Q10d / Q10a).

16. Acceptance factors 11) Consider those organizations that have decided to join the center/site recently. In your opinion how important were the following factors to their making an affirmative decision? Scale 4= Very important 3= Important 2= Somewhat imp. 1= Not important. 0= Not sure Total respondents N= 47

17. Rejection factors 14) Consider those organizations that explicitly turned down membership or remain undecided. In your opinion, how important do you think the following factors were in their failure to join? Scale 4= Very important 3= Important 2= Somewhat imp. 1= Not important 0 = Does not apply Total respondents N= 29

18. Changes to membership structure 17) Has your center made any changes to membership format or structure (like adding tiered membership) or offering special services (like testing) that have helped build your membership? (n=44) • 27% Yes • (See Appendix for verbatim comments to this item)

19. Recruiting Government Agencies 18) Has your center/site tried to recruit government agencies or research groups in the past? (n=47) • 89% Yes [If 18 = Yes] 18a) Is your center/site's recruitment process for government agencies different from your efforts to recruit member firms? (n=41) • 32% Yes • (See Appendix for verbatim comments to this item)

20. Appendix Verbatim comments

21. Item 1- Other ways to identify prospects • IAB member-sponsored activities such as workshops, 2) providing survey research for building owners • Everything that we do originates from personal contacts. The Director must keep his feet on the road. As there is no real budget for other types of recruiting, we don't. My feeling is that "cheap" advertising or mailings make the Center look poorly. • Focused Workshop • Frequent responses to inquiries through Penn State's Industrial Research Office • Getting help from active members in recruiting companies they deal with • Getting the Engineering Schools Development Office to contact companies for us. • Holding Open Houses for prospective sponsors • Hosting sessions for prospects along with faculty to discuss prospect's problems they need help on. • Inviting companies to visit our university • Participation in local or regional activities

22. Item 1- Other ways to identify prospects (2) • Networking at technical meetings • Networking through contacts of Center sponsors and faculty far and away produces the best results • Organize workshops • Organizing center-sponsored conferences • Organizing Workshops and Tutorials • Participating in related technical society activities; Writing proposals with industry partners • Recruit past members with new employees • respond to industry need for consulting and then turning this into opportunity to gain a new sponsor • Responding to any and all invitation to give a talk at a professional meeting of colleagues. • Website is key

23. Item 4: Other marketing tools • Attendance at Standards committee meetings (ASME) • Branding via multi-year, multi-site use of unique logo • Center presentation delivered on-site to potential sponsors • Center prospectus and overview Power Point sent via email to contacts • Getting publications in trade magazines • I use a PowerPoint presentation that is targeted for recruiting. I make this available to others who might be visiting companies. However, there is a real need for increased funding for marketing. • Information and videos on Center unique simulator research facility • Informational CD • Most important is the web site • Reprints from publications, providing survey research for building owners, CDs with sample reports • Reprints of publications • Talking about center membership during recruiting visits to the school form companies • Visits to companies in addition to our own workshop and tutorials • Website is proving to work best.

24. Item 6: Other recruiting approaches • Use existing members to recruit new ones • Attending International professional meeting! • Invitations to participate in tele-seminars. • Doing "free" demonstration research projects, to establish credentials and goodwill. • When visiting our location meetings w/ students as well as faculty is very beneficial.

25. Item 8: Others involved in recruiting • CATT (New York State Center of Excellence at Poly) • Primarily Center Directors • Local "public interest" group participants, like Asthma Coalition • Director of Centers and Institutes at EMU • Executive director -- does no research • Our center has a "director of communications and partner relations" tasked with recruitment.

26. Item 13: Other acceptance factors • Because others joined. • Collaboration with industry & government, education & student contact, networking • Economic climate • Health of candidate companies. How tight is their budget? • Linkage with organization's strategic plans • Membership of other government agency • MIPR. The ability to transfer funds using MIPRs • Networking-new business contacts • Networking with other IAB members • Not mentioned, but possibility to hire grads. • Quality and Reputation of the Faculty Involved at the Center • Quick turn-around on industry requests; outreach to companies' customers • Recruiting international level companies,competitors also structure to the membership, companies interested in materials,devices and systems • Track record of working with industry

27. Item 16: Other rejection factors • It was almost all about the money. Hard times in Detroit.... • Company policy does not support affiliate programs • Some companies prefer to pay for contract research specific to their product portfolio • Ability to commit long term funding from industry • Government politics-as where FDA is putting its $s, or Natick-they sell what makes them look good. • Only support local university • Complications of Membership Agreement requirements, per I/U CRC standards

28. Item 17: Changes to membership structure • We have a complimentary testing facility available but not directly to my CACC • Membership payments "in kind" (e.g., equipment suppliers) are being discussed • Expanded to 3 levels of membership. • We have guaranteed new sponsors that they will get a research project. Veteran sponsors have no such guarantee. • Explicitly guarantee that a new member will receive the project of their choice • 3-tiered membership. Offered workshop based on training provided to FDA. • Provide samples for testing to members. Do instrumental analysis on samples from company. • We have established a tiered membership, became multi-site, but most importantly we changed our focus to meet the interest of new members. • Introduced an associate membership status that gives organizations additional flexibility in interacting with us • Allowing IAB Chair to "broker" multiple, outside small company investments into full Member fee for common action within Center prospectus • Three levels, 1) full membership 2) A/E/C sector firms may join for 1/3 full fee, or 3) A/E/C sector firms may form teams of 5 firms that share full fee • Tiered Structure: $50K Full Membership, $25K Pre-IP Companies • We have a tier structure based on $35K for non sbir eligible companies and $10K for SBIR-eligible companies

29. Item 18: Recruiting government agencies • Focuses on access to industrial needs rather than solving problems of a particular sponsoring company • I would let them participate at a lower membership cost • IP issues are different • It is difficult to get past the procurement issues. We typically employ MIPR's, however NSF does not make the use of MIPR's easy. • Joint research is emphasized • Mostly through direct research contacts • NHTSA will likely join as a non-voting member through a cooperative research agreement. Very difficult to get this through the lawyers. • Signing of membership agreement is waived for government agencies • Some federal agencies prefer grants. • Transfer of funds through use of the MIPR. • We are more flexible in handling membership fee. • We emphasize how the membership fee payment can be simplified via a MPPIR through NSF.

30. Open Comments on effective recruiting practices • Finding the right person to champion the center. Our members are very committed. We have champions in other companies but they haven't been able to turn their efforts into $$. • Statistics about the number of center supported graduates and the companies where they found employment after graduation • Only a dedicated and active effort produces positive results. • The CFSP is a new multi-university I/UCRC established in October 2004. we established an intensive mailing and telecon system to obtain our initial 18 members. The most important factor in recruiting membership is the one-on-one interaction with potential members -especially at conferences and symposia- for a multi- university site such as ours - coordination between existing sites to avoid overlapping contact was essential - we presented a unified program which showed how membership at one university was really a membership at all universities -- we split the potential members into targeted groups for each site university that were then actively pursued.. • If one wants to sell shoes you must have the best shoes in the world. We have to not only sell memberships but we have to have something to sell. We have always recruited PIs from all over the country-the best science and the best PIs!-that is what sells! • From conferences you can see what companies are attending, what level of research a company does and how far reaching that research is, also companies that sponsor meetings and seminars will have a more generous out look and would see value in an IUCRC.

31. Open Comments on effective recruiting practices (2) • Access to students for internships and employment • Need a MAJOR common mission, and intense multi-year effort, to create sustainable Center membership base-- and then I/U CRC program requires shifting from that every 5 years--- leading to Center "fatigue" [ as anticipated by "not to be perceived as an 'entitlement'" philosophy ]. • It is getting harder, as more and more companies try to focus their external funds on specific, directed projects. • The combination of the GMO controversy (that makes commercial use of our results with transgenic trees risky), a less than expected rise in economic importance of poplar trees that we study, and mergers/buyouts/restructuring among the few major forest industries that had a long term research vision that extended to biotech, has made it very difficult to recruit new members. Most of the plant biotech sector, including research, is in economic decline...not growth. Thus we have not made recruitment a major goal as we know our prospects for success are limited. The very difficult IP and regulatory regimes for GMO crops are further, major disincentives to industry to join. WE hope to survive to find better times, but our funding is at or below I/UCRC minimum levels already. • We've given up recruiting into a consortium like entity...it doesn't work any longer, the chemical industry has changed and there is not a great overlap with our research agenda...start up companies and special one-on-one relationships with companies is our focus... • Would like to know/learn more about other centers marketing and recruiting programs.

32. Acknowledgements Support for this project provided by the NSF IUCRC and the NSF STC programs