Using ROI to Make Your Case

1. Using ROI to Make Your Case • Tom Willoughby • Vice Chancellor for Enrollment, University of Denver • Greg Eichhorn • Vice President for Enrollment Management and Dean of Admission, Albright College • Madeleine Rhyneer Vice President for Enrollment Management, Albion College

2. Challenging times • Cost of doing business is up • Demands and expectations are high • Budgets are limited

3. Challenging times require different leadership skills • Enrollment leadership skills for tough times • Strategic planning • Data mining • Entrepreneurial thinking • Focus on return on investment

4. Expenses vs. investments • Expenses = things you have to do • Investments = things you choose to do

5. Colleges are good at expenses • “Because we’ve always done it that way” • “The community loves this event” • “Our competitors all do this … we should too”

6. Investments that survive budget scrutiny • Advance enterprise goals • Enrollment head count and revenue • Quality expectations • Demographic goals • Produce measurable ROI • Every dollar invested produces more than $1 in net tuition revenue

7. How best to make your case • Tie investments to outcomes • Follow enrollments back to first source of inquiry • How does each category of inquiry convert to applicants? • How much are you investing for each category? • Decide what is an investment and what is an expense • Investment = provable ROI tied to enrollment revenue or goal • Expense = legacy spending not tied to revenue or goal

8. Framework for evaluating recruitment investments Tie investments to qualitative goals • First source of inquiry tied to enterprise goals • Students contributing to changes in profile • Higher academic ability • Diversity • Out-of-state markets • Building enrollments in specific academic programs

9. Framework for evaluating recruitment investments Tie investments to financial outcomes • First source of inquiry tied to enrollments • How does each category of inquiry convert to enrolled status? • How much are you investing for each category? • What revenue does each source generate? • What is your return on investment?

10. First-source analysis

11. Compare ROI across activity groups

12. A diversified investment portfolio

13. When students appear to be searched Sophomores 50% Juniors 30% Seniors 20% Source: Royall & Company (Percentages represent unique student populations)

14. When students appear to be searched Available only as sophomores 19% Available in two or more years 38% Available only as juniors 24% Available only as seniors 19% Source: Royall & Company (Percentages represent unique student populations)

15. Albright’s Search contact volume by grade level Entering Classes 2006-2012

16. Albright’s Search Inquiry Volume Entering Classes 2006-2012

17. Enrollment growth over same period Enrollments Entering Classes 2006-2012

18. In order to increase activity, greatly increased senior marketing Purchased Senior Contacts Entering Classes 2012-2013

19. Increased Senior Search purchased names have brought significantly more applications Senior Search Applications by Date Entering Classes 2012-2013 2,308 1,534

20. Enrollment growth over same period Enrollments Entering Classes 2006-2013

21. Direct marketing initiatives have helped to grow application opportunity Search Volume by Grade Level Entering Classes 2006-2015

22. Direct marketing initiatives have helped to grow application opportunity Search Inquiry Volume Entering Classes 2006-2015

23. Enrollments by inquiry source Enrollment Attributed – 2013

24. ROI by inquiry source ROI by NTR

25. Weighing different approaches to recruitment

26. All “searches” are not created equal Typical student search • Once-a-year activity • Focused on one high school class • One list source • Paper mailing and some email • Features-oriented • Little benefit to student • Contacts only students • 2% to 4% response rates What works best • Multiple deployments year-round • Engages students when first available • Multi-year, multi-class, multi-list • Multi-channel contacts and responses • Benefits-focused • Action-oriented, value-laden offer • Engages students and parents • 10% to 15% response rates

27. Response rate matters With 6.5% Response Rate With 15% Response Rate

28. Company A counts email “openers” as search responders Inquiries from Company A Inquiries from Company A Previous Entering Class Current Entering Class Search “Openers” Search Responders

29. “Openers” do not behave like inquiries andcan impact enrollment outcomes Application Conversion by Audience Application Conversion by Audience Previous Entering Class Current Entering Class Students identified as responders on their 1st source display higher app rates 10.8% 12.2% 6.0% 4.2% Search “Openers” Search Responders

30. Persistence is important <- 20% of all deposits -> 20% of deposits were from students responding after they received their 5th marketing communication

31. Does predictive modeling improve outcomes? – a case study • A private university used a predictive model to “score” its list names for Search • The model identified a group of students to exclude from further recruitment activity • However, instead of excluding them, the college included the students in its recruitment program and then measured the number of those students who actually deposited

32. The group excluded by the predictive model generated 63 deposits How well did it work? List Names Purchased Search Contacted Inquiries Applications Admits Deposits Selected by model to be included 152,325 28,180 3,211 1,647 692 18.5% 11.3% 42.0% 42.0% 165,686 Selected by model to be EXCLUDED from Search (but contacted anyway) 13,361 2,181 372 180 63 16.3% 17.0% 48.3% 35.0%

33. The group excluded by the predictive model generated 63 deposits How well did it work? List Names Purchased Search Contacted Inquiries Applications Admits Deposits Selected by model to be included 152,325 28,180 3,211 1,647 692 18.5% 11.3% 42.0% 42.0% 165,686 Selected by model to be EXCLUDED from Search (but contacted anyway) 13,361 2,181 372 180 63 16.3% 17.0% 48.3% 35.0% NOT contacting these students would have saved about $13,000 Estimated first-year net tuition revenue = $990,000

34. Application marketing

35. Application as marketing platform • More than a data collection document • More than a form for reviewing candidates • Application can be a marketing platform • It can build interest • It can increase enrollment and revenue • Key: maintain an effective application marketing system for your institution

36. Our technological and competitive environments have changed 1998 Paper Application 2012 Web Application

37. Today, the application must be something more than a data collection device

38. Our application is a marketing platform

39. DU application options • Pioneer Application – institutionally branded application marketed to the inquiry pool • Branded Web application – on DU’s website • Common Application – marketed to the inquiry pool • Common Application – first source applicants

40. Testing this approach proved its efficacy • Submission Applications by Test Group +116% Performance Contacted 14,428 Contacted 15,645 Submission Rate 6% Submission Rate 14%

41. Custom Application Marketing increased deposits by 91% • Deposits by Test Group Incremental freshman-year net tuition and fee revenue = $3,125,000 Freshman-year ROI = $38 to $1 Incremental four-year net tuition and fee revenue = $11,791,300 Four-year ROI = $140 to $1 + 149 Deposits + 91%

42. The Custom Application Marketing was effective in increasing deposits from in-state and out-of-state students Out-of-State In-State Normalized Deposit Ratio (Deposits/Contacted) Normalized Deposit Ratio (Deposits/Contacted) +55% Performance +182% Performance Deposits = 46 Deposits = 130 Deposits = 118 Deposits = 183

43. Enrollment summary by application influence Entering Classes 2012-2013 Other Marketed Common App Web App Pioneer App

44. Denver mobile interaction summary Mobile Application Activity

45. What about retention?

46. Search inquiries retain at higher rates than students from other sources • Retention Rate by Source and Class

47. Students contacted earlier have the highest retention rates of all populations • Retention Rate by Source and Class

48. Students contacted earlier have the highest retention rates of all populations • Retention Rate by Source and Class

49. Lift in retention rate is seen across quality spectrum • Denver’s Retention Rate by Source and Academic Quality Band

50. Lift in retention rate is seen across distance bands • Denver’s Retention Rate by Source and Distance from Campus