UMass Lowell 2020
Draft Recommendations
July 2009
The following are the reports from the nine committees working on different aspects of UMass Lowell 2020, the strategic planning project currently underway. Each committee, at a retreat meeting in June, presented these reports which include a recap of their original charge, the approach they took to the process and background information they developed or accessed to draft recommendations. Each committee had been asked to come up with no more than 10 recommendations and presented in priority order.
For more information about the project, the process and the committee memberships, go to intranet.uml.edu/2020.
You are invited to look over these recommendations and make comment. Remember that will be further developed, with benchmarks added, over the fall semester. Also, meetings open to the entire campus community will be held in the fall for presentation and comment.
Send your comments to and they will be forwarded to all the relevant parties.
Committee on Branding and Marketing
Co-Chairs Patti McCafferty and Gary Mucica
Introduction
Charge
The Branding and Marketing Committee was charged with establishing a strategy to strengthen the University’s image and boost its recognition quotient. The Committee was asked to determine the current image of the campus and identify the key strengths and qualities that distinguish it from other colleges. This information will serve as the basis for building a consistent and effective messaging and branding program as well as informing marketing activities overall. As part of its charge, the Committee was asked to identify the strengths and weaknesses of current marketing activities in order to enhance those efforts.
Approach
Over the past four months, several meetings were held. After some initial brainstorming about audiences, campus goals and current messages, as well as a look at existing data, the Committee broke into two subcommittees, one to focus on establishing a plan to come up with overarching messages to brand the campus, the other to focus on how to best deliver the messages. A review of existing data about the campus’s image was conducted, including an overview of current marketing undertaken by Public Affairs, Athletics and Continuing Studies, Corporate and Distance Education. Additionally, each committee member surveyed colleagues in his/her department or college.
Image Analysis: The Campus
Introduction
While several characteristics of the campus emerged as clear strengths or weaknesses, other characteristics showed up in both categories. This is significant because it is a reflection of the size and complexity of the campus, the range of perceptions about any one characteristic and differences in opinion about priorities.
In addition, marketing UMass Lowell involves several target audiences, from prospective to current students (graduate, undergraduate, continuing and online); alumni; donors; corporate, government, and community leaders; the media; members of the UMass system; opinion leaders in higher education; and more. Which characteristics are important to which audiences? How do the different audiences feel about any one characteristic of the campus? To which audiences should the campus tailor overarching messages?
Also, the campus’s history – merging from two institutions which operated separately for over 80 years before becoming part of the UMass system in 1991– also complicates perceptions about UMass Lowell by both internal and external audiences. What are the core mission, values and character of UMass Lowell? What should they be? The answer, still, is: it depends who is asked.
These complexities sparked discussion about whether the current image of the campus and the development of messages can be determined solely by members of the campus community, who are unlikely to see the campus in a clear, objective light.
Some strengths and weaknesses emerged, as noted in the following section, along with a list of those characteristics that found their way into both columns and why.
Strengths
· The quality of many academic programs is high and well known.
· The comprehensive nature of the campus provides many offerings and opportunities for students.
· Campus life is becoming more vibrant. Students attend athletic events in greater numbers, the number of students living on campus is increasing and there are more and better activities going on throughout the academic year.
· Tuition and fees, combined with the quality of offerings, make a UMass Lowell education a good value.
· Membership in the UMass system helps with name recognition and credibility.
· The mid-sized University offers the resources of a large institution and the comforts of a small one.
· Ethnic, cultural and age diversity among the student population is a plus.
· Winning athletics teams boost name recognition for the University as a whole. As teams have become more successful, especially with the Division 1 ice hockey team playing in Hockey East, the campus image has benefitted.
· There are improved facilities across the campus. The Campus Recreation Center is one example, but other improvements are more subtle – high tech classrooms, individual labs and cutting edge equipment like the Nursing Simulation Laboratory with SIMman.
Weaknesses
· An urban campus in the City of Lowell is still perceived to be a negative.
· Some believe the University’s only strong programs are in engineering and science, possibly because of their status over the last 100 years in the community and regional industry.
· UMass Lowell is still seen as a safety school.
· Some aspects of campus life are not appealing. The perceived lack of weekend activities, lack of a late-night venue for socializing and eating, and lack of shared study/team project spaces are frequently noted by students.
· There has not been a new academic building on campus in more than 30 years, resulting in older buildings that suffer from “deferred maintenance” due to funding problems.
· The campus needs to increase its ethnic and cultural diversity (which is under-represented in some groups) among faculty, staff and students.
· Despite being a public university, only one-third of UMass Lowell’s budget comes from the state.
SWOT Analysis: Current Marketing Efforts
Strengths
· Quality of and cohesiveness of printed materials, banners and other professionally produced marketing materials – from Fox Hall signage to the view book to the staff phone book
· The website is well designed and functional with successful integration of all first-level Web pages into the content management system for a consistent look. A pilot project in search engine optimization and pay-per-click advertising is underway.
· Marketing is expanding into new media: blogging, video on web, Facebook, YouTube, Twitter, etc.
· Partnering between Public Affairs and CSCDE on billboards has resulted in improved visibility for CSCDE and University-wide programs than either entity could have attained separately.
· More marketing campaigns, such as “Gotta Be Here,” are being conducted as partnerships among Public Affairs and other offices, such as Student Affairs, Admissions and Athletics.
· The University has produced more advertising, primarily radio and print, particularly before important events or key recruitment periods.
· The UMass system marketing, particularly TV advertising, helps the campus.
Weaknesses
· Marketing data are needed (focus groups, market research) to build a more effective, data-driven marketing strategy.
· Lack of a consistent message or set of messages
· All members of the campus community need to consider themselves advocates/representatives of the campus among all audiences.
· There is a need for consistent budgeting to plan multi-year strategies and hit bigger ticket items, such as advertising.
· All communications to outside audiences should adhere to centrally controlled standards.
· Better communications with internal audiences would enhance overall marketing.
· Perception that UMass Lowell is a branch or satellite campus to Amherst
· Lack of sufficient maps/directions/signs on and off campus
Opportunities
· Funding for marketing is better and more consistent.
· Marketing is a growing administrative priority.
· Marketing is more centralized on campus than in the past, allowing for more effective strategy and programs.
· The creation this year of the graphic identity standards guide will help brand the campus.
· Leverage television advertising produced by the President’s Office.
Threats
· The troubled economy, coupled with declining high school graduation rates, poses risks for state budget funding, fundraising and recruitment.
· Ramped up competition from other institutions threatens to erode traditional student pool.
Recommendations (All of which could begin or continue in FY10.)
1. Develop a marketing and branding strategy across all programs and departments to communicate a clear, concise image of UMass Lowell to all audiences. This strategy should be based on market research, including data such as focus groups and web surveys. Messages should be developed along with a strategic plan for delivery.
2. Ensure that faculty and staff members recognize their responsibility to know the campus’s messages and deliver them consistently. As the brand strategy is developed, the internal audience should be familiar with the messages and understand the importance of helping to deliver them.
3. Electronic communications have become critical to message delivery. The University’s website should be enhanced with a redesign and a new content management system, along with more Web 2.0 features such as audio, video and blogging. Message delivery should be expanded in new media platforms such as Facebook, Twitter, Flickr, etc.
4. The campus must project a consistent look in its promotional materials, including appropriate use of the University and Riverhawk logos. The new identity standards guide established this year needs to be implemented across campus. All departments and offices should be equipped with materials needed for successful marketing.
5. Develop strategies that will help raise the University’s profile and improve its rankings in U.S. News and World Report and elsewhere. This effort may include marketing specific on-going or new academic programs, recruitment of high caliber students and faculty, and consistent outreach to key constituencies. This campaign would dovetail with other efforts to improve the University’s image overall.
6. Messages about UMass Lowell should be delivered on a regular basis to diverse national and international audiences. Increasingly, it is important to develop international partnerships and to attract students, faculty and staff from across the nation and around the world to remain a campus relevant to the global marketplace. All marketing materials should reflect diversity in their content.
7. Expand high-visibility advertising such as billboards, television, radio and targeted publications. Use of these message delivery systems in the past year has been successful. They should be coordinated with development of the brand strategy.
8. Increase positive attention to the campus through a continued aggressive media relations program to reach print, broadcast and web-based media. Without decreasing attention to local media, strategies for attracting high profile or national media such as The Chronicle of Higher Education and others should be developed and implemented.
9. Signature events such as Commencement, the Chancellor’s Inauguration and major fundraisers can be used to draw positive attention to the University and assist in image-building. Bringing in compelling speakers or guests, garnering media attention, highlighting large donors and attracting a wider range of attendees should result in more awareness of the campus and its messages.
10. Expand outreach to those who mentor and assist prospective students in decision-making. Prospective students look to parents, teachers, guidance counselors and other adults to help make a college choice. The University must be more targeted and aggressive in getting out communications to those audiences.
Committee on Corporate Partnerships and Urban Engagement
Co-Chairs: Steve Tello and Oneida Blagg
Charge
The charge to this Committee is to identify ways to strengthen our engagement with the community, which includes corporations, nonprofit organizations, K-12 schools, and municipalities. An assessment of current and proposed activities would include an analysis of how they contribute to the campus mission “to enhance the intellectual, personal and cultural development of its students through excellent, affordable educational programs. The University seeks to meet the needs of the Commonwealth today and into the future and supports the development of sustainable technologies and communities through its teaching, research, scholarship and engagement.”
Approach
The committee’s approach included a number of small and large group, facilitator-led activities to address the questions indicated in the charge to the committee. These questions focused on the reasons the University develops partnerships/engagements, the types, benefits, costs, relation to the mission, and criteria for assessing partnerships as well as the structure needed to support partnerships. A sample of constituent groups, associated benefits and costs, used as a working document in by our committee, is included in Appendix A.
Early in this process it became clear to the committee that those external groups or constituents involved with partnerships and engagement fell into two categories, those providing services or opportunities to University constituents and those served by various University constituents (it should be noted that these are not exclusive categories and, in fact, the richness of partnerships is realized in mutually beneficial engagements). This led to a discussion of why the University seeks partnerships and engagements and why constituents may seek the same from the University. The reason for these partnerships covered a wide range including but not limited to access to knowledge, access to resources, benefits to society and enhancing faculty scholarship. Other interesting distinctions also emerged: Some partnerships/engagement are sustainable, some are not. Others may be more collaborative in nature, involving a “quid pro quo” exchange of services and ideas, while others may consist solely of the provision of services to an external entity. The committee felt very strongly that the concept of “benefits” should be interpreted broadly, based on the needs and abilities of both constituent groups and the University and that benefits manifest in both tangible ways (e.g., money, services) and intangible ways (e.g., public relations, goodwill, future opportunities). The consensus was that both types of benefits were of equal value to the University as a whole. Similarly then, “costs” also referred to as challenges, were described in both quantifiable terms (e.g., lab space, staffing, expenses) as well as less tangible but still real terms (e.g., individual impact on tenure/promotion, opportunity costs). Finally, in relation to the University’s mission statement, the committee then linked the identified activities to corresponding portions of the mission statement, using each of the main components of the mission statements as indicators in Appendix A.
Recommendations
I. Embrace “Partnerships and Engagement” as a central theme of academic and scholarly activity at the University of Massachusetts Lowell.
a. Develop a definition of “community-engaged scholarship” that acknowledges the range of teaching and research activities across disciplines that involve corporate and community partnerships.