I’m not sure what the longterm implications of this innovation will be. Readability might actually suffer, since many of the print fonts do not perform particularly well in on-line environments. Will we someday look back nostalgically at the clarity and readability of Georgia and Verdana?

One thing that is clear is that your potential for projecting a brand personality on the Web has just expanded exponentially. The chances are now quite good that whatever fonts are stipulated in your graphic standards manual can be used throughout your website as well as in print.

Working with my talented colleagues at Door No. 2, we just launched a college website that takes advantage of Typekit’s capabilities. The website for DePauw University uses the same two typefaces – Adobe Caslon and Futura – that are used throughout the college’s print program. If you haven’t explored the potential offered by Typekit, it wouldn’t hurt to spend a few minutes poking around the site. You will find the same style sheets, employing, for example, the rather stylized Caslon Italic, operating throughout the site (save the athletics pages). This alters the user experience. To me, the site feels a bit less utilitarian and a bit more pleasurable. It certainly has a different impact than a site with more traditional style sheets.

As I wrote in my last post, the emergence of Typekit makes it pressing to review one’s identity manual to evaluate the applicability of your current typefaces to the Web. From here on out, graphic standard systems will need to take the Web side of the house seriously. We now have the potential to employ the same fonts in both Web and print. It’s up to the university or school communications teams to review the fonts that are currently being used, and retain or replace them. The convergence of Web and print technologies offers enormous potential for expanding the reach of one’s brand image. It’s up to institutions to take advantage of this great potential.

Let’s look first at the college-going culture in the affluent, elite enclaves of our country. There the intensity with which families compete for entry to highly ranked institutions is stunning. They play the selective higher education game with an amazing amount of knowledge – what my daughter would call “cultural capital” – and resources.

I remember last spring I was sitting in an information session at Wesleyan with my son. There was one high school student in the group who was hard to miss. He was sitting up front oozing enthusiasm, dressed in expensive, hip, yet at the same time understated, clothing. After the session ended I overheard him saying to the presenter that Wesleyan was his first choice and that he’d specifically travelled from southern California just to be at the school a second time. His slender, casually though well put together mother hovered in the background. The admissions officer engaged him in conversation.

Kids from more modest backgrounds have no idea about this intense press for a spots at the selective private colleges. Nothing in their background or their communities leads them to understand it. And I’m not just talking about poor kids or students of color. I’m talking about middle class kids who don’t occupy the cultural elite. I’m talking about the other 99%.

These students fail to understand the intense jockeying and packaging that goes into an application to an elite institution nor can they put themselves forward the way this young student at Wesleyan did. They don’t know that you need to take the SATs multiple times, and that if you don’t do well, you switch to the ACT. No one tells them the value of contacting the college rep assigned to your region and making your interest known to him or her. They have no idea, unless they themselves attend an elite private school and sometimes not even then, of the amount of “shaping” of a student’s record and activities that goes into a polished application.

Now here’s the rub – because the elite institutions receive such a large surplus of applications, and because any competent  admissions officer has to be mindful of yield (i.e. the candidate’s likelihood of enrolling if accepted), it makes a significant difference in admissions outcome if a candidate expresses a passion for that particular institution, like the student did at Wesleyan. Admissions officers see a huge number of prospective students, most of whom will not attend their institution if accepted. They pick out those who seem to indicate a genuine interest in going to their institution.

Most students from the other 99% don’t understand this. They’ve gone to public schools and have never been treated with such a selective lens. They think you take your classes, get your grades, sit for your standardized tests, and apply to college.

If individual elite colleges are not just going to rely on programs like Posse and Questbridge to do their packaging of the other 99% for them, then I think they need to change their admissions practice.. They must be willing to accept more students of modest means who do not seem to have such particular knowledge or passion for their institution. They’ll need to accept normal, not just exceptional, students. I’m not sure it’s realistic to expect this or not. The countervailing force of the elites is great and they are so much more effective at advancing their agenda.

In the past few years, youth culture has converged around two opposing stereotypes – the hipster and the bro. Both have been around for quite some time but more recently they’ve become common parlance at the high school and college level. Hipsters and bros define themselves in opposition to each other. I was recently conducting research with a bro at a certain college and I mentioned Wesleyan University. He said, “that’s that place with the skinny jeans” meaning “that’s that place with the hipster guys,” meaning that’s the place he wouldn’t be caught anywhere close to.

Although hipsters and bros are antithetical – The hipsters revel in irony, wear scarves and skinny jeans, and congregate in Brooklyn. The bros detest irony, wear baseball caps, and are geographically attuned to wealthy suburbs – there are essential traits they have in common: both are expressions of affluence and privilege. And, although both are open to individuals of differing skin color, both are essentially White. Less weighty perhaps but certainly crucial in their eyes, both celebrate cheap beer.

The hipster-bro cultural axis leaves all kinds of students out – young people who are neither hipster nor bro. It would be tempting to call these students “nerds” and often the students themselves identity in this way. But the group of neither-of-the-above is broader than self-identified nerds. It includes kids who are not particularly socially outgoing. Those who don’t drink. Good, solid kids who occupy our high schools and colleges. The ones who mainly want to grow up, get on with their lives and don’t feel the attraction of either of these strongly socially defined groups. They find both hipsters and bros intimidating and off-putting.

I attribute the recent success of some hot colleges such as The University of Chicago and Tufts University to the fact that they offer comfortable homes to good solid students who desire to be neither hipster nor bro. These neither-of-the-above students are looking for a home and what schools like U of C and Tufts offer is a fairly down-to-earth, not highly stylish student culture. This is a market niche. It’s not necessarily one that schools would deliberately cultivate. But it is important to remember that the vast majority of young people, especially young people from public schools, more modest economic backgrounds, and non-White families do not have the cultural resources nor desire to be either hipster or bro. The stereotypes leave them out. Luckily there are many fine colleges where they can find a home.

Her question gave me a chance to collect my own thoughts about where I think we are today and where I think we are heading as a system of higher education. These thoughts are recounted here. Cynic alert: Don’t read any further if you are hoping for a rosy forecast.

The first thing that seems clear is that there will be no abatement in the applications arms race among highly selective prestigious institutions nor any curtailing of their fee increases. So long as the gap between rich and poor in this country does not diminish, and so long as the top institutions offer a path for entry into the elite classes, then those very classes will continue to bid up the value of education at one of the top ranked schools. Yes. Shockingly that means that tuition at these top schools will continue to grow faster than inflation and the gap between well-endowed institutions and others will continue to increase.

Granted, the size and affluence of the US elite classes has shrunk as a result of the Great Recession. The elite institutions will build global markets as a way to offset a downturn in domestic demand. This will keep competitiveness at top institutions high. Anyone who is hoping that Harvard or Princeton will become significantly easier to gain access to is going to be disappointed.

Top public flagship institutions will hitch their wagons to the fate of the top private institutions. The trend we have already seen of the virtual privatization of flagship public institutions will continue.  Here as well tuitions will rise and the top publics will come to look more like the top privates. There will be little effective public advocacy at the state level for social access to top public institutions, which was, during a better day, the anchor-stone of the public university system.

The vast majority of students in this country will be consigned increasingly to assembly-line, Walmart-style education – large classes, less contact with faculty, more on-line and remote content, and fewer opportunities for genuine intellectual contact. Community college enrollments will continue to grow.

So, actually, to answer her question – there will not be any sort of crash or major correction within higher education. Many of the trends we see around us will continue. It is a sad fate for the US system and, of course, doesn’t bode well for our country’s global competitiveness. I would like nothing more than to look back on this post five years hence and be forced to admit I was wrong. But I’m not holding my breath.

Except for those obsessive types who follow Jacques Steinberg’s blog in the New York Times and post on College Confidential, does anyone really care how the top schools fare in their admissions efforts?

Yes and no. It is indeed true that for the foreseeable future we are dealing with a selective-college consumer market of an overall fixed size. Let’s leave aside the potential of international growth. The domestic market for prestigious private colleges is, and will remain for some time, static. There is no growth among the number of 18-year-olds. The recession has pulled out from the game middle class families who were stretching beyond their means to send their kids to these schools.

The selective schools themselves are approaching a point where all of their sophisticated marketing efforts cancel each other out. Most of the schools have become fairly adept at marketing. They are approaching stasis

What all of this means is that the selective schools are playing a zero-sum game. One school’s advance is necessarily another school’s retreat. So this is something worth paying attention to. Certainly how a school does with the recruitment of one individual class matters not at all. But if through inattention or poor management a school slips in the quality or selectivity of their class over several years, it is worth taking note. Such trends diminish the equity value of the institution, as the market will quickly note and respond accordingly.

One of the big trends I’m spotting is the rise of personalized printing. Digital printing makes it possible to produce a full-color brochure that looks like it was off-set printed, but, amazingly, contains information personalized to the recipient. American University shouts from a large red postcard, “DAVID, YOU WANT TO KNOW PHILOSOPHY? KNOW AU.” I assume they are taking this tack because my son checked the box for philosophy as an area of interest on the PSAT. (What this has to do with AU’s “wonk” positioning is unclear, but I guess their desire to recruit my son overrides brand consistency.)

One of the cheesiest things my son’s received is an oversized, full-color brochure from Haverford College. It shows a long line of begowned Haverford students in procession on the day of their college graduation. A circle is drawn around one of the more distant figures in the procession and it is labeled ”David Neustadt, Class of 2016.” So here is my son in a graduation processional four years in the future having had, one assumes, a happy experience at Haverford. Does this sort of thing work? It’s really cheesy, hokey. It’s nothing like the stylistics my son consumes in his life – the t-shirts he wears or the music he listens to. It feels like something that the most un-hip person on the planet thought would appeal to teenagers.

I have the same question I’ve had for the longest time about college admissions marketing. Does it matter that is so shallow and unsophisticated? Haverford is a school that I admire. At least I think I do. I am vaguely aware of what I believe to be a serious, academic program and a potentially transformative educational experience. This brochure lacks the sophistication of a Comcast mailer. From the consumer’s vantage point, it is a heck of a lot easier to ignore this sort of thing than to buy into it; the latter course would make you feel slightly cheap and degraded. No wonder colleges are having a harder and harder time communicating with their prospects.

My initial feelings are ambivalent. I think Sewanee’s rhetoric about moving away from discounting strategies and focusing instead on need is excellent. Here is President John McCardell striking exactly the right tone on CNN. However, excessive reliance on tuition discounting is really an internal dysfunction. Couldn’t Sewanee have fixed that problem without cutting tuition? Wouldn’t it actually have been more progressive to keep tuition high so that the institution has more revenue to pour back into need-based aid?

Clearly, Sewanee is banking on the publicity value of this move. An uncomfortable moment in the video comes when the names of overlap schools roll tacross the screen in big block letters: W&L, UNC, Rhodes, UVA, Vanderbilt, UGA, (and then, in a weird afterthought) Harvard. We all know what’s going on here – these are (save the last) schools to which Sewanee currently loses prospects. It is hoping it can get attention from a kid looking at Vanderbilt with this move.

Herein lies the problem. Sewanee exists in the shallow edges of the prestige college market. My own read on that market is that it has lost none of its vitality at the center. Applications are up at virtually every highly ranked institution in America. Affluent families have lost none of their passion for high-cost, high-prestige institutions. But less affluent families are radically rethinking their ability to fund an expensive private education. The market is becoming more stratified.

I would love to see the market research that Sewanee conducted before making this move. It seems that they are banking on the existence a middle-class market under the elite tier that can be swayed by news of the lower sticker price. But I’m not sure that a $40,000 sticker price moves that market. Or that such a market actually exists. And in exchange, isn’t Sewanee hurting itself with the high prestige market that still sees value in the cost of a Vanderbilt education? It is honestly too early to pass judgment. We can all return to this issue three years from now and see how Sewanee is doing. I wish them the best and will be eager to see how this plays out.

What I am talking about is the right way vs. the wrong way for communications office staff to define their role as content producers for a school website. What I’ve seen all too often is people who take the old journalistic model and simply transfer it to the web. It’s no wonder. Many web writers at colleges and universities started out as journalists.

What I see is people who put a premium on content production. They measure their performance by how much original content they produce for the web. Sometimes this content takes the form of press releases. Other times this content takes the form of faculty and student profiles that are posted at an intense rate.

Rarely do people ask if anyone actually wants to read this content, nor if it is loaded onto a place in the architecture that provides a meaningful user experience. Production of content is viewed as an end in itself.

This is the old journalistic model applied to the world of the web. Journalism views information as a one-way pipeline: The journalistic entity – be it TV, radio, or print – generates content which is then disseminated to consumers. But the Internet is breaking down the one-way paradigm and replacing it with dialogue. Content of the old-fashioned variety is still important, but less so. Authoritarian voices now compete with amateurs, hobbyists, and consumer-generated content.

The primary role for in-house web writers at colleges and universities is as facilitators for engagement not producers of content. They should be evaluated using analytics – measurements of how many visitors come to their pages and how long those visitors stay rather than by the quantity of content produced. If an individual is wedded to the old journalistic model and insists on defining his role as shoveling content into a one-way pipeline then the college is best parting ways. The need for such people is limited and their perspective is a drag on developing a vibrant web presence.

What are needed are in-house web content strategists who understand their facilitation role. They will generate new content in the course of doing their work, but not as an end in itself. They will focus on architecture and know the importance of avoiding dead areas on a site that degrade the overall user experience. They will take pride when their own voice takes on a subjective personality that encourages dialogue and user participation in the site. They will be fun and open to input from the user community. They will collaborate with the web designers. They will represent the world of the external users in in-house discussions about new features and changes. They will, as a result of their efforts, nurture a vibrant, engaging web presence.

Unfortunately, we live in a time when there are many highly qualified  journalists looking for work. Let’s hope that colleges and universities do not take the path of least resistance and hire such folks to write for their websites without insisting on a mindset change. No one should be hired to work on a university web site without proving that he can subordinate his own desire to produce original content to the greater goal of facilitating dialogue. There is a right way and a wrong way to write for the web. At stake is the ability of an organization’s website to advance its greater marketing goals. The potential is great. The right staffing is essential.

Network Technology, Marketing, and Independent Schools

by Patrick Pei-Ning Ko

The way the information is produced is rapidly shifting from an industrial production model to a de-centralized production model, which is facilitated by the rise of inexpensive network technology. The components of this new model includes publication tools such as blogs or Twitter, social media tools such as Facebook and many others that enables individuals to produces, share, consume, and evaluate information in faster and more accessible ways than ever before.  In this paper, I will first discuss three major changes in our information society as a result of the shift in production model, and how each of them impacts the marketing paradigm in our modern world.  Second, I will tie these changes to the communications environment of independent schools, leading to some concrete recommendations for schools to not only respond, but also to take advantage of technology and lead in the field of education.

The de-centralized production model of information brings about three major shifts in our information society. First, increased individual production and value of these individuals as “trust agents” (Brogen, Trust Agents, 2009). Second, more cooperative efforts in information production.  And third, a shift of power from major information producers to information aggregators and organizers.

With inexpensive networked technology, anyone with access to the Internet can produce information that is available online. The desire to be known and heard has always been human nature. More than ever before, there are now easy ways to satisfy such desire.  Blogs, websites and mobile applications such as Yelp and Foursquare make it easy for individuals to voice their opinions. There is almost no barrier to entry.  In fact, anyone with poignant thoughts and good web writing skills have the opportunity to become extremely influential experts or “trust agents” in the world of online information (Brogen).

This connection between deep human desire and effective tools leads to more information production by the individual. According to Benkler (The Wealth of Networks, 2006), the material requirements for effective information production and communication are now owned by numbers of individuals several orders of magnitude larger than the number of owners of the basic means of information production and exchange a mere two decades ago.

In this environment of greater participation, individual perception of value of the self also increases. As people become more connected in virtual environments such as social media sites, the new trend is more and more sharing of personal information. As pointed out in a recent New York Times article on information sharing, people are becoming more relaxed about privacy and recognize that publicizing information about themselves can result in serendipitous conversations or ego gratification.  This again speaks to the desire and the perceived increased value of the individual.

The changes in the marketing paradigm due to increased production and value of individuals include decreased reaction time, boundary and control in the marketing process. In the past, with limited information from individuals, marketing professionals had more control and time to carry out marketing research, strategy and execution. As individuals present an unprecedented amount of responsiveness, the boundary of the marketing process is now far wider, with more control resting with individual customers rather than predetermined groups. One might argue that the desires for information perhaps outweigh the desire for actual goods or services. In this new paradigm, goods or services may no longer be the main product themselves – information becomes the new focus. This shift profoundly changes the marketing paradigm from product centered to information centered.

As a result, the new information landscape is more complex and noisy, so the challenge is to decide what types of opinion are most representative of potential customers.  Marketing professionals need to spend a great deal more time listening to individual opinions to accurately speak to specific desires in order to facilitate exchanges.

The collective power of decentralized information production is illustrated by the production model of Wikipedia. This is a type of conscious collaboration. Cooperation can also take place unconsciously. As a person writes a blog, the tags in their entry will automatically lead to groupings through search engines. For example, a search on boarding schools will result in relevant websites that contain these unconscious collective productions.

Through this process, we now see increasing range and diversity of weaker connections. Technology enhances people’s capacity to do more in loose commonality with others, without being constrained to organize their relationship through a price system or in traditional hierarchical models of social and economic organization (Benkler).

Increased cooperative efforts in information production creates new challenges and opportunities for marketing professionals.  Actively creating and fostering user or fan groups becomes important in strategy and execution.  For businesses or schools, this could mean marketing by creating Facebook fan pages or user groups on websites.  In other words, marketing now has a new key component, which is to encourage collective productions of information regarding goods or services.  In other words, marketing professionals need to use technology in order to generate a positive buzz about goods or services.

This trend is manifested in the increased relevance of word-of-mouth marketing.  Tools that aid this shift in marketing paradigm include mobile apps such as Foursaqure, which allows individuals to collectively evaluate an establishment, and Buzzd, which allows groups of people to decide which spots are buzzing with action.  In addition to technology firms, firms such as BzzAgent are examples of successful use of word-of-mouth marketing.  It formally structures and studies positive buzz by harnessing the power of collective information production, thereby providing companies with the ability activate large-scale discussions, uncover hidden values, and drive measurable results (BzzAgent).

With increased production from individuals and collective groups, the web is expanding in sources of information and complexity. According to the Babel objection, when everyone can speak, no one can be heard (Benkler).  To avoid such chaos or cacophony, information aggregators and organizers play key roles in making the web more meaningfully accessible.  These players include search engines such as Google, and popular portals such as MSN or Yahoo.  A popular blogger even argues that Facebook, with its tremendous user participation, is becoming the doorway to the Internet or even the Internet itself.  These players hold tremendous power because they determine how and what information reaches people. They are not just portals to the Internet; in fact, they select the information most people consume. Therefore, in this new age of distributed production, power shifts from major information producers to information aggregators and organizers.

Not ending on the top of search results or not getting listed on popular sites can make information producers irrelevant.  In the business of search engine optimization or Internet ads, one could pay for one’s relevance.  In this case, Benkler correctly predicts that in facing the Babel objection, money reemerges as the distinguishing factor between statements that are heard and those that wallow in obscurity.

In terms of marketing, partnering with and using the services of information aggregators and organizers are key components to successful marketing strategies. Marketing messages not only have to be well crafted, but they also need to be effectively delivered.  Therefore, marketing professionals need to actively devote resources in search engine optimization and online ads that are effectively customized to reach target consumers. Gmail ads present good examples: through personalized ads, users consciously or unconsciously receive information predetermined by Google.  This fundamentally changes how people connect with advertisement because relevant information can now reach people in more detailed and nuanced ways.

The new landscape of distributed information production affects independent schools in very much similar ways as it does to businesses. As information becomes more available, open and free, schools now have less control of their reputation. Nothing can be hidden, and they can no longer put up boundaries and walls.  Reaction time to customer feedback is shorter, and there is greater demand for responsiveness.

All this change creates new challenges for independent schools, many of which are accustomed to insularity in isolation and prestige.  No matter how they meet this challenge, over time, the new communications environment will inevitably lead to more porous and transparent schools. In the process, some schools will succeed and some will fail.  In the following sections I will analyze these changes in more detail and provide three concrete recommendations in how schools can respond as well as capitalize on new opportunities.

Culture is largely formed by shared traditions, beliefs and assumptions. Schools are places of culture.  As the communications environment changes, school culture will change as well. Benkler sees the networked information environment as a more attractive cultural production system, which makes culture more transparent and malleable.  School culture can change in those ways as well.  In response, school leaders use technology to actively promote, shape, or preserve a culture that is positive and in concert with the school’s mission.

Actively shaping a school’s culture in the new communications environment means relinquishing some control.  School websites and school managed social media groups must encourage constituents to produce and contribute information. But while distributing control, schools should actively manage and create a uniform cultural message.  For example, if the school’s culture is one of innovative teaching, then its online communication should be directed to focus on the activities that support such a notion. The groups that are created should have this focus as well – conversations, testimonials, and dialogues should be directed to promote or maintain the culture.  By structuring what people think and talk about, schools can actively shape their culture.

In addition to taking charge of fostering an appropriate culture, these practices make their practitioners better “readers” of their own culture and more self-reflective and critical of the culture they occupy, thereby enabling them to become more self-reflective participants in conversations within that culture (Benkler).  Eventually everyone is a participant, so the challenge is to get the participants to think in similar ways.  This concept is further discussed in the next recommendation.

The new communications environment creates both challenges and opportunities for schools.  One challenge that comes with decreased control is the spread of negative information or rumors online.  For example, websites such as DC Urban Moms and Dads provide a forum where parents or potential customers can discuss schools anonymously.  This becomes a place where complaints and rumors can run wild.  In response to this challenge, schools should assign personnel or committees to monitor information online.  They should then analyze the information and come up with appropriate responses.  Schools can actively manage its communications environment by creating positive spins that drowns out negative voices.  Alignment and cohesion are keys to success in creating such positive spins.  Online communications plans need to be formed to accomplish this objective.  It is very important to educate constituents and stick to the plan in maintaining the discipline of creating cohesive messages.  If the school has an active and involved online community of users who enjoy supporting the school, then enough positive spin can drown out the negative ones.  In addition, the community will self-police inaccurate or extreme statements.  Similar to word-of-mouth marketing, the school community is its best promoter.

This new communications environment requires new leadership skills, especially skills in crafting messages that attract readers and followers.  I believe that school leaders should blog, especially the head of school, who often possess a great deal of credibility.  This is another way to proactively build a positive spin and become a “trust agent.”  Not many leaders do this today or do it well.  For a successful example, one can learn from the blog of The Think Global School, where administrators promote interesting and engaging ideas about global education and technology. This blog also demonstrates the opportunity where marketing advances the mission.

While this proactive approach creates opportunities, it also comes with some risks.  For example, a head of school’s blog post can be “flamed” by an outspoken naysayer.  However, this situation can be still be seen as an opportunity – being “flamed” could be the best thing that ever happens – it can promote awareness and spark interesting dialogues (Neustadt).

Network technology should be used to enhance the learning experience of students in independent schools.  Even though current students are all digital natives, they still need to be taught the skills, attitude and knowledge to use technology effectively and appropriately.  What they need is beyond digital literacy – they need to perform their own information production.  Examples of this type of production are student blogs and online portfolio.  In creating blogs, they will learn communications skills that are required in this new environment.  In other words, schools need to teach the writing of clear and concise messages rather than essays that few will ever read.  Another key benefit of this technology use is the promotion of sharing and positive peer effect.  Some work should be accessible to peers for evaluation and feedback.  Comments can be made online in response to work in progress – this not only provides formative advice, but it also teaches students constructive feedback and critical thinking.

Collaboration is another key area in which network technology improve student learning.  Tools such as Wikispaces or Google Doc should be used for students to work collaboratively.  And with video conferencing technologies, they can learn with students outside of the school community.  Remote collaborations and teamwork are skills needed in today’s market place, and independent schools should teach these skills.  No matter what fields students choose, they need to possess the critical skills mentioned.  Ultimately school need to empower students to be leaders and “trust agents” of the future.

While taking advantage of technology, schools also need to be keenly aware of the risks presented in the use of network technology.  Plagiarism, privacy, and cyber bullying are key issues to address.  Positive and generative use of technology should be a part of the curriculum across subjects.  Responsible digital citizenship needs to be a major objective in what schools teach.

Schools and school leaders need to think of the impacts from the new communications environment as opportunities rather than threats – opportunities to shape culture, to create positive messages, to lead and influence society for the better, and to educate students and prepare them for the future.  By embracing these changes in thoughtful and responsive ways, schools can ensure their future sustainability and relevance in servicing their students and missions.

The aesthetics of school, college, and university websites are changing in positive ways. There is much more emphasis on clarity, ease of navigation, and simplicity. The bells and whistles, the flash animations, that we all paid so much attention to just a few years ago, are diminishing in importance.

One of my favorite recent sites, that of the Walker School in Atlanta, Georgia (designed by Silverpoint), has an elaborate homepage feature – a set of still images that open into short video clips at the click of the mouse. It is elegant and impressive. I’m sure that the Walker School administration is rightfully proud of it. Truth be told, however, the site would be just about as good without the elaborate video feature. The strength of the site is its clear design and navigation and the purpose-written text that runs throughout. In this day, one can’t imagine a family making as deliberate a decision as where to send their child to school based on a flashy feature. But they will be persuaded by helpful information thoughtfully and professionally presented.

One feature that will not go away from educational websites, especially not for colleges and universities, is the virtual tour. When you conduct research among high school students, they always mention the virtual tour. When they go to an institution’s website, what are they looking for? Among the top things is what the institution looks like.

If anything virtual tours are becoming more not less important. We all know how important campus visits are to the admissions process. Once a student has visited a campus, they are not going to care about a virtual tour on the school website. But two groups of growing importance to most universities are less likely to be visiting campus – the less affluent and students from overseas. We all know the challenges that schools face bringing students from modest backgrounds to campus. Most international students apply and enroll at American institutions without setting foot on the campus. For these two groups, as well as for the rank and file of applicants before they visit campus, the virtual tour is crucial.

That’s why I’m so excited about the virtual tour recently launched by Dickinson College. It is not particularly elaborate. Unlike more traditional tours, it is built on four themes that flow from the institution’s brand strategy. So it doesn’t just show students what the campus looks like, it uses the opportunity of the virtual tour to reenforce key institutional themes.

What is so exciting about this tour is that it was built on such a user-friendly content management system that the staff in the communications office was able to write and load all of the content with little effort and no technical expertise. If you spend a few minutes with the tour, you will see how rich in content it is. There are so many images and so much text that it’s unlikely a visitor will take in all of it. And the CMS is so easy to work with that the images and text can be changed, replaced, and updated as desired. The design is simple and effective enough that it maintains the all important brand image while individual photos and text nuggets can constantly change.

The price of the site was quite reasonable. And note – it doesn’t really have any bells and whistles. All it has is an intuitive and simple interface, a good concept, and clear design.

Every college and university should have a virtual tour like this. Not necessarily these particular themes. The themes and structure are a product of the brand strategy that is specific to Dickinson College. But something that is so straightforward, economical, engaging and easy to build and maintain. I’m betting on a two point jump in applications next year at Dickinson based on the virtual tour alone.  I know without question that this will be a boon to their international recruitment. In the meantime, it sure looks like the folks at Dickinson are having fun with their virtual tour. I’m proud to have played a supporting role in its development.