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

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. 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 Investments that survive budget scrutiny

7. 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 How best to make your case

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. 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? Framework for evaluating recruitment investments

10. First source of inquiryInquiredAppliedAdmittedEnrolled Student Search 7,5001,8001,377207 High School Visits 1,50045020351 College Fairs 2,00090040569 First-Source Application N/A600300140 First-source analysis

11. SearchHigh School VisitsCollege Fairs Cost (full cost)$175,000$50,000$100,000 Enrolled2075169 Revenue per enrollment net of institutional aid$15,000 Net revenue$3,105,000$765,000$1,035,000 Revenue net of program cost$2,930,000$715,000$935,000 Return on investment$16.74/$1$14.30/$1$9.35/$1 Compare ROI across activity groups

12. A diversified investment portfolio

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

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

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. 2,308 1,534 Search YearContact Quantities 201249,672 201367,225 Increased Senior Search purchased names have brought significantly more applications Senior Search Applications by Date Entering Classes 2012-2013

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 Search Senior Search Big Red App Web Application Total Unduplicated Enrollments Unduplicated enrollments from program 2941276693580 Estimated % that would have enrolled without program 50%20%50%75%47% Estimated incremental effect of Royall & Company programs 1471023323305

24. ROI by inquiry source ROI by NTR ROIDescription Base Revenues $6 to $1Freshman-year net tuition & fees vs. project costs$3,245,017 $9 to $1Freshman-year net tuition & fees vs. program costs$3,399,412

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 National Averages for Private Institutions Names searched100,000 Response6.5%6,500 Apply rate13%845 Accept rate71%600 Yield31%186 Average net tuition$10,000$1,860,000 National Leader Average Search Response Rate of 15% Names searched100,000 Response15%15,000 Apply rate13%1,950 Accept rate71%1,385 Yield25%346 Average net tuition$10,000$3,460,000 First-Year Incremental Net Revenue$1,600,000 Four-Year Incremental Net Revenue? With 6.5% Response Rate With 15% Response Rate

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

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

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

31. 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 Does predictive modeling improve outcomes? – a case study

32. How well did it work? 3,2111,647 42.0% 69228,180152,325 42.0%11.3%18.5% 372180 48.3% 632,18113,361 35.0%17.0%16.3% 165,686 Selected by model to be included Selected by model to be EXCLUDED from Search (but contacted anyway) ApplicationsAdmitsDepositsInquiries Search Contacted List Names Purchased The group excluded by the predictive model generated 63 deposits

33. How well did it work? 3,2111,647 42.0% 69228,180152,325 42.0%11.3%18.5% 372180 48.3% 632,18113,361 35.0%17.0%16.3% 165,686 Selected by model to be included Selected by model to be EXCLUDED from Search (but contacted anyway) ApplicationsAdmitsDepositsInquiries Search Contacted List Names Purchased The group excluded by the predictive model generated 63 deposits 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. 1998 Paper Application2012 Web Application Our technological and competitive environments have changed

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 Contacted Submission Rate 14,428 6% Contacted Submission Rate 15,645 14% +116% Performance Submission Applications by Test Group

41. Custom Application Marketing increased deposits by 91% + 149 Deposits + 91% 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 Deposits by Test Group

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

43. Enrollment summary by application influence Entering Classes 2012-2013 Web AppPioneer AppOtherMarketed Common App

44. AccessedSubmitted Submitted via Mobile 20111,120235? 20121,92234184 20139,1731,588631 Mobile Application Activity Denver mobile interaction summary

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

51. Note: Sample set of nine institutions, public and private of various size It’s not just at University of Denver – study of nine colleges’ retention and Search Search inquiries consistently retain at higher levels

52. Note: Sample set of nine institutions, public and private of various size Search inquiries consistently retain at higher levels It’s not just at University of Denver – study of nine colleges’ retention and Search

53. SearchSenior Search Pioneer Application Web Application Total Unduplicated Enrollments Unduplicated enrollments from program41728414563909 Estimated % that would have enrolled without program 50%20%50%75%44% Estimated incremental effect of Royall & Company programs 2092277316525 Denver ROI

54. ROI Description Base Revenues $8 to $1 Freshman-year net tuition & fees vs. project costs $13,508,266 $10 to $1 Freshman-year net tuition & fees vs. program costs $13,931,888 Denver ROI

55. Questions?