(The Huffington Post, November
13, 2012)
To the relief of many in our
state and nation, the 2012 political campaign has finally ended. Gone, but not
forgotten, are the seemingly endless strategizing, debates, attack ads and, of
course, the gaffes, missteps and surprising turns that made the run-up to this
election one of the most memorable, sensational and costly in history.
Yet another, less dramatic,
but highly influential element of the campaign has not disappeared; in fact, it
is with us constantly, having shaped this election, and promising to shape the
one after this and the one after that.
It's the data -- more
precisely, what the data tell us not just about who voted but which voters
conformed to expectation, which ones performed more or less on cue among the
electorate and who will be targeted next time when technologically savvy
political campaigners chart their strategies not with traditional
bumper-sticker branding but computers.
Writing in The New York Times the day after the election,
Michael Cooper characterized the competition that "pitted pundits against
pollsters" as "a pitched battle between two self-assured rivals:
those who relied on an unscientific mixture of experience, anecdotal details
and 'Spidey sense,' and those who stuck to cold, hard numbers. When the results
were tabulated, it became clear that data had bested divination."
The science of campaigning did
not supersede the art of electioneering. They appeared to become one and the
same. For President Obama to win, as the Associated Press on November 8
recounted his re-election strategy, it was a matter of performing "exactly
the way his campaign had predicted: running up big margins with women and
minorities, mobilizing a sophisticated registration and get-out-the-vote
operation, and focusing narrowly on the battleground states that would
determine the election."
Obama's team set their sights
on those voters who could be of most use to the campaign. Voter research,
identification and target marketing helped produce the reality of November 6,
and will do so for all other national elections in our lifetimes.
Polls and number crunching are
nothing new in elections. But as a college president, I watched the campaign
with special interest this time because of the extent to which target
marketing, accompanied by relentless analysis of prospective-voter data
generated, reminded me of our own marketing of educational opportunity at
Bethany College.
An election analogy to the
marketing of my institution would go something like this:
In days gone by, politicians
would walk the streets, knocking on doors, handing out trinkets, hoping to
attract a critical mass of sympathetic voters.
In the past, admissions representatives would put in appearances at various college fairs, talking with anyone who stopped by our displays, handing out brochures and reply cards and hoping to attract a critical mass of future freshmen.
Now, both strategies have
become more refined. Thanks to the data, politicians (or their representatives)
still walk the streets and knock on doors -- but it's a matter of determining
in advance which doors to approach. Thanks to their data, colleges still focus
on attracting freshmen, and even use the occasional brochure or viewbook -- but
it's a matter of determining in advance which freshmen we want to attract, and
how.
At Bethany, our
prospective-student data determine our desired student profile along with what,
if any, advertising to purchase, what messages to deliver to whom (whether
early-deciding high school freshmen or sophomores, or late-deciding high school
juniors and seniors) and what media to employ. We still invite students and
their families to campus visitation days (no social-media message replaces the
personal touch by admissions counselors and faculty), but by the time their
vehicles drive up to Old Main, we've already had our prospective incoming
freshmen on our electronic radar for months, if not years.
As is true with some political
campaigns, the college targeting strategy can overcome perceived negatives. One
is cost, and the public's growing preoccupation with value for the investment
of four years and thousands of dollars in a prestigious, private, liberal arts
college like Bethany. Another is family history. Proud that their sons and
daughters may be the first in their families to enroll in post-secondary
education (true for some 30 percent of freshmen at colleges such as ours),
families may nevertheless find financial-aid processes and academic
expectations daunting at first.
Our solution with target
marketing is to assure our audience that we have chosen to invite them over
other audiences, that we want their sons and daughters to enroll at Bethany,
that we will work for their success in return for their vote of confidence in
our institution.
Sound familiar?
Sophisticated marketing and
advertising are expensive, so the pay-off better be clear from the start. More
than that, our student constituency represents a long-term investment in our
institution's future. We want students who will be the best fit for Bethany, as
we hope to be for them. That's not just any student, I tell our
campus-visitation audiences who have been summoned with the help of advanced
research... it's you.
As with deciding on a
candidate in an election, the decision to attend a particular college or
university is not only highly personal but it should also be an informed one.
Behind those decisions are the data that connect the dots to craft the image to
generate the strategy to produce the desired outcome. Higher education
institutions that are not sensitive to data gathering in building their
enrollments certainly need to be.
Like the election of 2012,
enrolling a freshman class is one long campaign. And increasingly, we college
administrators don't like surprises any better than political candidates do.
