Competition for Established Branch Campuses

I love competition and the challenge of growing enrollment and budgets.  I enjoy all the elements, at least as I’ve experienced them.  Marketing releases lots of creative energy, and the challenge of continuously improving institutional processes appeals to the puzzle solver in me.  I also believe that branches tend to do best when they develop strong internal and external partnerships, and partnership development has been one of my most enjoyable experiences.

In this context, I’ve been thinking about the competitive pressures faced by those branch campuses that have been around for a while.  For several generations, institutions created branch campuses as a vehicle to expand access and draw additional enrollment.  I’ve often said it is a holy mission, providing opportunity to people who otherwise would not be able to realize their educational dreams.

These branches tended to be in small cities or either in the suburbs or the downtown area of cities, depending on where the main campus was located.  For decades, the practical limits of commuting distance meant that a branch, or any other commuter campus, could recruit effectively over about a 30-mile radius.  Sometimes, branches and other institutions have overlapping circumferences, but until recently, most campuses had relatively clear service areas.

It’s not that way anymore.  At this point, I hear people talking about two challenging trends.  One is the emergence of fully online or very limited residency programs that blow away any concern about a 30-mile commuting distance.  As I’ve written before, I think branches can compete against fully online programs, but it requires adjusting some of their traditional practices.

The other challenge is more complicated to describe.  The trend seems to be that many institutions are developing outreach centers or sites that are relatively low cost, but intended to draw new enrollments to specific programs.  One example involves small private non-profits that are fighting enrollment and endowment declines and recognize the need to attract more adult learners to their institutions.  There is nothing wrong with these moves, but they definitely have gotten the attention of leaders at some more established branch campuses with whom I speak.

For all that, the greatest threat to many branch campuses will not come from other providers.  It will come from their own main campus, as the powers-that-be are attracted to the cost and efficiency of their own online programs and consider branch campuses to be an unwelcome competitor.  (In fact, branches and fully online programs can enhance each other, attracting somewhat different student markets.)  Watch your back and develop strong internal partnerships that demonstrate how you can help generate institutional revenue!

Building Branch Campus and Online Program Enrollment

I maintain two blogs. The older, “Branch Campus Life,” focuses on topics related to branch campuses of colleges and universities; the newer, “Creating the Future,” explores a wider range of topics related to my interest in innovation, positive psychology, and encore careers. Links to both blogs can be found on my web site, www.drcharlesbird.com.

For the first time, I want to post the same entry on both blogs. This is not something I expect to do very often, but I’d like to offer a few summary thoughts about building enrollment in online programs and on branch campuses. I see a close relationship between the two, in terms of objectives and challenges.

First, although institutions have many reasons for supporting branch campuses and online programs, the most important, by far, is that they expand access and opportunity for otherwise underserved audiences. I believe in the value of education and the significance of personal dreams. Branches and online programs have enormous potential, still only partially realized, in that regard.

Second, these initiatives have the potential to generate significant revenue for institutions, in a time of disruptive change. If they want to compete and thrive, most institutions should pay attention to their branch campuses and to the development of online options.

Third, to compete successfully, leaders of online and branch strategy need to understand and accept that the majority of their students care more about the cost of their education and the time it will take to earn their credential than anything else. Individuals may have additional or more personal goals, but the audience served by branches and online programs is pragmatic. Institutions will generate more revenue in the long run, if they understand the need to help students get to their goals more quickly and at less cost.

Fourth, I believe it makes sense for most institutions to create a strong link between their online programs and their branch campuses. Some institutions may not pursue both, but branch campuses will struggle unless they offer online and hybrid options to their students.

Fifth, as a consultant, I find it surprising that most institutions have poor financial models for their branch campuses, and sometimes for their online programs. Get revenue sharing right, or you will not create the necessary incentives to motivate deans, chairs, and administrative offices to support outreach.

Sixth, people need to understand what a deep, engaged partnership means. Building strong, mutually beneficial relationships with other institutions, with employers, and with other units in your own institution is absolutely essential. (I mention it, because most people I meet do not understand deep, engaged partnership.)

Finally, a point specific to online programs: Online programs only make financial sense if they are scalable. There are solid, high quality approaches for online delivery that make it possible to enroll hundreds, or even thousands of students in the same course. At scale, the cost of course development and the cost of instruction approach zero, and the greatest share of operating expenses lie with marketing/recruitment and student support services.

All of these points have been addressed over time in both of my blogs. These programs matter, because the students matter and because, to thrive in the future, most institutions need to attract enrollment through flexible, student-centered options. Please, just think about it.

New Approaches for Branch Campuses: Part 3

To wrap up this brief series on the future of branch campuses, I want to offer a few suggestions to those campus leaders who are prepared to rethink strategy. My recommendations follow from this premise: Branch campuses should base their strategy for growth on the idea that their student audience is most concerned about time to degree and the cost of that degree. (Obviously, the two are related.)

Branches should develop their academic programming and student support services around providing individual attention that helps students reach their goals as quickly and efficiently, as possible. Campuses that thrive will be flexible and reasonable in the application of previously earned credits toward a degree, while making sure that they maintain high standards. (Institutions may lose some students who have clearly unreasonable expectations, but I always maintain that there is a market for quality. Just think carefully and well about what quality means.)

Branches that thrive will emphasize engaged, deep partnerships. Depending on the type of branch, this might involve working closely with high schools around dual credit opportunities, working more closely with the distance learning unit at the main campus, collaborating with community colleges, or offering opportunities such as those provided by Straighterline to help students efficiently complete a requirement. Campuses should learn about and make use of best practices in prior learning assessment, such as CAEL supports through LearningCounts.org.

If it were my call, I’d be spending my money on admissions counselors, financial aid counselors, and academic advisors, along with those learning support services that make a demonstrable difference to success. If the branch is large enough to attract more traditional-aged full-time students, then I might provide a broader range of support services and student life opportunities, but that would be to serve a different audience than the one I’m discussing, here.

On programming, I’d be deeply and completely student oriented. At branches, student demand should drive both course schedules and programs, but I’d also be concerned about average section size in face-to-face classes. To be honest, however, I’d stop offering face-to-face classes, for the most part. I’d concentrate on high quality hybrid and online courses, supported by outstanding support services. In any case, class schedules should be efficient, and we should get over the notion that maximizing course options to meet a specific requirement is important to students. Branch audiences, at least, are more concerned about a clear path to their goals.

To borrow a term, it is time to re-engineer the branch campus, so that it closely aligns with the preferences of the audience it serves. In the process, I suspect leaders will find that less is more: Offering a tighter range of courses and helping students get more credit for work done elsewhere will support creation of higher quality courses and services. Marketing strategies will unfold in natural and compelling messages, and word of mouth will kick in powerfully. Campuses must leverage their physical presence, while embracing the power of technology and more deeply appreciating the preferences of their student audience.

New Approaches for Branch Campuses: Part 2

For branch campuses to thrive in the newly competitive environment, I believe they have to focus sharply on their mission and on what they do best. Branches provide their home institution with a physical presence in the communities they serve, and they tend to do a good job of engaging with that community, as well as building political support for their institution. They have a history of providing strong support services for students, and they provide ease of access and flexibility for working adults.

In terms of enrollment opportunities, I suspect that the future sweet spot for branch campuses lies in two areas: Partnering with whatever unit is developing and delivering online courses at their home institution, and focusing on the creation of hybrid delivery options. Hybrid delivery compromises some on flexibility, but provides enough structure and support to be appreciated by many students.

Partnering between the online unit and branch campuses can substantially reduce the cost of course development, with learning modules serving both fully online and hybrid options. For the collaboration to make sense, however, there must be a revenue sharing arrangement that is attractive to both partners, and there should be an institutional strategy that defines audiences and coordinates marketing. Branches should be compensated for their role in recruitment and support of online students.

There is strategic advantage to developing a strong portfolio of online courses and programs, then drawing out learning modules from those courses to be used in hybrid programs at branch locations. Fully online programs can serve a national or international audience, maximize flexibility for those who want it, and generate substantial revenue. A regional hybrid strategy can meet the needs of those who prefer more structure, but still want more flexibility than traditional delivery affords.

A regional hybrid approach also expands the service area from which campuses can recruit. Typically, commuter campuses obtain the great majority of their enrollment from people living within 30 miles of the campus. If students only come to campus on a few occasions per term, I’d argue that a radius of 100 miles or more is practical, especially if the campus offers some unique and attractive program or has an especially strong regional brand.

Most importantly, perhaps, continuing to offer some face-to-face courses, some fully online, and some hybrid can serve a branch campus’s mission, even as student preferences evolve. The branch campus leadership should stay close to enrollment data and nimble with regard to the proportion of each type of delivery it offers, as demand shifts.

I don’t know the end game for all of this, but branches need a thoughtful strategy for change, if they intend to compete. I hope the way branches engage with their communities and support their students will continue to be valued and continue to attract enrollment, but over time it won’t trump the advantages created by online and hybrid delivery.

Next time: Some thoughts on how branch campuses can act on their unique opportunities.

Northeastern University and the Advantages of Branch Campuses

These days, colleges and universities seek new ways to expand their reach and enrollment. Much of the attention goes to creating online courses and programs, and that is understandable. Delivering high quality programs and services, from a single, central location has appeal. As always, executing from a solid business plan is critical.

Nevertheless, there still are times when it makes sense to create branch campuses. Strong branch strategies emphasize partnership, community engagement, and other advantages that come with a physical presence.

Check out a recent New York Times article about a new branch established in Charlotte, NC, by Northeastern University: http://www.nytimes.com/2011/12/28/education/northeastern-university-expands-its-geographic-reach.html?_r=1&hpw. (You may have to copy and paste the address into your browser.)

I should disclose that I have a modest consulting relationship with Northeastern, and I was quoted in the article, although I had no part in their strategy development and launch decisions. What intrigues me about their strategy, however, is how thoroughly they explored options, before choosing to open a campus in Charlotte.

According to the Times article, Northeastern recognized that, despite remarkable economic growth, Charlotte is underserved at the graduate level. They also noted that many of the people relocating to Charlotte are from the northeast, and that there is a strong presence of Northeastern alumni. Future branches may be added in other metropolitan areas, with Seattle being next on their radar screen.

One of the first marketing lessons I learned is that there is significant value in hanging out a shingle, so people see the evidence of your commitment. Moreover, given a regional strategy, I like Northeastern’s effort to engage with the Charlotte community. Northeastern makes extensive use of co-operative education and internships. It is a research university, and they see opportunities for partnership and research, in Charlotte. Given the absence of other doctoral granting private nonprofits, there is no reason that Charlotte and Northeastern shouldn’t build a strong bond.

Of course, branch campuses bring other advantages, as well. Northeastern is committed to hybrid delivery, and a branch is great for that purpose. Many students still prefer at least some face-to-face contact with instructors and fellow students, and there is some evidence that learning outcomes are strongest with hybrid delivery. Moreover, branches can provide top-notch services, in person or otherwise, as they appreciate local student concerns.

The Northeastern project is unusual, in terms of distance from the main campus, but it clearly draws on the advantage of having a physical presence. Effective strategies require understanding the audience. In this case, there is thoughtful appreciation for market need, brand recognition, and market differentiation.

There are challenges and risks in stretching boundaries, of course. Watch the news and you will see evidence of failed initiatives, as well as successful ones. (Note the special challenges of creating international branches!) Over the next few years, we will see many different strategies, and that may be all to the good for educational access and opportunity.

A Partnership Story for Branch Campuses

A few years ago, the dean of one of our professional colleges approached me about arranging a conversation with several community colleges, to explore creating articulation agreements. I was pleased, but also surprised, because the college had always before been a reluctant partner.

Enrollments had declined in the college, however, and reduced state support had forced the university leadership to tie budgets more closely to student credit hour production. The dean knew that my staff had built strong relationships with community colleges, so it made sense to ask us to initiate a conversation.

We arranged the meetings, and the assistant dean of the college accompanied my staff to the community college. As soon as everyone was introduced and took their seats, the assistant dean spoke up, saying, “We would like to create an articulation agreement between our programs and your institution. I reviewed your curriculum and prepared curriculum sheets to show how your program articulates with ours. You’ll see that students cannot reach the baccalaureate in just two years, but if you make the changes I’ve indicated to your existing curriculum, the fit will be better.”

The community college dean asked a few questions about course scheduling at the university, given that most of her graduates were working full time and would need to commute to the university branch for some courses, and to the main campus for certain courses and labs. She wondered about online options or the possibility of offering some courses on the community college campus. She also asked for more detail about course transfer, hoping to find a few more matches than the curriculum sheet showed.

The assistant dean patiently explained that there was no way around lab requirements, and there were no facilities available other than at the main campus for certain critical lab experiences. Faculty members, he explained, are pressed by their research expectations, so travel to the community college, or even to the university branch, just wouldn’t happen, in most cases. He did express willingness to consider offering labs on Saturdays, but he couldn’t commit.

So, the articulation agreement was created and signed, but there was virtually no increase in transfer enrollment. Those of us involved in outreach (branch campus and distance learning staff) were frustrated at the failure to use this opportunity to build another bridge. The difference between what the assistant dean viewed as “partnering” and what we considered to be an engaged partnership was critical.

When universities come to listen, community colleges feel respected and valued, as colleagues. University representatives need to demonstrate some willingness to examine assumptions about curriculum and about serving new student audiences. When community college representatives come to listen, they get a better understanding of legitimate concerns that the university folks feel, so that the university does not appear simply to be rigid or arrogant.

In an engaged partnership, institutions have the potential to design curriculum and develop services that support student success. Because their relationship grows over time, the institutions might create entirely new programs or degree options, never before considered. They might engage in co-marketing, dual admissions, and shared advising. They surely will identify hurdles and overcome them, increasing the likelihood that community college students will naturally select the partnering university to continue their education.

These partnerships are happening, and for universities, it does make a difference in attracting enrollment. But engaged partnerships require deep listening and willingness to seek common ground, in creative ways that yield high quality programs, while adjusting to the legitimate expectations of our students.