How 100 Institutions Managed Their Way to Enrollment Success in 2010

www.royall.com© 2010 – Royall & Companywww.royall.com

How 100 Institutions Managed Their Way to

Enrollment Success in 2010

Richard WhitesideDean, Strategic Enrollment Management

Royall & Company


Presenter

Richard Whiteside joined Royall in 2006 after 37 years in enrollment management and academic affairs, the last thirteen years as Dean of Admission and Vice President for Enrollment Management at Tulane University. Dean Whiteside was a leader in Tulane’s post-Katrina recovery and rebuilding program. He is the editor of Student Marketing for Colleges & Universities (2004).

Dr. Whiteside is a frequent presenter at a variety of professional meetings and is considered a leading voice in matters related to direct marketing in college recruitment, enrollment planning and strategy, the strategic use of financial aid, and the implementation of strategic enrollment management programs in colleges and universities.

He holds a Ph.D. in Educational Leadership from the University of Connecticut, two M.S. degrees from The Johns Hopkins University (Applied Behavioral Sciences and Student Personnel Services), and a B.A. from Manhattan College.

Richard Whiteside, Ph.D.


Dedicated exclusively to helping colleges and universities achieve their enrollment and financial goals through the use of direct marketing recruitment.


• Full-service direct marketing agency

• Founded in 1983• Located in Richmond, Virginia• 220 full-time staff members• 200+ institutional partners• 94% year-to-year retention


The survey

• Electronic survey• Determine the outcomes for Royall &

Company clients • Understand what strategies contribute

to success• Share success strategies with other

institutions


The respondentsCount %

Independent 116 88.5%

Public 15 11.5%

131 100%




Public 15 11.5%

131 100%

Religiously affiliated 52 39.7%

No religious affiliation 79 60.3%




Public 15 11.5%

131 100%

Religiously affiliated 52 39.7%

No religious affiliation 79 60.3%

Rural 22 16.8%

Suburban 57 43.5%

Urban 52 39.7%


Overall results – input & conversion

Funnel Volumes Changes Change

# of inquiries + 13%

# of applications + 17%

# of admitted + 12%

Conversion Ratio Changes Change

Inquiry to applied + 1%

Accept % - 1.7%

Yield, admitted to deposited - .7%


Overall results – average outcomes 131 institutions

Change

Change in deposits + 7%

SAT average score change + 5

Net revenue + 13%

Discount rate -.6%


But some did better than others

Bottom Quartile

2nd Quartile

3rd Quartile

Top Quartile

Entering Class Results

# of deposits - 9% + 1% + 9% + 26%

Net Tuition - 1% + 7% + 16% + 30%

Quartiles based on change in deposits 2009 v 2010


Key differences between groups

Bottom Quartile

2nd Quartile

3rd Quartile

Top Quartile

Inquiries indexed 1.09 1.07 1.08 1.27

Applications Indexed 1.07 1.07 1.08 1.32

Admitted students 1.02 1.09 1.12 1.26

Accept rate 58% 52% 57% 59%

Tuition increase 5% 5% 5% 5%

% receiving grants, indexed 1.06 .99 .99 .94

Average grant, indexed 1.00 1.03 1.07 1.05

Discount rate 44.8% 35.8% 42.4% 40.5%

Average grant $13,946 $13,469 $14,156 $14,069


Key differences between groups

Bottom Quartile

2nd Quartile

3rd Quartile

Top Quartile

Inquiries indexed 1.09 1.07 1.08 1.27Applications Indexed 1.07 1.07 1.08 1.32Admitted students 1.02 1.09 1.12 1.26Accept rate 58% 52% 57% 59%

Tuition increase 5% 5% 5% 5%

% receiving grants, indexed 1.06 .99 .99 .94Average grant, indexed 1.00 1.03 1.07 1.05

Discount rate 44.8% 35.8% 42.4% 40.5%

Average grant $13,946 $13,469 $14,156 $14,069


Success did not depend on location!

Midwest Northeast South WestEntering Class Results

# of deposits + 5% + 5% + 6% + 14%

Net tuition + 10% + 14% + 9% + 20%

Region


Success did not depend on size!

LT 200 * 200 - 373

374 - 560

560 - 950 GT 950

Entering Class Results # of deposits +21% + 9% + 4% + 6% + 7%

Net tuition +28% + 17% + 7% + 13% + 15%

Freshman Class Size

* These 16 smaller institutions are not included in the analysis of the data for institutions with freshman class sizes greater than or equal t0 200


Or quality!

989 – 10801060

1081 – 11451120

1146 – 12101185

1211 – 14901300


# of deposits + 10% + 10% + 7% + 1%

Net tuition + 10% + 14% + 15% + 5%

SAT Ranges & Averages


Affiliation didn’t matter either!

Catholic Other Christian

No religious affiliation


# of deposits + 7% + 6% + 7%

Net tuition + 14% + 13% + 12%

Religious Affiliation


Privates and publics did well!

Private Public


# of deposits + 7% + 6%

Net tuition + 13% + 8%

Control


All kinds of schools succeeded!

Rural Suburban Urban


# of deposits + 6% + 7% + 7%

Net tuition + 8% + 16% + 11%

Campus Environment


Success depended less on who you are than what you did!


3 “Keys” That Drove Success

1. 10% increase in inquiries

2. 10% increase in admitted students

3. Net increase in cost of attendance within $500 of 2009


The more the institution did, the greater the results!

Bottom Quartile

2nd Quartile

3rd Quartile

Top Quartile


# of deposits - 9% + 1% + 9% + 26%

Net Tuition - 1% + 7% + 16% + 30%

10% or more increase in inquiries



Bottom Quartile

2nd Quartile

3rd Quartile

Top Quartile


# of deposits - 9% + 1% + 9% + 26%

Net Tuition - 1% + 7% + 16% + 30%

10% or more increase in inquiries 10% more admitted



Bottom Quartile

2nd Quartile

3rd Quartile

Top Quartile


# of deposits - 9% + 1% + 9% + 26%

Net Tuition - 1% + 7% + 16% + 30%

10% or more increase in inquiries 10% more admitted

Net cost increase < $500


How did those in the top 3 quartiles get the numbers

they wanted?

10% More

Inquiries

10% More

AdmittedNet Cost < $500

Search Pricing strategy possible because of the increase in admitted student population

Senior Search

Application Program


How did they do it?


Current Inquiry Pool for Next

Class

Royall Application

Program

Search & Senior Search – Impact At Each Stage of Engagement

Pre-Qualified High School Seniors

(Next Entering Class)

Admissions Processing

Royall Senior Search

Program

Pre-Qualified High School Sophomores

& Juniors (Future Classes)

Royall Fulfillment &

Brochure Program

Royall Search Program

Inquiry Pool for Future Classes

Future Impact – 2012 & 2013 Junior / Sophomore Search

Immediate Impact –Senior Search and Inquiry Pool Marketing

Enrolled Freshman

Compound Impact - 2012 Senior Search and Inquiry Pool Marketing

Future Impact – 2013 & 2014 Junior / Sophomore Search

Inquiry Pool for Future Classes


The impact of Senior Search was significant

Senior Search

Added for 2010 Class

All Other Schools Difference


# of deposits + 13% + 5% + 8%

Net Tuition + 21% + 10% + 11%

Inquiries + 17% + 10% + 7%

Applications + 36% + 11% + 25%

Discount rate 38.6% 41.7% (3.1%)

27 Institutions added Senior Search in 2009-10


Institutional Responsibility

Senior Search - responsibilities

Search Mailing & Email

Search Response

Fulfillment &

Invite Application

Process Application


Search

• Creates pipeline of inquiries who are two times more likely to apply and 2.5 times more likely to deposit that comparable names not searched

• Access to the 50%+/- of the names available only during the sophomore or junior year


Institutional Responsibility

Search - responsibilities

Search Mailing & Email

Search Response Paper, Email,

Login Fulfillment

Build & Evolve Relationship

Invite Application


The Power of Royall Inquiry Development Programs

18 Colleges832,122

Names Purchased

Control Group60,868

No Action Taken

Test Group771,254

Searched

More than 2.25 students from this

group enrolled

For every student from this group that

enrolled…


The lift is apparent at every stage of the process

Applied

Deposited

Accepted

2X More Likely to Apply

2X More Likely to Be Accepted

2.5X More Likely to Deposit

and for all types of studentsMen

Minorities

Women

2X More Likely to Deposit




Juniors3,647,264 589,414 79,609 47,313 11,495

16% 14% 59% 24%

Contacted Inquired Applied Accepted Enrolled

Sophomores1,725,850 376,606 38,551 25,951 5,767

22% 10% 67% 22%

Students searched as sophomores showed average application SAT scores = 1278

Students searched as juniors showed average application SAT scores = 1240

Students searched as seniors showed average application SAT scores = 1200

Seniors448,853 54,684 20,223 9,346 1,542

12% 37% 46% 17%

Searching Across Years Is Highly Productive Names acquired from The College Board


Contacted Inquired Applied Accepted Enrolled

Sophomore1,253,662 257,869 26,040 15,292 4,278

21% 10% 59% 28%

Sophomores responding to Search and applying showed average ACT scores = 26.6

Senior407,884 40,446 15,645 7,258 1,097

10% 39% 46% 15%

Seniors responding to Search and applying showed average ACT scores = 26.7

Searching Across Years Is Highly Productive

Names acquired from ACT


The Power of a Royall Application Development

Program

30,000 inquiries were randomly assigned to

one of two groups:

Control Group

15,000Regular Institutional Application Outreach

Test Group

15,000Royall Application

Outreach


The Power of a Royall Application Program

100% 100% 100%

216%

179% 176%

0%

50%

100%

150%

200%

250%

Applications Admits Deposits

Control - Not Sent a Royall Application Test - Sent a Royall Application

ACT25.8

ACT25.6

ACT27.0

ACT27.3

ACT26.4

ACT26.7

For every 100 students from the control group that enrolled, 176 students from the test group enrolled


Using Royall Application increased number of in and out-of-state students

In-State

100%141%

0%

50%

100%

150%

200%

250%

Traditional Application

Royall Application

Deposits = 118 Deposits = 183

Out-of-State

100%

263%

0%

50%

100%

150%

200%

250%

Traditional Application

Royall Application

Deposits = 46 Deposits = 130


Other key findings

• Institutions that reduced commitment to recruitment likely to be in bottom quartile

• Keeping cost increases low for those receiving grants is critical

Bottom Quartile

2nd Quartile

3rd Quartile

Top Quartile

Average net increase in tuition cost to the family

$2,000 $1,500 $0 $500


Continued

• The best performers distributed applications, acceptances, merit-based awards and need-based awards 10 – 14 days earlier than those institutions that did not perform well!

• Their deposits are more likely to be refundable through May 1.

• Less likely to be Common Application members• More likely to mail an institutionally branded

application


Why Royall & Company?

• 15.1% Search Response (Our Average in 2009)

• 37% Conversion Rate (R & C Average for Senior Search Inquiries)

• 57 Points Higher on SAT Scores (Applications from Search Responders vs. Other Sources)

• 25% More Applications (From Students You Will Accept)


Questions?Richard Whiteside

Dean, Strategic Enrollment ManagementRoyall & Company

1920 E. Parham RoadRichmond, VA 23228

[email protected](804) 741-8965www.royall.com

Documents

How 100 Institutions Managed Their Way to Enrollment Success in 2010