Marquette University Perceptions Online Survey

[Sir Lawrence]

I received an email earlier in the week indicating that I would get another email asking to fill out a brief online survey.  I assume many of you did too.  One of the final questions involved the percentage of donors to MU out of the alumni base.  I won't give away the answer, but the next question points out that it is lower than the national average, and asks for input as to why that might be.

Interested in what you folks think. 

[GGGG]

Alumni percentage rate is the most overated statistic in fundraising.  It could be because the University's development staff recognizes that and spends most of its efforts on raising total $$$ and less on trying to get $10 out of some 23 year old donor.

[mu_hilltopper]

I took the survey .. I'd guessed lower than the actual number.

I hear Sultan's comments .. I imagine other universities may indeed try to get the $10 from everyone, so that figure is higher.

That being said, I'm not surprised it's low for MU.  Wonder how it is higher at other universities.

I'd correlate that to .. what %age of people go to their reunions?  Since I live in the area, I've gone to all of them .. have been completely disappointed in the turnout, 200-400 people out of 1900.   

I know people have wide ranging reasons for not returning for their reunion .. and I wonder what the rate is at other schools .. but I'll bet there's a strong correlation between reunion attendance and donation %age. 

I would suggest that donations and reunion attendance have a relationship to "how beloved" the school is.   Now, I can predict some would say, oh, that's crap, everyone loves their time at Marquette.    Somehow, 80+% don't come back for reunions, don't donate.  I understand economic and other reasons explain some of that, but certainly not all.

FWIW.

[PuertoRicanNightmare]

I think our reunion turnout is low because a huge amount of alums live within driving distance and get back all the time, particularly for basketball games. I've never been to a reunion, but I'm in Milwaukee constantly. Reunions don't mean much to me.

[GGGG]

They could try to get $10 from all alumni...which is $500,000 or so.  Or they could try to get one alum to give them $500,000.  

The latter is much easier and more cost effective.

[KipsBayEagle]

While I don't think this SHOULD be a factor, many of the college rating systems (such as US news) use alumni giving as a factor in determining college ranking.  Alumni giving, whether you like it or not, is actually kind of important.  If everyone gave 10 bucks, they would probally be investing in themselves as well as the university, since it would bump up Marquette's annual ranking, thus improving job opportunities/ salaries.

[mu_hilltopper]

I'm curious what other people think of my "beloved" concept on MU.

I'm gonna go that it's a semi-bell curve.  10% bleed blue and gold, 40% love it, 30% are indifferent, 20% somewhat dislike.

[MUfan12]

I'm curious what other people think of my "beloved" concept on MU.

I'm gonna go that it's a semi-bell curve.  10% bleed blue and gold, 40% love it, 30% are indifferent, 20% somewhat dislike.

I got the survey as well, and my answer to the last question was that they keep stepping in it with some really dumb decisions. Nickname (twice), the A&S dean fiasco, etc. For some reason MU has a knack for creating PR messes.

I have to wonder if that contributes to the lower donor participation.

[Sir Lawrence]

I have to wonder if that contributes to the lower donor participation.

That's actually why I started this thread.  My comments in the survey were similar to yours.  Nickname, etc.  I didn't want this thread to turn into yet another rant on the nickname business, but I really wonder what impact it has truly had on alumni donations. 

And as to Hilltopper's percentages, I'd up the "dislike" category 5-10%.  The rest seems about right, in my estimation.   

[mu_hilltopper]

And I wonder what those "beloved" stats are for other schools around here, in the same vein.  Creighton, DePaul, Notre Dame, Xavier, SLU, etc. 

One would guess Domers belove the hell out of their school .. wonder how the rest compare to MU.

[RJax55]

That's actually why I started this thread.  My comments in the survey were similar to yours.  Nickname, etc.  I didn't want this thread to turn into yet another rant on the nickname business, but I really wonder what impact it has truly had on alumni donations.    

I hope this doesn't descend into the nickname debate, but here's a little personal experience to add to your comments.

While a student at MU, I worked in the Phonathon office. Didn't work phones, but in the office during the day. One of the tasks I did was to look at the reports that the phonathon workers would make the previous night after making a call. My job was just to flag certain things -- Change of address, no more solicitations, contact died, etc.

Anyway, on the report it would indicate if the person donated or not. And, if not, why. The first reason was economic constraints. The second, without question, was due to the nickname. And, I would estimate it to be roughly 20-25% of the total number of declines. This was also before "Gold", in the early part of the 2000s.

[SacWarrior]

And I wonder what those "beloved" stats are for other schools around here, in the same vein.  Creighton, DePaul, Notre Dame, Xavier, SLU, etc. 

One would guess Domers belove the hell out of their school .. wonder how the rest compare to MU.

+1. Everyone else in this thread seems to want to compare us to state schools and ivy league schools, who will undoubtedly have a better satisfaction rating due to their national perceptions. Marquette should be judges against schools like marquette, such as DePaul, SLU, Xavier, Creighton, even Gonzaga and Loyola

[Ari Gold]

Amongst younger generations Facebook and social networking has to play a factor in reunions. Why show up to try and find the +/-  100 people out of 2000 that you'd like to see again when you can just creep on their facebook?

[ChicosBailBonds]

What's the link?

[Coleman]

I hope this doesn't descend into the nickname debate, but here's a little personal experience to add to your comments.

While a student at MU, I worked in the Phonathon office. Didn't work phones, but in the office during the day. One of the tasks I did was to look at the reports that the phonathon workers would make the previous night after making a call. My job was just to flag certain things -- Change of address, no more solicitations, contact died, etc.

Anyway, on the report it would indicate if the person donated or not. And, if not, why. The first reason was economic constraints. The second, without question, was due to the nickname. And, I would estimate it to be roughly 20-25% of the total number of declines. This was also before "Gold", in the early part of the 2000s.

I don't doubt it, but that's really sad.

The nickname decision was made by a group of people (largely) no longer associated with the university (especially Rev. DeUlio), the withholding of donations hurts future and current students and also limits the value of the degree of those alumni withholding donations.

[pillardean]

I cannot believe the low level of percentage of alumni that donate. 

I thought much more. 

[NYWarrior]

I cannot believe the low level of percentage of alumni that donate.  

I thought much more.  

it is terrible ... MU's overall participation rate.  We should do much better as an alumni base.

http://www.marquette.edu/giving/whygive.shtml

[Ari Gold]

it is terrible ... MU's overall participation rate.  We should do much better as an alumni base.

http://www.marquette.edu/giving/whygive.shtml

I give like $300 every time I buy tickets. that's what MU will get out of me

[ATL MU Warrior]

While I don't think this SHOULD be a factor, many of the college rating systems (such as US news) use alumni giving as a factor in determining college ranking.  Alumni giving, whether you like it or not, is actually kind of important.  If everyone gave 10 bucks, they would probally be investing in themselves as well as the university, since it would bump up Marquette's annual ranking, thus improving job opportunities/ salaries.

Once you are in the workforce for a few years where you went to school becomes far less important than the real world experience you have gained.  Not sure the ranking of your alma mater means diddly squat.  Maybe in some fields.

[Sir Lawrence]

+1. Everyone else in this thread seems to want to compare us to state schools and ivy league schools, who will undoubtedly have a better satisfaction rating due to their national perceptions. Marquette should be judges against schools like marquette, such as DePaul, SLU, Xavier, Creighton, even Gonzaga and Loyola

I must need reading glasses.  I don't see where anyone in this thread "seems to want to compare us to state schools and ivy league schools."  But I think I understand your point.  MU is a Jesuit/Catholic/Urban institution, and you are saying that those similar schools are our competition.  Not certain I totally agree. 

[ChicosBailBonds]

it is terrible ... MU's overall participation rate.  We should do much better as an alumni base.

http://www.marquette.edu/giving/whygive.shtml

What is the definition of giving rate?  Is it a certain dollar amount?  Is it a tenure defined as multiple years? 

[ChicosBailBonds]

Once you are in the workforce for a few years where you went to school becomes far less important than the real world experience you have gained.  Not sure the ranking of your alma mater means diddly squat.  Maybe in some fields.

Very true for the most part.

[GGGG]

What is the definition of giving rate?  Is it a certain dollar amount? 

Giving rate are the number of alumni households who give in a certain year divided by the number of alumni households solicited.  There are a few reasons why this is a constantly manipulated statistic.  Many organizations won't solicit all alumni.  They'll drop any sort of appeal to a household that doesn't donate.  Some won't even try to find "lost" alumni.

Marquette does solicit all alumni.  If not by phone, then by mail.  Certainly through an envelope in the magazine at least.  I am fairly certain that is why the rate is as low as it is.

[ChicosBailBonds]

Giving rate are the number of alumni households who give in a certain year divided by the number of alumni households solicited.  There are a few reasons why this is a constantly manipulated statistic.  Many organizations won't solicit all alumni.  They'll drop any sort of appeal to a household that doesn't donate.  Some won't even try to find "lost" alumni.

Marquette does solicit all alumni.  If not by phone, then by mail.  Certainly through an envelope in the magazine at least.  I am fairly certain that is why the rate is as low as it is.

So in effect, if you control the denominator you can increase your giving rate.  If you go to everyone, you're going to screw your giving rate.  Is there a dollar requirement?

[mu_hilltopper]

I'm amazed that organizations of higher learning can't/refuse to get together on honest, comparable statistics about their school data.   

(Not just this, but post-degree employment rates, etc.)

[GGGG]

Chicos, this is exactly why it is a completely overated statistic.  There is no dollar requirement.

See, this is why USN&WR does a terrible disservice with their rankings.  One of the other stats they mess with is the "exclusivity" rankings...the percentage of applicants they except with the lower % being better.  Washington University in St. Louis is particularly aggressive in recruiting marginally qualified students (by their standards) in hopes that they will apply and turn them down.  They sent my son a fully completed application at one point...all he had to do was sign the form and mail it in a business reply envelope.

[ChicosBailBonds]

Chicos, this is exactly why it is a completely overated statistic.  There is no dollar requirement.

See, this is why USN&WR does a terrible disservice with their rankings.  One of the other stats they mess with is the "exclusivity" rankings...the percentage of applicants they except with the lower % being better.  Washington University in St. Louis is particularly aggressive in recruiting marginally qualified students (by their standards) in hopes that they will apply and turn them down.  They sent my son a fully completed application at one point...all he had to do was sign the form and mail it in a business reply envelope.

Interesting.  Well, if this is a key component of the USNWR ratings and we tout those as significant in our recruitment of students, we should play into them as much as possible.  I'm sure MU and others do already, but why not drive a truck through it.

Why not solicit donation requests to alumni calling out for a $1 donation...that by donating only $1, it counts toward this vital statistic that will help our ratings in this crazy system?  You get the idea.  Seems to me there are a lot of ways to play this to MU's advantage.

[GGGG]

It is easier for organizations to play with the denominator since that is the factor actually under their control.  Calling every alum to donate $1 isn't going to work.  And while I think it we should play into those rankings somewhat, it is simply "better" to solicit every alum and to make sure to find lost alumni for all sorts of reasons.

[mugrad2006]

I filled out the survey.  Biggest issue I see with MU in getting to the 'next level' with respect to reputation and prestige is that it's still what I call a 'high beta' school with respect to the ability and achievement of graduates.  

Some of the most brilliant people I know were MU grads, and I spent two years in a top 5 grad program that was not MU.  But, for each brilliant or high achieving person I know from MU, there's 3 knuckleheads that didn't take advantage of what MU has to offer and are just coasting by, or worse are a detriment to the school.

I think it's been trending in the right direction, but continue to hope that MU get's students that buy into the mission and contribute after they graduate.

[ChicosBailBonds]

It is easier for organizations to play with the denominator since that is the factor actually under their control.  Calling every alum to donate $1 isn't going to work.  And while I think it we should play into those rankings somewhat, it is simply "better" to solicit every alum and to make sure to find lost alumni for all sorts of reasons.

I agree that it's better to control the denominator.  I do this all the time with our marketing.  We run very deep propensity to purchase models and the like, that way I'm not wasting money on marketing to people that aren't ever going to purchase.

That being said, if MU's tact is to go after every alum, then I would appeal to the alumni base in a different fashion then they are.  Obviously you don't want to leave any money on the table and encourage people to only donate $1, but there is no reason why MU couldn't do what we or a lot of other marketing organizations do by provisioning different communications to different groups.  For the 50% that have never given MU a damn thing in the last 10 years, hit them with a $1 only donation offer.  If you get 10% of them to take you up, you've done extremely well and added to your numbers.  For those that have given something in the last 10 years, you cultivate them with a different offer.  For those that are giving every year, you obviously take a different approach with them.

Using a one size fits all approach is a marketing approach that is extremely antiquated. 

[ChicosBailBonds]

Is there a link to this survey?

[mugrad2006]

Is there a link to this survey?

You should have gotten an email from Simpson Scarborough.  

link removed

Here's the link I had.

Edit:  These links are targeted and single-use only.  You can't give the link to someone else.

[GGGG]

That being said, if MU's tact is to go after every alum, then I would appeal to the alumni base in a different fashion then they are.  Obviously you don't want to leave any money on the table and encourage people to only donate $1, but there is no reason why MU couldn't do what we or a lot of other marketing organizations do by provisioning different communications to different groups.  For the 50% that have never given MU a damn thing in the last 10 years, hit them with a $1 only donation offer.  If you get 10% of them to take you up, you've done extremely well and added to your numbers.  For those that have given something in the last 10 years, you cultivate them with a different offer.  For those that are giving every year, you obviously take a different approach with them.

Using a one size fits all approach is a marketing approach that is extremely antiquated. 

Chicos, I do this crap for a living.   It's better that MU ignores that 50% entirely.  They'll never give much less bother with filling out a check for $10 or so.  They don't care about MU and most certainly will not care what their USN&WR ranking is.

[ChicosBailBonds]

Chicos, I do this crap for a living.   It's better that MU ignores that 50% entirely.  They'll never give much less bother with filling out a check for $10 or so.  They don't care about MU and most certainly will not care what their USN&WR ranking is.

I know you do.  I guess what I've learned in our business is that we had customers that never bought certain products for years.  We took a different approach with them and have hit a home run with different offers for those groups.  My team and I were recently honored with a SAMY Award for our efforts and moving sales to over $2 Billion (with a B), a nice chunk of it coming from customers who "would never buy those products", or so the conventional wisdom stated.  My point is simply that sometimes it requires looking at different segments that you have all but given up on in a different light.  It has worked for me for more than a decade now in several different businesses.  Might be worth a try.