CMED 2013 Benchmarking & Industry Trends Survey

CMED 2014 Benchmarking & Industry Trends Survey Martina Bison-Huckaby

Kris Risi Jennifer Maden

Arne Johnson

2

CMED 2014 Benchmarking & Industry Trends Survey

Martina Bison-Huckaby Kris Risi Jennifer Maden Arne Johnson

2014 Team Martina Bison-Huckaby Director, Center for Executive

Education College of Business and Economics

Kris Risi

Executive Director, Corporate and Executive Education LeBow College of Business

Jennifer Maden Assoc. Dean of Strategic Enrollment Management Columbia University School of Continuing Education

Arne Johnson Marketing Manager, Professional Development and LearningLife College of Continuing Education

3

4

Today’s Agenda

Wrap- Up Program / Instruction Marketing Financial Population

Welcome & Survey History

Revenue

Benchmarking Study Why is this valuable to you?

• Use results for building a case for resource needs • Provide framework for who you want to connect with at

the conference, as well as some talking points • Incorporate into SWOT or other strategic planning for

your team • Identify your areas of expertise relevant to CMED

participants, possibly lead to developing conference presentation for next annual meeting.

• Answer those nagging questions that keep you up at night! (Maybe…)

Note: YES, we will make slides available after the conference!

POPULATION Jennifer

6

Survey Participants: Where in the World? 4%

22%

1% 5% 1% 67%

Asia/Oceania

Canada

Caribbean/Central/South/Latin AmericaEurope

Middle East/Africa

18% 6%

36%

32%

8%

0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 30% 35% 40%

Regional Locations for US Institutions Western (WASC-ACSCU)CA, HI, GU, AS, MP, FM,MH, PW

Southern (SACS)AL, FL, GA, KY, LA, MS,NC, SC, TN, TX, VA

North Central (NCA-HLC)AZ, AR, CO, IL, IN, IA, KS,MI, MN, MO, NE, NM, ND,OH, OK, SD, WV, WI, WY

New England (NEASC-CIHE)CT, ME, MA, NH, RI, VT

Middle States (MSCHE)DE, DC, MD, NJ, NY, PA,PR, VI

Western

Southern

North Central

New England

Middle States

Institutional Profiles

11%

35% 17% 19% 19%

< 100,000100,000 - 500,000

500,000 - 1MM1 - 2.5 MM> 2.5 MM

Metro Area Population

70%

28%

2%

Public

Private…

Private…

Institution Type

53%

39%

8%

Management, Economics, orBusiness School

Continuing Education,Extended Education,Continuing Studies or…

Other (please specify)

Unit Type

CE

EE

3%

1%

2%

94%

We do not offer degrees

Associates degree orequivalent

Bachelor's degree orequivalent

Master's or Doctoraldegree or equivalent

Highest Degree Awarded

Roles of Benchmark Study Participants

Coordinator or Specialist - Marketing,Program, Operations

Manager/Director - Operations

Manager/Director- Program

Manager/Director - Marketing or BusinessDevelopment

Director - Assistant or Associate

Director - Executive

Dean

10%

1%

13%

8%

15%

47%

6%

Main program Audience

32.0%

81.0%

66.0%

42.0%

Entry level

Mid-levelmanagement

Upper-levelmanagement

Executive level(C-Suite)

0 20 40 60

Management,Economics, orBusinessSchool

ContinuingEducation,ExtendedEducation,ContinuingStudies orsimilar groupofferingprofessionaldevelopment

CE

EE

FINANCIAL MODELS Martina

12

Department’s Contribution to the University

13

67%

12%

14%

5%

1%

0% 20% 40% 60% 80%

We must make enough money to pay for allof our direct expenses, indirect department

expenses and contribute or pay a tax to…

We must make enough money to pay for allof our direct expenses, indirect department

expenses and that is all.

We must make enough money to pay for allof our direct expenses.

If we make enough money to cover some ofour expenses, we are doing well.

We are not required to cover any of ourexpenses.

Does your department/unit contribute to school and/or university indirect expenses?

14

Yes 68%

No 24%

Not Sure 8%

How is the Contribution Determined?

Executive Education - Most share a percentage of their

revenue (or sometimes expenses) with the business school

- Percentage varies, generally set annually with dean based on performance

- Yearly goals

- Many centers do not cover the staff’s salaries directly, but they have to share all the profits after their direct expenses are covered back with the school

Continuing Education and Other Centers Types

Most Continuing Education Centers have to pay a “university tax” or other type of contribution towards indirect administrative and operating cost.

15

Has the Financial Model Changed?

16

Yes 33%

No 61%

Not Sure 6%

How Has the Financial Model Changed?

• Leaner staffing model • Contributions to college or university are expected

to be higher and higher • Expected to be 100% self-supporting • Increased focus on revenue generating programs

and custom programs • Additional revenue streams through new programs

and services • Restructuring of programs and revenue streams • New leadership often means new approach

17

Have Dedicated Staff to Perform Sales Activities

18

31% of centers have dedicates sales staff! Higher revenue (3MM+) tend to have more dedicated sales staff

31%

37%

31%

1% Completely describesmy departmentSomewhat describesmy departmentDoes not describe mydepartmentDon't know/not sure

Sales Staff Compensation

19

65%

21%

14%

Salary only

Salary plus bonus orcommission

Don’t know/not sure

2012: 12%

2014: 21%

2013: 16%

MARKETING Arne and Jennifer

20

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50%

Dedicated marketing person

Hire outside experts

Do some of it ourselves

Do it all ourselves

Support from school/university

20132014

How are marketing responsibilities handled for your programs?

21 Largest change to date – increase in dedicated marketing staff (2012 was 31%)

42%

47%

29% 26%

36% 46%

30%

34%

43%

42%

How is your marketing budget determined?

22

Other 17%

Percent of Projected Revenue 23.4%

Don’t Know 17%

Flat Dollar Amount 48.9%

% Revenue 1-8% (8 out of 15) 10 – 18% (7 out of 15)

No significant change Vs. last year

How has the Marketing Budget Changed?

23

2014

2013

2012

2011 48% more

32% more

47% more

56% more

22% same

51% same

33% same

37% same

70%

83%

80%

93%

Spend more or the same

How has the Marketing Budget Changed?

24

30%

17%

2014

2013

2012

2011 30%

17%

20%

7%

Spend less

14% a little less

6% a lot less

6% a little less

1% a lot less

Don't know

Does not describe

somewhat describes

completely describes

Have and use a CRM System

25

5%

36%

32%

27% 59% have CRM

0 5 10 15 20 25

SalesForceIntelliworks / Hobsons

AcewareMaximiser

Microsoft DynamicsEllucian / Banner

Have and use a CRM System

26

Very Satisfied Satisfied Neither Dissatisfied VeryDissatisfied

Satisfaction with current CRM system

11%

36% 32%

13% 8%

Recruitment

Sales

Process / ProjectManagement

Main purpose of CRM system

36%

62%

33%

Marketing Mix: Tactics

Least important Print ads Purchased lists for email Collateral Information sessions Presence at industry events

Most important Website Corporate outreach SEO (optimization) SEM (search

marketing) Google Adwords Targeted Online Ads Comments: E-mail

marketing to existing pipeline: current or former students/clients as well as cultivation of inquiries.

Important (but not understood) Social media paid

advertising Social media activity

and content generation

Marketing: Most Effective Vehicles and Offers V

ehic

les

Corporate Outreach

Client Partnership • Collaborated with client sponsors to help sell program internally. • Niche programming, sole source, content critical to partner

organization • Info sessions and presence at annual meetings of target groups

Targeted Digital

LinkedIn Ads • Careful segmentation • Call to action to website and prospect cultivation efforts • Target audience - health care front line, managers, leaders and

professionals

Email Network Push • Admin/marketing provided email content and PDF brochure • Faculty distributed to networks “earned and owned” • Generated leads and yielded registrations

Nurture Existing

Newsletter • Polished email of new program highlights to alumni

Off

ers Events

Annual Corporate University kick-off • Breakfast with featured speaker • Attracts 60-70 key client accounts • Results in several deals closed within weeks of event

Discounts

Special Rates Based on Behavior/Action • Early bird, special offer following event, corporate sponsorship

Regularly analyze effectiveness of marketing efforts

32%

47%

21% 20%

55%

25%

16%

56%

25%

Does not describemy department

Somewhatdescribes mydepartment

Completelydescribes mydepartment

201220132014

Heading in the right direction…

Social Media: What and How?

Measurement: • Emergent ( = not

sophisticated!) • Web Analytics (Google,

landing pages, unique URLs) • Social Media Metrics (from

within platform) • Anecdotes (feedback from

prospects and staff)

Yes 89%

No 11%

Use social media for marketing

purposes?

1% 1%

23% 36%

59% 80%

91%

PinterestNing

Google+YoutubeTwitter

FacebookLinkedIn

26%

50%

24% Critical Part of Content StrategyDriving Prospect Interest

New Initiative with Plans toExtend and Expand

Basic Presence but No Firm Plansfor Expansion

Social Media: Lessons Learned

Implementing Lessons Learned for Effective Use of Social Media for Marketing

• Create a Strategy • Identify target audiences and platforms used by those targets • Know what you want to gain from social media efforts

• Brand awareness v. engagement v. lead generation are very different

• Prepare to Implement • Build a publication calendar • Allocate appropriate resources (financial and staffing time) • Consider how to set and measure goals and impact

• Manage • Continuous crafting and posting of relevant content • Be adaptable and ready to change direction and approach

PROGRAM/INSTRUCTION Kris

33

The Strategic Landscape

Increased Competition

Shifting Program Interests

Visibility and Contribution

• 50% Increased Institutional Importance

• 57% Increased Contract Engagements

• 65% Financial Contribution + Expenses

• 33% More Internal • 36% Higher Education • 46% More Professional

Development/Consultants

• 27% Increased Credit • 50% Increased Hybrid • 40% Increased Online • 54% Increased Multiple

Course/Certificates

More Open Enrollment Across the Board

51% 50% 51%

58% 43%

72%

55% 48%

56%

48% 46% 45%

40% 43% 38%

32% 50%

18%

35% 48%

28%

45% 46% 47%

8% 7%

10%

10% 7%

10%

10% 4%

15%

7% 8% 8%

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

All - EnrollmentCE - EnrollmentEE - Enrollment

All - # Courses/ProgramsCE - # Courses/ProgramsEE - # Courses/Programs

All - RevenueCE - RevenueEE - Revenue

All - ProfitabilityCE - ProfitabilityEE - Profitability

More

Same

Less

Number Open Enrollment Days per Year

7%

9%

13%

4%

7%

18%

7%

15%

15%

5%

16%

21%

5%

21%

26%

11%

10%

7%

10%

7%

13%

17%

13%

13%

10%

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60%

Don’t Know

None

1-20 Days

21-30 Days

31-50 Days

51-80 Days

81-110 Days

111-190 Days

191-300 Days

301-400 Days % ALLResponses

Cont EdResponses

Exec EdResponses

22% 11%

28%

57% 32%

77%

53% 26%

71%

41% 19%

54%

61% 71%

59%

32% 46%

18%

29% 44%

21%

52% 73%

38%

17% 18%

13%

11% 21%

5%

19% 30%

8%

7% 8% 8%

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% 120%

All - Decision CycleCE - Decision CycleEE - Decision Cycle

All - # Courses/ProgramsCE - # Courses/ProgramsEE - # Courses/Programs

All - RevenueCE - RevenueEE - Revenue

All - ProfitabilityCE - ProfitabilityEE - Profitability

More

Same

Less

Exec Ed. does more Custom/Contract Programs

Number of Custom Days per Year

6%

8%

12%

8%

18%

6%

20%

16%

4%

0%

16%

5%

11%

21%

16%

16%

11%

5%

10%

3%

16%

3%

19%

6%

19%

19%

3%

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70%

Don’t Know

None

1- 20 Days

21-30 Days

31-50 Days

51-80 Days

81-110 Days

111-190 Days

191-300 Days

% ALLResponses

Cont EdResponses

Exec EdResponses

About the Faculty Bench…

27%

45%

5% 5%

9% 9%

Instructors per Year

<2020-4041-6051-8081-199200 +

72% anticipate employing

40 or less instructors

this FY

31%

21%

48%

TenuredFacultyAdjunctFacultySMEs orConsultants

Faculty Pool

69% are Non-Tenured,

Adjunct or SMEs

0% 20% 40% 60% 80%

< $100

$100 - $149

$150 - $199

$200 - $299

$300 - $399

$400+

Don't Know/NA

3%

10%

20%

22%

19%

14%

12%

6%

11%

28%

25%

15%

8%

8%

9%

16%

26%

19%

18%

6%

6%

Tenured Faculty Non-Tenured/Adjunct Practitioners/Consultants

How much do we Pay Faculty?

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70%

< $100

$100 - $149

$150 - $199

$200 - $299

$300 - $399

$400+

Don't Know/NA

8%

20%

16%

24%

4%

4%

24%

12%

20%

32%

16%

4%

16%

15%

30%

22%

18%

4%

11%


What does Continuing Education Pay Faculty?

What does Executive Education Pay Faculty?

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

<$100

$100 - $149

$150 - $199

$200 - $299

$300 - $399

$400+

Don't Know/NA

4%

20%

20%

32%

20%

4%

5%

22%

31%

25%

14%

3%

3%

5%

28%

19%

31%

11%

3%


What is in your Program Portfolio? Non Credit Programs Offered Response

Rate

Leadership and Management 97%

Business 83%

Communications 67%

Project Management 63%

Finance and Accounting 63%

Business Process / Analysis 60%

Human Resources 57%

Information Technology 33%

Do you have the right Program Mix?

24%

3% 5%

15% 20%

7% 1% 5%

20%

3% 7% 5% 7% 7% 9% 7% 7%

48%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100% Representedin Portfolio

MostSuccessful

LeastSuccessful

67% 57%

83%

63% 60%

63%

97%

33%

OTHER: Open Courses = Depends on format Custom Courses = Depends on customization level, relationship, and client meetings Online Courses = Don’t offer online courses

Course Development Compensation

How much do you pay for Course Development?

Daily Rate $1,500 $2,000Hourly Rate $15 $150Flat Fee per Course $350 $3,500

Daily Rate $750 $2,400Hourly Rate $50 $300Flat Fee per Course $350 $3,500

Daily Rate $750 $2,000Hourly Rate $75 $500Flat Fee per Course $1,000 $3,500

Online

Course Development Ranges

Custom

Open

Who Owns the Intellectual Property?

16%

45% 1%

7%

8%

17%

IP Ownership

Centers IP

Instructors IP

Centers IP (faculty right ofrefusal)Shared IP - limited license

Shared IP - unlimited license

Depends on Program

45% responded INSTRUCTORS owned IP

REVENUE Martina

48

Business Performance in Most Recent FY

49

0%

9%

20%

40%

31%

0% 20% 40% 60%

Declinedsignificantly

Declined somewhat

Flat

Grew somewhat

Grew significantly

71%

Business Performance in Most Recent FY (CE vs EE)

50

0%

10%

31%

41%

17%

0%

10%

15%

40%

35%

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50%

Declined significantly

Declined somewhat

Flat

Grew somewhat

Grew significantly

EE CE

EE: 75%

CE: 58%

Contributing Factors to Business Performance

Growing (71%) Added sales staff Better marketing expertise Focused marketing and

communication efforts paid off New leadership/reorganization New course offerings Efficient operations Strong continuing relationships Strong program quality Economy improving

Flat or somewhat Declining (29%) Economy slow recovery Cyclical nature of business Increase in competition Lack in sales expertise End of large contracts Unstable political climate Govt or military contracts

impacted by sequestration

51

Most survey respondents between 1-3 Million

52

0%5%

10%15%20%25%30%35%40%

23%

11%

40%

14%

5% 7%

Comparison with previous years

Average $ 3,560,200

Mode $ 300,000

Minimum $ 100,000

Maximum $ 65,000,000

Std. Dev $ 8,059,200

Distribution of Total Gross Revenue in Most Recent FY

Percentages by Center Type

54

13%

25% 25%

0%

25%

13%

27%

14%

32%

16%

2%

9%

24%

3%

50%

15%

3% 6%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%Other 8 EE 44 CE 34

Gross Revenue per FTEs 2014

56

$132,751

$216,667 $280,437 $302,189

$432,943 $468,208

3.3 8.1 16 20 40 FTES 2.8

Number of Full Time Equivalents (FTEs)

60

Under 1 Million Dollars 1 to 3 Million Dollars

$23,000,000

$65,000,000

$0

$10,000,000

$20,000,000

$30,000,000

$40,000,000

$50,000,000

$60,000,000

$70,000,000

0 10 20 30 40 50 60

$700,000

$800,000

$0

$100,000

$200,000

$300,000

$400,000

$500,000

$600,000

$700,000

$800,000

$900,000

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

$1,000,000

$4,544,908 $5,000,000

$0

$1,000,000

$2,000,000

$3,000,000

$4,000,000

$5,000,000

$6,000,000

0 10 20 30 40

Gross Revenue per Size of Metropolitan Area

61

$1,639,444

$3,211,786

$1,351,875

$3,085,714

$8,200,602

Under 100,000 people

Between 100,000 and 500,000people

Between 500,000 and onemillion people

Between 1 to 2.5 million people

Over 2.5 million people

Percentage of Gross Revenue from Face-to-Face, Online or Blended Programs

63

[CATEGORY NAME], [VALUE]

Online, 12%

Blended programs,

10%

Percentage of Gross Revenue from Face-to-Face, Online or Blended Programs

Executive Education

64

Continuing Education

Face-to-

Face, 81%

Online, 14%

Blended, 10%

Face-to-

face, 87%

Online, 10%

Blended

programs, 10%

Percentage of Gross Revenue from Open Enrollment, Contract or Conferences

65

Open enrollment, 55% Contract

training, 41%

Conferences/events/other,

10%

Percentage of Gross Revenue from Open Enrollment, Contract or Conferences

Executive Education

66


Open enrollment, 69%

Contract

training,

26%

Conferences/events/other, 12%

Open enrollment, 47%

Contract

training,

50%

Conferences/events/other, 6%

Percentage of Gross Revenue from Credit vs. Non Credit-Bearing Programs

67

Credit-bearing

programs., 19%

Non-credit

bearing programs.

, 89%

Other sources,

2%

2014 19/84

2013 33/74

2012 20/80

Percentage of Gross Revenue from Credit vs Non Credit-Bearing Programs

Executive Education

68

Continuing Education Credit-bearing progra

ms., 28%

Non-credit

bearing progra

ms., 86%

Other sources,

1%

Credit-bearing progra

ms, 15%

Non-credit

bearing progra

ms, 91%

Other sources

, 0%

Percentage of Gross Revenue from New and Existing Customers

69



2014 42/58 2013 43/58 2012 42/56

Percentage of Gross Revenue from New and Existing Customers

Executive Education

70


New custom

ers., 46%

Returning

customers., 54%

New custom

ers., 39%

Returning

customers., 62%

Percentage of Gross Revenue By Participants’ Nationality

71

INTERNATIONAL AUDIENCES

NATIONAL AUDIENCES

LOCAL/REGIONAL AUDIENCES

10% 21%

78%

Percentage of Gross Revenue By Participants’ Nationality

Executive Education

72


International

audiences., 9%

National audiences., 15%

[CATEGORY

NAME], [VALUE

]

International

audiences., 12%

National audiences., 24%

[CATEGORY

NAME], [VALUE

]

73

Questions? Comments?

We are happy to help you!

Documents

CMED 2013 Benchmarking & Industry Trends Survey