NYCOM Visibility Project

March 2, 2011

The Context for the Conversation• Raising the visibility of the osteopathic

medical school in the context of NYIT will benefit the whole and each of its parts

• Branding NYIT and NYCOM separately is expensive and counterproductive

• We need to find a way to develop NYCOM as a highly visible sub-brand of NYIT

The Committee• Why improve visibility?”• Define audiences• Develop, administer, analyze survey • Brainstorm visibility initiatives• Evaluate initiatives in view of the survey

results • Set priorities for action

From the committee

Improving visibility would improve…

• Student and faculty quality• Donations• Pride• Prestige• Research support

“Visibility” is not the whole story

• “Pride” is critical (students, alumni, faculty), as is

• “Reputation” (external audiences)

Survey Research

Goals

• Determine baseline awareness, image, and perception of NYCOM in the context of NYIT

• Establish key potential messages that reflect audience interests and institutional strengths

Key constituencies for the survey

• Current students• Alumni• Faculty (Old Westbury)• Faculty (Clinical)• Faculty (who are alumni as a sub-category)

Survey Samplen= 1,011

Number Response Rate

Current Students 430 37%

Alumni 469 20%

Faculty (alumni) 45 n/a

Faculty (clinical) 29 8%

Faculty (Old Westbury) 38 63%

Survey results

NYCOM’s Reputation

• What is your overall opinion of NYCOM today?

• Would you recommend NYCOM to a friend or relative considering osteopathic medicine?

• Looking back, how would you rate your decision to attend (work at) NYCOM?

NYCOM Overall

“Good/Very Good”

Recommend to friend/relative

Good decision/place to work

Current Students 64% 90% 84%

Alumni 59% 89% 78%

Faculty (alumni) 71% 93% 98%/94%

Faculty (clinical) 83% 100% 85%

Faculty (OW) 92% 61% 92%

Observations

• Perceptions of NYCOM are generally favorable

• “Recommend” and “good decision” scores are very high

Elements in Medical School’s Reputation• Student quality• Name recognition• Cutting-edge• Pride• Accomplishments of graduates• Innovative curriculum• Residencies at best hospitals• Research/ other newsworthy output

NYCOM’s Reputational Strengths

• Use of technology in teaching and learning

• Attractive Long Island location

• Clinical experiences and residency placements

NYCOM’s Reputational Weaknesses

• Cost

• Availability of scholarships

• Large classes

NYCOM in the context of NYIT

Respondents feel separate from NYIT

“I know NYCOM is part of NYIT but we function almost completely independently.

We might as well be separate.”

There is a vocal, resentful minority

“NYCOM is too much under NYIT’s thumb.”

But NYIT is better known in the wider community and some make use of the

association

“Nobody knows what you are talking about when you say NYCOM…I just say I go to

medical school at NYIT.”

Committee Conclusions

We must build visibility and reputation to deal with high cost

• Students can’t keep paying higher tuition and NYCOM’s cost is its biggest weakness

• Visibility, pride, and reputation can help support establishment of new revenue sources

The high opinion about technology is an opportunity

• How can we make use of it?

Education isn’t sexy

• Medical school visibility is ordinarily linked to its hospital affiliation

• Can the high opinion of NYCOM’s clinical experiences and residencies work in a similar fashion?

• Are these things enough to build a reputation?

What about the name?

Many constituents are neutral or negative about the name “NYCOM”• Of total respondents, those who are positive

are fewer but have stronger feelings (*p<.05)

Attitude towards the name “NYCOM”

Positive Neutral Negative

Current Students 56% 35% 8%

Alumni 48% 43% 9%

Faculty (alumni) 62% 38% 0%

Faculty (clinical) 48% 48% 3%

Faculty (OW) 68% 32% 0%

More than half of students and alumni are pro or neutral about a change (*p<.01)

• Campus-based faculty are most opposedAttitude toward

name change

In favor Neutral Opposed

Current Students 16% 37% 47%

Alumni 16% 47% 37%

Faculty (alumni) 0% 44% 56%

Faculty (clinical) 7% 72% 21%

Faculty (OW) 8% 35% 57%

The committee’s view

• Building quality and reputation are critical and are the most important things.

• If the name is going to change, just go ahead and do it.

• A name change should be part of something bigger that will build the visibility and reputation of the school

The consultant’s view• There is much support for a more organized

and effective brand strategy • Care must be taken to develop a brand

architecture that aligns the NYIT super brand and the NYCOM sub-brand

• This architecture must also include a graphic identity that clearly establishes the relationship between NYIT and NYCOM

Next Steps