REPUTATION MANAGEMENT - theworld100.com · of reputation management, and insufficient people. They don’t appear to suffer the problem of academics who don’t want to engage with

The World 100 Reputation Network MANAGING THE REPUTATIONS OF THE WORLD’S LEADING UNIVERSITIES

www.theworld100.com

[email protected]

Louise Simpson, Director Lisa Bould, Research Manager

[email protected] [email protected]

REPUTATION MANAGEMENT

Priorities, structures and resources in world-class universities

Benchmarking Report for University of Helsinki

Directors of Communications and Marketing

Research Project for W100 Membership Year 2014/15

March 2016

http://www.theworld100.com/

mailto:[email protected]



2014/15 Research Project | www.theworld100.com

Reputation Management. Priorities, structure and resources in world-class universities

Benchmarking Report – University of Helsinki


1

TABLE OF CONTENTS

SUMMARY: HOW HELSINKI DIFFERED… ..................................................................................................... 2

RESPONSIBILITIES .......................................................................................................................................... 4

STRUCTURES AND STRATEGIES ................................................................................................................ 16

BUDGETS AND FINANCE .............................................................................................................................. 21

STAKEHOLDERS ............................................................................................................................................ 25

RANKINGS AND BENCHMARKING .............................................................................................................. 27

REPUTATION .................................................................................................................................................. 31

ABOUT THE WORLD 100 REPUTATION NETWORK .................................................................................. 33

IN THIS REPORT

The following pages detail how the responses from the lead communicator at University of Helsinki, the

Director of Communications, varied from the overall sample of world-class universities.

Benchmarking is provided for closed questions of the survey only.

The overall sample was made up of 47 respondents from 16 countries.





2

SUMMARY: HOW HELSINKI DIFFERED…

Here we note how Helsinki differs from the majority responses from other world-class universities.

The Director of Communications at Helsinki contributes to admissions, but the lead is elsewhere.

The majority of directors have ‘very little input’ (57%) into admissions, so less than the director at

Helsinki.

The Director of Communications at Helsinki has overall responsibility for alumni relations like just

24% of directors. Most contribute but don’t lead this area.

The Director of Communications at Helsinki contributes to public affairs and government

relations, as per 43% of directors. A larger group have overall responsibility.

The Director of Communications at Helsinki has overall responsibility for fundraising, which is

similar to a fifth of universities. Just under half contribute more fully although the lead responsibility is

elsewhere.

Team size. Helsinki’s central communications team is just over average at 42, compared with the

overall average of 39 for the global universities. The largest reported is 130, and the smallest just 4.

Entire size of communications, marketing and reputation staff across the university. Helsinki

has more than the average number of total communicators outside central communications, across

the university, with 100, compared to the average of 68 across the entire sample. The largest

number is 300.

As per a slight minority of universities, 41%, Helsinki has a communications strategy. The

majority, 59%, have plans rather than a single strategy.

Reputational priorities. All of the 15 areas were identified as priorities for Helsinki, which was

unusual. Most universities chose between 5 and 12 of the priorities, rather than all 15. This might

suggest the Director is handling many areas, with sufficient staff to cope, or is quite stretched.

Structure. Marketing and Communications are separate offices under one director at Helsinki, like a

quarter of universities. However, a slightly more common structure (31%, the modal response) was

for marketing to be part of communications.

Institutional turnover. Helsinki’s income at 650 million euros was slightly below the average for the

universities, which is 950 million euros, and much lower than the highest, which approaches 6 billion

euros.

Director’s salary. The salary of the director was much lower than other directors.

Total communications and marketing budget: The total budget at 3 million euros was lower than

the average for other global universities, closer to 4 million euros. It was much less than the highest

reported, which was over 13 million euros.





3

The operational budget at Helsinki was lower at 900,000 euros, than the average of 1.3 million

euros.

Staff salaries. The staff budget was slightly lower than the average budget for salaries.

Salary v Operational. Helsinki’s budget split at 70% salaries and 30% operational puts slightly more

weight on pay than delivery than other universities that put two thirds into salaries and one third into

operational on average. This perhaps reflecting the high living costs of Finland and/or larger in-

house teams?

Stakeholders. Helsinki’s most important stakeholder group on an international basis is the same as

other world-class universities - i.e. academics in other universities, alumni and own students. But

they don’t prioritise journalists and business leaders as much as others do, placing professional

bodies and own staff slightly higher than some. Domestically Helsinki agreed with the other

universities about the top most important stakeholder group – alumni. It also prioritized journalists

and own staff, as did most directors. It didn’t agree with the importance of own students however,

which made it into the top five for most universities. Instead Helsinki prioritizes professional bodies

and public servants higher than most, where only 15% put these in their top 5 domestic audiences.

Rankings. Helsinki explains its rankings if asked, which is in line with a third of universities. A larger

proportion actively promote their position.

Evaluation. Helsinki obtains media coverage, social media activity, web metrics and runs audience

awareness audits, like most of the universities, so appears to be very active in terms of evaluation. It

doesn’t analyse student application quality or conversion data, which were important monitoring

activities for about half of peers.

Reputational measures. Three of the top five reputational factors for Helsinki were in the top 5 for

other global universities: academic research, rankings and quality of programmes. They didn’t value

quality Nobel Prizes, cultural contribution, or alumni achievements as much as others. External

awards and student satisfaction were more important reputational assets to Helsinki compared with

others.

Barriers to reputational progress. Helsinki felt three of the listed challenges to reputation were

barriers, and these were in the top four for other directors – insufficient budget, lack of understanding

of reputation management, and insufficient people. They don’t appear to suffer the problem of

academics who don’t want to engage with the media or public, which was a problem for 41% of the

directors.





4

RESPONSIBILITIES

BACKGROUND OF THE LEAD COMMUNICATOR

Q: Are you: (tick all that apply)

The Director of Communications at Helsinki is amongst the majority of directors with a PR background.





5

COMMUNICATIONS AND MARKETING REMIT

Q: As the lead manager for the University’s communications, which of these activities do

you have responsibility for?

The Director of Communications at Helsinki has overall responsibility for social media management. This

is in line with almost all of the universities.

Along with a third of universities, The Director at Helsinki has contributes to undergraduate recruitment

with the lead responsibility being elsewhere, as per the majority of directors.





6

The Director of Communications at Helsinki contributes to postgraduate recruitment but the lead is

elsewhere, as per 38% of directors.

The Director of Communications at Helsinki contributes to international recruitment. This is also true for

around 45% of the universities, the majority of directors.





7

The Director of Communications at Helsinki contributes to admissions, but the lead is elsewhere. The

majority of directors have ‘very little input’ (57%) into admissions, so less than the director at Helsinki.

The Director of Communications at Helsinki is in the 66% who contribute to corporate strategy, but the

lead is elsewhere.





8

The Director of Communications at Helsinki contributes to international strategy but the lead responsibility

is elsewhere. This is in line with more than three quarters of the universities.

The Director of Communications at Helsinki contributes to international relations and partnerships but

the lead responsibility is elsewhere. This is in line with almost two thirds of the universities.





9

The Director of Communications at Helsinki has overall responsibility for brand identity. This is evident in

almost all of the universities.

The Director of Communications at Helsinki contributes to engaging with students’ parents and families

but the lead is elsewhere. This is also true for nearly half (47%) of directors.





10

The Director of Communications at Helsinki has overall responsibility for public engagement. This is in line

with 61% of the universities.

The Director of Communications at Helsinki, like half of universities, contributes to communications with

graduate employers but the lead is elsewhere.





11

The Director of Communications at Helsinki has overall responsibility for alumni relations like just 24% of

directors. Most contribute but don’t lead this area.

The Director of Communications at Helsinki leads community relations as do about a half of the directors

of communications.





12

The Director of Communications at Helsinki contributes to public affairs and government relations, as

per 43% of directors. A larger group have overall responsibility.

The Director of Communications at Helsinki leads international media relations, as per the greater

proportion (64%) have overall responsibility for this area.





13

The Director of Communications at Helsinki has overall responsibility for domestic media relations. This is

also true in over 80% of the universities.

The Director of Communications at Helsinki has overall responsibility for marketing, as do 70% of the other

world-class university directors.





14

The Director of Communications at Helsinki has overall responsibility for website content. This is in line

with 83% of the universities.

The Director of Communications at Helsinki has overall responsibility for events as do half of directors.





15

The Director of Communications at Helsinki has overall responsibility for internal communications. This is

in line with just over three quarters of the universities.

The Director of Communications at Helsinki has overall responsibility for fundraising, which is similar to a

fifth of universities. Just under half contribute more fully although the lead responsibility is elsewhere.





16

STRUCTURES AND STRATEGIES

TEAM SIZE

Q: How large is your main central communications department? Please include all staff with

a communications, PR or marketing related role.

Helsinki’s central communications team is just over average at 42, compared with the overall average of 39

for the global universities. The largest reported is 130, and the smallest just 4.

Q: How many other staff do you estimate have a communications, PR or marketing role?

Please include all staff working in academic departments or other administrative areas.

Helsinki has more than the average number of total communicators outside central communications, across

the university, with 100, compared to the average of 68 across the entire sample. The largest number is

300.





17

SENIORITY OF COMMUNICATIONS

Q: Where is Communications / PR / External relations located within your university’s

management structure?

Universities were split as to whether Directors of Communications are part of, or report to, the senior

management team. Helsinki was amongst 51% of universities that reports to SMT.





18

STRATEGIC PLANNING FOR COMMUNICATIONS

Q: Does your university have a strategic plan for communications?

As per a slight minority of universities, 41%, Helsinki has a communications strategy. The majority, 59%,

have plans rather than a single strategy.

Q: Is there a clear relationship between the strategy for the University as a whole and the

communications strategy?

Helsinki University’s wider strategy and communications strategies have a clear link. This is in line with 70%

of the universities.





19

COMMUNICATIONS PRIORITIES

Q: What are currently your top communications priorities regarding communications at

your university? Please tick all the options that apply to you.

All of the 15 areas were identified as priorities for Helsinki, which was unusual. Most universities chose

between 5 and 12 of the priorities, rather than all 15. This might suggest the Director is both senior and also

quite stretched across multiple priorities.





20

RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN COMMUNICATIONS AND MARKETING

Q: Which best describes the relationship between communications and marketing in your

university?

Marketing and Communications are separate offices under one director at Helsinki, like a quarter of

universities. However, a slightly more common structure (31%, the modal response) was for marketing to be

part of communications.





21

BUDGETS AND FINANCE

IMPORTANCE AND RESOURCING OF COMMUNICATIONS

Q: Which best describes how important and well-resourced communications is in your

university?

The Director of Communications at Helsinki felt that communications is considered to be a very important

function of the University and well resourced. This is in line with 50% of universities.

FINANCES

All reported figures have been converted to euros for comparability and to retain anonymity of respondents.

Q: What is the total annual income of your University from all sources?

Helsinki’s income at 650 million euros was slightly below the average for the universities, which is 950

million euros, and much lower than the highest, which approaches 6 billion euros.





22

Q: What is the salary of the lead/senior communications professional?

The salary of the director was much lower than other directors.

Q: What is the annual budget for university communications/marketing?

A) Total Budget

The total budget at 3 million euros was lower than the average for other global universities, closer to 4

million euros. It was much less than the highest reported, which was over 13 million euros.





23

B) Operational Budget

The operational budget was lower at 900,000 euros, rather than the average of 1.3 million euros.

C) Staff Salary Budget

The staff budget was slightly lower than the average budget for salaries.





24

D) Operational vs Salary Proportional Split

Salary v Operational. Helsinki’s budget split at 70% salaries and 30% operational puts slightly more

weight on pay than delivery than other universities that put two thirds into salaries and one third into

operational on average. This perhaps reflecting the high living costs of Finland and/or larger in-house

teams?





25

STAKEHOLDERS

Q: In terms of developing your university’s overall reputation, which of these stakeholder

groups do you think have the most influential opinions? Tick 5 most important influences

on public opinion in your home country and 5 most important on an international basis.

Helsinki’s most important stakeholder group on an international basis is the same as other world-class

universities - i.e. academics in other universities, alumni and own students. . But they don’t prioritise

journalists and business leaders as much as others do, placing professional bodies and own staff slightly

higher than some.





26

Domestically Helsinki agreed with the other universities about the top most important stakeholder group –

alumni. It also prioritized journalists and own staff, as did most directors. It didn’t agree with the importance

of own students however, which made it into the top five for most universities. Instead Helsinki prioritizes

professional bodies and public servants higher than most, where only 15% put these in their top 5 domestic

audiences.





27

RANKINGS AND BENCHMARKING

GLOBAL RANKINGS

Q: There is a number of university rankings available to prospective students worldwide.

Leaving aside the debate about their methodologies, does your university promote its

position in university ranking tables or a rise in its ranking as a means of gaining a

reputation advantage?

Helsinki explains its rankings if asked, which is in line with a third of universities. A larger proportion actively

promote their position.





28

MEDIA BENCHMARKING

Q: Do you compare the amount and quality of media coverage achieved for your University

with that of rival peer institutions?

Helsinki undertakes local and domestic benchmarking but not international, like half of the respondent

universities.





29

EVALUATING OR BENCHMARKING COMMUNICATIONS

Q: Do you currently evaluate or benchmark your communications using the following

methods? Please tick all that apply

Helsinki obtains media coverage, social media activity, web metrics and runs audience awareness audits,

like most of the universities, so appears to be very active in terms of evaluation. It doesn’t analyse student

application quality or conversion data, which were important monitoring activities for about half of peers.





30

SECONDARY WEBSITES

Q: Which secondary websites do you think are of the most importance for your university?

Please tick all that apply.

Helsinki valued all the websites we nominated.





31

REPUTATION

CHARACTERISTICS FOR REPUTATION

Q: A good reputation is often regarded as the most important asset of a university. Which of

the characteristics do you think are the most important for a university's reputation? Please

select five characteristics from the list.

Three of the top five reputational factors for Helsinki were in the top 5 for other global universities: academic

research, rankings and quality of programmes. They didn’t value quality Nobel Prizes, cultural contribution,

or alumni achievements as much as others. External awards and student satisfaction were more important

reputational assets to Helsinki compared with others.





32

REPUTATIONAL BARRIERS

Q: What are the biggest challenges you face in terms of enhancing your university's

reputation? Please tick all that apply

Helsinki felt three of the listed challenges to reputation were barriers, and these were in the top four for

other directors – insufficient budget, lack of understanding of reputation management, and insufficient

people. They don’t appear to suffer the problem of academics who don’t want to engage with the media or

public, which was a problem for 41% of the directors.





33

ABOUT THE WORLD 100 REPUTATION NETWORK

THE NETWORK

The World 100 Reputation Network is a group of the world’s most prestigious universities undertaking

research that enhances reputation management, international relations and strategy.

The Network connects senior directors responsible for reputation in world-class institutions. It is the only

professional network for directors of communications, marketing and international. Although global in

outlook the Network offers members the opportunity to become part of ‘local’ community existing to share

good practice, transfer knowledge and overcome common challenges.

Membership is exclusive to universities ranked in the top 200 of the THE, QS SJT and US News rankings in

the last three years. Now comprising 47 members from all continents, we believe that our international

diversity is one of the reasons members find the Network so valuable.

ANNUAL RESEARCH

Each year the Network undertakes at least one major topical piece of research. To date we have covered

the following topics:

Website best practice for world-class universities

Structures, strategies and resources for reputational advancement

Rise and Fall: Managing reputation associated with significant world ranking change

Internal communications and staff engagement in world-class universities

How international PhD students choose top universities and interpret reputation and rankings

Choice factors in international Academic job change

Members of the Network can access reports for the above projects (limited to summaries for Discover

members) online at www.theworld100.com or email [email protected].

UPCOMING RESEARCH…

The annual research project for 2015/16 is The R-Word: Strategies and tactics for communicating research

excellence.

If you have topics of interest that you would like the Network to explore in the future, please contact Lisa

Bould, Research Manager at [email protected].

FIND OUT MORE

Full details of the Network, membership rates and benefits, research projects, events and more can be

found at www.theworld100.com or contact the Network Director, Louise Simpson directly at

[email protected].






Other research by the World 100 Reputation Network

Website best practice for world-class universities

Structures, strategies and resources for reputational advancement

Rise and Fall: Managing reputation associated with significant world ranking change

Internal communications and staff engagement in world-class universities

How international PhD students choose top universities and interpret reputation and rankings

Choice factors in international Academic job change

The World 100 Reputation Network

4 Newmarket Road

Cambridge

CB5 8DT

Documents

REPUTATION MANAGEMENT - theworld100.com · of reputation management, and insufficient people. They don’t appear to suffer the problem of academics who don’t want to engage with