Enrollment Market Analysis for University of Michigan – Flint · Enrollment Market Analysis for...

Enrollment Market Analysis

for University of Michigan – Flint

Setting a Course for the Future

CARNEGIE COMMUNICATIONS, INC. 2 LAN DRIVE, SUITE 100 WESTFORD, MA 01886 PHONE: 978.692.2313

FAX: 978.692.4174 WWW.CARNEGIECOMM.COM

OCTOBER 2000

Carnegie Communications for University of Michigan-Flint i

Executive Summary Carnegie Communications conducted an Enrollment Market Analysis for University of Michigan-Flint that consisted of the following six components: an environmental scan; a competitive analysis; a series of focus groups with current undergraduate, adult, graduate, international students, and faculty; surveys of prospective students, faculty, staff, and alumni; an admissions assessment; and a geodemographic analysis. The objective of the project was to provide background information to support the development of the University’s strategic and tactical enrollment and marketing efforts. Specifically, Carnegie was asked to explore opportunities for recruiting students outside the University’s traditional markets and to study issues related to the addition of campus housing. Based on our research, we have learned that Michigan’s population of high school graduates will continue to grow at a strong rate through the year 2008. However, the next quarter century holds a “dip” in high school graduates similar to that which occurred in the early 1990s. We know that minority populations will increase considerably in Michigan over the next 25 years. We know that Genesee County will grow significantly over the next four years and that over the next eight years the number of high school students will grow substantially in Illinois, Michigan, and Wisconsin, but will decrease in Ohio. We know as well that UM-Flint has much work to do in the critical marketing areas of recruitment publications and the Web site just to match, much less outperform, its competition. What’s more, there is work to be done in order to maximize the use of these communications media. The University presently enrolls an interesting mix of students from all area types except for densely populated urban areas. In addition, an identifiable portion of the students who inquire about UM-Flint are extremely unlikely to enroll, and efforts toward recruiting this group can thus be scaled back considerably. Focus groups and surveys indicate that there is near-unanimous agreement that student housing on campus would be of great benefit to the University. A number of challenges accompany the addition of housing, not the least of which will be adding the required services while keeping the cost affordable for students, who have very clearly identified the price point above which they are unlikely to be interested. But evidence in this report shows that offering housing will markedly increase the appeal of UM-Flint to prospective students and that campus housing must be available if UM-Flint seeks to recruit students from outside the University’s traditional markets. We know too that traditional dormitory housing is not the preferred option, but rather students, staff, and faculty prefer apartment-style dwellings, preferably with kitchen facilities. Key concerns about housing in addition to cost include safety, cleanliness, proximity to campus, and parking. Perceived benefits of on-campus housing include the ability to utilize campus resources, shorter commutes, a greater sense of community, and a more traditional college experience. The environmental scan and surveys of prospective students, faculty, and staff revealed that in the future, some of the key academic fields for UM-Flint will be business, education, health care and nursing. This suggests a great synergy, and that UM-Flint is uniquely poised, if not perhaps completely ready, to capitalize on the future labor needs in and outside of the state of Michigan. Chancellor Mestas has suggested that this report will be the opening of a dialogue on campus. We believe that our research on behalf of UM-Flint will allow this discussion to be data-driven, so that future strategic decisions are based on solid research rather than anecdotes and assumptions. We look forward to participating in the debate to whatever degree deemed appropriate by the University.

Carnegie Communications for University of Michigan-Flint ii

Table of Contents Executive Summary ....................................................................................................................................... i Introduction................................................................................................................................................... 1

About Carnegie ......................................................................................................................................... 2 Chapter One: Environmental Scan................................................................................................................ 3

Introduction............................................................................................................................................... 3 Population ................................................................................................................................................. 3 Economic Factors...................................................................................................................................... 9 Commuter Patterns.................................................................................................................................. 14 Education ................................................................................................................................................ 14 Conclusion .............................................................................................................................................. 17

Chapter Two: Competitive Analysis........................................................................................................... 19 Introduction............................................................................................................................................. 19 Basic Institutional Characteristics........................................................................................................... 19 Student Body........................................................................................................................................... 21 Tuition, Fees, and Financial Aid............................................................................................................. 23 Admissions Marketing Programs............................................................................................................ 24 Web site .................................................................................................................................................. 27 Distance Learning Programs................................................................................................................... 32 Academic Programs ................................................................................................................................ 32 Conclusion .............................................................................................................................................. 33

Chapter Three: Focus Groups ..................................................................................................................... 35 Introduction............................................................................................................................................. 35 Focus Groups with Undergraduate Students 13 April 2000 ................................................................... 35 Focus Groups with Other Students 17 May 2000 ................................................................................... 36

Chapter Four: Faculty/Staff/Alumni Surveys ............................................................................................. 37 Introduction............................................................................................................................................. 37 Faculty Survey Methodology.................................................................................................................. 37 Staff Survey Methodology ...................................................................................................................... 38 Alumni Survey Methodology.................................................................................................................. 40 Research Findings................................................................................................................................... 41 Findings for Questions Asked on All Surveys........................................................................................ 41 Faculty Survey Research Findings.......................................................................................................... 55 Staff Survey Research Findings.............................................................................................................. 57 Alumni Research Findings...................................................................................................................... 60 Conclusion .............................................................................................................................................. 61

Chapter Five: Prospective Student Survey.................................................................................................. 63 Introduction............................................................................................................................................. 63 Inquiry Survey Research Findings.......................................................................................................... 64 Inquiry Survey Research Findings.......................................................................................................... 65 Conclusion .............................................................................................................................................. 79

Chapter Six: Admissions Assessment......................................................................................................... 81 Introduction............................................................................................................................................. 81 History .................................................................................................................................................... 82 Grading, Qualifying, and Working with Inquiries .................................................................................. 82 Expanding the Admissions Publications Program .................................................................................. 84 Using the Recruitment Season Effectively ............................................................................................. 87 Using E-Mail Effectively ........................................................................................................................ 88 Working with Special Constituencies ..................................................................................................... 88

Carnegie Communications for University of Michigan-Flint iii

Managing Enrollment Challenges........................................................................................................... 90 Conclusion .............................................................................................................................................. 90

Chapter Seven: Geodemographic Research................................................................................................ 93 Introduction............................................................................................................................................. 93 Research Findings................................................................................................................................... 95 Conclusion ............................................................................................................................................ 115

Chapter Eight: Conclusions ...................................................................................................................... 120 Housing................................................................................................................................................. 120 Academic Programs .............................................................................................................................. 120 Marketing Efforts.................................................................................................................................. 121 Enrollment Efforts ................................................................................................................................ 122 Final Commentary ................................................................................................................................ 123

Appendix A: Competitive Review of Academic Programs ..................................................................... 125 Appendix B: Faculty Survey..................................................................................................................... 135 Appendix C: Staff Survey Instrument...................................................................................................... 138 Appendix D: Alumni Survey Instrument .................................................................................................. 141 Appendix E: Prospective Student Survey Instrument............................................................................... 143 Appendix F: Cluster Descriptions............................................................................................................. 147 Appendix G: Target Group Characteristics .............................................................................................. 164 Appendix H: Market Profiles.................................................................................................................... 192

Carnegie Communications for University of Michigan-Flint 1

Introduction In March 2000, the University of Michigan-Flint contracted with Carnegie Communications, Inc. to conduct a full-scale Enrollment Market Analysis. This comprehensive project included six unique, yet integrated, components:

1. Environmental Scan—to identify trends in the University’s local and regional markets 2. Competitive Analysis—to compare the University’s strengths and weaknesses against those

of competing institutions 3. Focus Groups—to gather qualitative data about how UM-Flint is perceived by a variety of

important constituents, focusing on academics, campus life, majors, and interest in student housing

4. Surveys—to delve more deeply into and to quantify the issues explored through the focus groups

5. Admissions Assessment—to identify opportunities to increase efficiency and effectiveness in the admissions office

6. Geodemographic Analysis—to identify areas to target in future recruiting efforts as the University seeks to increase the geographic diversity of the student body

Individually, each of these components tells a portion of the UM-Flint story. But as is often the case, we believe the whole is greater than the sum of its parts. The overriding goal of the Enrollment Market Analysis, as noted in the RFP for the project, is to “investigate the potential of attracting out-of-region and foreign students to the University and to determine the impact housing will have on student enrollment.” These objectives provided the framework for the study. Thus, each of the research components listed above was designed to contribute to our ability to better understand the University’s recruitment potential and the impact of housing. Dr. Scott H. Levine is the chief architect of the Carnegie project and the primary author of this final report. The signing of the contract for the project coincided with the former Vice Chancellor for Administration’s unexpected departure. Thus, Dr. Virginia Allen was appointed as Carnegie’s key contact person. After we had been working with Dr. Allen for some months, she took a medical leave of absence and our contact person changed to Dr. Tom Wrobel. Dr. Wrobel has been our chief liaison throughout the last several months of the project. Carnegie conducted focus groups on campus during April and May. Dr. Jeffrey Papa spent two full days on campus in May reviewing operations in the admissions office. While the rest of our work has been conducted from our offices in Atlanta, GA, Richmond, VA, Westford, MA, and New York, NY, we have been in contact with the University throughout the process. We are delighted with this project, and we hope that the results will help answer the questions raised by Dr. Mestas in his Inaugural Address last April, wherein he stated:

“We have commissioned a study that will help us determine what is our capacity for enrollment growth, where potential new students would come from, what programs we could offer to attract them, and what role student housing should play in our institutional future.”

One of the great conundrums of research is that even at its best, quality research typically raises as many questions as it answers. The Enrollment Market Analysis has answered many questions (yes, the University can grow by carefully targeting and segmenting its recruitment efforts; yes, programs such as nursing, health care, education and business appeal to prospective students; yes, student housing will be a


powerful lure to attract more students who might not otherwise consider UM-Flint). And yet, many questions remain:

• How will the University incorporate these findings into its strategic plans? • Will the University appropriate the resources to hire more admissions counselors, pay for

admissions travel, produce higher quality recruitment publications, build housing, etc.? • Will the city of Flint play an active role in making student housing a reality?

While we can’t presume to answer these questions at the present time, we sincerely hope to be an integral part of the dialogue that follows the delivery of this report. About Carnegie Carnegie Communications, Inc. is dedicated entirely to assisting educational institutions and organizations related to higher education. The firm consists of three divisions: magazine, strategic marketing services, and creative services. For 14 years, we have published Private Colleges & Universities, a magazine that contains articles on more than 450 private institutions across the country. Our magazines are sent to just over 1.5 million prospective undergraduate college students each year and generate hundreds of thousands of inquiries for our participating institutions. In 1999, Carnegie published the inaugural edition of American Colleges & Universities, the first magazine of its kind designed to help public and private institutions attract international students. Carnegie’s strategic marketing services division, which conducted this project for UM-Flint, conducts a wide-range of projects designed to help educational institutions explore image-related issues, increase giving, and improve enrollment and retention. We conduct admission assessments and maintain ongoing consulting relationships with clients. In addition, we use a variety of marketing research methodologies including focus groups, survey research, and geodemographics to provide information that guides the development of strategic and tactical marketing plans. Our mission is to help colleges, universities, and education-related organizations and associations establish information-based plans. Thus, we focus on conducting thorough explorations and providing specific recommendations an institution can implement immediately to enhance marketing productivity. Carnegie’s third division, creative services, designs and produces recruitment publications, Web sites, CD-ROMs, and a variety of other recruitment, development, and support materials. Carnegie is composed of 24 full-time professionals whose varied backgrounds bring experience directly from college campuses and the corporate world. We are headquartered in suburban Boston, MA and have satellite offices in New York City; Atlanta, Georgia; Evansville, Indiana; Richmond, Virginia; and Kansas City, Missouri.


Chapter One: Environmental Scan Introduction We begin our Enrollment Market Analysis for UM-Flint with an environmental scan that provides external data on population, demographics, and future trends—all of which must be considered in planning for the University’s future. While we can learn a lot from studying the University’s own internal data (for example, through geodemography) and its internal constituencies (focus group and survey research with faculty, staff, alumni, and students), a study of the University’s external environment provides context for analyzing and evaluating the findings of this internal research. The information that follows resulted from researching numerous sources for data about Genesee County, surrounding counties, the state of Michigan, and the upper Midwestern portion of the United States. Population Among the 50 states and the District of Columbia, Michigan is ranked as the eighth most populous, with an estimated year 2000 population of 9.68 million people (Figure 1.1). Although Michigan will lose some of its population through interstate migration, the state’s population is nevertheless projected to increase 5.5% between 1995 and 2025 to 10.08 million. This increase will result from a combination of factors: a birth rate that outpaces the death rate, and a small gain through international immigration. (“Current Population Reports: Population Projections,” U.S. Bureau of the Census May 1997).

Michigan Population Projections 2000 to 2025Source: U.S. Bureau of the Census, Population Division, PPL #47

9,679 9,763 9,836 9,917 10,002 10,078

0

1000

2000

3000

4000

5000

6000

7000

8000

9000

10000

11000

2000 2005 2010 2015 2020 2025

Popu

latio

n in

thou

sand

s

Figure 1.1

Figure 1.2 illustrates the population changes by county from 1999 to 2004. Genesee, Lapeer, Livingston, and Oakland counties all anticipate population increases. Though some of these gains will be minimal, this growth—if sustained—could theoretically increase the pool of potential students for UM-Flint. While this growth may not necessarily affect interest in campus housing, it should nevertheless be considered when strategically mapping out the University’s future.

Michigan’s population will increase to 10.08 million by 2025

from 9.68 million in 2000.


1999 & 2004 Population Projections by CountySource: 1999 Census Projections, Claritas,

436,032

89,359149,085

58,36472,649

209,394

1,182,211

440,993

96,442164,265

59,27073,030

209,098

1,221,901

0

250,000

500,000

750,000

1,000,000

1,250,000

Genesee Lapeer Livingston Oakland Sagniaw Shiawassee Tuscola

Popu

latio

n

1999 Actual 2004 Projections Figure 1.2

Figure 1.3 shows the number of households by county in 1999 and the anticipated growth or decline by 2004. Genesee County is expected to see the largest increase in households over the next few years.

1999 Households & 2004 Projections by CountySource: 1999 Census Projections, Claritas, Inc.

51,860

80,454

27,12034,063

171,117

21,540

465,827

30,857

176,924

22,36427,868

82,118

490,380

58,051

0

100,000

200,000

300,000

400,000

500,000


Hou

seho

lds

1999 Actual 2004 Projections

Figure 1.3

The population in Oakland County will increase from 1.18

to 1.22 million by 2004.

Genesee County households will

increase by 3.3% over the next five years.


All states and the District of Columbia are projected to show a decline in the proportion of youth (under 20 years old) in their populations over the next quarter century. The percentage of Michigan’s population classified as “youth” is projected to decrease from 29.1 percent in 1995 to 26.6 percent in 2025 (“Current Population Reports: Population Projections,” U.S. Bureau of the Census May 1997). This suggests that a “dip” in college-bound students, similar to that which occurred in the early 1990s, is on the horizon. While the effect of this dip on transfer students is difficult to gauge, clearly there will be an even greater need to find new markets for traditional undergraduate students in the future. Figure 1.4 illustrates Michigan population projections by age group between 2000 and 2025. The 5-to-17-year-old population in Michigan will decrease 3.5% over the next 25 years; the 18-to-64 populations will increase through 2015 and then begin to decline. As a result, the population increase in Michigan will be driven by adults 65 years of age and older. While the decline in traditional-age students is of some concern, it is not overly significant given the University’s historical emphasis on serving non-traditional students. However, if the University chooses to shift its strategic gears in the future and focus more heavily on traditional students, the aforementioned population decline would indeed be troublesome, and would suggest the need to expand student recruitment beyond Michigan’s borders.

Michigan Population Projections by Age 2000 to 2025Source: U.S. Bureau of the Census, Population Division, PPL #47

668

1827

925

5062

1197

647

1808

942

5155

1211

660

1731

937

5168

1421

656

1763

893

4945

1821

0

1000

2000

3000

4000

5000

6000

Age 0-4 Age 5-17 Age 18-24 Age 25-64 Age 65+

Popu

latio

n in

thou

sand

s

2000 2005 2015 2025

Figure 1.4

Figure 1.5 illustrates the 2004 age population projections by county. The 6-to-17 year-old group is the largest population segment in each county. Figure 1.6 shows the increase or decrease of the population by age group between 1999 and 2004. Genesee, Saginaw, and Tuscola Counties will see marginal declines in the 6-to-17 year-old populations over the next few years. Shiawassee County will see the greatest increase in this same group.


2004 Projected Age Distribution by CountySource: 1999 Census Projections, Claritas, Inc.

0

20,000

40,000

60,000

80,000

100,000

120,000

140,000

160,000

180,000

200,000


Popu

latio

n

Age 6-17 Age 18-24 Age 25-34 Age 35-44 Age 45-54 Age 55-64

Figure 1.5

Change in Age Distribution between 1999 & 2004 ProjectedSource: 1999 Census Projections, Claritas, Inc.

-20,000

-15,000

-10,000

-5,000

0

5,000

10,000

15,000

20,000

25,000

30,000


Popu

latio

n

Age 6-17 Age 18-24 Age 25-34 Age 35-44 Age 45-54 Age 55-64

Figure 1.6

Oakland and Genesee Counties clearly dominate the population in all age ranges.

Shiawasee County will experience the most consistent, and largest, growth in all age

ranges over the next five years.


By 2025, non-Hispanic whites will constitute 75.7 % of Michigan’s population, down from 81.4% in 1995 (U.S. Bureau of the Census, Population Division, PPL #47). All minority groups will make up an increasing portion of Michigan’s population over the next 25 years, with the greatest increase in the African American population. In other words, the racial distribution of Michigan, as in other parts of the U.S., is going to change somewhat radically over the next 25 years. UM-Flint administrators should keep this in mind as strategic plans are made for the future, particularly in regards to outreach efforts, marketing efforts, and even future degree programs.

Michigan Minority Population Projections 2000 to 2025Source: U.S. Bureau of the Census, Population Division, PPL #47

1423

61

163

261

1486

63

190

289

1594

67

240

355

1705

71

290

431

0

200

400

600

800

1000

1200

1400

1600

1800

African American American Indian Asian American Hispanic

Popu

latio

n in

thou

sand

s

2000 2010 2015 2025

Figure 1.7

Figure 1.8 illustrates the 2004 projected minority distribution by county. Oakland, Genesee, and Saginaw Counties have the largest numbers of African Americans; Oakland County has the largest number of Asian and Pacific Islanders. Figure 1.9 shows the increase or decrease of the population by race between 1999 and 2004. Over the next few years Genesee and Saginaw Counties are expected to see a decline in the white population while Lapeer, Livingston, and Oakland will see substantial increases.

All minority populations will grow over the next 25 years. The African

American population alone will grow from 1.4 to 1.7 million.


2004 Projected Minority Distribution by CountySource: 1999 Census Projections, Claritas, Inc.

96,317

940 898

99,998

40,814

223 5234,422

9925,028

616 1,147

48,772

413 307

12,571

31,325

17,638

3,137419 995 3794252,1842,765 1,982 1,7511,511

0

20000

40000

60000

80000

100000

120000

Genesee Lapeer Livingston Oakland Saginaw Shiawassee Tuscola

Popu

latio

n

African American American Indian Asian & Pacific Islander Hispanic

Figure 1.8

Change in Race Distribution between 1999 & 2004 ProjectedSource: 1999 Census Projections, Claritas,

-217

6,753

14,800

23,606

274173 64

7,431

1,33446 1183 5

778126 255

8,570

304

4,187

1,619153 210

855

-1,895

4,443

88

-1

-39-35

31

6235

377

1,367480

-5000

0

5000

10000

15000

20000

25000

30000


Popu

latio

n

White African American American Indian Asian & Pacific Islander Hispanic

Figure 1.9

The African American population is highly concentrated in Genesee, Oakland, and Saginaw

Counties.


Economic Factors The area comprised of Michigan and the contiguous states of Indiana and Ohio is the most heavily industrialized region of the country. Manufacturing has historically been the foundation of this tri-state area economy. The motor vehicle and parts sector, as well as the traditional core industries that support it, may be shrinking, but it nevertheless remains the bedrock of manufacturing in the region. Today’s manufacturing industry is smaller, but more diversified than in the past. Outside of the manufacturing industry, many occupations, particularly those in the service sector (health care industry, accountants, attorneys, economists, engineers, and many other high-skilled jobs), are on the rise and offer relatively high pay. It is important to note that most of these service-sector occupations require a considerable amount of education and/or formal training. This trend is apparent across the country. In the future, most high-paying occupations will demand even more training and education than they do today. As a result, an even greater emphasis on individual education and worker training will be the key to sustaining the tri-state area’s economic well-being. (“Economic Overview of the Great Lakes Region: Indiana, Michigan, and Ohio,” Great Lakes Trade Adjustment Assistance Center, 1998.) Successful educational institutions will be those that planned strategically for the changing needs of the workforce. To some degree, this means updating and improving academic programming for service-sector occupations. In some cases, it may signal the need for new academic programs and majors. Given the number of adults who will need to acquire additional training to stay abreast of trends, it is likely that demand for alternate educational delivery options, such as Web-based distance learning, will increase. Equally important to institutional success, however, will be the marketing of these programs. Figure 1.10 illustrates those occupations with the largest predicted national job growth between 1998 and 2008. The second largest of the fields listed, General Managers and Top Executives, generally requires higher education. Occupations in health care, computers, and education are all fields for which UM-Flint already has the basic building blocks to educate the next generation of Michigan workers. Thus, the real challenge will be to find ways to successfully market these programs to a variety of prospective students.

Ten Occupations with the Largest Job Growth - NationallySource: Bureau of Labor Statistics

429

617

746

1192

2079

2970

3021

3198

3362

4056

869

1194

1179

1567

2530

3464

3484

3754

3913

4620

0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000 3500 4000 4500 5000

Computer Support Specialists

Systems Analysts

Personal Care and Home Health Aides

Teacher Assistants

Registered Nurses

Truck Drivers

Office Clerks

Cashiers

General Managers and Top Executives

Retail Salesppeople

Number of Jobs in Thousands

1998 Actual 2008 Projected Figure 1.10


Figures 1.11 through 1.14 illustrate the occupations with the largest projected growth between 1994 and 2005 for key Michigan markets; Ann Arbor, Saginaw, Thumb, and Detroit. While these projections extend only to 2005 and not to 2008 (as do the national projections), they provide a more detailed look at occupational growth in UM-Flint’s immediate environment. Occupations that will grow at consistently high rates across all markets and require or benefit from a college education include the following: general managers and top executives, registered nurses, systems analysts, home health aides, marketing and sales supervisors.

Occupations with the Largest Growth 1994-2005 Ann Arbor MSASource: Michigan Department of Career Development Occupational Employment Forecasts

580

630

640

680

690

750

760

780

860

1020

1050

1060

1240

1260

1530

1540

1570

1660

1810

1910

0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500

First Line Supervisors, Construction

All Other Managers & Administrators

Clerical Supervisors

Nursing Aides & Orderlies

All Other Health, Prof, Para Techs

Food Preparation Workers

Receptionists & Information Clerks

Janitors & Cleaners

Maintenance Repairers, Gen Utilities

All Other Prof, Paraprof, Technicians

Secretaries, Executive, Legal, and Medical

Marketing & Sales, Supervisors

All Other Helpers/Laborers

Home Health Aides

Systems Analysts

Registered Nurses

General Managers & Top Execs

Cashiers

Waiters & Waitresses

Salespersons, Retail

Number of Jobs

Figure 1.11

Occupations with the largest growth in Ann Arbor, MI will include

registered nurses.


Occupations with the Largest Growth 1994-2005 Saginaw MSASource: Michigan Department of Career Development Occupational Employment Forecasts

320

320

350

360

380

390

390

400

470

470

490

510

560

670

840

870

910

1010

1320

1410

0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400 1600

Financial Managers

Janitors & Cleaners


Truck Drivers, Light

All Other Health Service Workers


Secretaries, Executive, Legal and Medical

Truck Drivers, Heavy

All Other Prof, Paraprof, Technicians

Systems Analysts

Mechanical Engineers



Nursing Aides & Orderlies

Cashiers

Home Health Aides


Registered Nurses



Number of Jobs

Occupations with the Largest Growth 1994-2005 Thumb AreaSource: Michigan Department of Career Development Occupational Employment Forecasts

130

320

330

330

350

360

410

420

470

550

610

790

860

960

1050

1100

1160

1370

1420

0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400 1600


Cooks, Restaurant


General Office Clerks

Maintenance Repairers, Gen Util

Food Service and Lodging Managers


Truck Drivers, Heavy

Hand Packers & Packagers


Computer Engineers


Registered Nurses


Cashiers

Home Health Aides

Systems Analysts



Number of Jobs

Figure 1.13

Registered nurses will see an increase of 1,010 jobs between 1994 and 2005 in the Saginaw

area.

Systems Analysts will see an increase of 1,160 jobs between

1994 and 2005 in the Thumb area.

Figure 1.12


Occupations with the Largest Growth 1994-2005 Detroit MSASource: Michigan Department of Career Development Occupational Employment Forecasts

1180

3080

3430

3450

3550

3640

3770

3770

3960

3970

4110

4520

5580

7910

8490

8740

9090

9510

11830

12160

0 2000 4000 6000 8000 10000 12000 14000


Janitors & Cleaners


Secretaries, Executive, Legal and Medical

Registered Nurses



Designers, Ex Interior Designers

Financial Managers


Computer Engineers

Home Health Aides

Hand Packers & Packagers


Mechanical Engineers

Cashiers

All Other Health Prof, Para, Techs


Systems Analysts


Number of Jobs

Figure 1.14

In addition to understanding the job trends in markets across Michigan, it is equally important to know which academic majors are “hot” at present, both nationally and for UM-Flint. Below, we offer data from the Chronicle of Higher Education Daily, the online version of the Chronicle, from January 1999 to January 2000 (Figure 1.15), about the most popular new majors at American colleges and universities. Environmental Science, Business/Business Administration, Health Sciences and Services, and Nursing are reported to be the most common additions to university curricula.

Our survey research with UM-Flint faculty and staff and prospective students (presented in Chapters 4 and 5 of this report) also addresses this topic. Faculty and staff believe that nursing, health care, and physical therapy are top programs that will attract students to UM-Flint. Prospective students say that computer science, engineering, and health care are currently among the “hottest” majors.

Top 10 New Major Trends Source: The Chronicle of Higher Education Daily 1 Environmental Science 9.1% 2 Business/Business Administration 9.0% 3 Health Sciences and Services 8.9% 4 Nursing 8.8% 5 Human Resource Management/Services 7.0% 6 International Business 4.0% 7 Physical Therapy 3.9% 8 Psychology 3.3% 9 Social Entrepreneurship 3.2% 10 Early Childhood Education 3.0%

Figure 1.15

Mechanical Engineers will see an increase of 8,490 jobs between

1994 and 2005 in the Thumb area.

During the period between January 1999

and January 2000, 9.1% of college and university

announcements regarding new majors

featured Environmental Science. It is the most

popular new major reported being added to college and university

curricula.


The 1999 median household income in Michigan—the midpoint of all incomes— is $42,236, higher than the U.S. median ($40,721), the Ohio median income ($39,393), and the Indiana median income ($40,470). Livingston and Oakland Counties currently have the highest median incomes and will experience the most income growth. Saginaw County has the lowest median income (Figure 1.16).

1999 Median Household Income & 2004 Projections by CountySource: 1999 Census Projections, Claritas Inc.

41,57046,384

66,343 64,710

36,270 38,010 36,774

76,816 78,156

40,51840,65838,74045,210

50,207

$0

$20,000

$40,000

$60,000

$80,000

$100,000

$120,000


Med

ian

Inco

me

1999 Actual 2004 Projected Figure 1.16

The average income for the state of Michigan is $56,755, slightly higher than the U.S. average ($56,184) and substantially higher than the Ohio average ($52,475) and the Indiana average ($52,875). Livingston and Oakland again have the highest average incomes and, Shiawassee the lowest (Figure 1.17).

Figure 1.17

Median incomes are highest in Livingston

and Oakland Counties.

1999 Average Household Income & 2004 Projections by CountySource: 1999 Census Projections, Claritas, Inc.

53,743 55,557

77,273

86,005

47,996 46,598 46,671

65,542 65,281

94,723

107,232

57,56554,173 55,961

$0

$20,000

$40,000

$60,000

$80,000

$100,000

$120,000


Ave

rage

Inco

me

1999 Actual 2004 Projected


Commuter Patterns Figure 1.18 shows commuter patterns by county. The majority of the populations in Genesee and Saginaw Counties commute to work in less than 30 minutes. Not surprisingly, Oakland County commutes tend to be longer and extend significantly into the 20-44 minute range. As suburban sprawl continues, it is possible that families working in affluent Oakland County will continue to locate ever closer to Genesee County. This shift could mean an increase in potential future students for UM-Flint.

1999 Commuter Patterns by CountySource: 1999 Census Projections, Claritas, Inc.

0

50000

100000

150000

200000

250000


Popu

latio

n

Use Public Transportation Walk to Work Only Commute by Other MeansAverage Commute to Work in Minutes Commute to Work Under 15 Minutes Commute to Work in 15-29 MinutesCommute to Work in 30-44 Minutes Commute to Work in 45-59 Minutes Commute to Work in 60+ Minutes

Figure 1.18

Education Figure 1.19 shows the highest level of education achievement for the population age 25+ by county. In Genesee, Lapeer, Saginaw, Shiawassee, and Tuscola Counties, the largest portions of the population have earned only a high school degree. Only in Livingston and Oakland counties do adults with at least some college outnumber those with a high school degree. Given the previously noted increase in jobs requiring formal higher education and/or training, there may be a growing need to educate adults in Genesee, Lapeer, Saginaw, Shiawassee, and Tuscola counties for the changing labor needs of the future. This will be especially true as the tri-state area continues to shift away from its historic manufacturing base toward a more service-oriented economy. Logically, we can assume that some institution will need to “step up to the plate” to offer training for these workers. As always, the key is to plan strategically for this future need. Said planning will require expert management of the two critical ingredients for success: appropriate academic programs and effective marketing thereof.

Commuters in Genesee and Oakland Counties

are most likely to spend 15 to 29 minutes traveling to work.


1999 Highest Level of Educational Achievementfor Population Age 25+

Source: 1999 Census Projections, Claritas, Inc.

0

50000

100000

150000

200000

250000

300000


Popu

latio

n

Completed 0-8 Yrs Elem School Attended High School No Diploma High School GraduateAttended College (<4 Yr Degree) College Degree (4+ Years)

Figure 1.19

Of Michigan and its neighboring states, Illinois and Ohio have the largest numbers of high school students, as illustrated in Figure 1.20. Indiana and Wisconsin have the lowest number of high school students. This should be considered when identifying out-of-state markets to target for recruitment.

Projected Number of High School Graduates in Public Schools 2000 - 2008Source: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, Common Core of Data Surveys

112,540

60,090

87,630

60,880

121,230

94,350

63,430

118,850 116,990

61,750

0

20,000

40,000

60,000

80,000

100,000

120,000

140,000

Illinois Indiana Michigan Ohio Wisconsin

Projected 2000 Projected 2008

Figure 1.20

The number of high school graduates will

increase in IL, IN, MI, and WI from 2000 to 2008. The number

will decrease in Ohio.

In Genesee County, the largest percentage of the population has a high school diploma. In Oakland County, the largest percentage of the population has at least four

years of college.


Figure 1.21 illustrates the expected change in high school enrollments between 2000 and 2008. As previously noted, the next quarter century will bring a dip in the growth of the college-bound student population. However, both Illinois and Michigan are expected to see increases in high school enrollment of over 7% from 2000 to 2008. Ohio will see a 1.6% decrease in enrollment during the same period. The growth in the number of high school students in Michigan is important. UM-Ann Arbor turns away thousands of highly qualified applicants each year. Michigan State University seeks more out-of-state students. As a result, more high school students may consider UM-Flint in the future, especially those Michigan residents looking to pay appealing in-state tuition costs. The challenge for UM-Flint is to develop and promote the academic programs likely to appeal to these students. The possibility of affordable campus housing will doubtlessly add to UM-Flint’s appeal. This finding is noteworthy because an increase in the number of high school graduates equals more traditional-age college students, for whom the traditional “college experience” is desirable. This college experience most often includes student housing and the myriad social/developmental opportunities it affords, as noted at length by student affairs researchers, including Chickering, Reiser, Pascarella & Terenzini, et.al.

Projected Change in High School Graduates 2000 to 2008Source: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, Common Core of Data Surveys

7.72%

2.76%

7.67%

-1.56%

4.19%

-2.00%

0.00%

2.00%

4.00%

6.00%

8.00%

10.00%

Illinois Indiana Michigan Ohio Wisconsin

Perc

ent

Figure 1.21

Figure 1.22 shows the projected gender breakdown of students enrolled in four-year public institutions. In 1996, women constituted 53% of the full-time enrolled student population nationally; by the year 2008 women will make up 56% of full-time enrolled students. Women will continue to account for 58% of the part-time enrollment at public institutions.

Growth in the number of high school graduates will be about equal in Illinois and Michigan,

weaker in Indiana and Wisconsin, and negative in Ohio.


Total Enrollment in Public Four-year Institutions 1996, 2000, 2008Source: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics,

"Fall Enrollment in Colleges and Universities" Surveys and IPEDS Surveys

2,153,000

1,942,000

2,337,000

769,000

1,065,000

2,132,000

2,669,000

1,048,000

751,000

1,901,000

1,079,000

789,000

0

500,000

1,000,000

1,500,000

2,000,000

2,500,000

3,000,000

Men full-time Women full-time Men part-time Women part-time

1996 (actual) 2000 (middle alternative projections) 2008 (middle alternative projections)

Figure 1.22

Conclusion The environmental scan is intended to provide a backdrop against which to consider the other components of Carnegie’s market research. As such, some of the information presented here will be of greater importance to the University than other items. Some of the more salient points to emerge from the environmental scan include the following:

The overall population of Michigan will increase by 5.5% between 1995 and 2025. The age distribution of the Michigan population will skew to the 65+ year range over the next

quarter century. Shiawassee County will experience the most consistent growth across age ranges over the

next five years. The 6-to-17 year-old population in Genesee County will decrease over the next five years. Over the next 25 years, Michigan’s minority population will grow substantially, particularly

the African American population which will grow from 1.4 to 1.7 million from 2000 to 2025. Though manufacturing jobs will continue to be critical to Michigan’s economy, the shift

toward service-sector jobs in areas such as health care, computer science, education, engineering, etc. will continue. The bottom line is that most jobs in the future will require far more training and education than before. This represents powerful opportunities for UM-Flint to educate the next generation of Michigan workers for occupations that are projected to grow, such as systems analysts, health professionals, general managers, etc.

Many of the counties in UM-Flint’s current market area are home to adults with no more than a high school education. To prepare for the future, many of these adults will need to return to school for formal training. Again, UM-Flint has a great opportunity to capture this market by offering the programs they need—and successfully marketing these programs. Issues to consider include the courses and degrees themselves, the marketing and promotion of these

The strongest growth in college enrollments will be in women

enrolling full-time.

Part-time enrollments are actually projected to decline

from 2000 to 2008.


degrees, and the delivery method. Many working adults will need either evening/weekend classes or will want to complete their degrees via Web-based distance learning.

Illinois and Ohio contain the largest populations of high school graduates. Three states, Michigan, Illinois, and Wisconsin, are projected to have strong increases in high school students over the next eight years. These findings represent opportunities for UM-Flint to open new markets in Illinois and Wisconsin, and to assert its presence within Michigan.


Chapter Two: Competitive Analysis Introduction An institution must identify the opportunities and threats presented by competing institutions, as well as its own strengths and weaknesses, in order to make informed decisions about program offerings, pricing, customer service performance, and recruitment strategies. This chapter will help both current and future leadership on the campus exploit competitors’ weaknesses. As well, it serves as a warning for areas where the University must make improvements to gain and/or maintain a competitive advantage. On the pages that follow, we provide baseline information about UM-Flint’s top five competitors as identified by the University’s current leadership; Baker College, Mott Community College, Michigan State University, Oakland University, and Saginaw Valley State University. This list includes the institutions with which UM-Flint has the greatest number of cross-applicants. In addition, we describe each institution’s tuition and fees, financial aid strategies, academic programs, and marketing efforts. We provide a comprehensive picture of UM-Flint’s competitive market and present commentary and recommendations on how to exploit the institution’s strengths while minimizing the impact of competitors. This is a fundamental part of developing a sound integrated marketing strategy. This competitive analysis is based on external data sources. While some of the information therein may be incorrect, we use it to make the point that college-bound students are making decisions based on this published information. Moreover, it was necessary to use external sources to maintain comparability across institutions. So, for example, even though the acceptance rate may actually be lower than what is published, or the University may offer majors that we do not list, the fact remains that students and parents make decisions based on this inaccurate information. Thus, this analysis allows us to identify perceptual issues that, regardless of their accuracy, are likely helping govern the public’s decisions about college. Methodologically, Carnegie sought information from a wealth of disparate resources including published data, information on the Internet, and information requested directly from the institutions. Our procedure for the latter entailed anonymously requesting admissions information via each institution’s Web site. A staff member in our Westford, MA headquarters made the requests using her home address so there was never any indication that Carnegie Communications was involved. A simple analogy can be found in popular “secret shopper” efforts, whereby an anonymous shopper at, say, Target, buys merchandise and quietly notes all manner of customer service issues. Electronic sources of information in this chapter included IPEDS, U.S. News & World Report online, and Web sites of each of the competing institutions, including UM-Flint. Wherever possible, the charts and graphs that follow note the source of the information presented therein. Basic Institutional Characteristics In this section, we describe the baseline characteristics of the five institutions studied, as well as UM-Flint. This section outlines the history, size, location, and other descriptors of the institutions under consideration. For example, Figure 2.1 shows that Michigan State University is the oldest and largest institution in the competitive set. Saginaw State Valley College, established in 1963, is the youngest institution. In addition, this chart shows that most schools are in city settings, with the exception of Saginaw Valley State College and Michigan State University. Baker College is the smallest institution and the only private institution included in this portion of the analysis.


Basic Information School Type of

School Founded Size Location Setting

University of Michigan-Flint Public 1956 6,155 Flint, MI City Mott Community College Public 1923 9,098 Flint, MI City Baker College Private 1911 4,114 Flint, MI City Saginaw Valley State University

Public 1963 6,658 University Center, MI Rural

Michigan State University Public 1855 34,089 Lansing, MI SuburbanOakland University Public 1957 11,105 Rochester, MI City Source: IPEDS College Opportunities On-Line

Figure 2.1 Below, Figure 2.2 features a general selectivity ranking from U.S. News & World Report. Michigan State University is the only institution ranked as “more selective.” Oakland University, Saginaw State Valley University, and University of Michigan-Flint are ranked “selective.” Baker College is considered “least selective” because it accepts 100% of the applicants to the College.

Admissions

Selectivity Acceptance

Rate Number of Applicants

Average High School GPA

SAT/ACT (25/75

percentile)

Baker College Least

selective 100% 1,440 N/A N/A

Michigan State University More

selective 77% 21,665 3.4 21-26 Mott Community College* nr nr nr nr N/A Oakland University Selective 80% 3,928 3.1 19-24 Saginaw Valley State University Selective 95% 1,975 3.1 18-23 University of Michigan-Flint Selective 89% 1,365 3.2 19-25 * US News data contains baccalaureate degree granting institutions only

Source: www.usnews.com Figure 2.2

While the accuracy—and even the value—of the U.S. News & World Report rankings has been seriously challenged in the press by numerous institutions and is considered questionable by many in the higher education arena, it is important to recognize that prospective students pay attention to such rankings when deciding where to apply to college. And, as Carnegie has found in focus groups with a variety of audiences, parents of traditional age prospective undergraduate students are even more likely to pay attention to such national data. Thus, these rankings are important regardless of their accuracy, and represent an opportunity to identify external perceptions and images. Figure 2.2 also shows that UM-Flint’s acceptance rate, at 89%, is higher than that of Oakland University but lower than Saginaw Valley State. The academic quality of UM-Flint applicants, as measured by high school GPA and ACT score, is on a par with both of these schools. UM-Flint’s applicant pool is the smallest, generating about 1,365 applicants last year. Traditional enrollment management theory suggests that, at times, it is worthwhile to increase the number of applicants in order to increase the overall number of enrolling students. This is commonly referred to as the “admissions funnel.” There may be great value


in increasing the number of applicants. We address this in Chapter Six, where we describe the results of the admissions assessment. Student Body In this section we describe the characteristics of each institution’s student body. Figure 2.3 identifies the percentage of students on each campus who are American Indian, Asian, Black, Hispanic, White, and from outside the United States (international). None of the schools enroll a significant percentage of American Indian students. Mott Community College draws the highest percentage of Black students at 17.8% of fall 1998 enrollments. Michigan State University attracts the highest percentage of Asian students at 4%. Saginaw Valley State University enrolls the highest percentage of White students at 85%. UM-Flint has the third highest percentage of Black students and the third highest percentage of Hispanic students and, overall, one-fourth of UM-Flint students are minorities. Given the fact that Black populations are expected to grow in virtually all Michigan counties, this may be a point to consider in outreach and marketing efforts in the near future.

Ethnicity

Non-resident

Alien Black non-Hispanic

American Indian or Alaskan Native

Asian or Pacific

Islander Hispanic

White non-

HispanicBaker College N/A 13.8% 0.6% 3.3% 1.4% 80.6% Michigan State University 2.7% 8.6% 0.6% 4.0% 2.3% 81.3% Mott Community College N/A 17.8% 1.2% 0.9% 2.4% 73.2% Oakland University 2.6% 6.3% 0.5% 2.5% 1.4% 79.9% Saginaw Valley State University 2.1% 6.2% 0.6% 0.8% 3.2% 85.0% University of Michigan-Flint 1.0% 10.8% 1.1% 1.5% 2.2% 75.4% Source: IPEDS College Opportunities Online; Fall enrollment 1998

Figure 2.3 Figure 2.4 provides additional insight into the student body at each school. A majority of students live off campus at all schools in the competitive set for which information is available, with the exception of Michigan State University. Of course, a major thrust of Carnegie’s study for UM-Flint involves studying the feasibility of University-sponsored housing. On-campus housing would certainly distinguish UM-Flint from its current set of competitors. This does not necessarily mean, however, that UM-Flint would enjoy a strong competitive edge in the marketplace if campus housing were developed. Rather, the University’s competitive set would likely shift to include other institutions with campus housing.


Student Body

Diversity*Fraternity members

Sorority members

Students living off campus

Baker College Yes N/A N/A 98% Michigan State University Yes 9% 9% 56% Mott Community College - - - - Oakland University No 1% 2% 89% Saginaw Valley State University No 1% 1% 90% University of Michigan-Flint No N/A N/A 100%

* A school is considered diverse if the minority population is greater than the national average of 17%. Source: www.usnews.com

Figure 2.4 Figure 2.5 shows that Saginaw Valley State University has the lowest student/faculty ratio of all competitors, at 17-to-1. Baker College has the highest student/faculty ratio at 25-to-1. Further, Oakland University has the highest percentage of classes with fewer than 20 students from the competitive set. These statistics are important given the fact that prospective students are generally more interested in low student/faculty ratios and small class sizes.

Academics

Student-Faculty Ratio

Full-time Faculty

Classes taught by

TAs

Classes with

under 20 students

Classes with 50+ students

Average graduation

rate Baker College 25/1 43% N/A N/A N/A N/A Michigan State University 18/1 96% N/A 20% 27% 67% Mott Community College - - - - - - Oakland University 19/1 76% N/A 45% 13% 41% Saginaw Valley State University 17/1 64% N/A 37% 5% 29% University of Michigan-Flint 18/1 75% N/A N/A N/A 34% Source: www.usnews.com

Figure 2.5 The table in Figure 2.6 addresses student satisfaction based on freshman retention and alumni giving rates. Of the institutions in the competitive set, University of Michigan-Flint has a freshman retention rate of 82%, which is relatively strong compared to the other institutions studied and second only to Michigan State. It is important to note that a considerable percentage of UM-Flint’s students are transfer students. What’s more, many of its freshmen are non-traditional students beyond the 17-to-23-year-old age range. We recommend placing greater emphasis on retention in future marketing efforts, as this is an important issue for both students and parents of traditional age college students. As well, retention contributes significantly to the overall efficiency of an institution’s enrollment operation as it is estimated to cost four to five times more to recruit a new student than it does to retain a current one.


Student Satisfaction

Freshman

retention rateAlumni giving

rate Baker College N/A N/A Michigan State University 86% 11% Mott Community College - - Oakland University 74% 13% Saginaw Valley State University 68% 6% University of Michigan-Flint 82% N/A Source: www.usnews.com

Figure 2.6

Tuition, Fees, and Financial Aid In this section, we compare the six institutions studied (five competitors plus UM-Flint) by financial variables related to tuition and fees. We include comparative figures on tuition, room, and board, as well as financial aid. As shown in Figure 2.7, annual tuition & fees are highest at Baker College. This is not surprising since Baker is the only private college in the competitive set. Out-of-state tuition is highest at Michigan State University. Of the other public institutions, Oakland University is more expensive than UM-Flint, while Saginaw Valley is less expensive. Mott Community College is by far the least expensive institution for Michigan residents. Given the price sensitivity we found in our surveys of students, it is likely that some prospective UM-Flint students opt to attend Mott as a cost-saving measure.

Cost Tuition & Fees Room & Board In-state Out-of-state On-campus Off-campusBaker College $6,960 $6,960 $575 $575 Michigan State University $5,004 $12,406 $4,334 $4,804 Mott Community College $1,511 $2,142 - $4,163 Oakland University $4,108 $11,267 $4,715 $4,715 Saginaw Valley State University $3,629 $7,285 $4,800 $4,800 University of Michigan-Flint $3,800 $10,990 - $5,484 Source: IPEDS College Opportunities On-Line

Figure 2.7 Financial aid has become a very important factor in college attendance, at every type of institution, in every region of the country, regardless of family income. It is therefore not surprising that the most expensive school, Baker College, also awards financial aid to the highest percentage of students—80%. UM-Flint is a distant second, awarding aid to 48% of students. Merit aid accounts for the greatest percentage of aid at Oakland University. Figure 2.8 shows that 93% of UM-Flint students’ need is met, with a higher average aid package. This may be a considerable marketing tool in the future, given the prevalence of financial aid in attracting students.


Financial Aid

Need-based grants

Need-based

self-help aid Merit aid

Students whose

need was fully met

Average financial

aid package

Average need-based grant

Baker College N/A NA/ NA/ N/A N/A N/A Michigan State University 34% 40% 13% 52% $6,916 $2,706 Mott Community College - - - - - - Oakland University 22% 33% 20% 23% $5,598 $2,646 Saginaw Valley State University 39% 35% 18% 34% $5,833 $2,194 University of Michigan-Flint 81% 77% 17% 93% $8,400 $2,300 Source: www.usnews.com

Figure 2.8

Financial Aid to Full-time, First-time Undergraduate Students Financial Aid - 1998-99

Federal Grants State/local grants Institutional Grants Loans to students

% of students receiving

aid

Average amount of aid they

received


aid


received


aid

Average amount of aid they received


aid


receivedBaker College 80% N/A 80% N/A 80% N/A 80% N/A Michigan State University 19% $2,313 24% $2,332 34% $2,143 45% $2,844Mott Community College 30% $2,409 7% $1,464 30% $3,178 5% $1,215Oakland University 18% $1,731 13% $957 20% $1,461 27% $2,514Saginaw Valley State University 22% $780 22% $222 22% $478 22% $2,355University of Michigan-Flint* 48% $1,800 20% $1,200 50% $1,000 60% $3,500

* Estimate figures were provided to IPEDS Source: IPEDS College Opportunities On-Line

Figure 2.9 Admissions Marketing Programs Upon initiation of this project, Carnegie anonymously requested recruitment materials from all five competitors, as well as from UM-Flint. The purpose of gathering marketing materials was to gain an understanding of the approaches used by other institutions to appeal to and motivate prospective students. We sought to understand the content, timing, and frequency of each institution’s follow-up strategies. We requested admissions information through each institution’s Web site. The information requests came from a fictional high school junior and a high school senior to test the differences in the mail flow by year. A side benefit of this component was the ability to track each institution’s response times and customer service performance. Figure 2.10 shows the frequency, timing, and content of each institution’s follow-up to our request for admissions information. We originally sent requests for information on April 11, 2000.


Publications and Communications Flow Initial Request for Materials April 11, 2000

Baker College

Michigan State University

Mott Community College

Oakland University

Saginaw Valley State University

University of Michigan-Flint

1st Contact April 12 postmark Catalog w/ counselor’s business card Application “It starts with Baker” Student Housing Search piece

May 1 postmark Viewbook

April 12 postmark Catalog General form letter Summer Class Schedule Fall Class Schedule Application

April 21 postmark Personal letter Financial Aid/ Scholarships Brochure Catalog Request Card Viewbook Application

April 12 postmark Viewbook Application Financial Aid Search Piece Major Worksheet

April 30 postmark Personal letter Application Directions Major List FAFSA Search Piece

2nd Contact April 18 postmark E-mail from Admissions Counselor

May 26 postmark Catalog

May 9 postmark Personal letter

May 5 postmark Catalog

Figure 2.10 Baker, Mott, and Saginaw Valley had the quickest response times, followed by Oakland, then UM-Flint and finally Michigan State. Baker sent a counselor’s business card, which is a good idea because it provides the prospect with a direct contact at the institution. However, only Oakland and UM-Flint sent personal letters. In focus groups, we found that students despise form letters or letters addressed to “Dear Prospective Student.” Therefore, UM-Flint’s admissions office should continue to personalize its letters. What’s more, in publications focus groups for other colleges and universities, Carnegie has found that students most often want to know about academic majors, entrance requirements, social life/opportunities, and job placement rates. Therefore, Flint’s admissions office should continue to include a list of majors. Also, including the FAFSA (Federal Application for Student Assistance) is an excellent idea given the percentage of students interested in financial aid. However, it seems wasteful to include the SEARCH piece along with a proposed viewbook, since the former is usually just a distilled version of the latter. Rather, the admissions office should find new ways to use the SEARCH piece, such as sending them to high school sophomores or other groups who need a concise introduction to the University. If the SEARCH piece is included with the viewbook as a response mechanism, another less expensive option like a response card might be considered. The admissions office should also consider increasing the number of contacts, either by direct mail (many institutions have great success using attractive postcards that are inexpensive to produce and mail and that can be customized), by telephone, and/or by e-mail. We address the use of e-mail as a recruitment tool in the Chapter Six, but we believe so strongly in the value of e-mail as a recruitment tool that we reiterate it here.


In the paragraphs that follow, we describe the contents of each institution’s packet and highlight the strengths and weaknesses of each. A weakness of each institution is the fact that the exact same materials were sent to our junior inquirer as were sent to our senior inquirer. When a junior receives information about enrolling in college this fall and a FAFSA for this fall, it is clear that the colleges are not responding personally to the student or the student’s information needs at this point in their education. Baker College The information packet from Baker College arrived in a 10 x 12-inch paper envelope that was beaten up and torn from its travels through the USPS. Immediately, this makes a negative impression, even if the fault lies with the Postal Service. The materials included an application and reply envelope, the College’s catalog, and a number of low-cost, two-color brochures including a SEARCH piece with reply card, student-housing brochure with reply card, and a four-color brochure called “It Starts with Baker.” The “It Starts with Baker” piece is the most appealing brochure in the packet, concisely outlining the benefits of a Baker education along with a clever list of the “11 Reasons You’ll Do Better With Baker.” Because it is the most colorful and appealing brochure in the bunch, it would be even more effective if accompanied by a reply mechanism. All of the pieces carry common design elements and logo illustrating they are part of a family and reinforcing a consistent graphical image of the College. The catalog itself is the foundation of the information packet. It is well organized with color-coded sections for each section and academic division. The layout was clearly designed to aid readability rather than to save space, with each new program beginning at the top of a page column. While catalogs are rarely a good recruitment tool, and we typically discourage institutions from using a catalog as a marketing piece, Baker’s appears to be designed with prospective students in mind. Michigan State University The first piece received from Michigan State University was the viewbook, which is designed as a self-mailer and therefore arrived without an envelope. The viewbook is a well-designed, colorful, glossy piece that has the look of a magazine. Sending this as a self-mailer limits the opportunities to include a personal letter or any other personalized information. On the other hand, the attractive design is the first element the student sees and there is a better chance that the student will at least peruse the brochure given that there is no envelope to open. The photography, as well as the design, helps to make this piece appealing. The photos are sharp and colorful and include a number of action shots. The copy includes all of the necessary facts, but is enhanced by lists that add levity such as “Five Strategies for Success at MSU,” and “Freshmen to Freshmen: advice from current first year students.” As noted earlier, students routinely tell us that they want personalized information. What’s more, we know anecdotally that most viewbooks never get read. So the lack of some type of personal information in Michigan State’s response to our inquiry is, we believe, a glaring flaw. Further, the lack of personalization in MSU’s materials likely confirm the image in the prospective student’s mind that the University is large and impersonal. Mott Community College The packet from Mott Community College arrived in a generic manila envelope with a computer-generated return label. The packet contained a generic form letter, a 1999-2000 catalog, a 2000 Spring/Summer class schedule and a Fall 2000 class schedule. Newsprint paper is used for all of the publications. The few photographs that appear on the covers are amateurish and poorly reproduced. Low cost is seemingly the top priority rather than high-quality, visually appealing marketing materials. The catalog, while lacking in appeal, is well organized and easy to follow. The application is a Xeroxed copy, rather than a printed form.


Oakland University Oakland University’s packet includes a personalized letter with a computer printed signature, a viewbook, financial aid and scholarship brochure, application, and catalog request card. All of these printed materials, including the envelope in which the materials arrived, are four-color, glossy, and very attractive. Right away, this packet sends positive messages about Oakland. A common design theme and logo appear on all of the pieces, uniting them as integrated components of a publications family. The photographs include a number of action shots and effectively alternate between color and black-and-white. While the letter included in the packet is personalized, it does little more than give the phone number of the office of admission. Overall, Oakland’s information packet is the strongest from an admissions marketing viewpoint. Saginaw Valley State University Saginaw Valley’s packet arrived in a routine 9 x 12-inch university envelope. It included a viewbook, financial aid brochure, student life brochure, and a series of low-quality Xeroxed pages on scholarships, the online catalog, tuition and fees, residence life, mathematics major sheet, and campus visits. Each of these Xeroxed sheets are on a different color of paper making for a very haphazard presentation. Each of the printed pieces carries a different University logo and design. There is no common design element that makes the pieces look like they are from the same university. There appears to be no professional touch to the design of these publications. Many of the photographs are dated and the colors drab. Saginaw Valley State University included a major worksheet for the prospective student’s intended major program. This is the only school in the competitive set to personalize the information packet based on the student’s academic interest, an effective marketing strategy. Nevertheless, Saginaw Valley’s overall information packet is the weakest from an admissions marketing view. University of Michigan-Flint The information packet from UM-Flint arrived in a routine 9 x 12-inch University envelope. It included a personalized letter, SEARCH piece, a 2000-2001 school year FAFSA form, undergraduate programs list, application, and a campus map. A few days later a catalog arrived. The initial UM-Flint packet was disappointing because it didn’t include very much information about the institution. All of the materials have consistent design elements and logos. However, there is no real “sales” piece in the packet. The SEARCH piece is brief and does not provide much detailed information. There are no colorful pictures or action shots that really tell the story of UM-Flint. The catalog is clearly designed as informational piece rather than a recruitment tool. While it is logically organized, it does not make for easy reading. Ideally, the materials sent to a prospective student should include personalized correspondence, a viewbook, information on the student’s intended major—even if the student is undecided—costs, financial aid and scholarship information, residence life information (if applicable), and information on co-curricular activities. These pieces do not need to be in the same packet, but should be incorporated into a mail flow that is spread out over a couple of months. Web site The World Wide Web has quickly become an important vehicle for marketing an institution and providing information to the public. It is a relatively new technology that seems to evolve daily given the nature of the medium. A recent issue of CURRENTS, the monthly magazine of the Council for Advancement and Support of Education (CASE) noted the following:

“These days it’s hardly classified information that Web sites have replaced paper publications as institutions’ most important communication vehicles. But despite the growing importance of Web sites, many campuses seem to be making up their Web rules as they go along…”


Given the importance of the Web in UM-Flint’s overall communications efforts as well as those of its chief competitors, Carnegie looked at all of the competitive set’s Web sites. Figure 2.11 lists the criteria used in the audit and describes how each college in the competitive set faired. In addition to the review by our professional staff, three college-bound high school students helped to review the sites. We focus primarily on UM-Flint. Several features play heavily in the success (or lack thereof) of each college site. Information for prospective students must be very clearly outlined, and the student should not have to dig too deep (i.e., click on too many pages) to find the information they need. In other words, navigability is quite important. All basic admissions and financial aid information, including cost, aid availability and deadlines, admission requirements, etc., should be part of a clearly organized menu or table of contents. The viewer should not have to use the search function to find this information as we did in a number of cases (though having a search function is tremendously important). The main address and phone number of the institution should be on the home page, or there should be a clear link to it. Any external party who is not intimately familiar with the internal organization of the institution will not understand the academic organization structure and get frustrated looking for information on his or her intended major when it is grouped by college or division (e.g., College of Arts and Sciences, or School of Humanities). A person visiting the Web site should be able to find a complete listing of academic programs in one place rather than having to link to each college or division page. Each component of the list can then be hyperlinked to further information about the college or division. An example of this can be seen on the Web site for Virginia Tech. Saginaw Valley State University’s Web site had the greatest appeal among our informal high school test audience. A closer look at UM-Flint’s Web site revealed several strengths, as well as numerous opportunities for improvement. This evaluation was completed with the prospective student in mind. Navigation In general, navigability of the UM-Flint Web site needs improvement. A consistent navigation bar or menu on each of the pages would be helpful. In addition, there should always be a link back to the home page. This is not currently a feature of the UM-Flint site so the viewer is forced to repeatedly use the “back” button. The choices in the “jump to” drop down box may be significant to on-campus users, but the acronyms or abbreviations are meaningless to a visitor, and thereby represent a significant drawback. Our reviewers, who have become extremely familiar with the University throughout the course of this research project, had no idea of the meaning of “ITS”, “CECC” or “UREL.” Surely, prospective students do not understand these acronyms. They also have to navigate too far into the site to find detailed information that suits their needs. Prospective students should have their own directory or page. Much of the content on the student page is not immediately applicable to prospects, though the clearly labeled hyperlink to the online application is important. Image The entry page into the Web site is an attractive collage featuring the University seal. Occasionally that seal is used on other pages of the Web site. Sometimes the “M Flint” logo is used. There should be a consistent image presented to the public—a common logo and common design or “template” for pages. The only common element is the use of yellow and blue throughout. This is a critical flaw of many Web sites, and certainly among college sites. The previously mentioned CURRENTS article notes, “that’s why institutions are increasingly relying on templates or content management software that help others conform to the institution’s online style guidelines. By presenting page developers with minimal options, templates help establish design consistency throughout a campus’ site.”


Content A “site map” often helps viewers quickly find information buried in the Web site (for instance, how to find telephone contact numbers or FAX numbers for campus offices). The UM-Flint site map illogically pulls up the campus map. The campus map should be labeled as such. The site cries out for more photos—larger, more colorful and appealing photos of campus and action shots of people on the campus. If loading time is an issue, this can be accomplished with a “virtual campus tour.” We found a similar set of issues with the University’s recruitment publications. Carnegie strongly recommends that UM-Flint invest as much as possible in improved image pieces, including the Web site and recruitment publications. Improvements should include more, and better, photographs. Savvy college and university marketers have begun investing heavily in high-quality, appealing photography to capture readers’ or viewers’ attention immediately. Prospective students visiting the UM-Flint Web site should have one clearly marked page from which they can navigate all of their needs. At the most basic level, this page should include the following:

inquiry form contact information (telephone, FAX, e-mail, names) campus visit and campus tour information list of academic majors campus map plus directions to reach the campus (by car and by air) academic calendar general admissions info for undergraduate and graduate students (and any other group with

special needs) how to apply the application financial aid information registration information class schedules

Essentially, all of the information in the viewbook should be online in an easy-to-access format (but in a lively, intuitive way, not a stagnant electronic version of the viewbook). Currently UM-Flint uses a link to the admissions e-mail address as an inquiry form. While the e-mail address is helpful for students to ask questions, it’s not the most efficient way for the admissions offices to collect data. There should be a form that asks all the pertinent questions – name, address, phone, e-mail, intended major, high school, graduation year, SAT, GPA, undergrad or graduate inquiry, college from which the student is transferring, etc. This type of form is especially important for international students. Such a form will allow the University to download an inquiry’s information directly into the institutional admissions database. We understand that design changes to allow for this are on the near horizon. Toward that end, Carnegie also recommends improving the management of traffic to the UM-Flint Web site. Relatively inexpensive overlay programs can be purchased and then superimposed upon the University’s current data management software system. Once this system is in place, all visitors to the Web site can be tracked. One of the greatest benefits of this overlay is the ability to automatically send customized responses. For instance, when a customer purchases goods from www.amazon.com, a confirmation e-mail message is automatically sent, thanking the customer for her/his business, offering a confirmation number, etc. Carnegie believes strongly that if a prospective student provides her/his e-mail address, s/he is essentially saying to the institution “I want to be communicated with electronically”. This e-mail overlay is a way to do just that, yet without adding staff or complexity to the admissions function.


The following table summarizes our findings after reviewing all of the Web sites in the competitive set.

Competitive Set Web site Audit Baker

College of Flint baker.edu

Michigan State University msu.edu

Mott Community College mcc.edu

Oakland University oakland.edu

Saginaw Valley State University tardis.svsu.edu

University of Michigan – Flint flint.umich.edu

Does the site load quickly?

Yes Yes Yes Yes Only home page loads quickly

Yes

Is the overall site design appealing?

Yes Yes No. It’s sometimes amateurish and the gold brown colors used make it seem dull

No. It doesn’t appeal to the student audience. Navigation images a bit blurry

Yes, but the graphics are a bit fuzzy and amateurish.

For the most part. See detailed review above.

Is the site well organized?

No. It’s hard to find the information you’re looking for

No Yes Yes Yes Information for prospective students could be better outlined

Is the site easy to navigate?

Could be cleaner

No, two navigational menus, which are a bit confusing

Yes Yes No link back to the home navigational page

No. Hyperlinks are counter-intuitive

How deep do you have to go to get information?

It doesn’t go deep enough to give all requisite information

The admissions information is clearly laid out

Two to three screens past the home page.

The information does not go into enough detail

Detailed information is easily found

Information is buried too deeply into the site to be accessible

Is the institutional image consistent throughout the site?

Yes No Yes. The navigation menu is repeated on every page

Yes. Yes, with the exception of athletics

Only the first level of pages off the home page are consistent

Is there a search engine?

Yes Yes Yes, but not prominently displayed

No No Yes

Is there a site map? Yes No No No Yes A navigation link for site map appears, but it brings up the campus map

Are there unusual or creative features to the site?

No Web Talk, List serve, Online viewbook

Register online

Online viewbook

Yes No

Does the site contain the following necessary information for prospective students in the main menus?


Competitive Set Web site Audit, continued

Baker College of Flint baker.edu

Michigan State University msu.edu

Mott Community College mcc.edu

Oakland University oakland.edu

Saginaw Valley State University tardis.svsu.edu

University of Michigan – Flint flint.umich.edu

Prominently dis-played physical address and phone?

No Yes Yes Yes No No

Admissions information for undergraduates?

Yes Yes Yes, but very brief

Yes Yes Yes

Admissions information for graduate students?

Yes Yes N/A Yes Yes Yes

Admissions information for transfer students?

No Yes Yes No Yes Yes

Admissions information for foreign students?

No Yes Yes No Yes Yes

Admissions information for non-trad students?

No No Yes No No Yes

Map and directions to campus?

Yes Yes Yes Campus map, but no directions

Didn’t display properly for us

Yes

Online application? Yes Yes No Yes Yes Yes Pay application fee online?

No No No No No No

Inquiry form? Yes Yes Yes e-mail option No, or not easily found

E-mail only for now

Tuition and fees? Couldn’t find

Yes Yes Couldn’t find Yes Couldn’t find

Financial aid information/process?

No Yes Yes, link to online application

There is a page, but no detailed information

Yes Couldn’t find

Residential life? The information is there, but very hard to find

This page is hard to find and the information is weak

N/A Yes Yes – a very good page for residential life.

N/A

Athletics? No Yes Yes, but no contact info for coaches

Yes Yes N/A

Complete list of majors and programs?

No, they are listed by division

No, they are listed by college

No, they are listed by division

Yes Yes Yes

Check admissions status online?

No No No No Yes No

Figure 2.11


Distance Learning Programs Three schools in the competitive set had clearly identified online or distance learning programs leading toward a degree: Baker College, Mott Community College, and Michigan State University. While UM-Flint offers a few online courses, it does not appear to have, nor does it market through the Web site, degrees via online instruction as the other three institutions do. Baker College offers master’s, associate, bachelor and graduate-level certificate programs via distance learning. Master’s degrees offered include: computer information systems, health care management, human resource management, industrial management, integrated health care, international business, leadership studies, marketing, and business administration. Baker offers one bachelor’s degree program—an accelerated bachelor of business administration—and one associate’s degree program—associate of business administration/general business administration. Mott Community College offers five associate degrees via distance learning: general business, computer occupations technology, general studies, arts, and science. This institution claims to have the largest distance-learning enrollment of any Michigan Community College with more than 3,400 enrollments in distance learning courses in the 1996-97 academic year. In addition to offering courses within the regular fields of study, Michigan State’s “Virtual University” offers the following degree and certificate courses: beam physics (master’s and Ph.D.), CAD certificate program, master’s in criminal justice, human environment and design facilities management certificate program, school of social work competency series (master’s level certificate program) and watershed management certificate program. Carnegie has worked with several distance-learning programs, including those at Thomas Edison State College (NJ) and Georgia G.L.O.B.E. That distance learning via the Web is a viable educational medium is seemingly accepted as fact. The more important question, we believe, is whether online learning is right for all types of students, and for all types of campuses. We believe that it is not. Further, institutions that hastily compile a distance learning program using the Web are often unprepared for the myriad of challenges associated therewith. Whether Web-based distance learning is an appropriate medium for UM-Flint is an issue that extends far beyond the scope of our research. However, we do know that over one-half of all faculty members who responded to our survey indicated the need for Web-based distance learning on campus, suggesting that this is an important issue to be addressed in the future campus dialogue. Academic Programs An important component of the competitive analysis is a review of the academic programs of each university to identify opportunities UM-Flint may have over the competition when it comes to marketing its programs. Figure 2.12 outlines the academic programs unique to UM-Flint. Some of these programs may be offered in part by other schools in the competitive set, but are not marketed in the same way, in the same combination, or by the same name. A complete review of academic programs from the competitive set can be found in Appendix A.


Academic Program Offerings Unique to UM-Flint

Actuarial Science Administration of Service to the Aged

Applied Science Engineering Science

English, Specialization in Technical Writing Environmental Science/Natural Resources

French and International Studies French Linguistics

Germanic Languages Health Care

Health Care Administration Health Services, Community

Health Systems, Administration Managerial Engineering

Organizational Behavior & Human Resources Management Philosophy & Psychology Public Health Education

Resource Ecology Resource Planning

Romance Languages Speech and Rhetorical Studies

Figure 2.12

Conclusion The competitive analysis yielded an abundance of important information to enrich the Enrollment Market Analysis for UM-Flint. Compared to its competitors, UM-Flint performs well in some areas, and is weaker in others. Equally important is the perception of quality surrounding the institution. For instance, U.S. News & World Report data suggests that the University is not selective, as it admits 89% of its applicants. This is just one of many reasons Carnegie believes that the admissions office should take proactive steps to increase the applicant pool. In so doing, the University can become more selective, with the long-term effect of enrolling a more academically qualified student body. At the same time, having a larger applicant pool will allow the admissions office to accept fewer applicants, leading to a lower published acceptance rate. This will, in turn, send positive messages about quality, ultimately improving the institution’s reputation. This is especially important when recruiting prospective students from Target Groups A and B (as discussed at length in Chapter 7). On the other hand, the institution has a number of positive attributes that are not being successfully transmitted to the college-going public. For instance, the student/faculty ratio is an appealing 18/1. This contradicts the commonly held notion that public institutions are large, impersonal places where students get lost. What’s more, we learned in our qualitative and quantitative research that the quality of teaching is a significant draw for the institution. These two factors combined make the powerful case that UM-Flint offers much of what students typically seek in a private college. Carnegie believes that once a strong strategic marketing plan is conceived and implemented, this is one of the more powerful messages to send.


Other positive attributes of the University of Michigan-Flint include its affordability compared to the other institutions in the competitive set (Mott Community College and Saginaw Valley State notwithstanding). Moreover, the University offers more in the way of financial aid than its competitors. For instance, the University boasts the highest average financial aid package of the competing institutions. That said, we are concerned about the University’s marketing efforts. In particular, we believe that the University should seriously consider a wholesale revision of its recruitment publications. The current set of publications, while not bad in and of itself, is simply outclassed by several competitors. Since these competitors are in large part only those institutions with which UM-Flint crosses applicants most frequently, there are doubtless other institutions that can be viewed as competitors, and these campuses may have better publications still. In a competitive industry where image is so vitally important, we fear that the University comes across as being cheap. This is not a battle in which the institution spending the least is the winner. We strongly recommend that the University appropriate the resources necessary to create a larger, more comprehensive, more visually appealing series of recruitment pieces. New recruitment publications, whether created in-house or by an outside vendor, are vital to growing enrollments and to projecting an image of quality and substance. Similarly, the University’s Web site needs work. None of its competitors has a great Web site either. This medium is in its infancy, and most institutions are struggling with how to best make use of the Web. Though the UM-Flint site has some appealing features, it suffers greatly from a lack of intuitive navigability. Many links do not make sense. The site is riddled with abbreviations that are meaningless to prospective students. The site desperately needs more photos, and would benefit from at least a modicum of eye-catching flash animation. The site is not particularly useful for prospective students, which is a glaring flaw that calls for immediate attention. Finally, the University offers a number of academic programs that are seemingly unique to UM-Flint. Several are vital given the aforementioned findings of the environmental scan, such as health care, health care administration, and environmental science. If at all possible, the University should re-examine these programs to gauge whether they can be more heavily promoted as a way to differentiate UM-Flint from its competition, while at the same time enabling the University to train future workers in areas of growing import throughout the state of Michigan.


Chapter Three: Focus Groups Introduction Carnegie’s original proposal for research called for a series of focus groups, to be conducted on campus with a variety of key audiences. A focus group entails gathering a small group of individuals for an open-ended discussion on a particular topic of interest to the sponsor. To be conducted properly, the group must be facilitated by an unbiased, third-party moderator. Dr. Scott Levine moderated all focus groups at UM-Flint to ensure consistency. Long before the first group was scheduled, he worked with staff to create the moderator guide. Carnegie’s research method entails conducting focus groups and using the results of the groups to inform the creation of survey instruments. Toward that end, we worked with staff to schedule a series of focus groups with key student audiences. To encourage participants, Carnegie offered a small cash stipend of $10 to all students who participated. Due to scheduling challenges, we split the focus groups into two different campus visits. The first, on April 13, 2000, allowed us to conduct focus groups with current undergraduate students. On May 17, 2000, we conducted groups with adult learners, international students, and graduate students. All of the groups were held in Room 359A UCEN. The University provided light refreshments, and we situated the group around a long table, with the moderator in the middle. Each group was audiotaped, and the results were reviewed as a precursor to developing the survey instruments (both paper and electronic) that followed. Following is a brief review of the feedback we gathered in the focus groups. Because the primary purpose of the groups was to inform the creation of the survey instruments, we address the findings only briefly before exploring in considerable detail the results of the surveying. Focus Groups with Undergraduate Students 13 April 2000

1. General satisfaction with the UM-Flint experience: the phrase “generally pretty good” was used numerous times several students commented that there are not enough classes offered, and that there is

not enough specificity in programs

2. Satisfaction with the academic experience: like class size and interaction with professors course availability is a problem need more majors overall mixed

3. Quality of student life:

“non-existent” it’s what you make of it need a critical mass of students total commuter campus

4. Four things you’d most like to change:

more student involvement wider variety of classes and times need housing parking


5. Would you have been interested in student housing?

overwhelmingly positive response to this question

6. Perceived advantages of living on campus: convenience critical mass—community-building better academic performance greater safety would help grow enrollments

7. Concerns about living on campus:

safety cost might be prohibitive proximity to classes more problems getting courses parking issues

8. Amount willing to spend to live on campus:

$400/month per person including meals/kitchen facility comparable to current rent for one bedroom in Flint no more than $1,500/semester

9. Type of housing desired:

apartment-style (unanimous) Focus Groups with Other Students 17 May 2000

1. Graduate Students: generally pretty satisfied like small class sizes, pleased with faculty unhappy about course availability, want cross-curricular flexibility no sufficient interest in family housing

2. International Students:

like small class sizes say there is nothing to do in Flint see more international interest in UM-Flint because of UM name, low cost,

smaller class sizes must offer housing prefer apartment-style housing on campus with a meal plan option

3. Adult Learners:

would like online distance learning want more courses in general want night, spring, and summer classes would pay $250-$350/month for housing with a roommate


Chapter Four: Faculty/Staff/Alumni Surveys Introduction UM-Flint asked Carnegie to survey three constituencies with first-hand knowledge of UM-Flint: faculty, staff, and alumni. As noted below, the latter groups were added after the official start of our project, and we believe that their inclusion has added measurably to the overall usefulness of our Enrollment Market Analysis. Wherever possible, we designed the survey instruments to ask similar questions of each audience. In so doing, we are able to compare findings across populations. In reviewing this section, please note that the findings for the common core set of questions are presented together, i.e., all questions posed to faculty, staff, and alumni are presented together. This information is followed by information specific to each of the three separate audiences. For instance, the alumni survey includes questions about whether the availability of housing would make the respondent more likely to send her son or daughter to UM-Flint, but this question was not asked on the faculty and staff surveys. Faculty Survey Methodology On April 14, 2000, a large group was assembled in the University Pavilion on the UM-Flint campus. Attendees included Chancellor Mestas, key members of his cabinet, and representatives from the Faculty Council. During this critical meeting, several decisions were made. Perhaps the most important was the need to add two specific audiences to the Enrollment Market Analysis: UM-Flint staff and alumni. Toward that end, it was agreed that the scope of the study would be expanded by surveying both of these audiences, with attendant increases in both cost and the amount of time required to complete the entire study. At that meeting, Carnegie received a list of issues from the Provost, which helped to create the faculty members’ survey. At this meeting, Carnegie outlined the methodology and benefits of the proposed survey methodology, known as eSurveying. This technology eliminates the need for either direct mail or telephone surveying, with subsequent cost and time savings. Given the late start date, eSurveying was necessary in order to get as much feedback as possible from members of the faculty before the end of the academic year. Once the final instrument was evaluated and approved, Chancellor Mestas’ office sent a pre-announcement e-mail message to all faculty alerting them that they would be soon receive an e-mail message from Carnegie that included a hyperlink to the eSurvey, and encouraging their response. It is highly likely that this step contributed to the excellent overall response rate of 58.8%. We expect that the response rate would have been even higher had the survey been conducted earlier in the academic year, when faculty are more likely to be around and are not focused on end-of-the-semester duties. Following Dr. Mestas’ message, Carnegie sent an invitation to all faculty members to participate in the faculty survey. The introductory electronic message, which appears in Figure 4.1 below, contained a link to the URL for the Internet survey. A copy of the survey instrument can be found in Appendix B.


E-mail Message Inviting Faculty to Participate in Survey Subject: Flint Faculty Online Survey Message: Following Chancellor Mestas' e-mail message, I am delighted to send herewith a short electronic survey for you to fill out. Please click on the hyperlink below, which will take you to the online, point-and-click survey instrument. If the hyperlink below is not working please cut and paste the URL in to your browser. http://applyyourself.com/prospect/aycontact.cfm?id=carn-flint Please select your answers on the instrument and simply click on the "Submit" key when done. Thank you for your assistance. Scott H. Levine, Ph.D. Carnegie Communications, Inc.

Figure 4.1

The following week, we sent a follow-up message to non-respondents to encourage them to take a few moments to answer the survey. Overall there was a 58.8% response rate with 103 of 175 faculty members responding to the survey. Seventy-two percent of faculty respondents were members of the College of Arts and Sciences (Figure 4.2)

Staff Survey Methodology Members of the University’s staff council and the Carnegie team discussed the actual questions to be included in the staff survey as well as its content, organization, layout, and functionality. Figure 4.3 shows a screen capture of the online instrument. The entire instrument can be viewed in Appendix C.

In what College/School do you teach?

College of Arts & Sciences

72%

School of Management7%

School of Health Professions & Studies

14%

School of Education & Human Services

7%


Figure 4.3

Once the survey was created and approved, all staff members received an e-mail message from the head of the University’s Staff Council inviting them to participate in the survey. In an earlier focus group with staff, we determined that offering a monetary incentive would likely boost response rates. Therefore, Carnegie constructed the survey so that two randomly selected staff respondents would win $50 each. In order to preserve anonymity, each staff member’s e-mail address was assigned a corresponding four-digit code. The outgoing e-mail instructed the recipient to enter the code at the beginning of the survey in order to be eligible for the drawing. The introductory electronic message, which appears in Figure 4.4 below, contained a link to the URL for the Internet Survey.

E-mail Message Inviting Staff to Participate in Survey Subject: UM-Flint Staff Survey Message: The University's Enrollment Market Analysis includes an electronic survey of staff to gauge your perceptions about enrollment growth on campus. Carnegie Communications created the survey, with input from the Staff Council. Please take a few moments to complete the online survey by going to: www.carnegiecomm.com/sms/flint_staff.htm. To encourage response, we are offering the chance to win one of two $50.00 cash prizes. To be eligible, please enter the survey code XXXX in the space provided at the beginning of the survey. Carnegie will notify the two winners in about two weeks. Thanks for your help! Scott H. Levine, Ph.D. Carnegie Communications, Inc.

Figure 4.4


A second e-mail invitation was issued to non-respondents one week later to encourage additional response. One-hundred-forty-seven or 40% of the 366 staff members surveyed, responded to the survey (Figure 4.5).

Audience Number Surveyed/ Successful E-mails

Number of Responses Response Rate

Faculty 175 103 58.8% Staff 366 147 40% Alumni 183 87 47.5% Prospective Students 4,911 1,049 21.3%

Figure 4.5

Alumni Survey Methodology Carnegie surveyed alumni for whom the University had e-mail addresses on file. The survey instrument created for this purpose parallels those used for faculty and staff, with the addition of some independent questions particular to this audience. The Alumni Office provided Carnegie with 403 e-mail addresses that contained approximately a dozen duplicates, i.e., the alum was listed more than once with different email addresses. Since we were uncertain which was the correct address, all of the e-mail messages were included in the mailing. The alumni office informed Carnegie that the accuracy of the e-mail addresses on file was suspect, and our experience proved this to be true. More than half (approximately 220) of the e-mail messages were returned as undeliverable due to an incorrect e-mail address. We were fortunate that the Alumni Office offered to include a link to the eSurvey on the Alumni Association’s homepage of the UM-Flint Web site. As a result, we were able to collect an additional 28 responses from alumni who would have otherwise not received or known of the survey. We suspect that in the near future, all campus offices will become far more adept at collecting and verifying e-mail addresses, as it is likely that this will become the preferred medium for communication with a variety of constituents, from vendors to alumni to current students and parents. The introductory electronic message, which appears in Figure 4.6 below, contained a link to the URL for the Internet survey. A copy of the instrument can be found in Appendix D.

E-mail Message Inviting Alumni to Participate in Survey Subject: UM-Flint Alumni Survey inside, please open Message The University of Michigan-Flint has embarked on an ambitious Enrollment Market Analysis to help guide future strategic planning for the institution. This effort includes surveying alumni members to gauge their perceptions of growth for the University. Carnegie Communications, Inc., a full-service marketing and research firm, has been retained to conduct this research. Please click on URL below to complete the short questionnaire. If the hyperlink does not function, please cut and paste this URL into your browser. All respondents will be entered in a drawing to win one of two $50.00 cash prizes. The survey will ask you for a 4-digit survey code. Your code is:0000 http://www.carnegiecomm.com/sms/flint_alumni.htm Thanks for your help! Scott H. Levine, Ph.D. Carnegie Communications, Inc.

Figure 4.6


Overall, 115 responses to the survey were received. A total of 87 responses, 47.5%, are a direct result of the e-mail message sent out by Carnegie. A total of 28 responses were a result of this link on the alumni Web site. Perhaps not surprisingly, the largest portion of alumni responding graduated between 1990 and 2000 (Figure 4.7).

Research Findings On the pages that follow, we present the findings of the campus survey research project. We pose and subsequently answer a series of important questions designed to address the research objectives of this portion of the project. In this manner, we present the quantitative findings of the survey research. Charts and graphs are used, where necessary, to highlight the pertinent findings. In addition, we provide commentary to explain the implications of the data. It may be helpful for the reader to refer to the survey instruments included in Appendix D while reviewing these findings. Findings for Questions Asked on All Surveys The faculty, staff, and alumni surveys share a core set of common questions. Wherever possible, the instruments were designed to accommodate this level of comparability. However, due to the differing nature of the audiences and the different issues they face, each instrument contained unique components as well. This section will review the common questions.

What is your year of graduation?

1960-196910%

1970-197925%

1980-198928%

1990-200037%

Figure 4.7

The majority of respondents graduated from UM-Flint in the last two years.


Do you think that student housing would enhance the UM-Flint experience and community? The majority of faculty, staff and alumni, more than 85% for each group, believe that student housing would enhance the UM-Flint experience and the overall University community. Clearly, there is agreement among a variety of University constituencies that campus housing would have a positive impact on the overall UM-Flint community.

Do you think student housing would enhance the UM-Flint experience and community?

Faculty

No11%

Yes89%


Staff

Missing1% No

12%

Yes87%


Alumni

No13%

Yes87%

More than 85% of faculty and staff feel that student housing would enhance the

UM-Flint

Figure 4.8


What type of student housing would enhance the UM-Flint experience and community? Sixty-eight percent of both faculty and staff, as well as 57% of alumni survey respondents, believe that apartment-style housing would most benefit the UM-Flint community. Ten percent of staff and alumni, compared to six percent of faculty, feel that no housing would benefit the community.

Figure 4.9

What type of student housing do you think would most benefit our community?

Faculty

Traditional dormitory21%

Apartment-style dwelling68%

Other5%

None6%


Staff

Traditional dormitory20%Other

1%

None10%

Missing1%



Alumni

Traditional dormitory28%

Other3%

None10%

Missing2%


The majority of faculty, staff and

alumni believe that “apartment-style

dwelling” would best benefit UM-Flint


Will adding student housing increase student enrollment? Overwhelming percentages of faculty, staff, and alumni report that adding student housing would boost student enrollments at UM-Flint. Seventy-nine percent of faculty and alumni and 84% of staff believe that student housing will help to increase student enrollment on campus. This stands as one of the most salient findings of our research, as it indicates quite clearly the perceived positive outcome of creating student housing on the campus.

Adding student housing will increase student enrollment.Alumni

Stongly disagree1%

Disagree10%

Neutral10%

Agree61%

Strongly agree18%

Adding student housing will increase student enrollment.Staff

Strongly disagree2%

Disagree6%

Neutral8%

Agree58%

Strongly agree26%

Adding student housing will increase enrollment.Faculty

Strongly agree23%

Agree56%

Neutral14%

Disagree6%

Strongly disagree1%

Figure 4.10

Faculty, staff and alumni all believe that student housing will increase UM-Flint’s student

enrollment.


Will adding student housing increase the academic quality of incoming students? Results are far less consistent and conclusive regarding whether campus housing would increase the academic quality of incoming students. Fifty-two percent of faculty, 37% of staff, and 48% of alumni respond that they believe student housing would increase the academic quality of incoming students. The largest segment of staff report to be neutral. Response to this question suggests that while certainly some members of each group suspect a positive correlation between offering student housing and increased academic quality of students, this is by no means conclusive. We find it interesting that more than half of all faculty respondents see this correlation and suspect that further dialogue with faculty across campus would add measurably to the discussion.

Figure 4.11

The majority of faculty, staff and students agree that student housing will

help to increase the academic quality of incoming students.

Adding student housing will increase the academic quality of incoming students.

Faculty

Strongly agree12%

Agree40%

Neutral36%

Disagree11%

Strongly disagree1%


Staff

Strongly disagree4%

Disagree17%

Neutral42%

Agree36%

Strongly agree1%


Alumni

Stongly disagree1% Disagree

15%

Neutral36%

Agree38%

Strongly agree10%


Will adding student housing improve the academic performance of current students? Whereas the previous question attempts to draw a correlation between the availability of housing and the quality of incoming students, this question focuses instead on the perceived benefit of housing on students after they enroll. The majority of each population report neutral feelings about the impact student housing will have on the academic performance of current students. Forty-four percent of faculty compared to 34% of staff and 37% of alumni believe improved academic performance of current students will be a result of student housing (Figure 4.12). Clearly, this is an area for further discussion. Carnegie’s literature review suggests that living in campus housing can have quite positive effects upon student academic performance. A survey of prospective students further indicated that this is a perceived benefit for some students, namely minority students and freshmen (as opposed to transfer students). We include below one example of a public institution (the University of Georgia) where there is a perceived positive correlation between living on campus and greater academic performance.

Adding student housing will improve academic performance of current students.

Faculty

Strongly agree10%

Agree34%

Neutral41%

Disagree14%

Strongly disagree1%

Adding student housing will increase the academic performance of current students.

Staff

Strongly disagree5%

Disagree16%

Neutral45%

Agree29%

Strongly agree5%

Adding student housing will increase the academic performance of current students.

Alumni

Stongly disagree2%

Disagree18%

Neutral43%

Agree33%

Strongly agree4%

All three populations have neutral feelings regarding the impact student housing will

have on the academic quality of current

students.

Figure 4.12


From: Atlanta Journal Constitution, Wednesday, August 9, 2000 UGA has housing shortage New and transfer students want residential experience Rebecca McCarthy – Staff Athens --- Whether they want proximity to campus, a pedestrian orientation or the camaraderie of making new friends, more incoming freshmen will be moving into University of Georgia residence halls this academic year than last year. So many new and transfer students are coming, in fact, that housing officials have had to convert guest rooms and study lounges into dormitory rooms to cope with overflow, said Jim Day, UGA's director of housing. He estimated that more than 85 percent of new students will be living in campus housing, up from 84 percent last year. "Almost too many people want to live with us, but we won't know how many for sure until classes start," said Day. "Usually when we have someone in overflow housing, we can move them to something permanent in three weeks. But this could go on for six weeks or more." The university has 17 residence halls with 3,125 rooms, accommodating about 5,950 students. More than 6,200 have applied for campus housing. There also are 579 apartments for married and graduate students. In the past few years, the university has seen a shift in the number of male and female students. Last year's freshman class was almost 60 percent female, and that number is expected to remain steady or increase slightly this fall. "We went from having vacancies in housing for women to having 85 women this year who are in overflow housing," said Day. "And there are lots of women waiting for rooms," many of them transfer students who didn't get an acceptance until July. The advantages of living in a residence hall seem to outweigh the disadvantages for many students who are serious about their classes, according to housing officials. Last fall, freshmen in university housing posted an average grade-point average of 2.96, better than the 2.93 of all undergraduates and the 2.85 average GPA earned by freshmen living off-campus. In the spring semester, on-campus freshmen averaged an improved GPA of 3.03, while the average GPA of those off-campus fell slightly to 2.84. "I guess in a residence hall you're more likely to live with people who want to make good grades," said Day. "You don't waste time commuting, shopping for groceries, or cleaning up a kitchen. You can devote most of your time to academic work and university life." UGA President Michael Adams echoes other university presidents in saying that a key to improving the undergraduate residential experience is having more people live on campus. When it opens a new 440-bed, high-tech residence hall on Aug. 19, the University of South Carolina will have 40 percent of its students living on campus, and an additional 10 percent when it completes a Greek housing complex currently under construction. At UGA, only 18 percent of the 31,000 students live on campus, and that statistic includes 300 to 500 fraternity and sorority members living in houses on university property. Although Adams wants 25 percent of students living on campus, accommodating a greater number won't be possible without new dormitories --- and Georgia hasn't built any new ones in more than 30 years. University officials are exploring the possibility of creating a public-private partnership for new residence halls and are looking at East Campus as a possible location. Danny Sniff, head of university architects, envisions a multi-use building, with a lower level possibly devoted to retail, at a maximum of four stories high and no more than 450 or 500 beds. "It's one of the indicators of a change in the university culture that more students are interested in the things that on-campus living brings, the learning community, specifically," Day said. "Living in a residence hall offers an opportunity for a more intense involvement. Going to the University of Georgia isn't like commuting to a job."

Figure 4.13


Will adding student housing build a sense of “community” on campus? Eighty-eight percent of faculty, 89% of staff, and 87% of alumni report that they believe student housing will build a sense of community on campus. Interestingly, more recent UM-Flint graduates (those who earned their degrees in the 80s or 90s) are more likely to report that student housing will build a sense of community on campus. Clearly, there is great agreement about this from campus employees. What’s more, our focus groups with a variety of currently enrolled students reveal similar feelings. This sense of community is an important step because, once created, it becomes a self-perpetuating cycle. On many campuses, a strong sense of community leads to greater student involvement, more satisfied students, and, subsequently, stronger retention rates and more generous donations from alumni. Students visiting the campus feel this synergy, and find it a more appealing place to be as well, leading ultimately to increased growth.

Adding student housing will build a sense of "community" on campus.

Faculty

Strongly agree34%

Agree54%

Neutral8%

Disagree4%


Staff

Strongly disagree2%

Disagree4%

Neutral5%

Agree49%

Strongly agree40%


Alumni

Stongly disagree1%

Disagree2%

Neutral10%

Agree46%

Strongly agree41%

Figure 4.14

More than 87% of faculty, staff and alumni

believe that campus housing will help to

build a sense of community on campus.


Will adding student housing help revitalize downtown Flint? Approximately three-quarters of faculty (78%), staff (77%), and alumni (74%) report that they believe adding student housing will help revitalize downtown Flint. Though this question raises issues that extend far beyond the scope of our research, it is nonetheless telling to see how consistently each audience agreed with the proposition.

Adding student housing will help revitalize downtown Flint.

Faculty

Strongly agree22%

Agree56%

Neutral7%

Disagree10%

Strongly disagree5%


Staff

Strongly disagree5%

Disagree4%

Neutral14%

Agree45%

Strongly agree32%


Alumni

Stongly disagree4%

Disagree4%

Neutral18%

Agree47%

Strongly agree27%

Approximately three-quarters of

respondents believe student housing will

help to revitalize downtown Flint.

Figure 4.15


Will adding student housing create a critical mass of students on campus? Sixty-eight percent of faculty, compared to 50% of staff and 61% of alumni, agree that adding student housing will create a critical mass of students on campus. Nine percent of faculty compared to 21% of staff and 10% of alumni disagree that student housing will impact the critical mass of students on campus. Student focus groups also suggested quite strongly that housing would add to this critical mass. Many students we spoke with eagerly want this type of presence on the UM-Flint campus.

Most respondents agree that student

housing will help to create a critical mass

of students on campus.

Adding student housing will create a critical mass of students on campus.

Faculty

Strongly agree21%

Agree47%

Neutral23%

Disagree7%

Strongly disagree2%

Adding student housing will create a critical mass of students on campus.

Staff

Strongly disagree4%

Disagree17%

Neutral29%

Agree35%

Strongly agree15%

Adding student housing will create a critical mass of student on campus.

Alumni

Stongly disagree2%

Disagree8%

Neutral29%

Agree47%

Strongly agree14%

Figure 4.16


Which academic programs do you feel are most likely to attract new students? Both faculty and staff agree on the top seven programs that are most likely to attract new students to UM-Flint. This question was posed to only faculty and staff. Nursing is not the top pick for each individual population, but it rises to the top when all responses from the faculty, staff, and alumni populations are combined.

Top Seven Programs Most Likely to Attract New Students to UM-Flint 1. Nursing 2. Health Care 3. Physical Therapy 4. Management 5. Computer Science 6. Education 7 Engineering Science

Figure 4.17

The charts that follow delve more deeply into the perceptions of each both faculty and staff.

Faculty and staff believe that

nursing is one of the top programs likely to attract new students to

UM-Flint.


Which academic programs do you feel are most likely toattract new students to UM-Flint?

Faculty

2

2

3

3

4

5

5

7

7

9

10

11

11

11

16

16

17

20

20

21

22

22

22

22

25

27

29

30

38

39

39

43

47

0 20 40 60 80 100 120

Anthropology

Philosophy

History

Sociology

Political Science

Foreign Language

Physics

Africana Studies

Mathematics

English

Economics

Finance

Music & Art

Operations Management

Human Resource Management

Psychology

Chemistry

Accounting

Communication

Criminal Justice

Earth Resource Science

Public Administration

Social Work

Theatre & Dance

Marketing

Biology

Management

Engineering Science

Nursing

Computer Science

Health Care

Physical Therapy

Education

Number of Responses

Figure 4.18

Faculty believe that Education, Physical

Therapy and Health Care are the programs most likely to attract new

students.


Please mark the academic programs you feel are most likely to attract new students to UM-Flint.

Staff

6

8

11

12

16

22

23

23

25

27

28

31

31

40

41

42

45

47

50

50

56

56

57

61

61

71

73

91

94

95

99

101

107

0 20 40 60 80 100 120

Philosophy

Anthropology

History

Foreign Language

Sociology

English

Physics

Political Science

Economics

Mathematics

Psychology

Africana Studies

Earth Resource Science

Finance

Operations Management

Music & Art

Criminal Justice

Chemistry

Biology

Theatre & Dance

Human Resource Management

Public Administration

Communication

Accounting

Social Work

Marketing

Engineering Science

Education

Computer Science

Management

Physical Therapy

Health Care

Nursing

Number of Responses

Figure 4.19

Staff believe that Nursing, Health Care

and Physical Therapy are the programs that will most likely attract new

students.


Which of the following undergraduate groups do you think are most critical to growing enrollment at UM-Flint? Faculty, staff and alumni report that they believe community college students, students within a 70-mile radius of campus, and other students who live in Michigan are the groups most crucial to growing the enrollment at UM-Flint.1 This feedback is interesting on several levels. Few note the need to grow enrollments outside of Michigan, even though the need to do so has been discussed since our study began. This may be the result of answering the question based on the current status quo on campus, without considering possible changes in the future. Few respondents suggest international students as well, yet Carnegie has been told that this is an audience of interest. Essentially, we wonder about the degree to which internal communication on campus needs to be improved so that all players are, in the current lexicon, “on the same page” about how to grow enrollments. In fact, this need to get on the same page is troubling. The Carnegie team, after reviewing all of our findings and spending countless hours working on this project, feels strongly that the University of Michigan-Flint needs to create and implement a strategic marketing plan. This type of integrated blueprint outlines in explicit detail where the University wants to go, and the steps that will be taken in terms of marketing to get there. A true marketing plan includes developing a few key themes, then building communication efforts around each of these themes for each campus constituency. For instance, key majors might be determined to have the greatest ability to positively impact the institution. The admissions office would market these programs heavily in areas where they are likely to be of interest to students. Faculty would beef up curricula in these areas. Financial aid would work on scholarships for students interested in these programs. Publications would tout the programs, and the PR office would write press releases on successful research in these areas. In other words, the entire University would mobilize to promote the programs. This is an extremely difficult—yet important—undertaking. Most of the campuses Carnegie works with are engaged in, or considering, an integrated marketing plan. We believe strongly that UM-Flint would benefit from such a plan.

Figure 4.20

1 The options “international students” and “students who live outside of MI” were not available on the faculty survey.

Which of the following undergraduate groups do you think aremost critical to growing enrollment at UM-Flint?

31 33

6773

89 9199

105

0 0

28 25

38

5768

39

25 25

40 35 40

6573 76

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

Internationalstudents

Students who liveoutside MI

Students notadmitted to UM-

Ann Arbor

Minoritystudents

Transferstudents

Students who livein MI but beyonda 70 mile radius

of campus

Students who livewithin a 70 mile

radius of campus

Communitycollegestudents

Num

ber o

f Res

pons

es

Staff Faculty Alumni


Faculty Survey Research Findings What is your impression of the academic quality of UM-Flint students? Nearly two-thirds, or 64%, of faculty report they believe UM-Flint students are of average academic quality. About one-fifth of faculty report that they believe UM-Flint students are of high academic quality. Adding campus housing will necessitate increases in services to students. Do you think these changes are justified given the benefits of having campus housing? Eighty percent of faculty believe that the increase in services necessary for residential students is justified given the benefits that student housing will bring to UM-Flint.

What is your impression of the academic quality of UM-Flint students?

High academic quality19%

Average academic quality64%

Low academic quality15%

Very low academic quality

1%Very high academic

quality1%

Figure 4.22

Figure 4.21

Most faculty, 64%, consider UM-Flint

students to be of average academic quality.

80% of faculty believe the changes in student services

necessary for campus housing are justified.

Adding campus housing will necessitate increases in services to students. Do you think these changes are justified give the benefits of having campus housing?

No20%

Yes80%


Which of the following delivery methods do you feel should be part of the UM-Flint pedagogy? Ninety-five percent of faculty report that evening courses should be part of the UM-Flint pedagogy. More than half of the faculty report that Web-based distance learning courses and weekend courses should be part of the UM-Flint offerings. Which additional academic programs do you think would help draw more students to UM-Flint? Thirty-three faculty members responded with written comments to this question. Their suggestions outlined below are divided into undergraduate and graduate programs.

Undergraduate Programs Graduate Programs Aging Studies Business

Applied Mathematics Biology Bioengineering Education

Computer Engineering Environmental Management Engineering physics For current teachers

Environmental Health Health Care Global Studies Mathematics and other sciences for teachers

Information Systems Nursing Information Technology E-Commerce Psychology

International studies Psychology Management Information Systems Social Work

Meteorology Multi-disciplinary programs such as International Studies and Management; Religious Studies and

Nursing; Women’s Studies and Education

Special Education Statistics

Women’s and Gender Studies

Figure 4.24

Figure 1

Which of the following delivery methods do you feel should be part of the UM-Flint pedagogy?

27

61

62

95

0 20 40 60 80 100

TV-based distancelearning courses

Weekend courses

Web-based distancelearning courses

Evening courses

Number of Responses

Figure 4.23

Faculty believe evening courses, more than any other delivery method, should be

part of the UM-Flint pedagogy.


Staff Survey Research Findings Do you think that the size of the UM-Flint student body should grow? A resounding majority of staff, 96%, believe that the size of the UM-Flint student body should grow. There is almost complete support for growth. Do you think that having student housing will increase the need for services on campus? Similarly, 96% of staff believe that the creation of student housing will increase the need for services on campus.

Do you th ink that the size of the UM -Flintstudent body should grow ?

No4%

Yes96%

Do you think that having student housing will increase the need for services on campus?

No4%

Yes96%

Figure 4.25

Figure 4.26

96% of staff believe that the UM-Flint student body should grow.

Most staff believe that having student housing will

increase the need for services on campus.


What areas do you think would be affected by having student housing at UM-Flint? Staff survey respondents believe that campus safety, housekeeping, parking, grounds keeping, student union, campus mail, campus programming, counseling, and library will be most affected by having student housing on campus. Do the benefits of student housing outweigh the negatives? Ninety-six percent of staff report that the benefits of student housing outweigh the negatives. We think that this is a powerful testament to the support for campus housing at UM-Flint.

The benefits of student housing outweight the negatives.

No4%

Yes96%

Figure 4.28

Figure 4.27

Staff believe that campus safety will be most affected by having

student housing on campus.

Most staff believe that the benefits of student housing

outweigh the negatives.

Please mark the areas you think woul be affectedby having student housing at UM-Flint.

33

65

92

100

103

105

106

112

119

121

144

0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160

Bursar's

Academic Advising

Library

Counseling

CampusProgramming

Campus Mail

Student Union

Groundskeeping

Parking

Housekeeping

Campus Safety

Number of Responses


What are the areas of greatest concern regarding having student housing on campus? Safety and affordability are the areas of greatest concern.

Safety is the number one concern of staff about

having student housing on campus.

Figure 4.29

Please mark the areas below that are of greatest concern to you regarding having student

housing on campus.

74

81

85

87

104

126

0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140

Proximity to campus

Parking

Maintenance

Student services

Affordability

Safety

Number of Staff Responses


Alumni Research Findings Do you think that UM-Flint would benefit from a larger, more diverse student body? More than three-quarters of alumni report that UM-Flint would benefit from a larger, more diverse student body. If student housing had been available during your years at UM-Flint, would you have wanted to live there? Most alumni believe that student housing would benefit the UM-Flint community, only 42% report that they would have wanted to live on campus during their years on campus. Graduates since 1980 are more likely to have wanted to live on campus.

Do you think that UM-Flint would benefit from a larger, more diverse student body?

No23%

Yes77%

Figure 4.30

If student housing had been available during your years at UM-Flint, would you have wanted to live there?

No58%

Yes42%

Figure 4.31

77% of alumni believe that UM-Flint would benefit from a

larger, more diverse student body.

42% of alumni would have wanted to live in campus

housing had it been available to them.


If you were to consider sending your son or daughter to UM-Flint, would the availability of campus housing positively affect your decision? About two-thirds, or 65%, of alumni report that the availability of campus housing would positively affect their decision regarding their children considering UM-Flint. Conclusion Surveys of key constituents including faculty, staff, and alumni are crucial to understanding how an institution is perceived. Without support from faculty and staff, any long-term plans to change the enrollment of the institution will be jeopardized. Alumni, while not involved in the day-to-day management of the institution, are nonetheless important because of word-of-mouth marketing. Carnegie endeavored to generate feedback from all of these audiences. The 58.5% response rate to the faculty survey is a testament to both the validity of the eSurvey methodology and to the willingness of UM-Flint faculty to be involved in directing the institution. Similarly, staff responded at highly favorable rates. And, given the poor quality of alumni e-mail addresses, Carnegie is pleased that we had as many alumni members respond as we did. Some of the more interesting findings of our survey work included the following:

There is near-universal agreement among faculty, staff and alumni (89% or greater) that having student housing on campus will benefit UM-Flint.

All groups feel strongly that apartment-style housing is the best option. Greater than three-quarters of all respondents agree that having student housing on

campus will increase student enrollment (a chief goal of the University). There is less agreement on the impact of student housing on academic performance. Nearly 90% of all respondents note that student housing will increase the sense of

community on campus. Three-fourths of all respondents agree that having student housing on campus will help

revitalize downtown Flint. Faculty and staff believe that education, physical therapy, health care, computer science,

nursing, and management will attract large numbers of students. These areas parallel the hottest majors we note in the environmental scan (Chapter One). Just under three-quarters of alumni note report that they would have a greater interest in

sending their sons and daughters to UM-Flint if student housing were available. 85% of faculty consider UM-Flint students to be of average or above average quality.

If you were to consider sending your son or daughter to UM-Flint, would the availability of campus

housing positively affect your decision?

No33%

Missing2%

Yes65%

Figure 4.32

Most alumni report that student housing would have a

positive affect on their impression of UM-Flint if

their children were considering attending.


This chapter offers powerful evidence that the University would likely benefit from student housing. Even more impressive is the near-unanimous agreement among disparate groups that this is the case. Universities are, almost by their very nature, fractured and politically charged environments. We believe that this unanimity can serve as powerful justification for future strategic planning efforts. What’s more, this portion of the study provided the key audiences of faculty, staff, and alumni an opportunity to have a voice in the decision-making process.


Chapter Five: Prospective Student Survey Introduction An integral part of our Enrollment Market Analysis included surveying prospective students. While feedback from faculty, staff, and alumni is important to address big-picture items, we also believe that it is important, perhaps even more so, to survey the populations for whom strategic planning is done: future students. Toward that end, we conducted a survey of prospective students for the University. Given the unique structure of the student body, we opted to survey prospective traditional freshmen as well as prospective transfer students. Due to the small number of e-mail addresses available for prospective students, we planned from the outset to conduct a direct mail survey rather than an eSurvey. Carnegie staff and members of the UM-Flint administration worked together to develop the survey instrument. A copy of the instrument can be found in Appendix E. The admissions office provided Carnegie with a list of 4,911 prospective students. Examined more closely, the list included 2,948 fall 2001 freshmen inquiries and 1,963 fall 2000 transfer inquiries. Given the low response rates we typically encounter with prospective student surveys, the entire list of 4,911 students constituted the sample audience for the survey. We mailed the survey along with a postage-paid reply envelope to each student’s home address. An incentive was included with the survey in order to stimulate response. Students were offered a chance to win $250 in cash simply for completing and returning the instrument.2 When all surveys were returned and tallied, we recorded a 21% response rate. Our extensive experience suggests that a direct mail survey of prospective students is highly unlikely to yield response rates any greater than 10%. Further, male students tend to respond to survey research of this kind at lower rates than female students, and this was borne out with the UM-Flint prospective student survey. Although we mailed to the entire inquiry pool, the gender breakdown of the survey respondents contained a higher than average concentration of women. As a result, before data analysis was conducted, the survey data were weighted to compensate for the gender imbalance. The resulting data were analyzed using SPSS. For appropriate questions, we tested for statistical differences by level of interest, campus visit, distance from campus, gender, ethnicity, age, and group (freshman/transfer). Only those findings that were statistically significant are highlighted in the report that follows. The findings are presented by the questions posed in the survey, in the same order as they appear in the survey instrument.

2 Brian Van Gilder of Fenton, Michigan was the recipient of the prospective student incentive.


Demographic Data The following charts illustrate the profile of survey respondents after weighting for gender.

Approximately how far do you presently live from campus?

1-15 miles26.22%

16-25 miles18.59%

26-50 miles21.64%

51-70 miles12.20%

71+ miles17.35%

Missing4.00%

Do you live in the state of Michigan?

Yes80.17%

No6.86%

Missing12.96%

What is your age?

18 and under51.38%

19-2518.88%

26-358.01%

36-453.91%

46-551.05%

Missing16.78%

Are you applying to colleges as a freshman or as a transfer student?

Freshman54.62%

Transfer40.23%

Missing5.15%

What is your ethnic background?

Caucasian65.01%

Missing10.77%

Minority24.21%

Figure 5.1


Inquiry Survey Research Findings On the pages that follow, we present the findings of the student survey research project. The audience is comprised of “inquiries,” who are defined as those students who have in some way requested admission information about the University. We pose, and subsequently answer, a series of important questions designed to address the research objectives of the project. In this manner, we present the quantitative findings of the inquiry survey research. Charts and graphs are used to highlight the pertinent findings. In addition, we provide commentary to explain the implications of the data. What is your primary motivation for going to college? More than half of all respondents (53.6%) are motivated to attend college to get a good job. “To gain knowledge” is a distant second at 21.7%. The third most frequently cited reason for going to college is “to make more money.” We were somewhat surprised that “making more money” is not higher on the list, though it may be synonymous with “getting a good job.” Detailed Findings

Minority students are more likely than Caucasian students to be motivated to attend college to gain knowledge.

Students 35 and under are most likely to be motivated to attend college to get a good job.

Student 36 and older are most likely to be motivated to attend college to gain knowledge.

Freshmen are more likely than transfers to be motivated to go to college to get a good job.

Transfers are more likely than freshmen to be motivated to go to college to gain knowledge. Many factors will influence your decision about where to go to college. Please rate the importance of each of the following factors as you consider colleges. Note: Respondents were asked to rate these factors on a 7 point Likert scale, where 1 means not appealing and 7 means very appealing. Majors offered, high quality teaching, good job placement, low cost/affordability, availability of financial aid, and nice campus environment all rank above average as factors students consider when evaluating colleges. Proximity to home and social life are ranked below average (Figure 5.3). Detailed Findings As they consider colleges:

Students who have visited campus are more likely to place greater importance on college reputation and distance from home.

Minority students are less likely than average to place importance on distance from home. Women are more likely than men to place importance on nice campus environment, majors

offered, availability of financial aid, and proximity to home.

What is your primary motivation for going to college?

To get a good job53.57%

To make more money10.49%

To gain knowledge21.73% To obtain job training

5.82%

Because my parents want me to go to college

0.67%

Other3.91%

Missing3.81%

Figure 5.2

To get a good job is the most common

motivation to attend college.


Figure 5.3

Transfer students are more likely than freshmen to place importance on college reputation, low cost and proximity to home.

Freshmen are more likely than transfer students to place importance on nice campus environment, social life, and availability of financial aid and job placement.

Students 18 and under are more likely to place importance on social life and opportunities for involvement.

Students age 36-45 are least likely to place importance on the availability of financial assistance.

Students ages 26 to 45 are most likely to place importance on closeness to home and college reputation.

Students who live 71+ miles away from campus are more likely to place importance on a nice campus environment, availability of financial aid, and social life.

Please rate the seriousness with which you are considering UM-Flint. On a scale of 1 to 7, the mean for the seriousness with which students are considering UM-Flint is 5.05. Detailed Findings

There is a negative correlation between level of interest in UM-Flint and plans to take classes at UM-Flint right away. This means that the lower the interest the student has in UM-Flint, the less likely that they plan to enroll at UM-Flint right away.

Freshmen are more likely than average to be interested in UM-Flint.

Please rate the importance of the following factors as you consider colleges

6.5 6.46.0 6.0 5.8 5.5 5.3

4.7 4.6

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

Majors

offered

High qua

lity te

aching

Good j

ob plac

emen

t rates

Low co

st/aff

ordab

ility

Availa

bilty

of fin

ancial

aid

Nice ca

mpus e

nviro

nmen

t

The re

putat

ion of

the c

olleg

e

Close to

home

Social lif

e/inv

olvem

ent o

pport

unitie

s


What features about UM-Flint most appeal to you? The quality of teaching, majors offered, campus safety, cost, and driving distance from home are the features about UM-Flint that respondents rate higher than average. The “University of Michigan” name, aesthetic appeal of campus, Flint’s urban location and social life are less appealing to students. Figure 5.4 Detailed Findings

Students who have visited campus find Flint’s reputation, the “University of Michigan” name, majors offered, cost, and driving distance from home the features about UM-Flint that most appeal to them.

Transfer students are more likely than freshmen to find UM-Flint’s reputation, “University of Michigan” name, majors offered, quality teaching, and driving distance from home appealing.

Women are more likely than men to find Flint’s urban location, majors, offered, and campus safety appealing.

Men are more likely than women to find the “University of Michigan” name appealing. Minority students are more likely than white students to find Flint’s urban location, social life,

campus safety, and aesthetic appeal of the UM-Flint campus appealing. White students are more likely than minority students to find the “University of Michigan” name

appealing. Students living within 15 miles of campus are more likely to find Flint’s reputation, urban

location, cost, driving distance from home, and campus safety appealing. Students living 71+ miles from campus are more likely to find social life at Flint appealing. Students age 18 and under are least likely to find UM-Flint’s reputation, the “University of

Michigan” name, and driving distance from home appealing. The older the student, the more likely they are to find the majors UM-Flint offers appealing.

This is one of the more telling charts from the survey, as it seemingly contradicts the perceived value of the “University of Michigan” name as a key feature drawing prospects to UM-Flint. While we suspect that the name is still quite important (especially to male students and to white students), our research quantifies that it is not, in fact, the most important characteristic to students. Respondents say that UM-Flint’s most appealing feature is the quality of teaching, suggesting that future marketing efforts should increasingly emphasize the University’s top-notch faculty as one of the strengths of a UM-Flint education.

What features about UM-Flint most appeal to you?

5.71 5.695.43

5.18 5.06 5.05 4.864.62

4.03 3.91

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

Quality of teaching at UM-Flint

Majors offered at UM-Flint

Campus safety

Cost of UM-Flint

Driving distance from your home to UM-Flint

UM-Flint's reputation

"University of Michigan" name

Aesthetic appeal of the UM-Flint campus

Flint's urban location

Social life at UM-Flint

Mea

n


Cross-tabulations of the survey data show that students living 71+ miles from campus are more likely than average to be interested in social life on campus. This supports Carnegie’s hypothesis that campus housing will be a tremendous lure to students living outside the 70-mile radius of campus. Have you visited the UM-Flint campus? Fewer than half of the students, 45.3%, indicate that they have visited the UM-Flint campus. Detailed Findings

Transfer students are more likely than freshmen to have visited campus.

Students who have visited campus have above average interest in UM-Flint.

There are some interesting implications to this question, as well as a few caveats. It is important to note that respondents who were surveyed are candidates for the fall 2001 semester, a full year away. Conversely, transfers who we surveyed were candidates for enrollment in the fall 2000 semester, the time at which this report was prepared. Therefore, it may not be surprising that transfers were more likely than freshmen to have visited campus. Overall, students who had visited the campus indicated a greater-than-average interest in attending UM-Flint. This finding corroborates volumes of national research that suggest a positive correlation between the campus visit and likelihood of enrolling. If you have visited campus, please rate your impression of the following facilities. Students who visited campus report that the library, Internet connectedness, computer labs, bookstore, and lounges/common areas rank above average. Classrooms, parking, and food service rank below average. Detailed Findings

Students who visited campus are less likely than average to find the food service appealing.

Freshmen who visit campus are Figure 5.6 more likely than transfer students to

Have you visited the UM-flint campus?

Yes45.28%

No53.29%

Missing1.43%

Figure 5.5

Fewer than half of the respondents have visited the

campus.

If you have visited campus, please rate the following facilities.

5.765.53 5.53

5.22 5.17 5.004.75 4.75

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

Library

Internet connectedness

Computer labs

Bookstore

Lounges/common areas

ClassroomsParking

Food service

Mea

n


find the lounges/common areas and food service appealing. This may be a result of transfer students having more significant experiences on other campuses to serve as a point of reference or comparison. Many potential freshmen, we imagine, have no other campus lounges with which to compare lounges and food service.

If you enrolled at UM-Flint, where would you live? The largest portion of students (37.9%) would live at home with their parents if they attended UM-Flint. About 27% would live in their own home and another 25.6% would get a house or apartment near campus. Detailed Findings

Prospects who live more than 50 miles from campus are most likely to rent a house or apartment near campus if they enroll at UM-Flint. Consequently, prospects who live within 50 miles of campus are most likely to live at home.

White students are more likely to live at home with their parents if they enrolled at UM-Flint. Minority students are more likely to get a house or apartment near campus if they enroll at UM-Flint.

Students 25 and under are more likely to live at home with their parents and commute if they enroll at UM-Flint.

Students 26 and older are more likely to live in their own homes and commute if they enroll at UM-Flint.

Freshmen are more likely than transfers to live at home with their parents or get a house or apartment near campus if they enroll at UM-Flint.

Transfers are more likely than freshmen to live in their own homes if they enroll at UM-Flint. This question leads us to begin answering one of the critical questions in the overall Enrollment Market Analysis, namely, the viability of providing student housing on the UM-Flint campus. We found that 27% of prospects would commute from their own homes, which suggests home ownership and therefore a greatly reduced likelihood of living in campus housing. But fully one-fourth intend to “get a house or apartment near campus.” Another 3.6% plan to live with friends or relatives near campus. These students are, we suggest, prime candidates for quality University housing, and together they comprise about 30% of the audience. We also found that nearly 38% of respondents intend to live at home with their parents. We cannot quantify how many of that 38% would be interested in campus housing. But we know from our focus group research that at least a good number of traditional undergraduates living at home and commuting would be interested in living on campus as long as it was affordable.

If you enrolled at UM-Flint, would you...

Live at home with your parents and commute to

campus37.85%

Live in your home and commute to campus

27.26%

Get a house or apartment near campus

25.64%

Live with relatives/friends near

campus3.62%

Other3.91%

Missing1.72%

Figure 5.7

Most respondents plan to live with their

parents and commute to

campus.


Regardless of where you live, how would you get to campus? Ninety-four percent of students plan to drive to campus, regardless of where they live. Students responding “other” listed skateboard, motorcycle, and public transportation as other options. The overwhelming prevalence of students intending to drive to campus suggests that parking will continue to be an issue, and that it should be taken into serious consideration when conceptualizing student housing on the UM-Flint campus. Clearly, there will be a great need for spaces to park these cars. Detailed Findings

Freshmen are more likely than transfer students to get to campus by foot, bus and bike.

Would you consider UM-Flint more seriously for your education if on campus housing were available? About 40% of all respondents would consider UM-Flint more seriously if on-campus housing were available. Detailed Findings

The further students live from campus, the more likely they would seriously consider UM-Flint if campus housing were available.

Minority students would be more likely than Caucasian students to more seriously consider UM-Flint if campus housing were available.

Students 18 and under would be most likely to more seriously consider UM-Flint if campus housing were available.

It is not surprising that students who live further from campus would consider the University more seriously if campus housing were available; one of the hypotheses we tested with this survey. This finding also supports the theory that campus housing will become increasingly important as a conversion tool if strategies to grow student enrollment include recruiting outside of the current 70-mile radius. However, it is not clear why minority students would consider the institution more seriously if housing were available. Students 18 and under say they would consider UM-Flint more seriously if housing were available. These are, presumably, the same 38% who plan to live with their parents at home. Response to this question seems to corroborate what we heard in focus groups—that traditional-age students are more interested in a so-called “traditional college experience,” of which living on campus is a huge part. Therefore, we may assume that if campus housing is affordable, a sizeable number of traditional-age students would consider living on campus even if they presently reside within the 70-mile radius of campus.

Regardless of where you live, how would you get to campus?

By car94.09%

By foot2.00%

By bus1.53%

Other0.67%

Missing1.72%

The overwhelming majority of students will drive to campus.

Figure 5.8

Would you consider UM-flint more seriously for your education if on-campus housing were avialable?

Yes40.04%

No57.86%

Missing2.10%

40% of respondents would consider UM-

Flint more seriously if on-campus housing were

available.

Figure 5.9


Would you be interested in living in campus housing if it were available? Exactly fifty-percent of respondents would be interested in living in campus housing if it were available. Detailed Findings

Prospects who have not visited campus are more likely to be interested in living on campus.

Students living beyond 26 miles of campus are more likely to be interested in living on campus.

Minority students are more likely than White students to be interested in living in campus housing if it were available.

The younger the student, the more likely they are to be interested in living in campus housing.

Freshmen are more likely to be interested in living in campus housing than transfers.

What type of housing would be most appealing to you? More than two-thirds, or 70%, of respondents find apartment-style housing most appealing. All of the respondents who listed “other” commented that living on campus is not an option for them, and that they would be living in their own home. Students interested in campus housing are far more interested in apartment-style housing than in a traditional dormitory. This corroborates our internal assumptions as well as the feedback we received from the surveys of faculty, staff and alumni.

Would you be interested in living in campus housing if it were available?

Yes50%

No48%

Missing2.48%

Half of respondents would be interested in

living in campus housing.

Figure 5.10

What type of housing would be most appealing to you?

Traditional dormitory14.03%

Apartment-style housing69.75%

Missing11.07%

Other5.15%

A majority of students find

apartment-style housing most

appealing.

Figure 5.11


Please rate the importance of the following factors in determining whether or not you would consider living in campus housing. Respondents rank cleanliness, safety, and cost as the most important factors in determining whether to live on campus. Distance from home, aesthetic appeal of the housing, parking, and housing style are less important.

Figure 5.12 Detailed Findings

Freshmen are more likely than transfer students to place importance on safety, aesthetic appeal, cleanliness, and suite-style rooms when considering if they would live in campus housing.

Women are more likely than men to place importance on parking, safety, cleanliness and apartment style housing when considering if they would live in campus housing.

The older the student, the more likely they are to be concerned about safety when they consider living in campus housing.

Students 25 and under are less likely to be concerned about the aesthetic appeal of the housing when they consider living in campus housing.

Students 18 and under are more likely to be concerned about having suite-style rooms when they consider living on campus.

The further the student lives from campus the more concerned they are likely to be about cost and safety when they consider living in campus housing.

Please rate the importance of the following factors in determining whether or not you would consider living in campus housing.

6.23 6.135.87

5.51 5.45 5.36 5.264.80

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

CleanlinessSafety Cost

Proximity (distance from campus)

Aesthetic appeal of the housing itself

Parking

Apartment style

Suite style rooms

Mea

n


How much would you be willing to pay to live in campus housing assuming that you had one roommate and kitchen facilities in the room? Eighty-four percent of students are willing to pay up to $350 per month to live in campus housing with kitchen facilities and one roommate. Only 26.1% are willing to pay up to $450 per month, and 2.9% up to $550 per month.

Detailed Findings Men are more likely than women to be willing to pay between $351 and $450 per month. The younger the student, the more likely they would be willing to pay $250-$350 a month.

This question begins to get to the heart of the campus housing issue. All things being equal, up to 50% of respondents might be interested in campus housing. Our focus groups revealed that there are certain price points after which students will lose interest in on-campus housing, either because they think they can find alternative housing options that cost less or because they will just live at home. It is increasingly clear that housing can be vital to the future health and growth of UM-Flint, but that pricing it must be thought through carefully. Clearly, $350/month is a price barrier. But we don’t know how many students would lose interest at that point, nor do we know how creative financing might affect their decisions. One of the frustrations of research is that it always raises as many questions as it answers. This is a case where further research would be helpful.

What would you be willing to pay to live in campus housing assuming that you had one roommate and kitchen facilities in the room?

84.50%

26.10%

2.90%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

$250-$350 a month per resident $351-$450 a month per resident $451-$550 a month per resident

Perc

ent o

f res

pond

ents

Most students are willing to pay up to $350 per

month to live in campus housing.

Figure 5.13


Would you prefer to cook your meals in a kitchen, in your room, or would you prefer to have a meal plan? Nearly two-thirds, or 63%, of respondents would prefer to cook their meals in a kitchen rather than using a meal plan. Detailed Findings

Men are more likely than women to prefer a meal plan rather than cooking in their own kitchen.

Students 46 and older are more likely than other students to prefer a meal plan.

Freshmen are more likely than transfer students to prefer a meal plan.

What do you perceive to be the most significant advantages of living in campus housing? Respondents report that the most significant benefits to living in campus housing are: better access to campus resources, greater interaction with other students, shorter commute, and a more traditional college experience. Fewer than 20% of students view getting better grades and greater interaction with faculty a significant benefit of living in campus housing. Respondents who noted “other” listed the following benefits: no home maintenance, save on gasoline, more time to study, live away from home, fewer outside distractions for study, getting away from parents, and in general, that it would be easier than living off-campus.

What do you perceive to be the most significant advantages of living in campus housing?

2.38%

11.63%

15.44%

31.36%

39.18%

42.04%

44.33%

52.81%

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

Other

I will have greater interactionwith faculty

I will get better grades

I will feel more a part of thecollege community

I will have a more traditionalcollege experience

I will have a shorter commute

I will have greater interactionwith other students

I will have better access tocampus resources

Percent of respondents

Having access to campus resources is the most

significant benefit to living in campus housing.

Figure 5.15

Would you prefer to cook your meals in a kitchen, in your room or would you prefer to have a meal plan?

Kitchen63.01%

Meal plan25.74%

Missing11.25%

The majority of students would

prefer to cook their own meals than

have a meal plan.

Figure 5.14


Detailed Findings Students who live more than 50 miles from campus are more likely to consider a shorter

commute a benefit of living in campus housing. Students who live more than 16 miles from campus view having better access to campus

resources as a benefit of living in campus housing. Minority students are more likely than White students to see getting better grades a benefit of

living in campus housing. White students are more likely than minority students to see shorter commute a benefit of

living in campus housing. Women are more likely than men to see “feel a part of the college community” as a benefit of

living in campus housing. The younger the student, the more likely they are to consider “a more traditional college

experience” a benefit of living on campus. Students 25 and under are more likely to view “feel more a part of the campus community” as

a benefit of living in campus housing. Students 25 and under are more likely to view “greater interaction with other students” as a

benefit of living in campus housing. Students 25 and under are more likely to view “better access to campus resources” as a

benefit of living in campus housing. Freshmen are more likely than transfer students to view “getting better grades” a benefit to

living in campus housing. Freshmen are more likely than transfer students to view “a more traditional college

experience” as a benefit of living in campus housing. Freshmen are more likely than transfer students to view “feel more a part of the campus

community” as a benefit of living in campus housing. Freshmen are significantly more likely than transfer students to view “greater interaction with

other students” as a benefit of living in campus housing. This question reveals a number of important findings. More than any, we see that freshmen and students under the age of 25 are most interested in the traditional benefits of living on campus, including getting better grades, having a more traditional college experience, and feeling more a part of the campus community. We are not sure why minority students are more likely to associate better grades with living in campus housing. Clearly, close proximity to the campus has myriad benefits, chief among them greater access to campus resources. Though not specified, these resources may include the library, computer labs, tutoring help, etc. All in all, Carnegie believes that while campus housing would be a draw for many transfer students, it is perhaps even more appealing to prospective freshmen. However, many current freshmen come from relatively close to the campus. We believe that if the admissions office could successfully begin recruiting in areas beyond the 70-mile radius of campus, the availability of campus housing would be a tremendous asset.


What do you think are some of the hottest majors in the year 2000? More than 40% of students report that computer science and technology, engineering and health care are the hottest majors. Detailed Findings

Faculty rated physical therapy, health care, and education as the top three programs likely to draw new students to campus.

Staff rated nursing, health care, and physical therapy as the top three programs likely to draw new students to campus.

Respondents rated computer science/technology, engineering, and health care as the “hottest” majors. The only similarity among all groups is health care.

What do you think are some of the hottest majors in the year 2000?

5.15%

6.20%

16.68%

23.45%

33.08%

33.75%

41.28%

47.47%

71.59%

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80%

Other

Liberal arts

Finance

the Sciences

Education

Communications

Health Care

Engineering

Computer science/technology


Students think that computer

science/technology is the hottest major.

Figure 5.16


What do you intend to major in? The most popular intended major among the respondents is education. Other popular majors with more than 6% of students reporting are health care and computer science. Another 8.1% are undecided. Detailed Findings

Men are more likely than women to be interested in majoring in chemistry, computer science, and engineering science. Women, on the other hand, are more likely than men to be interested in communication, education, psychology, music/art, and to be undecided.

Students 18 and under are more likely to be interested in communications as a major.

Students 26 to 35 are more likely to be interested in computer science, management, and marketing.

There is a correlation between greater student age and an interest in nursing.

Transfer students are more likely than freshmen to be interested in education, nursing, physical therapy, and social work.

What do you intend to major in?

0.10%0.10%0.10%0.19%0.19%0.19%0.29%0.38%0.57%0.57%0.57%0.67%

1.05%1.05%1.05%1.14%1.24%1.53%1.81%1.81%2.10%2.19%2.29%2.57%

3.34%4.19%

4.77%4.77%4.77%

5.24%5.72%

6.20%6.20%

7.34%8.10%

15.63%

0% 2% 4% 6% 8% 10% 12% 14% 16% 18%

Africana StudiesPhilosophy

Public AdministrationEconomics

Foreign LanguagePhysics

Earth Resource ScienceOperations

AnthropologySociology

Theatre & DanceMathematics

EnglishHistory

Political ScienceHuman Resource

FinanceChemistry

Music & ArtMissing

MarketingAccounting

Social WorkManagement

CommunicationCriminal Justice

BiologyEngineering Science

PsychologyNursing

Physical TherapyComputer Science

OtherHealth Care

UndecidedEducation


A significant portion of respondents are “undecided” about their intended major.

Figure 5.17


Will you definitely attend college during the fall 2001 semester (for freshmen)/fall 2000 semester (for transfers)? Most students plan to enroll in college right away: 84.5% of freshmen in fall 2001 and 71.3% of transfers in fall 2000. Detailed Findings

• Of students who have visited campus, freshmen are more likely than transfers to enroll in college right away.

• Freshmen are more likely than transfer students to plan to attend college right away.

Breakdown of Responses by Group for Will you definitely attend college? Will attend

college Will not attend college

Freshmen (fall 2001) 84.5% 15.5% Transfer (fall 2000) 71.3% 28.5%

Will you definitely attend college in Fall 2000 (transfers) or Fall 2001 (freshmen)?

Yes73.19%

No19.47%

Missing7.35%

Most students plan to attend

college as soon as possible

Figure 5.18

Figure 5.19


Do you plan to take classes at UM-Flint in fall 2001 (for freshmen)/fall 2000 (for transfers)? Thirty-eight percent of students overall plan to take classes at UM-Flint right away: 56.5% of transfers plan to take classes in fall 2000 and 37.4% of freshmen plan to take classes in fall 2001. Detailed Findings

Of students who have visited campus, freshmen are more likely than transfers to take classes at UM-Flint right away.

Students who live within 25 miles of campus are most likely to enroll at UM-Flint right away. Students beyond 70 miles are least likely to enroll at UM-Flint right away.

Students 18 and under are least likely to enroll at UM-Flint as soon as possible.

Transfer students are more likely than freshmen to enroll at UM-Flint right away.

There is a negative correlation between level of interest in UM-Flint and plans to take classes at UM-Flint right away. This means that the lower the interest the student has in UM-Flint, the less likely that they plan to enroll at UM-Flint right away.

Breakdown of Responses by Group for Do you plan to take classes at UM-Flint? Plan to take class

at UM-Flint Do not plan to take classes at UM-Flint

Freshmen (fall 2001) 37.4% 62.6% Transfer (fall 2000) 56.5% 43.3%

Figure 5.21 Conclusion Chapter Five offers some of the most critical findings of Carnegie’s Enrollment Market Analysis. Demographically, this survey debunks a few myths. For instance, we note that more than 17% of prospective students live outside of the 70-mile radius of campus. At the outset of this project, we were led to believe that far fewer students come from that far away. We surveyed students who had inquired in some way about the campus. Thanks to the broad reach of the Internet, it is perhaps not surprising that some of the survey respondents live beyond the 70-mile radius of campus. We are interested in the fact that more than half of all survey respondents are aged 18 or younger. We were led to believe that the prospect pool would be considerably older. Below are some of the most salient findings of the student survey:

1. More than half of all respondents cited “to get a good job” as their primary motivation for going to college: a. Minority students are more motivated by gaining knowledge. b. Students aged 36+ are also more motivated by gaining knowledge. c. Freshmen are more likely to be motivated by getting a good job.

Do you plan to take classes at UM-Flint in Fall 2000 (transfers) or Fall 2001 (freshmen)?

Yes38.17%

No44.27%

Missing17.56%

Figure 5.20

More than a third of students plan to take classes at UM-Flint as soon as possible.


2. Students were most likely to be influenced in their college choice by the majors offered, followed by high quality teaching, placement rates, cost, etc. a. Younger students are more likely to be influenced by social life and opportunities for

involvement (both of which we believe student housing will offer). b. Transfer students are more likely to be influenced by reputation and low cost.

3. The feature that matters most to survey respondents when considering UM-Flint is the quality of

teaching a. Transfer students are especially likely to be motivated by quality teaching. b. Minority students are less likely to be swayed by quality teaching. c. The “University of Michigan” name was not rated as highly as other features, though some

audiences find it more important than others (including transfer students, men and white students)—this issue is worth pursuing further to better ascertain the value of the “UM” name.

4. With regard to student housing, we found out the following: a. More than one-quarter of all respondents said they would look for a house or apartment near

campus…coupled with the “other” responses, we estimate that fully 30% will be interested in living in housing on or very near the UM-Flint campus.

b. Minority students are more likely to be interested in campus housing, while white students are more likely to live at home with parents.

c. About 40% of all respondents indicated a greater likelihood of seriously considering UM-Flint if campus housing were available.

d. Students who have visited the campus say they would be more interested if housing were available (an important finding).

e. Traditional-age students are most likely to say they would consider UM-Flint more seriously if housing were available.

f. Overall, a total of 58% of respondents would be interested in living in campus housing if were available.

g. Apartment-style housing is preferred. h. The most important factors include cleanliness, safety, cost and proximity to campus. i. Nearly 85% said that $350/month is the upper limit of what they will spend.

5. Respondents think that the hottest majors in 2000 include the following:

a. computer science b. engineering c. health care d. communications e. education


Chapter Six: Admissions Assessment Introduction An integral part of Carnegie’s Enrollment Market Analysis for UM-Flint included an assessment of the institution’s admissions and enrollment operation. The overall goal of this assessment was to provide a general review of the strengths and weaknesses of the current admissions program and to offer specific recommendations relative to enhancing the University’s enrollment operation. Specifically, the admissions assessment involved:

studying the institution’s general approach to admissions recruitment; analyzing the manner in which the University incorporates direct mail, telemarketing, high

school visits, etc. into its recruitment efforts; reviewing the current admissions publications and offering suggestions designed to enhance

the impact of the program; and evaluating the extent to which the admissions office incorporates external constituencies (i.e.

alumni, parents of current students, etc.) into the admissions process. Dr. Jeffrey J. Papa was the Carnegie representative in charge of this important research component. His work consisted of a comprehensive review of information provided by the University, as well as a two-day, on-site visitation on May 25-26, 2000. Individual meetings were conducted with the following UM-Flint representatives:

Assistant to the Chancellor Assistant Vice Chancellor and Director of Student Life Interim Director of Advising and SSEM Director of Computing Services Director of Admissions Dean of Graduate Programs Interim Director of University Relations Director of Financial Aid Director of Educational Opportunity Initiatives Director of New Student Programs

Additional meetings were held with numerous members of the admissions staff including Assistant Directors, Admissions Counselors, Admissions Assistants, the International Student Coordinator, and Student Admissions Representatives. Many members of the institution recognize UM-Flint’s direct affiliation within the University of Michigan system of higher learning to be a positive marketing opportunity. Interestingly, our survey of students found that the “University of Michigan” name, while important, rated far below other appealing factors, including quality of teaching, majors offered, and low cost. Moreover, many administrators and students identified the UM-Flint campus itself, with its many skywalks and overall appeal, as a selling point of the institution. Conversely, the University’s location (i.e. the city of Flint) is perceived as a challenge and an obstacle that the institution is constantly trying to overcome.


History Over the past three years, the UM-Flint admissions office has experienced rather daunting administrative challenges, including the implementation of two new computing systems, several staff members requesting extended personal leave, and the appointment of a new Director. In spite of these challenges, the admissions staff members are eager to fine-tune their approach to new student recruitment. In fact, in direct response to the current director’s egalitarian and enthusiastic leadership style, staff morale is strong and office personnel are ready to embrace new challenges that will strengthen the University’s overall admissions program. Carnegie’s assessment was designed not only to recognize the current strengths within the admissions operation, but to also identify specific opportunities that will build upon and enhance the current recruitment program. This is crucial as the University begins to plan strategically for a future that may include the following:

a significant increase in the size of the student body the creation of new academic programs/majors the addition of on-campus housing an accompanying shift in recruitment emphasis to extend beyond the current 75-mile radius

of campus from which the overwhelming majority of all students are now recruited This report contains several ideas and suggestions for enhancing the University’s admissions efforts. Please note that often these recommendations represent the “best case scenario,” including adequate funding and staffing. That said, many of the recommendations are easily accomplished with little added resources. In any event, it will not be possible to implement all of the suggestions here simultaneously or in one academic year. Rather, we suggest that these initiatives be phased into the institution’s recruitment program. The commentary and recommendations included in this assessment address the following six areas:

1. Grading, qualifying, and working with inquiries 2. Expanding the admissions publications program 3. Using the recruitment season effectively 4. Using e-mail effectively 5. Working with special constituencies 6. Managing enrollment challenges

Grading, Qualifying, and Working with Inquiries To use its fiscal resources most effectively and to achieve its enrollment objectives, UM-Flint must develop (within the current Banner computing system) a sophisticated and data-driven methodology for qualifying its inquiries. Essentially, the University needs to be much better about identifying those inquiries most likely to apply to and enroll at the University. (Note: we hope that a piece of this puzzle will be solved with incorporation of Carnegie’s geodemographic analysis and resulting target groups.) Any sound qualifying system is predicated on the assumption that the admissions office maintains a comprehensive data-tracking system for prospects, including a history of all admissions contacts throughout the entire enrollment cycle. Staff members must be able to effectively identify high-interest candidates at any point in the admissions funnel. Strategies should be developed and implemented in relation to recruiting high-interest, non-applying students. All members of the admissions staff must


clearly understand their responsibility relative to the overall admissions process and have the training and skills to assist the institution in meeting its enrollment objectives. In establishing this process, admissions inquiries would be analyzed over a pre-determined number of recruitment cycles (3-5 years) to determine which initial contact code (code that indicates the source of a student’s initial interest in UM-Flint) or combinations of contact codes result in the greatest likelihood of a potential student’s enrollment. Many institutions use “source codes” (web inquiry, college fairs, campus visit, high school visit, high school counselor referral, alumni referral, etc.) since they have been proven to be good indicators of the interest level of an inquiry. For example, students who call the UM-Flint admission office to request information (often called a “self-initiated inquiry”) are typically more likely to apply and enroll than students who fill out an inquiry card at a college fair. Thus, the self-initiated inquiry is a better lead and deserves a higher level of attention from the admission staff. After the relative influence of each contact code has been determined, a variety of statistical techniques could be implemented to quantify each student’s relative interest. This report presents two methodologies in determining a student’s interest: Interest Weight System (based on source/contact data). In this approach, a specific and rather straightforward numerical weight would be assigned to each admissions source/contact code relative to percentage of students who convert from inquiries to enrollees. As a result, each admissions source/contact code would “be assigned” a specific interest weight: the higher the interest weight, the greater the probability of enrollment. The weight assigned to each source/contact code for the previous year would then be applied to the upcoming recruitment season and then reviewed and validated on an annual basis thereafter. Each student’s electronic admissions record would indicate his or her total interest weight, reflecting the compilation of his contacts with the University. This interest weight system, which should be automatically updated by the computer system on a frequent basis, would enable the admissions staff to quantify each student’s interest in the University at any point throughout the recruitment cycle. Again, we envision geodemographic target group code being one of the integral weighting factors. Multiple Regression Analysis (based on a variety of factors). This approach is predicated on a similar foundation as the interest weight system (i.e. analysis of each source/contact code as a predictor of enrollment); however, this statistical technique encompasses a wider variety of predictor variables, and, as a result, is more sophisticated in its methodology. Specifically, a series of data elements would be gathered for each admissions candidate (i.e. demographic data, measures of academic preparedness, admissions source/contact information, etc.) and then analyzed to determine which combination of factors predict enrollment. This statistical methodology can be used to build a model that not only predicts enrollment but also studies the relationship among variables. UM-Flint should work toward creating and implementing an automated interest weight system. Because this process will require considerable time to design and validate, the following action items should be considered as soon as possible to enhance the admissions office’s ability to grade and qualify current inquiries. Students who initiated their interest in the University (e.g. visited the campus, telephoned the admissions office, submitted standardized test scores to the admissions office, attended an admissions recruitment program) traditionally have higher enrollment conversion rates and, therefore, should be treated and (if possible) marked on the computer system as “high interest.” Students with any two admissions contacts (multiple contacts) should be treated and marked on the computer system as “high interest.”


All high interest students should receive a series of personalized mailings, systematic telephone calls (each with a specific, targeted purpose), and periodic reminders to apply to and visit UM-Flint. All high-interest inquiries should be monitored throughout the recruitment cycle relative to the receipt of their (1) admissions application and (2) enrollment confirmation. Increased time and attention should be devoted to this group of very likely inquiries. In conjunction with the interest weight system, UM-Flint’s admissions professionals should gather as much information as possible regarding the educational and personal objectives of its inquiries. This additional information will be essential in providing a personalized level of interaction with high interest students throughout the recruitment process. To that end, a mechanism should be established that enables inquiries to share who they are and what is important to them. UM-Flint should create a “Personal Checklist” that would be sent to all inquiries shortly after they are entered into the University computing system. This checklist would ask students to indicate the academic and/or out-of-classroom activities in which they hope to participate while attending the University. Data elements captured on the checklist will vary depending upon the University’s recruitment objectives for the upcoming admissions season. Also, as another means of customizing the recruitment process, students should be asked to indicate which factor(s) are most important to them in making their final college choice. This personalized checklist will become a valuable tool in recruiting students. The student-specific information will enable the admissions office to not only customize subsequent correspondence to each student according to individual interests, but to direct specific telecounseling efforts tailored to each candidate. Further, any student who merely took the time to complete a checklist would be (by definition) identified as a “high interest” candidate. Expanding the Admissions Publications Program One challenge facing virtually every admissions office is to create compelling and well-timed publications that grab a prospective student’s attention. As we discovered in our competitive analysis, the University has a great deal of work to do in order to better some of its competitors when it comes to recruitment publications. One of the quintessential conundrums of college and university admissions is the need to have stunning publications despite the fact that huge numbers of viewbooks and other materials are never even read. Nonetheless, in today’s highly competitive marketplace, no institution can afford to have sub-par recruiting materials for the simple fact that, despite the adage that we all learn in nursery school, people do tend to judge a book by its cover. Prospective students, and in some cases their parents, may be willing to accept low-quality black and white materials from Mott Community College. But they are highly unlikely to do so from UM-Flint, especially when Baker College and especially Oakland University clearly make top-notch publications a priority. We strongly recommend, therefore, that UM-Flint significantly increase the quality and scope of its recruitment publications. This will be especially important if the admissions office ventures into new territories where UM-Flint is unknown and first impressions are crucial. One critical step toward improved publications is creating a library of outstanding campus-based photographs. Today’s students are bombarded with advertising images and messages that are replete with compelling visual images. UM-Flint’s visual identity should be in the same league. Further, UM-Flint should develop an admissions flagship brochure (i.e. viewbook) separate and independent from its current admissions lead piece. A full-color, high-end, visually appealing, well-developed flagship brochure would effectively introduce prospective students and their families to the many special aspects of life at


UM-Flint. This new publication, although not inexpensive, is a vital addition to the current family of admissions publications. Carnegie strongly encourages the institution to reconsider its expenditures for publications. Like a public university we work with in Maryland, we believe that UM-Flint is suffering from the low-cost feel of its pieces. Unfortunately, while the administration may think of the current situation as a way of saving money, we fear that prospective students simply think the institution is cheap. The admissions office can either create new publications internally or outsource the entire process to one of the many national firms that specializes in college and university recruitment publications. Given the size of the staff and the prospect of beginning to grow the student body, we suspect that outsourcing may be the preferred option. Beyond the actual glossy publications, we have concerns about the flow of information to and from the institution and its potential students. While a correspondence program is currently in place, we offer below a series of suggested guidelines that will assist the admissions office in structuring its fall correspondence program, as well as a sampling of letters/mailings that may be incorporated into the admissions correspondence program. This is driven by a fundamental marketing theory, which emphasizes finding your hottest prospects and hitting them time and again with positive messages. Underlying all of these correspondence pieces is the critical fact that all correspondence must be personalized. To measure the effectiveness of the correspondence, mailings should include a response mechanism such as a reply card or slip. Further, each mailing and admissions activity should be assigned a unique tracking code that will be entered into the Banner computing system. Each response mechanism should also allow students the opportunity to indicate that they are no longer interested in UM-Flint. This will reduce subsequent mailing and postage expenses, as well as continue to qualify the admissions inquiry pool. And every response option should include space for the student to enter his or her e-mail address. Additional mailings, brochures, and publications should be incorporated into the fall correspondence program. Each fall mailing should be sent in a systematic and timely manner. Following is a sampling of the kinds of letters/mailings that may be sent to UM-Flint’s inquiries: Letter from UM-Flint’s Chancellor—outlining why he chose to join the University community and his vision for the institution. Outcomes Brochure—this publication should illustrate the outstanding track record of a select group of UM-Flint’s recent alumni. Specific alumni success stories and testimonials should be included, as well as specific, University-wide data reflecting the graduate school and job placement record of the institution. This publication could potentially have a wide audience: prospective students and parents, high school guidance counselors, UM-Flint alumni (to promote University philanthropy), other higher education administrators (to enhance the University’s image among its peers), potential trustees, and parents of current students (to increase student retention). However, it is most important to develop the copy and design of the brochure so that it has the greatest appeal to prospective students. Letter from Prominent Alumni—showcasing the many positive outcomes and personal benefits of attending UM-Flint. This mailing, which could be directed to the parents of prospective students, should be written from the alumni directly and placed on their personal or business letterhead. To maximize the letter’s impact, whenever possible, select alumni with potentially wide name recognition. Marketing Themes Brochure—this publication, written from a student-benefits perspective, should clearly delineate and specifically outline the unique benefits of an UM-Flint education. The development of such a brochure requires a great deal of time, thought, and a clear institutional vision.


Academic Scholarships and Honors Brochure—this publication would introduce prospective students, parents of prospective students, and guidance counselors to many opportunities available through the University’s Academic Scholarships and Honors Program. This publication should be widely distributed throughout the fall semester and should clearly encourage students to submit an admissions application early in the admissions season to receive full consideration for academic scholarships. Public Service Brochures—these brochures, distributed to students and high school guidance counselors, would specifically outline various aspects of the admissions process. Written from a general perspective, these brochures would serve as a valuable tool for both students and counselors while simultaneously introducing the UM-Flint’s name. (Sample public service brochures may include: “Developing Effective Study Habits,” “Completing a Successful College Visit,” or “Writing Your College Essay.”) Visibility Poster—this full-color, visually appealing representation of the University could be distributed to high schools throughout the University’s current as well as potential recruitment markets. The poster would allow the surrounding community to develop a newfound appreciation for the Flint campus, and as a result may increase campus visitations. Letter from Academic Departments—this correspondence, which should be sent to students according to their area of academic interest, should communicate the distinct benefits offered through that specific academic department. Each letter should include faculty highlights as well as a list of successful alumni from that specific department/program. With the use of sophisticated data tracking methods, these letters can be sent automatically throughout the fall season. This is especially viable since so many of students who responded to our survey noted the quality of teaching at UM-Flint as the number one feature that appeals to them. Letter from Current Students—this letter, written from a student perspective, would introduce prospective students to university life from the “eyes of a student.” The mailing could be further tailored by matching prospective and current students according to their academic departments and special interests. This is largely for freshmen, though a letter could be adapted for transfer students too. Campus Map—this full-color brochure would clearly illustrate the many attractive aspects of the UM-Flint campus. The short brochure should showcase the unique features of the University, the history and traditions of the institution, as well as the opportunities available within and around the Flint region. Financial Aid Award letter (Revised) —this personalized correspondence should reiterate to students and families, at the tail end of the admissions cycle, the value of a UM-Flint education and that the University is “worth the price.” Brochure for Returning /Part-Time students—this brochure should illustrate the University’s commitment toward assisting this special student population. The brochure may address such topics as “Balancing Your Career and Educational Goals,” and “Developing the Educational Skills Needed in Today’s World.” Cooperative Education Brochure—this brochure, distributed to a variety of individuals (e.g. prospective students, parents of prospective students, high school guidance counselors, area businesses, etc) should illustrate the University’s commitment to providing an educational experience that has “real world” connections. The brochure should outline specific co-op experiences that were especially rewarding for UM-Flint students.


Using the Recruitment Season Effectively In light of limited staff time, budget constraints, and fierce competition for high school students, careful planning and consideration should be taken when developing a fall admissions travel program. The results of the geodemographic research should lend new insight into travel. In addition, the following guidelines should be considered to maximize the admissions counselor’s time during the fall recruitment season: Review historical data. In any given recruitment season, counselors should review and analyze all inquiries, applicants, and enrolled students over a period of three to five years relative to their assigned geographic area and specific high schools in that region. This analysis should enable each staff member to identify key trends relative to UM-Flint’s market visibility and make informed decisions not only about which schools to visit but how to spend their time most effectively. Review current data. Inquiries for the upcoming recruitment season (fall 2001) should be reviewed relative to specific high school visibility. Become familiar with high-interest students. Before the fall recruitment season begins, admissions staff members should receive, or compile themselves, updated information reflecting the background information (e.g. intended major, measures of academic quality, extracurricular interests, etc.) and the admissions status of their assigned high-interest students. These data elements are paramount in effectively recruiting students and addressing an inquiry’s personal interests and individual needs. Balance high school visits with college fairs and personal interviews. Travel schedules should include well-researched college fair programs and high school visits, as well as personal interviews with high-interest students. Students should be invited to participate in an individual interview via a personalized letter or phone call well in advance of the actual recruitment trip. Update guidance counselors and transfer coordinators. Early in September, send a personalized letter along with a primary admissions brochure (i.e. lead piece), admissions applications, and an UM-Flint’s catalog to (1) all guidance offices within the University local region or (2) any high school/college from which UM-Flint received an enrolling student over the last five years. This is especially important for reaching out to prospective transfer students and for developing relationships with high school guidance counselors and community college transfer coordinators. Plan evening receptions. During the fall semester, conduct informational evenings in local hotels (or other appropriate locations) within the University’s recruitment market. These programs will enable both prospective students and parents to learn first-hand about UM-Flint’s academic programs, key marketing distinctions, and available financial aid programs. Although coordinated and conducted by the Admissions office, informational evenings would include, whenever possible, other University representatives including current students, faculty, alumni, and parents of current students. Offer a “Shadow Program.” Invite prospective students to be “adopted for the day” by a current UM-Flint student. Although the logistics of the program may be particularly challenging for a commuter institution, this program will enable an admissions candidate to directly experience the benefits of attending the University. Freshmen should be matched with traditional-age students, while transfers should be matched with others who transferred to UM-Flint and have been successful thereafter.


Using E-Mail Effectively A system of incorporating e-mail into the front-end of the admissions cycle should be developed immediately. As noted previously, e-mail addresses should be viewed as being just as critical as last name, social security number, and home address. Therefore, at every turn, forms should solicit this information, whether in a high school visit, at a college fair, or for general interest callers who dial the admissions phone number. E-mail addresses must be stored in the admissions computing system. More specifically, all prospective students should receive timely and convincing e-mails that clarify and personalize the admissions process. The following are suggested uses for incorporating an electronic communications program into the admissions process:

Send periodic, personalized e-mails to high-interest, non-applicants throughout the admissions cycle. Specific e-mail messages could encourage students to visit the campus, attend an upcoming admissions activity, meet a staff member during a high school visit, or to apply to the University.

Invite prospective students to sign up for the UM-Flint “E-Pal Program.” This by-invitation-

only program would enable prospective students to communicate with a current University student via electronic means. The “E-Pal Program” would promote student-to-student contact (a valuable tool in admissions recruitment) and create connections between prospective students and the University.

Develop a mechanism for prospective students to receive copies of on-campus e-mails that

would maintain their interest in and communication with the University. Copies of on-campus e-mails may include announcements and updates pertaining to campus events and highlights.

Consider purchasing an electronic overlay system that allows for the structured, tailored, and

most important, AUTOMATED delivery of e-mail messages. Carnegie can offer further information about an inexpensive system that offers great versatility for e-correspondence.

Working with Special Constituencies To fully develop a dynamic admissions operation, it is important to work with and cultivate support among a variety of influential constituencies, both on- and off-campus. UM-Flint’s admissions office should continue to develop meaningful relationships among its alumni, parents of current students, and local high school guidance counselors. These influential groups, if effectively incorporated into the admissions process, will serve to enhance the overall enrollment efforts of the institution by creating important connections with the University and stimulating valuable word-of-mouth communication. Cultivate alumni support. Invite UM-Flint’s alumni to assist with the institution’s enrollment efforts by asking them to refer prospective students to the admissions office. Alumni may be asked to participate in this activity via personalized correspondence from campus leaders. Further, all or a portion of the alumni pool may be sent an application fee waiver and a scholarship nomination form, which they, in turn, would give to a “top” recruit. (This activity may also increase alumni support for the institution.) As a sidebar, the University needs to dramatically improve the collection and maintenance of alumni e-mail addresses within that office’s database. A select group of alumni should be invited to join an alumni-admissions volunteer program designed to enhance the University’s enrollment operation. The goal of the volunteer program is to create connections between alumni and prospective students and their families. Program volunteers should be asked to


contact (either by phone or letter) high-interest inquiries, attend college fairs throughout the fall and spring semesters, and, whenever possible, host admissions receptions in their homes. Members of the alumni-admissions volunteer program should receive accurate and timely information regarding the latest developments at the University. The admissions office should host annual, on-campus training workshops and send timely newsletters (via e-mail whenever possible) to program volunteers to assure their continued knowledge of the University. Coordination for the program could be assigned to an admissions staff member who would, in turn, would receive support from the institution’s University Relations Office. Incorporate parents of current students into the admissions process. Invite parents of current students to refer prospective students to the Admissions office. Also, develop a phoning program whereby parents of current students telephone parents of prospective students throughout various stages of the admissions process (“parent-to-parent” program). The success of a volunteer program hinges on organizing small, manageable jobs for volunteers. A select group of parents should be invited to participate in this activity and, after volunteering their time, receive appropriate recognition for their efforts. Work with high school guidance counselors. As a commuter institution, UM-Flint faces unique marketing challenges. Its recruitment market encompasses a rather circumscribed area. Therefore, developing effective and strong relationships with local guidance counselors and community college transfer coordinators is an essential element to the success of the University’s admissions operation. Throughout the admissions cycle, offer high school counselors the opportunity to visit the campus. Personally invite guidance counselors to bring their students to campus throughout the academic year for a campus tour, general information session about transitioning to college (using UM-Flint as an example whenever possible), and lunch in the food court a floor below the admissions office. Offer UM-Flint’s campus as a suggested meeting location for various groups of high school counselors. In addition, all guidance counselors in the University’s recruitment market should receive personalized correspondence at least once annually that communicates the distinctions and benefits of an UM-Flint education, the recent accomplishments of the institution, and the Chancellor’s vision for the future. It is important for the admissions office to develop customized recruitment programs for its top feeder high schools. To achieve this goal, admissions counselors must be knowledgeable of and sensitive to the needs of the local schools in their recruitment area. What are the challenges facing each school? What is the profile of the students attending the school? How is UM-Flint perceived among the students? Armed with this information, admissions staff members can develop a customized recruitment effort tailored to meet the needs of that institution. For example, would a financial aid session be most appropriate for a specific school or would a session focusing on a particular academic area be more effective? To further solidify strong university-high school relationships, UM-Flint should recognize counselors who demonstrate exemplary professionalism by assisting their student in the college selection process. Also, the University should, via e-mail, send local high schools periodic newsletters sharing the “latest happenings at the University.” Whenever appropriate, members of the UM-Flint community should attend guidance staff meetings to serve as a resource person to create connections. To that end, each counselor will become a valuable spokesperson for the institution, as well as a source of prospective students. Incorporate faculty into the process. Developing an enrollment operation does not rest with the admissions staff alone. An effective recruitment effort incorporates faculty members as an integral part of the process. For this reason, UM-Flint faculty members should contact students, via phone and e-mail, throughout all stages of the admission process, according to their academic interest. This is especially


pertinent since so many survey respondents noted the quality of teaching as a key attribute positively affecting their interest in the University. Managing Enrollment Challenges The expertise and talent across all areas of the admissions staff are directly correlated with achieving the University’s enrollment goals. Consequently, the institution should incorporate training activities for admissions staff and continue their attendance at professional regional and national meetings to assure their knowledge of the admissions field. To assist with the overall effectiveness of the admissions operation, the following suggestions should be considered: Managing Student Employees. Student staff members play an important role in the admissions operation. They answer incoming calls, process requests for information, generate admissions letters, etc. Therefore, it is imperative that the staff be effectively trained and managed. Student employees should have a thorough understanding of the purpose and objectives of the admissions office. As well, they should attend regularly scheduled staff meetings in which they are encouraged to discuss any issues, suggestions, or concerns they may have. Incorporate an Admissions “Roadrunner.” This staff member could be a temporary addition for the travel season only—enabling greater visibility during the critical but “brief” recruitment window (September-November). Conduct Service Training. Conduct in-service training workshops for UM-Flint faculty and staff members. These workshops would reinforce the importance of maintaining a student-focused perspective whenever representing or promoting the University. Suggested workshop topics may include: “The Importance of Student Service,” “Developing a Student-Friendly Attitude,” “Improving Telephone Etiquette,” and “Exceeding Students’ Expectations.” Conclusion There are a number of steps UM-Flint may implement that will directly enhance its recruitment and marketing productivity. Building the results of Carnegie’s geodemographic marketing research into the overall recruitment program will go a long way toward identifying where to look for new students, particularly beyond the 75-mile radius of campus. What’s more, implementing statistical techniques that will qualify and grade admissions inquiries should convert more inquiries into applicants and, consequently, strengthen the University’s enrollment position. UM-Flint’s admissions publications program should be considerably upgraded to include a wider array of visually appealing and compelling marketing messages. The University should develop a series of programs and mechanisms that will enable the admissions staff to use the fall recruitment season most effectively. Staff members should develop strong relationships with area high schools and serve as territory managers within specific recruitment markets. E-mail should become an integral component of the admissions process and less of an afterthought, enabling a variety of constituencies (e.g. faculty, alumni, and high school personnel) to remain “connected” to the University. Training workshops should be conducted for a variety of on-campus personnel to strengthen the University’s position as a student-centered institution. And the University’s Web site, as noted in Chapter Two, also needs a thorough review and overhaul. Though not bad per se, the site is lacking in a number of areas including two of the most critical areas: content and navigability.


Proper execution of these enrollment and admissions initiatives will enable UM-Flint to establish an enhanced method of managing its recruitment and enrollment efforts and assist the University in realizing its long-range goals.

Activity Check List # Activity Notes Completed 1 Establish method of qualifying leads Create system based on either source/contact

info or variety of additional factors

2 Develop correspondence program for high-interest candidates

Promotional letters should be edited to ensure marketing appeal and meet objectives of mailing.

3 Develop personal checklist for admissions inquiries

Develop techniques for assuring a strong response rate

4 Establish response mechanism for admissions correspondence

5 Send promotional letter from Chancellor

6 Send promotional letter from alumni

7 Send promotional letter from department chairperson

8 Send promotional letter from current student

All promotional letters should be created from a student-benefit perspective and edited to ensure marketing appeal

9 Create marketing themes brochure 10 Create visibility poster

11 Create campus map

12 Create scholarship and honors brochure 13 Create public service brochure 14 Create brochure for returning/part-time

students

Each publication should be distributed throughout the admissions cycle as part of a well-timed correspondence program

15 Create cooperative education brochure 16 Create Outcomes brochure 17 Review enrollment data (applied,

accepted and enrolled) over a 5-year period by region, major, academic quality, extracurricular interests, etc.

Data should be analyzed according to specific recruitment territories

18 Develop comprehensive notification system for high school visits

19 Plan evening receptions to be conducted during the fall semester

20 Offer off-campus interviews during the fall travel season

21 Send letter to area guidance counselors and transfer coordinators


Activity Check List, continued

# Activity Notes Completed 22 Plan “shadow” program for fall 2001 23 Invite current students to serve as guest

lecturers in local high schools

24 Offer public service workshops Include topics that are relevant to prospective students

25 Develop leadership conference for area high school students

Ask area high schools to nominate attendees

26 Establish scholarship nomination form 27 Develop e-mail communications flow 28 Develop an electronic admissions

newsletter

29 Develop UM-Flint ’s E-Pal Program Secure group of current students to assist with the program

30 Create mechanism for prospective students to receive copies of on-campus e-mails

31 Create alumni-admissions volunteer program

Joint effort between Admissions and University Relations

32 Incorporate parents of current students into the admissions process

33 Incorporate UM-Flint faculty into the admissions process

Recognize faculty for their efforts

34 Invite guidance counselors to bring their students to campus

35 Create individual profile information for feeder schools

36 Develop recruitment activities that are customized for a select group of high schools

37 Develop an electronic newsletter for area high schools

38 Develop training program for student employees in the admissions office

39 Hire an admissions “Roadrunner” for the fall semester

40 Conduct student service training workshop for all UM-Flint faculty and staff members

Figure 6.1


Chapter Seven: Geodemographic Research Introduction The geodemographic research we conducted for UM-Flint was designed to help inform future strategic practices within the admissions office. Specifically, we hope that the results of the study will enable the admissions office to proactively open new markets in an informed way. Coupled with some of the recommendations in Chapter Six, geodemography can go a long way toward making the admissions office more effective, efficient, and successful at increasing the number of students. Geodemographic analysis is based on the premise that “birds of a feather flock together.” In other words, families generally choose to live near other families with similar characteristics. Given this tendency, neighborhoods can be characterized by the demographic and lifestyle characteristics of the population. For example, studies show that married couples with children living in suburban areas are different from married couples with children living in small towns or urban areas—not only in their basic demographic characteristics, but also in their lifestyles and purchasing practices. As a result, addresses are much more than a string of letters and numbers that allow us to receive mail. They are indicators of the types of products we are likely to buy, the television shows we are likely to watch, and in general, the type of neighborhood in which we live. Using geodemography, Carnegie was able to identify the types of neighborhoods that generate inquiries, applicants, and enrolled students for UM-Flint and create comprehensive profiles of the demographic and lifestyle characteristics of current and prospective students. Carnegie analyzed the addresses of UM-Flint inquiries, applicants, and enrolled students using special software called PRIZM. Created and leased by Claritas Corporation of Arlington, Virginia, PRIZM classifies over 500,000 neighborhoods in the United States into one of 62 unique lifestyle groupings called “clusters.” These groupings take into consideration 39 factors in five broad categories:

Education and affluence Family life cycle Urbanization Race and ethnicity Mobility

Each cluster is linked to information on demographic, lifestyle, media, financial, and product characteristics from hundreds of consumer and government sources—i.e., the U.S. Census, Simmons Market Research Bureau, Mediamark, Arbitron, Nielsen, and R.L. Polk—and is designated by a nickname encapsulating the group’s general characteristics (Figure 7.1).3 For example, Big Sky Families are among the most affluent neighborhoods in rural areas. Adults in these neighborhoods have income levels well above the U.S. median and are more likely than average to be college-educated. They are well-paid, skilled craftsmen, machinists, and builders living in scenic locales from New England and the Tidewater to the Great Lakes and the Rockies. Lifestyles in Big Sky Families are family centered and devoted to hobbies, hunting, and boating.

3 For a short description of each cluster, along with an explanation of the system by which they were derived, see Appendix F.


Cluster Nicknames (listed in descending socioeconomic order)

1. Blue Blood Estates 22. Blue-Chip Blues 43. River City, USA 2. Winner's Circle 23. Upstarts & Seniors 44. Shotguns & Pickups 3. Executive Suites 24. New Beginnings 45. Single City Blues 4. Pools & Patios 25. Mobility Blues 46. Hispanic Mix 5. Kids & Cul-de-Sacs 26. Gray Collars 47. Inner Cities 6. Urban Gold Coast 27. Urban Achievers 48. Smalltown Downtown 7. Money & Brains 28. Big City Blend 49. Hometown Retired 8. Young Literati 29. Old Yankee Rows 50. Family Scramble 9. American Dreams 30. Mid-City Mix 51. Southside City 10. Bohemian Mix 31. Latino America 52. Golden Ponds 11. Second City Elite 32. Middleburg Managers 53. Rural Industria 12. Upward Bound 33. Boomtown Singles 54. Norma Rae-ville 13. Gray Power 34. Starter Families 55. Mines & Mills 14. Country Squires 35. Sunset City Blues 56. Agri-Business 15. God's Country 36. Towns & Gowns 57. Grain Belt 16. Big Fish, Small Pond 37. New Homesteaders 58. Blue Highways 17. Greenbelt Families 38. Middle America 59. Rustic Elders 18. Young Influentials 39. Red, White & Blues 60. Back Country Folks 19. New Empty Nests 40. Military Quarters 61. Scrub Pine Flats 20. Boomers & Babies 41. Big Sky Families 62. Hard Scrabble 21. Suburban Sprawl 42. New Eco-topia

Figure 7.1

On the other side of the urbanity scale is the cluster Bohemian Mix, a truly integrated, singles-dominated, well-educated, upscale, high-rise hodgepodge of executives, students, actors, artists, writers and races with the nation’s second lowest index for children. Dupont Circle in Washington, D.C., Greenwich Village in New York City, and areas in Cambridge, Mass. are Bohemian Mix neighborhoods. These neighborhoods are found only in very urban, densely populated areas. Carnegie profiled UM-Flint’s recent inquiries, applicants, and enrolled students against the 62 geodemographic clusters and used the resulting information to identify target groups—groupings of clusters to target for recruiting activity—used in our analysis. The next section describes the findings of the geodemographic study, beginning with a description of the geodemographic profiles of the University’s students and a discussion of the creation of the target groups. We then describe the baseline demographic characteristics of these target groups and show how they are represented among varying populations of UM-Flint students. Finally, we provide maps that illustrate the target group distribution of in UM-Flint’s primary market area, as well as several nearby out-of-state markets that may hold future recruitment potential.


Research Findings What is the geographic distribution of UM-Flint’s current and prospective students? We began our geodemographic analysis by plotting recent inquiries, applicants, and matriculants across the United States in order to show their geographic distribution and how it changes from one stage to the next in recruitment process. For example, Figure 7.2 shows the geographic distribution of 1998 – 2000 inquiries for UM-Flint. While inquiries are scattered across the United States, 90% come from Michigan.

Figure 7.2

The geographic distribution becomes more regionalized at each stage in the recruitment process—95.5% of UM-Flint’s applicants live in Michigan (Figure 7.3), and 93% live within 75 miles from campus.

Figure 7.3

University of Michigan – Flint Geographic Distribution of Applicants

University of Michigan – Flint Geographic Distribution of Inquiries

UM-Flint generates inquiries from across

the United States.


Ninety-nine percent of all enrolled students live within 75 miles of campus (Figure 7.4). This 75-mile radius around the campus, then, is the primary market area for UM-Flint, and is illustrated by the map in Figure 7.5.

Figure 7.4

The majority of applicants and matriculants live less than 30 miles from campus. In fact, seventy-five percent of applicants and 87% of matriculants come from this 30-mile radius.

Figure 7.5

University of Michigan – Flint Primary Market Area (75-mi radius from campus)

Figure x

University of Michigan – Flint Geographic Distribution of Enrolled Students


What is the geodemographic profile of UM-Flint’s current and prospective students? The “profiles” of UM-Flint’s enrollment data form the basis of this analysis. Each profile identifies the percentage of students (inquiries, applicants, or deposits) who live in neighborhoods characterized by each of the 62 geodemographic clusters. For example, the first profile, included as Figure 7.7, shows the distribution of all U.S. high school students across the clusters and is provided as a basis for comparing the profiles of UM-Flint’s students. The U.S. high school student population is distributed relatively evenly across the clusters. Kids & Cul-de-Sacs represents the largest portion of the population at 4%. God’s Country accounts for the second largest portion at 3.2%. Figure 7.8, which is the profile of the UM-Flint primary market area, shows that God’s Country accounts for 6% of high school students in the area. Figures 7.9 through 7.11 show the profiles of UM-Flint’s recent inquiries, applicants, and enrolled students, respectively. The University’s profile begins to take shape with the inquiry pool. Several clusters peak out, representing larger populations of students, while others become “flat,” representing only small portions of the pool. For example, God’s Country, which accounts for 6% of all high school students in the University’s market area, represents over 10% of UM-Flint’s inquiries (see Figure 7.6 for a brief description of this and other selected clusters).

Selected Cluster Descriptions 05 Kids and Cul-de-Sacs Upscale Suburban Families Similar to Executive Suites and Pools and Patios, Cluster 05 ranks high on all affluence measures. Although married couples with children are still predominant in this cluster, some married couples without children are moving into Kids and Cul-de-Sacs. These suburban folks lead busy lives centered around family activities. Affluent (10) Age Groups: Under 18, 35-44, 45-54 Predominantly White, High Asian 15 God’s Country Executive Exurban Families Like Country Squires, the large families of Cluster 15 prefer to live away from the city. They are well-educated professionals or white-collar managers. Dual incomes support an active lifestyle that is centered around family and outdoor activities. Affluent (11) Age Groups: 35-44, 45-54, 55-64 Predominantly White 46 Hispanic Mix Urban Hispanic Singles and Families The bilingual barrios concentrated in the Southwest, the Atlantic metro corridor, Texas, Chicago, Miami and Los Angeles, are home to Cluster 46. Large families with lots of small children live in these neighborhoods. They rank second in the percentage of foreign-born and first in transient immigration. Poor (60) Age Groups: Under 18, 18-24, 25-34 Predominantly Hispanic, High Black/Asian 54 Norma Rae-Ville Young Families, Bi-Racial Mill Towns Centered in the South, the Mississippi delta and in the Gulf Coast and Atlantic states, Cluster 54 is the blue-collar labor pool for the nations clothing and home furnishing industries. With grade school and high school educations, many families in this bi-racial cluster live below the poverty level. Poor (54) Age Groups: Under 18, 18-24, 25-34 Predominantly Black

Figure 7.6

The profile of UM-Flint’s applicant pool is even more distinct than the profile of the inquiry pool. A number of clusters toward the middle and lower ends of the socioeconomic scale peak out to represent large portions of the applicant pool. Five clusters in particular, Middle America, Big Sky Families, Shotguns & Pickups, Family Scramble, and Southside City each represent more than 4% of the applicants to UM-Flint in the last three years. God’s Country and Middle America represent the largest percentages of UM-Flint’s enrolled students.


2.21.9

2.51.8

2.4

2.81.82.0

1.61.9

1.42.3

2.70.6

1.22.4

1.9

1.12.3

2.10.9

1.8

0.61.9

2.51.6

0.61.5

1.70.5

1.51.7

1.31.0

1.21.0

2.01.7

0.7

0.92.2

1.21.3

1.90.8

1.7

1.53.2

1.70.9

2.0

1.90.4

1.70.4

0.90.1

4.0

1.61.0

2.41.4

0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20

Percent of 14-17-year-olds

Blue Blood Est a t e sWinne r ' s Circ le

Exe c ut ive S uit e sP ools & P a t ios

Kids & Cul-de -S a c sUrba n Gold Coa st

Mone y & Bra insYoung Lit e ra t i

Ame ric a n Dre a msBohe mia n Mix

S e c ond Cit y Elit eUpwa rd Bound

Gra y P owe r

Count ry S quire sGod's Count ry

Big Fish, S ma ll P ondGre e nbe lt Fa milie sYoung Inf lue nt ia lsNe w Empt y Ne st s

Boome rs & Ba bie sS uburba n S pra wl

Blue -Chip Blue sUpst a r t s & S e niors

Ne w Be ginningsMobilit y Blue s

Gra y Colla rsUrba n Ac hie ve rs

Big Cit y BlendOld Ya nke e Rows

Mid-Cit y MixLa t ino Ame ric a

Middle burg Ma na ge rsBoomt own S ingle s

S t a r t e r Fa milie sS unse t Cit y Blue s

Towns & GownsNe w Home st e a de rs

Middle Ame ric aRe d, Whit e & Blue s

Milit a ry Qua rt e rsBig S ky Fa milie s

Ne w Ec o-t opiaRive r Cit y, US A

S hot guns & P ic kupsS ingle Cit y Blue s

Hispa nic MixInne r Cit ie s

S ma llt own Downt own

Home t own Re t ire dFa mily S c ramble

S out hside Cit yGolde n P onds

Rura l Indust riaNorma Ra e -ville

Mine s & MillsAgri-Business

Gra in Be ltBlue Highwa ys

Rust ic Elde rsBa c k Count ry Folks

S c rub P ine Fla t sHa rd S c ra bble

62-Cluster Profile of U.S. 14-17-Year-Olds

Figure 7.7

What does this chart show? This chart identifies the percentage of U.S. 14-17-

year-olds in each geodemographic cluster. The clusters are listed in descending socioeconomic order,

with Blue Blood Estates characterizing the most affluent neighborhoods in the U.S. and Hard Scrabble

describing the poorest, rural areas. This chart is provided as a basis for comparison.


Figure 7.8

0.30.0

1.00.6

1.40.40.60.6

0.00.70.7

2.82.7

0.70.9

8.20.5

2.03.1

2.00.3

3.60.1

1.33.4

0.50.6

1.61.6

0.61.1

0.03.5

1.43.2

0.52.2

1.50.5

1.24.2

2.60.5

1.30.8

2.10.9

6.01.7

0.80.7

2.30.4

1.60.1

1.20.0

5.82.7

1.03.7

2.0

0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20

Percent of 14-17-year-olds







Gra y P owe rCount ry S quire s

God's Count ryBig Fish, S ma ll P ond

Gre e nbe lt Fa milie sYoung Inf lue nt ia lsNe w Empt y Ne st s





Big Cit y Ble ndOld Ya nke e Rows



S t a r t e r Fa milie s

S unse t Cit y Blue sTowns & Gowns

Ne w Home st e a de rsMiddle Ame ric a

Re d, Whit e & Blue sMilit a ry Qua rt e rsBig S ky Fa milie s




S ma llt own Downt ownHome t own Re t ire d

Fa mily S c ra mbleS out hside Cit y

Golde n P ondsRura l Indust r ia

Norma Ra e -villeMine s & Mills

Agri-Busine ssGra in Be lt

Blue Highwa ysRust ic Elde rs

Ba c k Count ry FolksS c rub P ine Fla t s

Ha rd S c ra bble

62-Cluster Profile of 14-17-Year-Olds in the UM-Flint Primary Market Area

What does this chart show? This chart identifies the percentage of 14-17-year-olds

in UM-Flint’s primary market area in each geodemographic cluster. The clusters are listed in descending socioeconomic order, with Blue Blood

Estates characterizing the most affluent neighborhoods in the U.S. and Hard Scrabble

describing the poorest, rural areas. This chart is provided as a basis for comparison.


0.50.2

1.0

0.91.6

0.60.7

1.30.3

1.3

0.84.5

3.30.70.8

4.90.3

0.84.2

2.20.3

4.90.1

1.95.9

0.7

1.11.1

2.20.4

1.10.1

2.70.5

0.9

0.42.6

1.10.4

1.73.9

2.20.3

1.2

0.63.3

1.410.6

2.30.8

0.5

1.50.4

0.90.1

0.50.1

3.71.4

0.5

2.20.9

0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20

Percent of Inquiries




Mone y & Bra ins

Young Lit e ra t iAme ric a n Dre a ms

Bohe mia n MixS e c ond Cit y Elit e

Upwa rd BoundGra y P owe r

Count ry S quire sGod's Count ry

Big Fish, S ma ll P ondGre e nbe lt Fa milie sYoung Inf lue nt ia lsNe w Empt y Ne st s






















Ha rd S c ra bble

62-Cluster Profile of 1998-2000 Inquiriesfor the University of Michigan - Flint

Figure 7.9

What does this chart show? This chart identifies the

percentage of UM-Flint’s 1998-2000 inquiries in each

geodemographic cluster. For example, 10.6% of the

University’s recent inquiries were from God’s Country.


Figure 7.10

0.20.0

0.40.6

1.10.3

0.51.7

0.21.7

0.64.6

4.30.8

0.81.5

0.10.3

4.12.0

0.35.9

0.02.3

8.40.60.7

0.82.8

0.21.1

0.00.8

0.20.3

0.23.5

1.10.3

2.64.7

2.60.1

1.20.4

4.21.7

15.02.8

0.70.3

1.4

0.10.3

0.10.20.1

3.21.0

0.31.4

0.6

0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20

Percent of Applicants








God's Count ryBig Fish, S ma ll








Middle burgBoomt own S ingle s






S hot guns &S ingle Cit y Blue s

Hispa nic MixInne r Cit ie sS ma llt own

Home t own Re t ire dFa mily S c ra mble

S out hside Cit yGolde n P onds

Rura l Indust r iaNorma Ra e -ville

Mine s & MillsAgri-Busine ss

Gra in Be ltBlue Highwa ys

Rust ic Elde rsBa c k Count ry

S c rub P ine Fla t sHa rd S c ra bble

62-Cluster Profile of 1998-2000 Applicantsfor the University of Michigan - Flint

What does this chart show? This chart identifies the

percentage of UM-Flint’s 1998-2000 applicants in each

geodemographic cluster. For example, 15% of the

University’s recent applicants were from God’s Country.


0.10.0

0.40.4

0.90.2

0.51.9

0.12.0

0.54.4

5.10.80.9

0.1

0.00.1

4.31.9

0.16.3

0.02.4

9.70.4

0.20.7

2.70.2

1.20.0

0.10.00.00.0

4.01.2

0.12.7

5.22.9

0.1

1.10.3

4.91.9

17.22.6

0.70.2

1.20.00.1

0.00.00.0

3.20.8

0.10.8

0.1

0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20

Percent of Enrolled Students








God's Count ryBig Fish, S ma ll P ond























Ha rd S c ra bble

62-Cluster Profile of 1998-2000 Enrolled Studentsfor the University of Michigan - Flint

What does this chart show? This chart identifies the percentage

of UM-Flint’s 1998-2000 matriculants in each

geodemographic cluster. For example, 17% of the University’s recent enrolled students were from

God’s Country.

Figure 7.11


0 .1

0 .00 .40 .4

0 .90 .2

0 .5

1 .90 .1

2 .0

0 .54 .4

5 .1

0 .80 .9

0 .1

0 .00 .1

4 .31 .9

0 .16 .3

0 .02 .4

9 .70 .4

0 .2

0 .72 .7

0 .2

1 .20 .00 .1

0 .00 .00 .0

4 .01 .2

0 .1

2 .75 .2

2 .9

0 .11 .1

0 .3

4 .91 .9

17 .2

2 .60 .7

0 .2

1 .20 .00 .10 .00 .00 .0

3 .20 .8

0 .10 .8

0 .1

0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20

Percent of Enrolled Students

Blue Blood Est a t e s

Winne r 's Circ le

Exe c ut ive S uit e s

P ools & P a t ios

Kids & Cul-de -S a c s

Urba n Gold Coast

Mone y & Bra ins

Young Lit e ra t i

Ame ric a n Dre a ms

Bohe mia n Mix

S e c ond Cit y Elit e

Upwa rd Bound

Gra y P owe r

Count ry S quire s

God's Count ry

Big Fish, S ma ll P ond

Gre e nbe lt Fa milie s

Young Inf lue nt ia ls

Ne w Empt y Ne st s

Boome rs & Ba bie s

S uburba n S pra wl

Blue -Chip Blue s

Upst a r t s & S e niors

Ne w Be ginnings

Mobilit y Blue s

Gra y Colla rs

Urba n Ac hie vers

Big Cit y Ble nd

Old Ya nke e Rows

Mid-Cit y Mix

La t ino Ame ric a

Middle burg Mana ge rs

Boomt own S ingle s

S t a r t e r Fa milie s

S unse t Cit y Blue s

Towns & Gowns

Ne w Home st e ade rs

Middle Ame rica

Re d, Whit e & Blue s

Milit a ry Qua rt e rs

Big S ky Fa milie s

Ne w Ec o-t opia

Rive r Cit y, US A

S hot guns & P ic kups

S ingle Cit y Blue s

Hispa nic Mix

Inne r Cit ie s

S ma llt own Downt own

Home t own Re t ire d

Fa mily S c ra mble

S out hside Cit y

Golde n P onds

Rura l Indust r ia

Norma Ra e -ville

Mine s & Mills

Agri-Busine ss

Gra in Be lt

Blue Highwa ys

Rust ic Elde rs

Ba c k Count ry Folks

S c rub P ine Fla t s

Ha rd S c ra bble

62-Cluster Profile of 1998-2000 Enrolled Studentsfor the University of Michigan - Flint

Target Group A 5.0%

Target Group D 28.5%

Target Group B 28.8%

Target Group C 15.9%

What does this chart show? This chart shows the profile of UM-Flint’s enrolled students

color coded by the Target Groups. The percentage of

students represented by each group is identified.

Target Group E 13.4%

Figure 7.12


What are UM-Flint’s target groups? Because 62 clusters would be unwieldy to manage in terms of target marketing, the next step in the research process entailed collapsing the clusters into a manageable number of target groups for UM-Flint. Target groups are the defining breakout of the University’s current and prospective students and form the basis for this geodemographic analysis. As such, the remainder of the geodemographic analysis focuses on these target groups, providing information on the characteristics and geographic locations of each group. The clusters included in the University’s target groups are color-coded in the bar chart in Figure 7.12, on the previous page. Essentially, target groups are groupings of clusters to target for future activity, and are comprised of clusters that exist in similar area types and are of similar affluence levels. Because the clusters are arranged socioeconomically, so are UM-Flint’s target groups, with Target Group A representing the most affluent group and Target Group E, the least affluent. Thus, the name, “Target Group A” does not indicate any particular priority in terms of recruitment emphasis. It simply identifies this group as the highest on the socioeconomic scale. The clusters shaded burgundy in Figure 7.12 are not included in any of UM-Flint’s target groups and are, for the sake of convenience, collectively referred to as Target Group F, or “Other.” Clusters that fall into the “Other” category yield so few students that efforts to recruit from these areas should be reduced, if not eliminated. Clusters in the “Other” category collectively represent less than nine percent of the University’s recent enrolled students. Shifting attention and resources, both human and financial, away from the clusters in this group will allow UM-Flint to confidently reduce effort to a portion of the marketplace. In so doing, time, energy, and money can be used to recruit students from those clusters that are most likely to yield students, i.e. the five “primary” target groups. This is a fundamental tenet of target marketing and offers the University an excellent way to, in the current lexicon, “work smarter, not harder.” Institutions are often tempted to explore why students from the “Other” target group tend to enroll at low rates in an effort to understand why and perhaps begin converting those students at higher rates. We do not recommend pursuing such an objective. Students from the clusters included in the “Other” target group represent very few of UM-Flint’s students and convert from inquiry to applicant and applicant to deposit at very low rates. These rates are so low that efforts to understand the group or attempt to convert these students at higher rates will likely be futile. We liken this situation to attempting to sell a lawn mower to a couple living in a high-rise building or striving to market boats to families who live 300 miles from the nearest body of water. UM-Flint should simply accept that enrollment productivity is, and has been, very poor in areas dominated by the “Other” group and refocus recruitment efforts to target student from the five “primary” target groups.


How are the target groups distributed across UM-Flint’s inquiries, applicants, and matriculants? Figure 7.13 illustrates a variety of important data about UM-Flint’s target group distribution. The figure shows the exact percentage of inquiries, applicants, and matriculants represented by each target group. For example, Target Group B accounts for about 20% of the University’s inquiries, 26% of applicants, and 29% of enrolled students; it is the largest target group. In addition, the chart graphically depicts the degree to which the representation of each target group increases or decreases in the pool of students through the recruitment process. For example, Target Group A (TG A) accounts for 15% of high school students in UM-Flint’s primary market area. However, TG A represents just 8.7% of UM-Flint’s inquiries, 6.4% of applicants, and 5.0% of matriculants. This is evidence of weak productivity in this target group because the representation of the group decreases throughout the recruitment process. Productivity is particularly strong in Target Groups B and D.

Target Group Distribution of UM-FlintInquiries, Applicants, and Enrolled Students

15.18.7 6.4 5.0

14.220.2 26.3 28.8

11.7 11.414.5 15.9

16.122.5

26.528.5

6.8

10.3

12.313.4

36.226.9

14.18.3

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

Primary MarketArea Pop. 14-17 Inquiries Applicants Matriculants

% R

epre

sent

atio

n

TG A TG B TG C TG D TG E Other

Figure 7.13


On the other hand, the “Other” group shrinks from 36% of the households in the University’s market to represent 26.9% of UM-Flint’s inquiries, 14.1% of applicants, and 8.3% of deposited students. Clearly, this is a collection of clusters that do not perform well for the University and for which recruitment efforts can be at least scaled back, if not altogether eliminated. What are the yield rates for each target group? “Yield” rates from inquiry to applicant and applicant to deposit are critical measures of success in the world of admissions marketing. Thus, it is important to study the yield rates for each geodemographic target group. The charts in Figure 7.14 illustrate the rates at which inquiries and applicants in each target group convert to applicants and deposited students.4 Overall, 32% of inquiries convert into applications for UM-Flint. However, yield rates varies widely by target group. For example, Target Groups B, C, D, and E have above-average inquiry-to-applicant yield rates ranging from 37–41%, while the yield rate for TG A is notably below average at 23.6%. Inquiries from the “Other” target group convert at the lowest rate—just 16.4%, further evidence that UM-Flint should refrain from proactively targeting this group. The average applicant-to-matriculant yield rate is 52.8%. Again, applicants from TG A and “Other” neighborhoods convert at the lowest rates, just 42.9% and 33.2% respectively. Target Group B applicants convert at the highest rate: 59% of TG B applicants enroll. What are the demographic characteristics of each target group? The information in this section is designed to provide baseline demographic information about each UM-Flint target group. Figure 7.15 lists several important facts about each group including average income, minority representation, and growth rate. The table reveals the following notable findings:

4 Data for fall 2000 were excluded from yield rate calculations because complete data were unavailable at the time of the study.

Inquiry-to-Applicant Conversion Rate by Target Group

23.6%

41.1% 40.4%37.4% 38.6%

16.4%

32.0%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

TG A TG B TG C TG D TG E Other AverageY

ield

Rat

e

Average=32%

Applicant-to-Matriculant Conversion Rate by Target Group

42.9%

59.0% 56.6% 56.3% 54.1%

33.2%

52.8%

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

TG A TG B TG C TG D TG E Other Average

Yiel

d R

ate

Average=52.8%

Figure 7.14


Income and Education Target Group A is the most affluent, and Target Group E the least affluent: the average TG A

family earns $106,900 annually, more than three times the average income of TG E households.

Target Group A can be considered “affluent,” Target Group B “upper-middle-income,” Target Groups C and D “middle-income,” and Group E “lower-middle-income.” These associations are based on the comparison of average income for the target group to the average income for the U.S.

Along with the highest incomes, Target Group A has the highest levels of education; the mean is 14.9 years.

Education levels correlate with incomes and position on the socioeconomic scale. Thus, Group A has the highest median level of education, and Group E has the lowest median level of education.

Figure 7.15 Minority Representation

Minorities make up 17.6% of the U.S. population. Target Groups A, B, and D contain below average percentages of minorities at 12.5%, 12.2%,

and 8.6%, respectively. Target Groups C and E have above average representation of minorities: minorities account

for 18.7 % of the population in TG C areas, and 28% of the population in TG E areas. The “Other” group also contains a high concentration of minorities at 21.6%. However, as

stated previously, the “Other” group is comprised of clusters that historically generate very few students for UM-Flint.

Home Value and Growth Rate

Cost of living, as measured by home value, is higher than average in Target Groups A and B, where the median home values are $242,662 and $172,507, respectively. Cost of living is substantially lower in TG E, where the median home value is $54,764.

The estimated annual household growth rate for the United States is 0.975, i.e., the number of households in the country increases 0.975% each year. Growth rates are above average in Target Groups A, B, and D, particularly for Target Group B, where the number of households in growing at a rate of 1.556% annually.

Median HH Income

Avg. HH Income

Median Yrs of School

Completed % MinorityMedian Home

ValueEst. Annual HH

Growth Rate

Group A $86,791 $106,903 14.9 12.5 $242,662 1.419Group B $64,522 $79,338 13.9 7.4 $172,507 1.556Group C $42,186 $50,163 12.9 18.7 $99,533 0.705Group D $42,869 $52,512 12.9 8.6 $96,530 1.301Group E $24,249 $32,018 12.1 28.0 $54,764 0.544

Other $36,944 $47,976 13.1 21.6 $110,161 0.802U.S. $44,636 $56,184 13.2 17.6 $130,081 0.975

Baseline Demographics of UM-Flint Target Groups


What are the lifestyle characteristics of each target group? Beyond the cold realm of annual income and median home value, the pages that follow contain detailed information that describes the lifestyles of families in each target group, offering insight into what makes UM-Flint students “tick.” Carnegie’s database of geodemographic data contains allows each target group to be ranked across more than 1,300 lifestyle characteristics.5 For instance, are students from a certain target group more or less likely than average to enjoy skiing or tractor pulls? Which potential students come from neighborhoods where Chevrolet Malibus outnumber Mercedes sedans? Who is most likely to use the Internet, and therefore more likely to receive—and be receptive to—marketing messages sent electronically? Which students come from neighborhoods characterized by strong philanthropic tendencies? Which prospective students are more likely to subscribe to the Wall Street Journal, Forbes, or the New Yorker, and which are more likely to read Popular Mechanics or Farmer’s Almanac? While these issues may seem random, when carefully considered in conjunction with the other information in this report, they paint a useful portrait of the pools from which students are recruited. Carefully analyzed, this information is vital to developing effective marketing communications that will successfully appeal to the students UM-Flint most wants to recruit. Furthermore, this detailed information should be used in the development of marketing messages and recruitment publications. On the pages that follow, we describe the target groups, their leisure activities, the magazines they read, the radio stations they listen to, the stores where they shop, their travel propensity, and their top electronic buys. Figure 7.16 shows the top leisure activities of each group. Target Group A families are highly likely to have spent more than $100 on dry cleaning in the last six months, to belong to a country club, to rent/buy videos from a warehouse, to play tennis, to go sailing, to own a Montblanc pen, to buy books on tape, and to buy computer books. These characteristics illustrate the relatively upscale lifestyles of these TG A families. TG D families are completely different, with lifestyles that revolve around outdoor activities such as hunting, boating, and camping. Where TG A families go sailing, TG D families own

5 Appendix G contains rankings of each target group across all 1,300 characteristics.

TG A TG B TG C TG D TG E Eat at CA

PizzaKitchLst6Mos Eat at Friendly's Lst6Mos Rntd/Bght How-To Videos LM Eat at BobEvansFarm

Lst6Mos Eat at Whataburger

Lst6Mos Dry Cleaning:$100+ Lst6Mos Go Cross Country Skiing Eat at White Castle Lst6Mos Conv St To Rnt/Buy Videos Eat at GoldenCorral

Lst6Mos Belong to a Country Club Go Downhill Skiing Eat at Whataburger Lst6Mos Eat at Burger Chef Lst6Mos Eat at Sonic Lst6Mos

Wherehouse To Rnt/BuyVideos

Bght Treadmill LstYr Eat at Bob's BigBoy Lst6Mos Eat at Ponderosa Lst6Mos Eat at LngJohnSilverLst6Mos

Eat at Roy Roger's Lst6Mos Go Scuba/Skin Dive/Snorkel Buy Rap Music Rntd/Bght How-To Videos LM

Eat at GdfthrsPizza Lst6Mos

Play Tennis Eat at BobEvansFarm Lst6Mos Bght In-Line Skates LstYr Grocry St To Rnt/Buy Videos Eat at Hardee's Lst6Mos

Ctrb $50+ Pub Brdctg LstYr Eat at DunkinDonuts Lst6Mos Eat at Fuddrucker's Lst6Mos Own Outboard Motor Eat at Po Folks Lst6Mos

Go Sailing Bght Computer Books LY Go Roller Skating Go Hunting with Gun Buy Gospel Music

Montblanc/Waterman Last Yr Eat at CrackrBarrel Lst6Mos Eat at T.G.I. Fridays Lst6Mos Bght Sleeping Bag Last Yr Bght FishingEquipment LstYr

Bght Computer Books LstYr Bght Golf Clubs LstYr Eat at JackintheBox Lst6Mos Bght 1950s Nostalgia Buy Rap Music

Buy Books on Tape Dry Cleaning:$100+ Lst6Mos Eat at BobEvansFarm Lst6Mos

Eat at GoldenCorral Lst6Mos

Eat at Burger Chef Lst6Mos

Eat at T.G.I.Fridys Lst6Mos Eat at Fuddrucker's Lst6Mos Buy Dance Music Belong to a Veterans Club Eat at Ponderosa Lst6Mos

Leisure Activities of UM-Flint Target Groups

Figure 7.16


outboard motors; where TG A families belong to country clubs, TG D families belong to veteran’s clubs. They are also more likely than the average U.S. family to rent/buy videos from convenience stores or grocery stores, buy 1950s nostalgia, and eat at restaurants such as Burger Chef and Ponderosa. These leisure activities alone show the sharp contrasts between UM-Flint’s target groups. Figure 7.17 lists the radio stations that target group households tune into most. There are several types of stations listed for Target Groups A, B, and E and only a few listed for Target Groups C and D because groups A, B, and E have a higher overall propensity to listen to the radio. The preferences of Target Group A and B households are more varied and more upscale. They enjoy classical, news, sports, contemporary, and jazz. Target Groups C and E prefer urban contemporary, Black, and Spanish music while Target Group D families are simply die-hard country fans.

Figure 7.17 Figure 7.18 lists the magazines to which families in each target group are most likely to subscribe. Families in Target Groups A and B subscribe to many of the same magazines: Tennis, Travel & Leisure, Architectural Digest, Bon Appetit, Gourmet, Kiplinger’s Personal Finance, Money, and Scientific American. The high percentage of minorities in Target Groups C and E is reflected in the magazines

TG A TG B TG C TG D TG E All News: Net Aud NPR: Net Aud Urban Contemporary: Net Aud Country: Net Aud Spanish: Net Aud All Sports: Net Aud All Sports: Net Aud Black: Net Aud Urban Contemporary: Net Aud

Soft Contemporary: Net Aud Classical: Net Aud Progressive Rock: Net Aud Religious/Gospel: Net Aud WallStreetJournNtwk:NetAud WallStreetJournNtwk:NetAud Variety: Net Aud

Jazz: Net Aud News/Talk: Net Aud Black: Net Aud News/Talk: Net Aud Progressive Rock: Net Aud

NPR: Net Aud Nostalgia: Net Aud Classic Rock: Net Aud

Top Radio Formats by Target Group

TG A TG B TG C TG D TG E Chicago Tribune Magazine Yankee Popular Hot Rodding Yankee Baby Talk Wall Street Journal Daily Tennis Essence Outdoor Life Ebony New York Times Daily Delta's SKY Entertainment Weekly First For Women True Story

Fortune Bon Appetit Ebony Country Living Jet Conde Nast Traveler Scientific American Jet Saturday Evening Post Sesame Street Parents

Smart Money Golf Digest Sport Sports Afield Soap Opera Weekly Forbes Inc Playboy North American Hunter Star Tennis Travel & Leisure Penthouse Bassmaster Weight Watchers

Inc Architectural Digest Car Craft Family Handyman Modern Bride Architectural Digest Kiplingers Personal Finance GQ USA Weekend Hot Rod

Kiplingers Personal Finance Gourmet Soap Opera Digest Field & Stream Working Mother Byte Martha Stewart Living Allure Country Home Popular Hot Rodding

Delta's SKY Money Cosmopolitan Boating Essence Scientific American Golf Magazine Chicago Tribune Magazine Hunting Parenting

Travel & Leisure Colonial Homes Mademoiselle American Baby Money Ski Soap Opera Digest

Gourmet USA Today Daily National Enquirer Bon Appetit Wall Street Journal Daily North American Hunter

Sunset Cooking Light Hunting Business Week Consumer Reports Bride's

Top Magazines Read by Each Target Group

Figure 7.18


preferences of these two groups, with Jet, Essence, and Ebony among the most popular. These two target groups also share a penchant for automotive magazines such as Popular Hot Rodding. The magazine preferences of Target Group D families are different from those in all other groups, with a clear focus on outdoor life—favorite magazines include Outdoor Life, Sports Afield, North American Hunter, Bassmaster, Field & Stream, and Boating. Figure 7.19 lists the types of stores where the families in each target group shops. At the top of the list for target group A are upscale department stores like Neiman-Marcus, Bloomingdales, and Nordstrom. However, this group, and Target Group B as well, also shop at the big warehouse stores like BJ’s and Shopper’s Food Warehouse. The upscale department stores do not exist on the lists for Target Groups C through E. Instead, they are replaced by department stores like Dillards and grocery and convenience stores.

Figure 7.19 Target Groups A and B are characterized by a high propensity to travel, as illustrated by Figure 7.20 on the following page. Target Group A families are highly likely to take business trips, play tennis on vacation, be members of frequent flyer programs, own timeshares, and travel to Hawaii. Target Group B families likewise take business trips and travel to exotic locations like Bermuda and Australia. There are few travel characteristics listed for Target Groups C, D, and E because families in these groups have a low overall propensity to travel.

TG A TG B TG C TG D TG E Shop Neiman-Marcus Lst3Mo Shop Acme LstMo Shop Finast LstMo Travel To Store: 6-10 Miles Shop Harris Teeter LstMo

Shop Bloomingdales Lst3Mo Shop Stop 'N Shop LstMo Shop Giant Eagle LstMo Shop Shop 'N Save LstMo Shop Winn Dixie LstMo

Shop ShoppersFoodWrhseLstMo Shop BJ's LstMo Shop Wegmans LstMo Shop Ames Lst3Mo Shop Piggly Wiggly LstMo

Shop White Hen Lst6Mos Shop Wegmans LstMo Shop Builder's Square LstYr Travel To Store: 11+ Miles Shop Food Lion LstMo

Shop Nordstrom Lst3Mo Shop Grand Union LstMo Shop Smith's LstMo Shop Super Valu LstMo Shop StopNGo Lst6Mos

Shop Giant LstMo Shop Eddie Bauer Lst3Mo Shop Acme LstMo Shop Food Lion LstMo Shop Conv FoodMart Lst6Mos

Shop Grand Union LstMo Shop Ames Lst3Mo Shop Super AmericaLst6Mos Shop MilitaryComisary LstMo

Shop Kroger LstMo

Shop Ralphs LstMo Shop TJ Maxx Lst3Mo Shop Dillards Lst3Mo Shop Wegmans LstMo Shop Citgo QuickMrt Lst6Mos

Shop Marshall's Lst3Mo Shop Banana Republic Lst3Mo

Shop CircleK Lst6Mos Buy Gas at Conv St Buy Beer at Conv St

Shop Vons LstMo Shop Home Depot LstYr Shop Vons LstMo Shop Super AmericaLst6Mos Buy Cigarettes at Conv St

Shop Price Costco LstMo Shop Builder's Square LstYr Shop Target Lst3Mo Shop Giant Eagle LstMo Shop Amoco FoodMartLst6Mos

Shop Eddie Bauer Lst3Mo Shop Finast LstMo Shop Kroger LstMo Shop Citgo QuickMrt Lst6Mos

Shop Wal-Mart Lst3Mo

Shop The Limited Lst3Mo HeavyCouponUser Shop 7-Eleven Lst6Mos Shop Amoco FoodMartLst6Mos

Shop Conven Store Afternoon

Shop Pathmark LstMo Order Items >$200 LstYr Shop Montgomery Ward Lst3Mo

Shop IGA LstMo Buy Hot Dogs at Conv St

Shop BJ's LstMo Coupons for Cosmetics Coupons for Cosmetics Shop IGA LstMo

Shop Home Depot LstYr Shop Marshall's Lst3Mo Redeem Coupons Drug Store

Shop Express Lst3Mo Shop Sam's Club LstMo

Shop Banana Republic Lst3Mo Shop A&P LstMo

Shop Lucky Stores LstMo Shop Wholesale Clubs LstMo

Shop The Gap Lst3Mo

Shopping Habits of UM-Flint Target Groups


Figure 7.20

Travel propensity is an important identifier of the target groups. Because Target Group A and B families are significantly more likely than the other groups to travel extensively, they can be targeted by the University at greater distances from Flint, Michigan. It would not make sense, for example, to Target Group C through E in markets that require students to fly to Flint, as these households have a significantly lower than average propensity for air travel. The top electronic buys of each target group are also important. As seen in Figure 7.21, families in Target Groups A and B are highly likely to own desktop and laptop computers, laser printers, graphics software, scanners, etc. They are also likely to subscribe to online services like American Online and CompuServe. Target Group C families make travel plans online, but are generally less likely to use computers than families in groups A and B. Target Group D families are highly likely to own satellite dishes of all kinds…not surprising given their small town and rural locations. Target Group E families buy products online and own satellite dishes but are generally weaker consumers of electronics. This information shows that students in Target Groups A and B are highly likely to be Internet users and, thus, more likely to be receptive to communicating with UM-Flint via the web. They are also more likely to be the target market for the University’s Web site. Does sex of applicants vary by target group? Of UM-Flint’s 1998–2000 applicants, 66% were female, and 36% were male. Sex was not indicated for 1% of applicants. There is no substantial variation in this distribution by target group. Does race/ethnicity of applicants vary by target? The baseline demographics of UM-Flint’s target groups show that households in Target Groups C and E, and households in “Other” group have higher than average minority representation (Figure 7.22). The same is true for UM-Flint’s applicant pool. Race/ethnicity was not indicated for 7% of applicants. Seventy-three percent of all 1998-2000 applicants were White and 20% were minorities. However, nearly 40%

Top Electronic Buys by Target Group

TG A Own A Dell PC At Home

Own Handheld/Palmheld PC Own A Compaq PC At Home HomePC Purch At Comp Str Used America Online Lst Mo Use Online Svc 1+x a Week Own Laptop/Notebook PC

Own Laser Printer Own PC Scanner

Own An HP PC At Home

TG B HomePC Purch Thru Cat Own A Gateway at Home

Own PC Scanner Own Graphics Software Own Laptop/Notebook PC

Own A Compaq PC At Home Own Laser Printer

Own Fin'l/Tax Software Used America Online Lst Mo Use Online Svc 1+x a Week

TG COnline Travel Plans Lst Mo

Own Sony Play Station Own Pagers/Beepers Own Laserdisc Player

TG DOwn a Small Satellite Dish Online Prod Purch Lst Mo

Own a Satellite Dish Own a Large Satellite Dish

Own a Medium Satellite Dish Online Travel Plans Lst Mo

Own Dot Matrix Printer Online Finances Lst Mo

HomePC Purch At Dept Store

TG E Online Prod Purch Lst MoOwn a Large Satellite Dish

Figure 7.21

TG A TG B TG C TG D TG E 3+ Business Trips - Plane Trav To Australia/NZ L3Y Any Busch Gardens Park LY Stay Days Inn on Vacatn Play Tennis on Vacation Trav To Bermuda L3Y Las Vegas To Gamble LY Visited North Central

Membr 2+ Freq Flyer Progs Visited ME/NH/VT Trav To Jamaica L3Y Own Timeshare Residence Visited MA/CT/RI

Frgn Trav By Rented Car L3Y 3+ Business Trips - Plane Trav To Hawaii L3Y Trav To France L3Y

Visit a Spa on Vacation Visited DE/MD/DC Trav To Bermuda L3Y Own Timeshare Residence

Member Freq Flyer Program Stay Red Roof Inn on Vactn Cruised On RylCaribbean L3Y Play Tennis on Vacation

Trav To Ireland/UK L3Y Caribbean Last L3Y 3+ Personal Trips - Plane Trav To Hawaii L3Y

Frgn Trav By RR L3Y Trav To Italy L3Y

Travel Characteristics of UM-Flint Target Groups


of Target Group E applicants over the past three enrollment years were minorities, followed by 32% of applicants from the “Other” group, and 24% of applicants from Target Group C. Target Groups B and D contained the fewest minority applicants, at just 11% and 14%, respectively.

Do ACT scores of applicants vary by target group? The average ACT score of all UM-Flint’s applicants is 21. Scores vary only slightly by target group, ranging from 20 to 22, as shown by Figure 7.23. This indicates that no target group, in particular, is more or less likely to contain students who are better academically qualified.

ACT scores do not vary significantly by

Target Group.

Mean ACT Score by Target Group

21 22 21 22 20 2021

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

TG A TG B TG C TG D TG E Other Total

AC

T Sc

ore

of A

pplic

ants

Figure 7.23

72.6

20.1

7.3

82.4

11.2

6.4

69.3

24.0

6.7

78.3

14.2

7.5

53.6

39.1

7.3

59.4

32.0

8.6

72.8

20.0

7.2

0

20

40

60

80

100

Perc

ent o

f App

lican

ts

TG A TG B TG C TG D TG E Other All Apps

Race/Ethnicity of Applicants by Target Group

White Minority Unknow n

Figure 7.22


Does student type of applicants vary by target group? As shown in Figure 7.24, traditional freshmen represent about 48% of all applicants to UM-Flint while transfer students represent 52% of applicants. Target Groups A and E, in particular, are most likely than average to generate transfer students. About 58% of all Target Group A applicants and fully 60% of all Target Group E applicants over the past three years were transfer students. This should be taken into consideration when deciding which target group to target for recruitment activity.

Does the intended major of applicants vary by target group? There are several notable findings relative to the target group distribution of applicants by major:6

Target Group A applicants are more likely than average to want to major in business administration and less likely than average to declare majors in biology, pre-education, engineering science, or nursing.

Target Group B applicants are more likely than average to want to major in business administration and more likely than average to be undeclared.

Target Group C applicants are less likely than average to be interested in pre-education. Target Group D applicants are more likely than average to be interested in elementary education. Target Group E applicants are significantly more likely than average to be interested in pre-

nursing.

6 Target group distribution was only measured across the largest majors (business administration, elementary education, biology, pre-education, engineering science, pre-nursing, and computer science) because small sample sizes in some majors compromise the validity of the analysis.

42.5

57.5

52.0

48.0

45.8

54.2

48.6

51.4

39.9

60.1

52.7

47.3

48.3

51.7

0

20

40

60

80

100

Perc

ent o

f App

lican

ts

TG A TG B TG C TG D TG E Other AllApps

Freshmen/Transfer Status of Applicants by Target Group

Freshman Transfer

On average, 52% of all applicants

are transfers. Target Groups A and E are more

likely than average to

generate transfer students.

Figure 7.24


Does the target group distribution of applicants vary by term? There are slight variations in the extent to which students in each target group enroll for the Fall and Winter terms (Figure 7.25). Overall, 12.3% of the University’s applicants are from Target Group E. Applicants for the Winter term are slightly more likely than average to be in Target Groups D and E and slightly less likely to be in Target Group A and B, the more affluent of the five target groups.

Figure 7.25 Where are UM-Flint’s target group families located? Appendix H contains a series of tables and maps delineating the distribution of UM-Flint’s target groups in the primary market area, as well as several out-of-state markets that have future potential. We selected out-of-state markets that currently generate a significant number of inquiries, as this suggests there is already some level of interest in UM-Flint in these markets. The tables in Appendix H include basic demographic information about each market - for example, the total population, number of households, and the percentage of households in each of UM-Flint’s target groups. Supplementing these tables are maps that show the target group distribution of households by zip code. An example of these maps appears as Figure 7.26 on the following page.

Target Group Distribution of UM-FlintApplicants by Enrollment Term

6.4 6.6 5.5

26.3 26.6 24.8

14.5 14.415.1

26.5 26.1 28.6

12.3 11.516.0

14.1 14.910.0

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

All Applicants Fall Applicants Winter Applicants

% R

epre

sent

atio

n

TG A TG B TG C TG D TG E Other


Figure 7.26 Conclusion At the launch of the geodemographic portion of the Enrollment Market Analysis, Carnegie set out to answer several key questions for UM-Flint. Who are our students? What are they like? Where do they live? How best can we reach them? This final section summarizes the findings and incorporates a series of recommendations designed to help the admissions office selectively, strategically begin to explore opening new markets. An important caveat is that much of the geodemographic analysis is for traditional undergraduate students, as they are the ones most likely to travel greater distances to attend college. Adult or non-traditional students, by contrast, are less likely to travel very far to attend classes because typically they have careers, families, houses, and the like. An integral part of Carnegie’s work with UM-Flint entails follow-up on the geodemographic work. We will be happy to work with the admissions office to use geodemography to identify potentially hot pockets of adult undergraduate students as well. UM-Flint’s students can be divided into five distinct socioeconomic markets, called target groups. This segmentation will allow the institution's admission officers to differentiate and target recruitment efforts. First, however, the University must decide which of these groups to target, and, similarly, with what level of intensity each group should be pursued. This is a complex decision that will require a thorough understanding of the University’s historical mission, the current state of the institution and the external economy, and future growth plans. This last statement is particularly apt when considering creating student housing. The availability of student housing will be a tremendous lure in recruiting students from far away, who are more likely to be traditional undergraduates. The sections that follow, which summarize the characteristics of each target group and present the benefits and drawbacks to targeting each group, are designed to assist in deciding if and how to focus recruitment efforts on each target group. In addition, a section titled “Practical Applications” showcases several ways to use this research. If applied, these research findings will help the University develop a more efficient, effective enrollment management effort, one in which both human and financial resources are expended proportionately to the groups UM-Flint most wants to attract within the overarching goal of increasing enrollments.


Once the University has collectively decided which groups to target, it will be critical to attach target group codes to all inquiries so that recruitment efforts can be segmented accordingly. Target group coding will provide the admission office with information previously unavailable about the inquiry pool. Without this type of coding at the inquiry stage, college and university admissions offices have little information about the characteristics of students who request information. This lack of information makes segmenting and targeting recruitment efforts difficult, if not impossible. With target group-coded inquiry files, UM-Flint gains a much better sense of the demographic and lifestyle characteristics of each prospective student, as well as the degree to which he or she fits the institutional profile and assists in meeting the University’s strategic enrollment objectives. In so doing, admissions staff can be much more precise in their efforts to target students. UM-Flint’s Fall 2001 inquiries should be submitted to Carnegie for target group coding by e-mailing the inquiry data to Deb Gere, Research Coordinator, at [email protected]. The data file should contain an ID code, street address, city, state, and zip code. Once target group codes are appended, the admissions office can use the ID code to link the target group code to their original data. Alternately, Carnegie can empower the admissions office to code its data internally, though the coding may not be as precise as if done through our offices. The choice is up to the admissions office. Target Group A Target Group A is the most affluent of the UM-Flint target groups with an average annual household income of almost $107,000. A collection of the most affluent suburban clusters on the socioeconomic scale, this target group has the highest levels of education and owns the most expensive homes. Target Group A residents are less likely than average to be minorities—12.5% compared to 17.6% of the U.S. population. Overall, these are highly affluent folks with lifestyles that typify life in wealthy American suburbs. Target Group A represents 5% of UM-Flint’s matriculated students. While every single matriculant is important, Target Group A is by no means a driving force in the University’s overall enrollment picture. What’s more, Target Group A conversion rates are considerably below the average for all target groups. These indicators together suggest that while Target Group A students may be awfully appealing on the surface, they are not at present a successful market for UM-Flint. Though these families account for 15% of the primary market area, they account for 8.7% of inquiries, 6.4% of applicants and, as noted, just 5% of matriculants. In other words, yield rates are low, suggesting the need for considerable changes in order to turn things around. Interestingly, Target Group A applicants are somewhat more likely than the average UM-Flint applicant to apply as transfer students rather than as traditional freshmen. Overall, 52% of applications are from potential transfer students. However, 58% of Target Group A applicants are transfers. Target Group A is an upscale group. These families shop at Neiman Marcus and Bloomingdales, own sophisticated computers, and subscribe to magazines such as Fortune, Forbes, Conde Nast and Gourmet. Marketing messages to this group should focus on prestige and quality, as these descriptors are consistent with the factors that influence Target Group A families. However appealing these families may be from a financial point of view, the fact is that Target Group A accounts for a very tiny slice of the UM-Flint student body. Carnegie recommends that Target Group A be an aspirant group, where future efforts can be targeted as time and resources allow. Ultimately, though, marketing theory suggests that the best approach is to “fish where the fish are” by focusing efforts on where the University already does quite well, such as Target Groups B and D.


Target Group B In terms of lifestyles, Target Group B is very similar to Target Group A. Just one rung down the socioeconomic scale, Target Group B is still relatively upscale. These upper middle-income small town, small city, and suburban families have average annual incomes of $79,000, live in homes with a median value of $172,000, and have relatively high education levels at a median of 13.9 years. Target Group B contains the fewest minorities at only 7.4% of the population. Estimated annual household growth rates here are the highest of all five UM-Flint Target Groups. The largest group, Target Group B accounts for just under 29% of all students. Conversion rates, both from inquiry-to-applicant and applicant-to-matriculant, are highest in Target Group B. By any measure, Target Group B is vitally important to the University. Applicants from Target Group B are slightly more likely to be traditional freshmen than transfer students. What’s more, Target Group B accounts for 14.2% of the primary market area, yet 29% of matriculants. Thus, overall yield rates here are very favorable. Lifestyles in Target Group B are similar to those in Target Group A, but they are somewhat reflective of the lower incomes. For instance, they are more likely to shop at Marshall’s and TJ Maxx than at Neiman’s and Bloomies. Nevertheless, these are upscale families to whom images of quality are highly important. What’s more, these families are likely to place a very high value on high-quality recruitment publications and other outreach efforts. UM-Flint should appeal to Target Group B using the same marketing messages as Target Group A. They are both relatively upscale groups that seek modern conveniences and luxuries and appreciate high quality. Perhaps not surprisingly, these students are more likely than average to major in business. Also, like Target Group A, Target Group B students are highly likely to have access to expensive computers and thus be receptive to e-mail communication from the University’s admissions office. Target Group C Target Group C is significantly different from Target Groups A and B in several ways. The average Target Group C income is about $50,000 annually, and the median years of school completed by adults is 12.9. Incomes here are less than half of what we see for Target Group A. What’s more, Target Group C neighborhoods are growing at a below average rate. Target Group C contains the second highest concentration of minorities. Applicants from Target Group C are more likely than average to be transfers than traditional freshmen. Target Group C is comprised largely of middle-income and perhaps slightly upper-middle income suburban families. Target Group C yield rates are a bit lower than those in Target Group B, but still well above the average for all groups. Essentially, though this is a smaller group in terms of the number of matriculants, it is nonetheless quite important. Lifestyles in Target Group C are wholly different from lifestyles in Target Groups A and B. Target group C residents are more likely to read Popular Hot Rodding, Car Craft, and Soap Opera Digest than they are magazines that focus on money, travel, and gourmet food. They travel less frequently, and are more likely to listen to urban contemporary radio than they are to listen to NPR or classic rock formats. Target Group D This Group is very similar to Target Group C in many ways, though it is noticeably larger. In fact, Target Group D accounts for just a slightly lower percentage of students than Target Group B, at 28.5%. In fact, their incomes are just slightly higher than in Target Group C. The key distinction is that Target Group D areas are less suburban, and more likely to be small cities and towns in the middle to lower-middle


income part of the socioeconomic scale. These families are much less likely than average to be minorities. The median home value is about $96,000. Lifestyles here are well summed-up by the fact that the predominant music of choice is country music. Not surprisingly, these families read Bassmaster, Family Handyman, Country Home, and Country Living magazines. Where other groups’ electronic purchases lean toward Dell PCs and high-end laser printers, Target Group D families are more likely to buy satellite TV dishes. Students from Target Group D are slightly more likely to be transfer applicants than freshman applicants. Educationally, these students are more likely to major in elementary education. Target Group D is a significant part of the UM-Flint student body. Yet appealing to these students requires different messages and different images than those that will appeal to the other large group, Target Group B. This is precisely why Carnegie so strongly recommends finding ways to differentiate, or target, different messages to different prospective students. This is also why it is so vitally important to code inquiries as soon as they enter the admissions office database—a prospect’s target group code should help dictate follow-up efforts. Target Group E Target Group E accounts for about 13% of UM-Flint students. These students come from much lower-income, largely rural areas. Average incomes here are the lowest of all target groups, at $32,000. Median home values are also the lowest, at $55,000. Target Group E has the highest concentration of minorities of any Group, at 21.6%. Applicants are considerably more likely to be transfer students than traditional freshmen. In fact, more than 60% of all applicants from this group are transfer students. Among other things, this suggests that when an inquiry from Target Group E enters the system, there is a great likelihood that the student will be interested as a transfer. This will help dictate the materials this student receives. Target Group E inquiries convert to applicants at above average rates. Similarly, conversion rates from applicant to matriculant are higher than average, though just barely so. One of the more interesting findings in this analysis is that there is no statistical difference in ACT score by target group. Typically, we find considerable differences. Practical Applications There are a number of ways for UM-Flint to capitalize on the target group segmentation established by this project. Consider the follow-up direct mail plan. All inquiries essentially receive the same materials in response to an inquiry. While this does ensure that all inquiries are responded to, it is the antithesis of targeted marketing. Sending the same materials to all inquiries, regardless of the likelihood that a prospect will ever apply, is woefully inefficient. This will be especially important when the admissions office increases the nature and quality of its recruitment pieces. Many of UM-Flint’s recruitment activities can be shifted to emphasize efforts with students who are most likely to enroll. For instance, telephone follow-up with inquiries can, and should, be prioritized by target group. Rather than trying to call all inquiries, the admissions office should target the target groups it most wants to attract (again, deciding which groups to focus on is a decision that together the campus will need to make, though we are happy to make recommendations). If, ultimately, the decision is made to increase efforts to recruit traditional undergraduate students from other areas outside of the 70 mile radius around campus, the target group-coded maps and corresponding high school charts will be helpful for informing where to focus travel efforts. For instance, if the University opts to focus out-of-state recruitment on Target Group A areas because of their higher


affluence, the map of Chicago below in Figure 7.27 would suggest focusing on the outer ring of suburbs, including Wheaton, Naperville, and the like.

Figure 7.27

If UM-Flint decides not to build housing and thus, not to target areas beyond a 70 mile radius, these geodemographic research findings will still be useful. The map below, for example, identifies the market potential of each zip code in the University’s market. The market potential is above average where the profile of UM-Flint’s enrolled students is a close match to the profile of the zip code. Market potential is below average where the profile of the University’s enrolled students does not match the profile of the zip code.

Figure 7.28

DetroitDetroitDetroitDetroitDetroitDetroitDetroitDetroitDetroit

LansingLansingLansingLansingLansingLansingLansingLansingLansing

Sterling HeightsSterling HeightsSterling HeightsSterling HeightsSterling HeightsSterling HeightsSterling HeightsSterling HeightsSterling Heights

FlintFlintFlintFlintFlintFlintFlintFlintFlint

WarrenWarrenWarrenWarrenWarrenWarrenWarrenWarrenWarren

Ann ArborAnn ArborAnn ArborAnn ArborAnn ArborAnn ArborAnn ArborAnn ArborAnn Arbor

Bay CityBay CityBay CityBay CityBay CityBay CityBay CityBay CityBay CityMidlandMidlandMidlandMidlandMidlandMidlandMidlandMidlandMidland

PontiacPontiacPontiacPontiacPontiacPontiacPontiacPontiacPontiac

JacksonJacksonJacksonJacksonJacksonJacksonJacksonJacksonJackson

Above Average

Below Average

Average

Market Potential


Chapter Eight: Conclusions This Enrollment Market Analysis provides the foundation upon which to consider all of the issues initially raised in the RFP for the project. Yet, the focus is also narrow enough to provide in-depth information to help guide future strategic planning efforts at the University of Michigan-Flint. The main purposes of the study were to investigate the potential for attracting out-of-region students to the University and to determine the impact that creating on-campus housing might have on the University’s desire to grow the student body. Following are recommendations for future actions in four key areas that relate to these objectives. Housing UM-Flint should seriously consider creating student housing. There is ample evidence suggesting that this will have a positive impact on enrollment, including:

• Focus groups and surveys that suggest a great deal of interest in student housing • Faculty, staff, and alumni all concur that creating student housing will enhance the UM-Flint

experience (87% feel this way) • Faculty, staff, and alumni likewise feel strongly that adding student housing will help increase

enrollments and help build a sense of community on campus • Fully 50% of prospective students indicated an interest in living in campus housing if it were

available • Large majorities of faculty and staff believe the increases in student services that would

accompany the addition of student housing are worthwhile • 40% of prospects would consider the University more seriously if housing were available (there is

a correlation between distance from campus and importance of housing, which is vital to know as the University seeks to increase geographic diversity)

• Nearly 30% of prospective students intend to live with friends/relatives near campus or get a house or apartment near campus; these students are, we believe, highly likely to consider living in campus housing

• Students 18 and younger are more likely to consider attending UM-Flint if housing were available, which supports the notion that traditional age students are more interested in having the “traditional college experience,” of which living on campus is an integral part

• Students perceive the benefits of living in campus housing to include access to campus resources, greater interaction with peers, shorter commutes, more traditional college experience, etc.

• International students are highly interested in University-sponsored housing • Overall, $350/month seems to be a price barrier, over which interest in student housing decreases

considerably; what’s more, there is near-universal belief that apartment-style housing is preferred, so the University should take these factors into consideration when exploring the possible addition of student housing on campus.

Academic Programs Another key to growing enrollments and increasing the geographic distribution of the University’s students is to offer—and market—programs in which students are the most interested. This is especially pertinent in light of our survey research, which shows that the feature that means most to prospective students is “the quality of teaching at UM-Flint”. Toward that end, Carnegie’s environmental scan explores academic areas that hold promise for the near future. We also touch on the issue of distance learning. Below we offer several recommendations of programs to consider refocusing on in the near future:


• Service sector jobs in areas such as health care, accountancy, law, engineering, and the like are projected to increase as the industrialized Midwest (including Michigan, Indiana, and Ohio) continues to evolve beyond its traditional manufacturing base.

• Nationally, some occupations with the largest job growth over the next eight years include general managers, top executives, nurses, educators, and systems analysts.

• The Chronicle of Higher Education reports that the top new majors include environmental science, business, health sciences, management, and nursing.

• Faculty and staff believe these programs are likely to attract new students: nursing, health care, physical therapy, management, computer science, education and engineering science…there are strong parallels between their perceptions and external predictions.

• Prospective students believe that some of the hottest majors right now include computer science, engineering, health care, and communications education.

• Prospects were asked what they intend to major in, and three of the top seven choices included education, health care, and nursing.

• Because survey respondents are most likely to be motivated to attend college “to get a good job”, we suggest that the University emphasize programs that train students for careers.

• Graduate students and adult learners indicated an interest in distance learning, yet our analysis found that while UM-Flint does offer some courses via distance learning, there are no actual on-line degrees offered; Baker College of Flint, Mott Community College, and Michigan State University all offer degrees via online instruction.

• Faculty indicated strong interest in offering evening courses, but less interest in offering web-based distance learning and weekend courses.

As a result of this data collection, Carnegie suggests that some of the academic areas on which to focus in the near future include education, health care, nursing, business, and computer science. This focus may include revising curricula, adding specialty courses, adding faculty, hiring “name” faculty, altering degree requirements, offering greater course availability, etc. Equally important, though decidedly different, is the dire need for the University to successfully market these programs to prospective students. Marketing Efforts Carnegie’s competitive analysis was designed to review the University’s marketing materials and offerings as a prospective student might, by comparing them to the materials of competitor institutions. Toward that end, we solicited information from Baker College, Michigan State University, Mott Community College, Oakland University, Saginaw Valley State University and UM-Flint. (Note: Carnegie believes that the University “aimed low” when selecting these competitors. While the resulting information is highly useful, we suggest conducting a similar exercise with aspirant institutions in the future.) With the resulting materials before us, including each institution’s Web site, we drew a number of important conclusions with associated recommendations:

• On paper, the University does not fare particularly well, as it is bettered by its competitors in several areas that the college-going public often associates with quality, such as selectivity (UM-Flint accepts 89% of applicants) and the overall quality of its recruitment publications.

• UM-Flint’s marketing materials and Web site do not contradict this negative image by touting several key strengths, including the low student/faculty ratio, its affordability, and the amount of financial aid available.

• We believe that the University is not sufficiently marketing its positive attributes, and is therefore stuck in a cycle where poor marketing efforts contribute to lower expectations, leading to less academically qualified students (64% of faculty rated UM-Flint students as “average”).


• A key toward effecting positive change is to refocus efforts on the marketing of the institution; chief among these is revisiting the recruitment publications and dramatically increasing the overall quality thereof.

• Specifically, the University needs a formal viewbook instead of the Search piece that is sent to prospective students, and this viewbook needs to be of professional quality.

• The University should carefully consider outsourcing the creation of a new series of recruitment publications…one that effectively portrays an image of quality.

• Similarly, the University’s Web site, while pretty good, will also benefit from a thorough rethinking so that it is more user friendly and easily navigated, and better geared toward prospective students.

• Because students are most often motivated to attend college to get a good job, outreach efforts including publications and the Web site should heavily emphasize career training degrees and placement rates.

• Because perceived benefits of student housing include better access to campus resources, greater interaction with other students, shorter commutes, and a more traditional college experience, the University’s future recruitment efforts should tout these advantages.

Enrollment Efforts A key element of Carnegie’s Enrollment Market Analysis for UM-Flint was a thorough review of the admissions effort, including an assessment of the functioning of the admissions office and a study of potential new markets. Toward that end, our senior educational consultant, Dr. Jeffrey Papa, spent two full days on campus reviewing the admissions office. He interviewed staff, reviewed records and publications, systems, and processes. Carnegie also conducted a geodemographic analysis of the University’s undergraduate students. In so doing, we developed a profile of the type of student the University has historically enrolled, and sought other markets with similar types of students. Key recommendations from these efforts include the following:

• The admissions office should develop new systems for grading, qualifying, and working with inquiries so that efforts can be prioritized based on likelihood of matriculating; in so doing, the admissions staff will come to target and segment its efforts instead of treating every inquiry as an equally hot prospect.

• As noted previously, the current admissions publications are not adequate in either number or quality; therefore Carnegie recommends an overhaul of these pieces so that they effectively “sell” UM-Flint to prospects…coupled with this recommendation is the expectation that adequate fiscal resources must be appropriated for publications improvement.

• The University should consider student service training across campus—particularly in the admissions office—to reinforce the student-centered attitude that is required to effectively compete with other institutions.

• The admissions office should incorporate e-mail into all recruiting efforts, and should consider purchasing an electronic overlay system that allows for instantaneous, highly personalized e-contact with all who visit the Web site or otherwise communicate with the University electronically; as with publications, this recommendation assumes that adequate financial resources will be appropriated.

• UM-Flint draws students from across the socioeconomic spectrum, from highly affluent suburban areas to poor rural areas, and appealing to this diverse an audience is highly challenging; Carnegie recommends that the University’s leadership stratify these groups in terms of priority so that the admissions office has guidance in targeting its recruitment efforts.

• Carnegie believes that in order to increase geographic diversity of the UM-Flint student body, the institution should focus on traditional undergraduate students, whom we believe are more likely to travel further from home for college; as noted previously, this assumption is predicated on the


need for campus housing, without which we think the University will continue to attract only students from a close-in proximity to the campus.

• Surveys with faculty, staff, and alumni suggest that these audiences believe the University should focus primarily on populations where UM-Flint already does well, including transfer students, students who reside in Michigan (either within or beyond an approximately 70-mile radius of campus), and community college students; there is less interest in focusing on international students and students living outside of Michigan, which suggests the possible need for a campus-wide dialogue on how to increase student enrollments.

• While we don’t envision UM-Flint drawing students from across the country, Carnegie believes that there is potential in neighboring states, including Illinois, Indiana, and Wisconsin; Ohio is projected to have a decrease in high school graduates over the next eight years, and is therefore a less appealing market.

• While discussions ensue about campus housing, we believe that the steps noted in the Admissions Assessment (Chapter Six) will help the University increase enrollments within its current territory; specifically, focusing on key areas noted within the 70-mile radius of campus, increasing and personalizing contact with prospective students, improving the quality of materials sent to them and offered on the Web site, grading and qualifying inquiries, etc.

• Focus group interaction with international students suggests that these students are likely to be more interested in UM-Flint because of the “University of Michigan” association, small class sizes, and relatively low cost; however, the lack of University housing is a considerable disincentive for prospective international students and may signal that this is not an ideal audience to pursue until student housing is available or at least on the horizon.

• We are hesitant to provide further recommendations about recruiting international students because we simply do not have adequate information on this population; at the risk of sounding self-promoting, we suggest that the University consider Carnegie’s international recruitment publication, American Colleges & Universities (www.acuinfo.com).

Final Commentary This Enrollment Market Analysis will lend new insight into a number of important areas for UM-Flint. We recommend that the institution take the information presented herein and share it with the campus community to seek further input. However, we wholeheartedly believe that offering student housing will significantly boost the appeal of the University to a wide variety of students, particularly those from beyond the 70-mile radius of the campus. Further, we encourage UM-Flint to focus on academic areas that are most appealing to students and therefore will help draw students to the campus. Examples of these programs include education, nursing, business, health care, computer science, and engineering. While there are many positive things happening at UM-Flint, one would be hard-pressed to know it from the University’s recruitment publications and its Web site. One of Carnegie’s strongest recommendations, therefore, is to invest the resources necessary to make these communication vehicles as powerful, attractive, and convincing as possible. Without a sizeable effort to improve the manner in which the University markets itself, even the most positive of changes will, we fear, be lost. Finally, we do believe that there is strong potential to increase the geographic diversity of the UM-Flint undergraduate student body by increasing efforts to recruit in new markets. To do so successfully, however, will require considerable increases in staff training and possibly in staff size. The addition of campus housing is also critically linked to the UM-Flint’s potential with regard to attracting students from a broader geographic region. Indicators suggest the University can be successful recruiting students outside its local market, but campus housing will be required to do so. As with all of our recommendations, adequate funding of the enrollment effort is of paramount importance.


Finally, we realize that creating student housing is a phenomenally complex issue. Under even the best circumstances, it will likely be at least two full years before campus housing is built and on line. In the meantime, we believe that with substantive changes in the admissions office (some of which we suspect are already coming into play), the University can grow student enrollments (though not while also increasing geographic diversity) without housing in place. So doing will depend largely on changing the practices in the admissions office, including managing the flow of information more efficiently, grading and qualifying inquiries and expending effort where it is most likely have the greatest impact, incorporating e-mail into the process, and enhancing the quality and appeal of outreach efforts, including recruitment publications and the Web site. In other words, improved publications and other outreach efforts will, we suspect, enhance the University regardless of whether or not housing is built. High-quality pieces and a cutting-edge Web site will certainly never alienate students who live within the current 70-mile radius of campus, and will likely help recruitment efforts even close to home. In the meantime, Carnegie has provided a detailed map of the present 70-mile radius in which areas are identified by recruiting potential. By following this map and the other recommendations, the University can grow enrollments in the short term.


Appendix A: Competitive Review of Academic Programs

University of Michigan -

Flint Michigan State UniversitySaginaw Valley State

University

Mott Community

College Baker College of Flint Oakland

University

Major Teacher

Certification Major Teacher


Certification Bachelors Associates Major Teacher

Certification Accounting M M M B A M Accounting Information Systems A A Accounting Management A Actuarial Science M

Administrative Assistant / Executive Secretary A A Administration of Service to the Aged M Advertising M African-American Studies M M Agribusiness Operations M

Agricultural and Food Products Processing M Agricultural Business M

Agricultural Business and Production M Agricultural Sciences M Agronomy and Crop Science M

Air-conditioning Heating & Refrigeration A Allied Health Technology A American Literature American Studies M Animal Sciences M Anthropology M M M Apparel Design Apparel Merchandising Applied Science M Applied Statistics M Arabic M




University

Mott Community


University

Major Teacher




Certification

Architectural/Construction Technology A Architecture M Art M t T M Art Education M Art History M M Art, Graphic Design M A Art, Graphic Technology A Art, Studio M M Athletic Training Audiology/Hearing Science M Autobody Repair and Painting A

Automated Manufacturing Technology A Automotive Services Technology A Automotive Technology A Aviation Management B

Aviation Technology/Professional Pilot A Banking: Branch Bank Management Bilingual Education Biochemistry M M M Biology M t M M M t Biomedical Engineering Technology A Botany M British Literature Broadcast and Cinematic Arts Building Construction Technology A Business M m

Business Administration/Management M M A B A m Business Leadership B




University

Mott Community


University

Major Teacher




Certification Business, General M A m Business, International A Business-Chemistry M Chemical Physics M Chemistry M t M T M M t Chemistry, Environmental M Chemistry, Physical and Theoretical M Child Development A Child Development/Special Needs A Chinese M City/Urban, Community & Regional Planning Clinical Laboratory Science M M m Clothing, Apparel and Textile Studies M Communications M M M M Communication Technology A Communication, Graphic B A

Computer Information Systems/Science M M A B A M Computer Networking Technology A Computer Occupations Technology A Computer Science M t M B M Computer Systems Technology A Corrections Officer A Criminal Justice M M M A Criminal Justice for MLEOTC Grads A Culinary Arts A A Dairy Science M Dance Dental Assisting A Dental Hygiene A A Diagnostic Medical Sonography A Drafting Design and Technology A A




University

Mott Community


University

Major Teacher




Certification Drama/theater arts M Earth Science M t East Asian Studies/China M M East Asian Studies/Japan M M Echocardiographic Technology A Economics M M M M Education, Early Childhood M A Education, Elementary t T M M Education, Secondary M M Education, Special T M Electronics Technology A

Emergency Medical Services Management A Engineering Physics M Engineering Science M Engineering, Chemical M M Engineering, Civil M Engineering, Computer M M Engineering, Electrical M M M Engineering, Electronic Technology A Engineering, Mechanical M M B M Engineering, Mechanical Technology A A Engineering, Systems M English M t M M M t

English, Specialization in Technical Writing M English, Specialization in Writing M Entomology M Environmental Health M M

Environmental Science/Natural Resources M Environmental Technology A




University

Mott Community


University

Major Teacher




Certification Family and Community Studies M

Family/consumer Resource Management M Finance/Banking M M M M Fire Protection Technology A Fishing and Fisheries M Floristry Marketing M Fluid Power Technology A Food and Sciences Technology M Food Service Management A A Foods and Nutrition Studies M Forensic Technologies M Forest Production Processing M French M t M M M t French and International Studies M French and Linguistics M General Science t Geography M M Geology M German M M M t Germanic Languages M Gerontology A Graduate Paramedics A Haircare Salon Management A Health T

Health and Medical Laboratory Science M Health Care M Health Care Administration M Health Education & Behavior Health Information Technology A Health Science M M




University

Mott Community


University

Major Teacher




Certification Health Services Administration B Health Services, Community M Health Systems Administration M Histologic Technician A History M t M M M t Home Economics M T Horticultural Science M Hospitality Management A

Hotel/Motel and Restaurant Management M Human Resources Development M Human Resources Management M B A M Human Service B Human Services Assistant A Industrial Health Safety M Industrial Management/Engineering M B Industrial Relations A Industrial Technology A B A Industrial Technology & Supervision M Information Processing Specialist A Interior Architecture M Interior Design M B A International Studies M M Interpreter Training A Journalism/Mass Communications M M Labor Studies m Landscape Architecture M Latin M Latin American Language/Civilization M Latin American Studies M Law and Society Legal Secretary A




University

Mott Community


University

Major Teacher




Certification Legal Studies Liberal Arts and Humanities M M Linguistics M M Logistics and Materials Management M Management M B A M Management, Industrial M Management, International M Management, Small Business A A Managerial Engineering M Management Information Systems M Management, Transport A Manufacturing Systems Technology A Marketing M M M B A M Marketing Management M M A M Materials Science M Mathematics M t M M M t Mathematics, Computational M Medical Assistant A Medical Insurance Specialist A Medical Laboratory Sciences M Medical Laboratory Technician A Medical Physics M Medical Secretary A Medical Technology M M

Mexican American and Latino Studies Microbiology/bacteriology M Modern Foreign Languages Music Education M M Music Theory and Composition M M Music Therapy M Music, General/Performance M t M T M M




University

Mott Community


University

Major Teacher




Certification Natural Resources Management M Nursing M M M A M Occupational Therapy M B Occupational Therapy Assistant A A Office Administration B Open Systems Technology B Operations Management M M Organizational Behavior M

Organizational Behavior & Human Resources Management M

Para-Legal Technology-Legal Assistant A

Parks, Recreational, Leisure and Fitness Studies M

Parks, Recreational, Leisure Facilities Management M Pharmacy Technician A Philosophy M M M M Philosophy & Psychology M Philosophy of Social Sciences Photographic Technology A Physical and Health Education T M Physical Sciences M M Physical Therapist Assistant M A A Physical Therapy M Physics M t M M M t Physics, Astro M

Physics, Chemical and Atomic/Molecular M Physics, Optical M Physiology M Plant Pathology M




University

Mott Community


University

Major Teacher




Certification Plant Sciences M Polish Political Science M t M M Political Science/Public Admin. M Political Science and Government M Poultry Science Production Operations Management A M Psychology M t M M M Psychology, Clinical/Community M Public Administration M M M Public Health Education M Quality Assurance A Quality Improvement/SPC Quantitative Methods m Radiation Therapy M B M Radio and Television Broadcasting M Radiologic Technology A A Rehabilitation Studies B Religious Studies M Resource Ecology M Resource Planning M Respiratory Therapy A Retailing and Wholesaling M Robotics Technology A Romance Languages M Russian Language/Civilization M M Slavic Studies M Social Sciences M M T Social Studies t Social Work M M M M Social Work Technician A Sociology M M M M




University

Mott Community


University

Major Teacher




Certification Soil Science M South Asian Studies M Spanish & Linguistics M Spanish M M M M t Spanish and International Studies M Speech and Rhetorical Studies M

Speech-Language Pathology Assistant A Statistics M Surgical Technology A Systems Engineering M Technical Writing Telecommunications M Theatre M M Urban Studies M Vehicle Design Technology A Vehicle Design/Mott/Macomb Vehicle Engineering Technology A Veterinarian Assistant M Visual and Performing Arts M M Web Design A Wildlife and Wildlands Management M Women's Studies M Writing Writing, Applied Writing, Creative Youth Services M Zoology M


Appendix B: Faculty Survey




Appendix C: Staff Survey Instrument




Appendix D: Alumni Survey Instrument



Appendix E: Prospective Student Survey Instrument (Note: The original survey format was on legal size paper, changes have been made to adapt the instrument for this report.)

Carnegie Communications, Inc. N E W T H I N K I N G F O R H I G H E R E D U C A T I O N

The University of Michigan-Flint has asked CARNEGIE COMMUNICATIONS to research how prospective students approach the college search process, as well as how they feel about UM-Flint. Please complete this short survey and return it in the enclosed postage paid envelope. This survey will be kept completely confidential and will in no way affect your admission to UM-Flint. Thanks for your time!

Scott H. Levine, Ph.D., CARNEGIE COMMUNICATIONS, INC. What is your primary motivation for going to college? (Select one)

To get a good job To make more money To gain knowledge To obtain job training Because my parents want me to go to college Other

Many factors will influence your decision about where to go to college. Please rate the importance of each of the following factors as you consider colleges.

Not important to me

Somewhat important

Very important to me

The reputation of the college 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Nice campus environment 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Majors offered 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 High quality teaching 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Social life/involvement opportunities 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Low cost/affordability 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Availability of financial aid 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Close to home 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Good job placement rates 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

Please rate the seriousness with which you are considering UM-Flint. (Circle the number that indicates how you feel)

Not very seriously

Somewhat seriously

Very seriously

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 What features about UM-Flint most appeal to you?

Not appealing to me

Somewhat appealing to me

Very appealing to me

UM-Flint’s reputation 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Flint’s urban location 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 “University of Michigan” name 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Majors offered at UM-Flint 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Social life a UM-Flint 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 The quality of teaching at UM-Flint 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Cost of UM-Flint 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Driving distance from your home to UM-Flint 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Campus safety 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Aesthetic appeal of the UM-Flint campus 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

You will be entered to win a $250 cash prize for

completing this survey!


Have you visited the UM-Flint campus? Yes No If yes, please rate your impression of the following facilities:

Not appealing to me

Somewhat appealing to me

Very appealing to me

Classrooms 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Lounges/common areas 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Library 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Bookstore 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Parking 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Internet connectedness 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Computer labs 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Food service 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

If you enrolled at UM-Flint, would you: (Select only one) Live at home with your parents and commute to campus Live in your home and commute to campus Get a house or apartment near campus Live with relatives/friends near campus Other: _________________________ Regardless of where you live, how would you get to campus? (Select only one) By car By foot By bus Other __________________________ Would you consider UM-Flint more seriously for your education if on-campus housing were available? Yes No Would you be interested in living in campus housing if it were available? Yes No What type of housing would be most appealing to you (Mark only one) Traditional dormitory Apartment-style housing Other __________________________ Please rate the importance of the following factors in determining whether or not you would consider living in campus housing.

Not important to me

Somewhat important to me

Very important to me

Cost 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Proximity (distance from the campus) 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Parking 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Safety 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Aesthetic appeal of the housing itself 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Cleanliness 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Apartment style 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Suite style rooms 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

Assume that you and one roommate could live in campus housing that includes kitchen facilities in the room. Would you be willing to pay… $250-$350 a month per resident Yes No $351-$450 a month per resident Yes No $451-$550 a month per resident Yes No


Would you prefer to cook your meals in a kitchen in your room or would you prefer to have a meal plan? Kitchen Meal plan

What do you perceive to be the most significant advantages of living in campus housing? (Check only the top three)

I will get better grades I will have a more traditional college experience I will have a shorter commute I will feel more a part of the college community I will have greater interaction with faculty I will have greater interaction with other students I will have better access to campus resources Other ________________________________

Approximately how far do you presently live from the UM-Flint campus? (Select only one)

1-15 miles 16-25 miles 26-50 miles 51-85 miles 76+ miles

What is your ethnic background? Caucasian African American Hispanic Asian/Pacific Islander Native American Other ______________________

Do you live in the state of Michigan? Yes No If not, please list the state in which you live: ________________________________________ What is your gender? Female Male What is your age? ___________ What do you think are some of the hottest majors in the year 2000? (Mark all that apply)

Computer science/technology Liberal arts (history/English/etc.) Engineering Health Care Communications Finance the Sciences Education Other _____________________________

What do you intend to major in?

Accounting Africana Studies Anthropology Biology Chemistry| Communication Computer Science Criminal Justice Earth Resource Science Economics Education


Engineering Science English Finance Foreign Language Health Care History Human Resource Management Management Marketing Mathematics Music & Art Nursing Operations Management Other Philosophy Physical Therapy Physics Political Science Psychology Public Administration Social Work Sociology Theatre & Dance Undecided

Are you applying to colleges as a freshman or a transfer student? Please select one and answer the questions that follow.

Freshman (complete the following)

Transfer (complete the following)

Will you definitely attend college during the Fall 2001 semester? Yes No

Will you definitely attend college during the Fall 2000 semester? Yes No

Do you plan to take classes at UM-Flint in Fall 2001? Yes No

Do you plan to take classes at UM-Flint this fall? Yes No


Appendix F: Cluster Descriptions About Neighborhood Lifestyle Segmentation The social science of neighborhoods and their structures is the foundation of the marketing science of geodemography. Geodemographic (neighborhood segmentation) systems developed from data sources such as the U.S. Census work because the old adage “birds of a feather flock together” still rings true in America today −people with similar cultural backgrounds, needs and perspectives naturally gravitate toward each other. People choose to live in neighborhoods that offer affordable advantages and compatible lifestyles. These neighborhoods can be grouped into “clusters” that exhibit similar demographic and behavioral characteristics. These neighborhood clusters then can be used to identify and locate marketing targets. Geodemographic systems are stable and reliable because the characteristics that define a neighborhood change slowly. The stability of a neighborhood comes from its fixed features: location, housing, transportation, schools, places of worship and employment. Self organization and self-perpetuation also figure into the stability of a neighborhood in terms of its tangible forces and assets: • Zoning Laws • Job Pool • Housing Stock • Transportation Networks

• Commercial Infrastructure • Public and Private Schools • Land Values

Another factor that defines neighborhoods are its perceived forces and assets: • Economic Opportunities • Race and Ethnicity • Local Politics

• Language • Culture • Ambiance

Mobility is a third factor that defines a neighborhood, since life stage changes often cause people to move, for example: • Leaving the nest (getting a job or going to college) • Graduating from college • Getting married • Having children

• Being promoted • Emptying the nest • Retiring

People will also move when their neighborhood is no longer a good match of affordability and needs. When relocating due to a job transfer, people usually find a neighborhood that is very much like the one they just left. “New neighbors” will very likely resemble the “old neighbors” when they first arrive; an unchanged neighborhood attracts similar types of people. Events also significantly change the characteristics of a neighborhood: • New construction in or around the neighborhood • Major regional economic adjustments • Transition from families with children to empty nests • Rezoning • Dramatically rising land values Neighborhoods are a key to consumer predictability: • People need to feel like they belong • Neighborhoods have an image and attract certain types of people • The result is shared behavior patterns − “keeping up with the Joneses”


How Is PRIZM Created? In the PRIZM lifestyle segmentation system, every U.S. neighborhood is defined according to 62 distinct types or “clusters.” The 62 PRIZM clusters reflect the variety of opportunities and influences that impact neighborhoods. Each U.S. neighborhood is assigned to one of these PRIZM Clusters according to the current year’s demographic projections. Claritas uses factor analysis of census data to uncover the demographic and lifestyle variables that explain the differences between customer profiles. Neighborhood type is not a single measurable entry, but is derived from a number of directly measurable elements: • Objective - identify the key demographics and lifestyles that define unique neighborhood types • Method - use factor analysis to find the most meaningful data variables; use cluster analysis and

classification and regression trees to define neighborhood types • Result - these statistical methods explain much of the variation between neighborhood types

Those Neighborhood Variables Most of the differences that define neighborhoods are determined by: • Social Rank - income, employment and educational attainment • Household Composition - age, gender and family structure • Mobility - length of residence • Ethnicity - race, foreign birth, ancestry and language • Urbanization - variations in urban, suburban, and rural populations and densities • Housing - own, rent, value, age, number of housing units, and more Once the factor analysis is complete, PRIZM’s 62 clusters are tested, refined and updated using a variety of public and private data sources: • ADVO • City and regional planning agencies • Geographic Data Technologies • National Center for Health Statistics

• Newspapers • U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics • U.S. Postal Service • Utility companies, and more

Behavioral tests and enhancements to PRIZM tap millions of consumer purchase records covering auto purchases, magazine subscriptions, real estate transactions, aggregate consumer credit, direct marketing response and consumer expenditures. The resulting system provides a flexible framework for decision making that is consistent from one level of geography to another, which is unique to Claritas. For instance, the PRIZM assignments for the 5-digit ZIP Code can be translated instantly and accurately into assignments for block groups, tracts or ZIP+4s. Standard PRIZM Social Groups The 62 PRIZM Clusters are grouped into 15 social groups, indicated by the degree of urbanization, from the rural countryside to urban highrises. The degree of affluence or socioeconomic status (e.g., income, education, home value and occupation) span the lower, middle and upscale markets. For example, at the top of the affluence and density scale are the U1 big-city urban clusters: Urban Gold Coast, Money & Brains, Young Literati, Bohemian Mix and American Dreams. At the bottom of the affluence and density scale are the R3 rural clusters: Blue Highways, Rustic Elders, Back Country Folks, Scrub Pine Flats and Hard Scrabble.

The following is a brief description of each PRIZM social group and the clusters within it.


S1 - Elite Suburbs

The five clusters of Group S1 rank in the first and second deciles of Claritas’ education and affluence scale, making this one of the nation’s most affluent social groups. S1 clusters have high incomes, educations, investments, and spending. High concentrations of wealthy Asian immigrants populate these clusters. Beyond these shared patterns, there are marked differences. 01 Blue Blood Estates Elite, Super-Rich Families

Established executives, professionals and “old money” heirs live in America’s wealthiest suburbs. They are accustomed to privilege and live luxuriously. One-tenth of this group are multimillionaires.

Elite (1) Age Groups: 45-54, 55-64 Predominantly White, High Asian

02 Winner’s Circle Executive Suburban Families These “new money” families live in expensive “mini-mansions” in major metropolitan suburbs. They are well-educated executives and professionals who are married with teenagers. Big producers and big spenders, Winner’s Circle families enjoy globetrotting. Wealthy (2) Age Groups: 45-54, 55-64 Predominantly White, High Asian

03 Executive Suites Upscale White-Collar Couples Executive Suites singles and married couples have bought their first houses and condos. They have more children than the other clusters in the S1 Social Group. They’re less affluent than Winner’s Circle, but equally ambitious, well-educated and competent, and ten years younger. Affluent (8) Age Groups: 45-54, 55-64 Predominantly White, High Asian

04 Pools and Patios Established Empty Nesters Empty-nester executive and professional couples are living the good life in their “post-child” years. Their dual incomes support rich, active lives filled with travel, leisure activities and entertainment. Many live in the densely-populated Northeast corridor of the U.S. Affluent (9) Age Groups: 45-54, 55-64, 65+ Predominantly White, High Asian

05 Kids and Cul-de-Sacs Upscale Suburban Families Similar to Executive Suites and Pools and Patios, Cluster 05 ranks high on all affluence measures. Although married couples with children are still predominant in this cluster, some married couples without children are moving into Kids and Cul-de-Sacs. These suburban folks lead busy lives centered around family activities. Affluent (10) Age Groups: Under 18, 35-44, 45-54 Predominantly White, High Asian


U1 - Urban Uptown

Group U1 ranks as the nation’s second most affluent social group. Major market concentrations are dense with over 94 percent of total households in the top 10 TV markets. For over two decades, these clusters have had high concentrations of executives and professionals in business, finance, entertainment and education. More recently, U1 clusters have absorbed a wave of upscale immigrants from Eastern Europe, Asia and the Middle East.

06 Urban Gold Coast Elite Urban Singles The highly educated professional couples and singles of Cluster 6 live in large urban apartment and condo complexes. They’re found in densely populated areas such as New York City. Very few of these busy, affluent Urban Gold Coast-ers have children or own cars. Affluent (3) Age Groups: 45-54, 55-64 Predominantly White, High Asian

07 Money and Brains Sophisticated Urban Fringe Couples Cluster 07 is a mix of family types: singles, married couples with children and married couples without children. These families own their homes in upscale neighborhoods near cities. Dual incomes provide luxuries, travel and entertainment. Affluent (5) Age Groups: 55-64, 65+ Predominantly White, High Asian 08 Young Literati Upscale Urban Singles and Couples Although less affluent than Money and Brains, Cluster 08 is better educated. Young Literati executives, professionals and students live in apartments, condos and townhouses near private urban universities. They have few children, leaving them free to lead active lives filled with travel, art and fitness. Upper Middle (6) Age Groups: 25-34, 35-44 Predominantly White, High Asian

09 American Dreams Established Urban Immigrant Families These immigrants and descendants of multi-cultural backgrounds in multi-racial, multi-lingual neighborhoods typify the American Dream. Married couples with and without children and single parents are affluent from working hard at multiple trades and public service jobs. They are high school graduates with some college education. Their big families are unusual for Social Group U1.

Upper Middle (14) Age Groups: Mixed Ethnically Diverse 10 Bohemian Mix Bohemian Singles

Dominated by mobile, high educated singles, Bohemian Mix is an eclectic group of executives, students, artists and writers who prefer to live in rented high-rises. Very few children are found in this multi-racial cluster. Middle (17) Age Groups: 25-34, 35-44 Ethnically Diverse


C1 - Second City Society

The three clusters of the C1 Social Group top the economic scale in hundreds of America’s “second” and “satellite” cities. They are highly educated with big incomes. Most own their homes and are executives and professionals in local business, finance, health, law, communications and wholesale. They are far more conservative than their upscale S1 peers who live in the suburbs of major metropolitan areas.

11 Second City Elite Upscale Executive Families The movers and shakers of America’s smaller cities are the prototypes for Second City Elite. Although most are married without children, some have teenagers. They hold professional and white-collar management positions, and many have attended college or are college graduates. Affluent (7) Age Groups: 45-54, 55-64, 65+ Predominantly White

12 Upward Bound Young, Upscale White-Collar Families Upward Bound families are computer literate, earn dual incomes and fly frequently. Most are married with kids and live in new, single-family homes. These high school and college graduates work in management or professional occupations. Upper Middle (13) Age Groups: Under 18, 35-44, 45-54 Predominantly White, High Asian

13 Gray Power Affluent Retirees in Sunbelt Cities As the population ages, this cluster is increasing. Found in retirement communities across the U.S., these affluent retirees are playing golf, monitoring their health, and tending their hefty investment portfolios. They are married couples or singles with high school and college educations. Middle (16) Age Groups: 55-64, 65+ Predominantly White


T1 - Landed Gentry

The four clusters of the T1 Social Group cover a vast amount of American geography. T1 is the fourth most affluent group. Large, multi-income families with school-age kids, headed by well-educated executives, professionals and “techies” dominate this group. These clusters are found far outside the major metropolitan areas in America’s most spectacular coastal areas and uplands.

14 Country Squires Elite Exurban Families Yearning to escape urban stress, Country Squires have moved away from our major cities to the outer suburbs to find tranquility in the country. They are well-educated professionals and white-collar managers who are married with children. Fourth in affluence, this cluster has “big bucks in the boondocks.” Wealthy (4) Age Groups: 45-54, 55-64 Predominantly White

15 God’s Country Executive Exurban Families Like Country Squires, the large families of Cluster 15 prefer to live away from the city. They are well-educated professionals or white-collar managers. Dual incomes support an active lifestyle that is centered around family and outdoor activities. Affluent (11) Age Groups: 35-44, 45-54, 55-64 Predominantly White

16 Big Fish, Small Pond Small-Town Executive Families Married couples with and without children dominate this conservative, family-oriented cluster. They are very similar to God’s Country, just slightly less affluent. Most are high school graduates and have taken some college classes. These captains of local industry enjoy investing in their homes and vacationing by car in the U.S. Upper Middle (18) Age Groups: 45-54, 55-64 Predominantly White

17 Greenbelt Families Small-Town Executive Families Cluster 17 families are younger and less affluent than some of the other clusters living in America’s smaller cities. These heavily mortgaged married couples have lots of children. Because of their heavy debt, they depend on family entertainment and outdoor sports for recreation. Upper Middle (19) Age Groups: 35-44, 45-54 Predominantly White


S2 - The Affluentials

The five clusters of the S2 Social Group represent the upper-middle income suburbs of major metropolitan areas. S2 is the fifth most affluent group. These clusters have above-average incomes and rentals, an eclectic mix of homes, condos and apartments; a broad spectrum of business, technical and public service jobs; and daily commuting, but otherwise are very different.

18 Young Influentials Upwardly Mobile Singles and Couples The high-tech educated folks of Cluster 18 have managerial and professional jobs and live in urban high-rises. Although many of their contemporaries have married and settled down, these childless, live-together couples prefer their sophisticated urban lifestyle, supported by dual incomes. They are the last of the Yuppies. Upper Middle (12) Age Groups: 25-34, 35-44 Predominantly White, High Asian

19 New Empty Nests Upscale Suburban Fringe Couples Hard work in professions and industries has rewarded New Empty Nest-ers with the affluence that comes from double incomes. Most of these married couples are in their “post-child” years, are far more conservative than Young Influentials, and live in the Northeastern and Northwestern United States. Upper Middle (15) Age Groups: 45-54, 55-64, 65+ Predominantly White

20 Boomers and Babies Young White-Collar Suburban Families Cluster 20 ranks second of all PRIZM clusters for married couples with children and first in total households with children, most of whom are pre-schoolers. Boomers and Babies folks are found mostly in the Western United States, where they are executives and “techies” in various fields. Upper Middle (21) Age Groups: Under 18, 25-34, 35-44 Predominantly White, High Asian, High Hispanic

21 Suburban Sprawl Young Mid-Scale Suburban Couples & Singles

The native and foreign-born people in Cluster 21 have educated themselves and are now working as executives, administrators and technicians. Their diligence has enabled them to leave their multi-racial, multi-lingual neighborhoods in America’s major metropolitan areas and move to the suburbs.

Middle (24) Age Groups: 25-34, 35-44 Ethnically Diverse 22 Blue Chip Blues Upscale Blue-Collar Families

Topping the blue-collar ladder, the dual income, high school-educated Blue Chip Blues parents head large suburban families. During the past two decades, their kids grew up and left, and blue-collar employment opportunities declined sharply. A small core of Blue Chip Blues remains, concentrated in the Great Lakes area.

Middle (30) Age Groups: 35-44, 45-54, 55-64 Predominantly White


S3 - Inner Suburbs

The four clusters of the S3 Social Group comprise the middle income suburbs of major metropolitan areas, straddling the United States average. Otherwise, the clusters are markedly different. Two clusters have more college-educated, white-collar workers; two have more high school-educated blue-collar workers; two are young; one is old; one is mixed; but all show distinct, variant patterns of employment, lifestyle and regional concentration

23 Upstarts and Seniors Middle-Income Empty Nesters Cluster 23 shows that young people and seniors are very similar if they are employable, single and childless. Upstarts and Seniors have average educations and incomes in business, finance, retail, health and public service. Preferring condos and apartments, they live in the Sunbelt and the West. Middle (28) Age Groups: 25-54, 65+ Predominantly White

24 New Beginnings Young Mobile City Singles Concentrated in the boomtowns of the Southeast, the Southwest, and the Pacific coast, New Beginnings is a magnet for many young, well-educated minorities who are making fresh starts. Some are divorced, and many are single parents. They live in multi-unit rentals and work in a variety of low-level, white-collar jobs. Middle (29) Age Groups: 18-44 Ethnically Diverse 25 Mobility Blues Young Blue-Collar/Service Families

These blue-collar counterparts of New Beginnings are young, ethnically mixed and very mobile. Many are Hispanics and have large families with children. These breadwinners work in transportation, industry, public service and the military. Middle (41) Age Groups: Under 18, 25-34 Ethnically Diverse, High Hispanic

26 Gray Collars Aging Couples in Inner Suburbs

The highly skilled blue-collar workers of Cluster 26 weathered the economic downturn of Americas’s industrial areas and now enjoy a resurgence of employment. Their kids grew up and left, but the Gray Collars stayed in the Great Lakes “Rust Belt.” Middle (42) Age Groups: 65+ Ethnically Diverse


U2 - Urban Midscale

The five clusters of the U2 Social Group are the backbone of the middle-income, urban-fringe neighborhoods in America’s major metropolitan areas. Group U2 is also highly concentrated, with 75 percent of the total households in the top five TV markets and 96 percent in the top 25. Group U2 averages below the affluence mean. The U2 clusters have high potential densities and ethnic diversity, use public transportation and survive all the perks and risks of urban life.

27 Urban Achievers Mid-Level, White-Collar Urban Couples Cluster 27 is the most affluent of the U2 Clusters. Often found near urban public universities, these neighborhoods are ethnically diverse with a blend of youth and age. Single students mix easily with older professionals who work in business, finance and public service.

Middle (22) Age Groups: 25-44, 65+ Predominantly White, High Asian, High Hispanic 28 Big City Blend Middle-Income Immigrant Families

The most ethnically mixed of the U2 Clusters, Big City Blend has many Hispanics, Asians and other foreign-born immigrants. Less affluent than Urban Achievers, Cluster 29 folks have large families and work in white- and blue-collar jobs. They live in older, stable, high-density urban rowhouse neighborhoods.

Middle (32) Age Groups: Under 14, 25-44 Ethnically Diverse

29 Old Yankee Rows Empty-Nest, Middle-Class Families More languages are spoken in Cluster 29 than in the other U2 Clusters. New Asian and Latin American immigrants live in these “magnet” neighborhoods concentrated in the Northeast. Although they have the same mix of white- and blue-collar jobs as Big City Blend, they are less affluent. They tend to be single and live in rental multi-unit apartment complexes.

Middle (37) Age Groups: 25-44, 65+ Ethnically Diverse

30 Mid-City Mix African-American Singles and Families Like the other clusters in U2, Mid-City Mix is above-average in ethnic diversity with a similar mix of service, white- and blue-collar employment. Living in urban rowhouse neighborhoods, they are found in the Northeast and around the Great Lakes. Cluster 30 three-quarters Black and has a high incidence of college enrollment.

Middle (46) Age Groups: Under 18, 25-34 Predominantly Black, High Hispanic 31 Latino America Hispanic Middle-Class Families

With the nation’s highest index for foreign-born immigrants, Cluster 31 represents a giant step in achievement for the young families of Latino America. They have many children and are concentrated in New York, Miami, Chicago and the Southwest. Although they live in rented houses and have blue-collar jobs, they are moving up and are college-bound.

Middle (44) Age Groups: Under 18, 25-34 Predominantly Hispanic


C2 - Second City Centers

The five clusters of the C2 Social Group describe the midscale, middle-density satellite cities surrounding major metropolitan areas, as well as many smaller second-tier cities. The C2 clusters have a lower cost of living and are generally better off than their peers in the U2 Social Group. With some exceptions, these clusters are predominantly white. Otherwise, they differ in age, marriage, education, occupation and lifestyle.

32 Middleburg Managers Mid-Level White-Collar Families These business executives, professionals, city officials, bankers and retailers are the solid citizens of America’s smaller cities. Half of Middleburg Managers are older and married with grown children. The other half are young and single with no children. Thanks to their above-average incomes, they can pursue sports and leisure activities in clubs.

Middle (20) Age Groups: 35-44, 65+ Predominantly White 33 Boomtown Singles Middle-Income Young Singles

Young people in the fast-growing smaller cities in the South, Midwest and West fall into Cluster 33. They are young professionals and “techies” in public service and private industries who live in multi-unit rentals. They like music and outdoor activities such as boating and skiing.

Middle (27) Age Groups: 18-24, 25-34, 35-44 Predominantly White 34 Starter Families Young, Middle-Class Families

Unlike most of their contemporaries, Starter Families opted for early marriage and parenthood. Cluster 34 folks have large families and work in blue-collar jobs. The solo parents in this cluster have young children. They prefer living in the natural beauty of the Pacific coast areas, the Rockies and the states bordering Canada.

Middle (36) Age Groups: Under 18, 25-34 Mixed, High Hispanic

35 Sunset City Blues Empty Nests in Aging Industrial Cities Cluster 35 is just as affluent as Starter Families, they’re just older. At the end of their careers in police work, fire fighting and other blue-collar occupations, Sunset City Blues are ready to retire. A few relocate to the mountains or to Florida, but most stick close to home near the Great Lakes and the Mohawk Valley.

Lower Middle (39) Age Groups: 55-64, 65+ Predominantly White 36 Towns and Gowns College Town Singles

Many college towns and university campus neighborhoods are divided into half locals (Towns) and half students (Gowns). Cluster 36 is primarily composed of 18-24 year-olds on limited budgets and highly-educated, but perhaps underpaid, professionals. Both of these groups have a taste for prestige products that are beyond their means.

Lower Middle (31) Age Groups: 18-24, 25-34 Predominantly White, High Asian


T2 - Exurban Blues

The five clusters of the T2 Social Group cover the midscale, low-density towns on the outskirts of all major metropolitan areas and second cities. Group T2 is comparable to the S3, U2 and C2 Social Groups. Three of these clusters are predominantly white, show an even age distribution, own their homes, are married and raising kids.

37 New Homesteaders Young Middle-Class Families

More highly educated than the other clusters in the T2 Social Group, the New Homesteaders professionals and executives work in local service fields of administration, communications, health and retail. The younger married couples have children. Life is homespun with a focus on crafts, camping and sports. Middle (26) Age Groups: 35-44, 45-54, 65+ Predominantly White

38 Middle America Midscale Families in Midsize Towns

Sitting just above the U.S. median household income, Cluster 38 is aptly named. These are family neighborhoods with many married couples. Busy with kids and dogs, they enjoy fast food, sports, fishing, camping and watching TV. Middle America families are found across the U.S. Middle (33) Age Groups: Under 18, 35-44, 45-54 Predominantly White

39 Red, White and Blues Small Town Blue-Collar Families

Cluster 39 is more blue-collar and industrial and less affluent than Middle America. They are skilled workers in mining, milling, manufacturing and construction jobs. Concentrated in the industrial areas around the Great Lakes, the Appalachians and the Western highlands, these folks love the outdoors. Middle (35) Age Groups: Mixed Predominantly White

40 Military Quarters GIs and Surrounding Off-Base Families

Located on or near military bases, Cluster 40 appears around our principal harbors and other defense installations. Composed of military personnel living in group quarters, the demographics of Cluster 40 are atypical. Fully integrated with the highest index for adults under 35, Military Quarters folks like fast cars, action sports and bars.

Lower Middle (40) Age Groups: Under 14, 18-24, 25-34 Ethnically Diverse


R1- Country Families

Group R1 now rivals Social Groups S3, U2, C2 and T2 in midscale affluence and, thanks to lower living costs, suffers less poverty. Found in hundreds of small towns and remote exurbs, the group covers all but a few television markets. Composed of white, married couples, many with children, these country families work in industrial and agrarian occupations. They own their houses and mobile homes.

41 Big Sky Families Midscale Couples, Kids and Farmland Cluster 41 are well-paid craftsmen, machinists and builders who live in scenic locales in New England, the Tidewater, the Great Lakes region and the Rockies. Their family-centered lifestyles focus on hobbies, hunting and boating. Most are high-school graduates or have attended college.

Upper Middle (23) Age Groups: Under 18, 35-64 Predominantly White

42 New Eco-topia Rural White- Blue-Collar/Farm Families

Found in the pristine areas of the Northern Pacific, the Rockies and northern New England, Cluster 42 is the only R1 Cluster with above-average educations. New Eco-topia has an even mix of white- and blue-collar jobs. A high index of personal computers reflects the high-tech industries in those pristine areas.

Middle (25) Age Groups: 45-54, 55-64, 65+ Predominantly White 43 River City, USA Middle-Class Rural Families

These solid, blue-collar folks in New England and the Mohawk Valley through the corn, grain and dairy belts to the Pacific orchards are raising their children in single-family homes. Fourth of July parades and front porches are important to River City, USA. Most are high-school graduates or have attended college.

Middle (34) Age Groups: Under 18, 45-54 Predominantly White 44 Shotguns and Pickups Rural Blue-Collar Workers and Families

Found in the Northeast, the Southeast, the Great Lakes and the Piedmont industrial regions of the U.S., Cluster 44 is the least affluent of the R1 Clusters. They lead the group in blue-collar jobs. Most are married with school-age children. They are church-goers who also enjoy hunting,

bowling, sewing and attending auto races. Middle (43) Age Groups: Mixed Predominantly White


U3 - Urban Cores

With the nation’s lowest incomes and highest poverty ratios, U3 is the least affluent social group. These clusters live in multi-racial, multi-lingual communities of dense, rented rowhouses and high-rise apartments. They have high indices for singles, solo parents with pre-school children and unemployment.

45 Single City Blues Ethnically Mixed Urban Singles

Cluster 45 is found mostly in Eastern mega-cities and in the West, and includes many singles. Often found near urban universities, Single City Blues hosts a fair number of students. With few children, it is a mixture of races, transients, and night trades and is best described as a “poor man’s Bohemia.” Lower Middle (51) Age Groups: 25-34, 65+ Ethnically Diverse

46 Hispanic Mix Urban Hispanic Singles and Families

The bilingual barrios concentrated in the Southwest, the Atlantic metro corridor, Texas, Chicago, Miami and Los Angeles, are home to Cluster 46. Large families with lots of small children live in these neighborhoods. They rank second in the percentage of foreign-born and first in transient immigration. Poor (60) Age Groups: Under 18, 18-24, 25-34 Predominantly Hispanic,

High Black, High Asian

47 Inner Cities Inner-City, Single Parent Families

Concentrated in America’s poorest neighborhoods in large eastern U.S. cities, these young, African-American single parents live in multi-unit rental complexes. High unemployment and public assistance are prevalent here. When work is available, they have service and blue-collar jobs. They have grade school and high school educations.

Poor (61) Age Groups: Under 18, 18-24, 25-34 Predominantly Black


C3 - Second City Blues

The four clusters of the C3 Social Group cover the downtown neighborhoods of hundreds of second cities on the fringe of major metropolitan areas. With lower living costs, these clusters are more affluent than their big-city cousins in the U3 Social Group. Coupled with pockets of unemployment, broken homes and solo parents, we also see a wide range of occupations including agrarian, clerical, retail, labor, transportation, public and private sector services.

48 Smalltown Downtown Older Renters and Young Families

Cluster 48 is made up of students and those looking for fresh starts and first employment. Smalltown Downtown neighborhoods are found mostly west of the Mississippi. These young singles often live near city colleges and work in low-level, white-collar sales and technical jobs. Lower Middle (49) Age Groups: 18-24/25-34/35-44 Predominantly White/Some

Hispanic

49 Hometown Retired Low-Income, Older Singles and Couples At opposite ends of America and the age scale, Cluster 49 is found mostly in the Appalachians and central Florida, with a few pockets in the West. Hometown Retired is third in singles, second in ages 65+ and first in retirement. They take bus tours, collect stamps and enjoy playing cards and chess.

Lower Middle (52) Age Groups: 65+ Predominantly White 50 Family Scramble Low-Income Hispanic Families

Although Cluster 50 is found in many markets, it is centered across the Southwest and Pacific areas. It ranks third in Hispanic population and has an above-average number of Native Americans. Ranked 62nd in higher education, Cluster 50 shows all of the scars of poverty, but they are managing by working in transport, labor and service jobs.

Lower Middle (59) Age Groups: Under 18, 25-34 Predominantly Hispanic

51 Southside City African-American Service Workers The neighborhoods of Cluster 51 are scattered throughout the Southeast, the smaller Mississippi delta cities, the Gulf Coast and the Atlantic states. Over 80 percent of its households are African-American. Ranked 61st in median household income, their low cost of living and jobs in labor and service keep these families afloat.



T3 - Working Towns

The four clusters in the T3 Social Group with thousands of remote exurbs and satellite towns, are found outside major metropolitan areas and second cities. T3 is considerably better off than the U3 and C3 Social Groups. The T3 clusters have lower education levels and incomes and work in blue-collar occupations. They own or rent single-family homes amid awesome scenery. They enjoy crafts and going to church. Otherwise, they are distinctly different.

52 Golden Ponds Retirement Town Seniors The scenic rustic towns and villages near coastal, mountain, valley and lake areas coast to coast are where the Cluster 52 neighborhoods are found. Golden Ponds seniors have retired here to live in cottages among their country neighbors. They are not as urban or affluent as other retirees.

Lower Middle (38) Age Groups: 65+ Predominantly White

53 Rural Industria Low Income, Blue-Collar Families Low-cost, non-union labor proliferates in Cluster 53, the most industrial cluster of the T3 group. Hundreds of blue-collar mill towns on America’s back roads are home to Rural Industria folks. This predominantly white cluster has an above-average index of Hispanic ancestry. Lower Middle (50) Age Groups: Under 18 Predominantly White, High Hispanic

54 Norma Rae-Ville Young Families, Bi-Racial Mill Towns

Centered in the South, the Mississippi delta and in the Gulf Coast and Atlantic states, Cluster 54 is the blue-collar labor pool for the nations clothing and home furnishing industries. With grade school and high school educations, many families in this bi-racial cluster live below the poverty level.


55 Mines and Mills Older Families, Mine and Mill Towns

As its name implies, Cluster 55 folks live in scenic splendor and work in America’s mines and mills. Mines and Mills neighborhoods are in the Appalachians, across the Ozarks to Arizona, up the Missouri River to the Montana coal fields. The population is older, mostly single with few children. Poor (56) Age Groups: 65+ Predominantly White


R2 - Heartlanders

The two clusters of the R2 Social Group describe the nation’s agrarian heartland that is centered in the Great Plains, South Central, Mountains and Pacific regions, with a few pockets in the East. These clusters are comparatively self-sufficient with a low cost of living. They are large, multi-generation families living in low-density houses and mobile homes. They are a mix of fiercely independent Hispanics and Native Americans.

56 Agri-Business Rural Farm Town and Ranch Families Famous for very large families with lots of kids, countless animals, apple pie and going fishing, Cluster 56 stretches from from Lake Michigan to the Pacific. Agri-Business occupations are farming, forestry, fishing, ranching, mining and other blue-collar employment. Most are high school graduates and have attended college.

Middle (45) Age Groups: Under 18, 45-64 Predominantly White

57 Grain Belt Farm Owners and Tenants Centered in the Great Plains and South Central U.S. in America’s bread basket, life is tied to the land and ruled by the weather. Mostly self-sufficient, family- and home-centered, these families are poor only in money. Lower Middle (57) Age Groups: Under 18, 55+ Predominantly White, High Hispanic,

Some Native American


R3 - Rustic Living

The five clusters of the R3 Social Group describe thousands of remote country towns, villages, hamlets and reservations scattered across the U.S. Because these five clusters have lower-middle incomes and a low cost of living, they are a promising market. These married couples and elders share mobile homes, kids and carpools. They work as craftsmen and laborers in agriculture, mining, transport and construction.

58 Blue Highways Moderate Blue-Collar/Farm Families On most maps, the interstates are colored red and the older highways are blue. Cluster 58 follows these remote roads through the mountains and along the coasts, deserts and lake shores. Blue Highways families are young with lots of children. They hunt and fish, attend tractor pulls, and love country music and camping.

Lower Middle (47) Age Groups: Under 18 Predominantly White, High Native American

59 Rustic Elders Low-Income, Older Rural Couples Cluster 59 is the third oldest cluster in the U.S. with the lowest incidence of children in Social Group R3. Rustic Elders are concentrated in the Great Plains and along the West Coast. Although the life is pure country, there is a surprisingly high index for health walks, golf, boating and volleyball.

Lower Middle (48) Age Groups: 55-64, 65+ Predominantly White

60 Back Country Folks Remote Rural/Town Families Centered in the Eastern uplands, Cluster 60 cuts a wide swath from the Pennsylvania Poconos to the Arkansas Ozarks. These are the most blue-collar neighborhoods in America. Centered in the Bible Belt, they enjoy Christian and country music. Lower Middle (53) Age Groups: 6-17, 55-64, 65+ Predominantly White

61 Scrub Pine Flats Older African-American Farm Families

Cluster 61 is found mainly in the coastal flatlands of the Atlantic and Gulf states from the James to the Mississippi rivers. These humid, sleepy rural communities with their mix of African-Americans and whites exist in a timeless agrarian rhythm. Poor (55) Age Groups: Under 18, 18-24 Predominantly Black

62 Hard Scrabble Older Families in Poor Isolated Areas

Scratching a living from hard soil describes those who live in our poorest rural areas. Reaching from Appalachia to the Colorado Rockies and from the Texas border to the Dakota badlands, life is hard for Cluster 62 folks. Mining occupations and chewing tobacco show the highest indices in Hard Scrabble.

Poor (58) Age Groups: 6-17, 65+ Predominantly White, High Native American


Appendix G: Target Group Characteristics This report lists hundreds of financial, lifestyle, magazine, media, and product characteristics along with an index for each of UM-Flint’s target groups. The index indicates the likelihood that households in the target group possess the corresponding characteristic. An index of above 100 is higher than average and means that households in that target group are more likely than average to have that chacteristic. As a rule, indices greater than 120 and below 80 are considered "significantly" higher and lower than average.

Indices of 120 and greater and shaded gray.

TG A TG B TG C TG D TG E Financial Product Usage Auto Collision Insurance (56.6%) 123 119 104 108 81 Auto Liability Insurance (64.7%) 114 112 102 109 89 Auto Comprehensive Ins (50.3%) 126 124 101 112 75 Use Savings and Loan (14.3%) 126 117 95 95 74 Use Full Service Bank (55.4%) 110 114 92 104 91 Use Credit Union (24.2%) 114 124 118 110 80 Interest Checking Account (34.9%) 123 123 97 101 77 Interest Checking Last Year (3.8%) 103 110 97 103 98 Non-Int Checking Account (32.5%) 107 107 95 110 94 Non-Int Checking Acct LstYr (3.9%) 107 103 81 106 95 Savings Account (43.8%) 116 123 99 106 78 Savings Account Last Year (4.9%) 97 100 94 115 101 New Car Loan (12.9%) 117 122 106 118 78 New Car Loan Last Year (4.0%) 101 118 113 130 86 ANY PERSONAL LOAN (6.4%) 95 120 98 107 79 Personal Education Loan (2.6%) 122 118 107 102 77 Non-Vac/Educ Personal Loan (3.6%) 69 121 99 114 82 Have Home Improvement Loan (1.7%) 138 111 114 100 106 Have First Mortgage (17.8%) 152 148 91 102 65 First Mortgage Lst Yr (2.1%) 121 143 105 105 32 Have 2nd Mortgage (4.8%) 159 165 110 106 55 Have Line of Credit (8.7%) 155 146 96 102 63 Have Overdraft Protection (9.5%) 153 138 93 100 55 Have an IRA/Keogh (20.1%) 156 149 90 97 51 Direct Deposit of Paycheck (28.1%) 129 126 104 99 64 Have a 401K (20.0%) 150 141 96 102 66 Used ATM Card Last Yr (43.3%) 128 117 101 99 77 Bank by Mail (6.0%) 123 122 82 99 63 Bank by PC (1.9%) 185 129 74 41 49 Bank by Phone (15.9%) 132 115 103 102 60 Internet Fin'l Transaction (21.4%) 40 82 95 129 76 Bought Travelers Chks LstYr(11.1%) 156 129 98 96 63 Traveler Check:$250+ LstYr (9.3%) 164 130 101 96 62 Have American Express Card (10.4%) 198 132 87 69 46 Have Gold/Prem Credit Card (22.0%) 153 134 94 101 60 Have Discover Card (16.8%) 131 121 108 108 77 Have Ford Card (1.4%) 146 131 89 103 68 Have G.E. Card (0.6%) 202 110 186 56 84


TG A TG B TG C TG D TG E Have MasterCard (27.9%) 130 128 99 96 75 Have Visa Card (39.3%) 131 125 103 99 76 Have J.C. Penney Card (23.1%) 115 115 104 112 88 Have Montgomery Ward Card (7.6%) 113 104 116 110 81 Have Sears Card (25.9%) 117 122 106 112 85 Have Amoco Credit Card (4.3%) 128 136 107 110 63 Have Exxon Credit Card (3.4%) 151 143 73 91 63 Have Mobil Credit Card (4.2%) 185 160 68 85 40 Have Shell Credit Card (3.9%) 178 139 84 90 48 Have Texaco Credit Card (4.9%) 149 137 106 81 90 Have Unocal Credit Card (1.5%) 186 89 99 73 50 Any Gen Purpose Cred Card (58.6%) 128 123 100 98 76 Have Auto Rental Card (2.7%) 184 111 93 66 42 Have Dept Store Card (41.5%) 119 117 101 107 84 Any Gasoline Credit Card (20.5%) 145 130 101 86 73 Any Type Credit Card (64.0%) 122 120 99 100 80 <$181 Avg Mo CCard Expend (24.0%) 89 106 97 113 100 $181-$225 Mo CCard Expend (7.0%) 113 124 106 97 71 $226-$450 Mo CCard Expend (8.0%) 151 131 96 89 72 $451+ Avg Mo CCard Expend (10.7%) 206 157 87 82 34 Use Stock Rating Service (1.8%) 164 139 69 76 31 Use Financial Planning Svc (6.1%) 166 164 91 90 48 Use Broker Adv Lst12Mos (3.5%) 188 171 52 82 40 Use Discount Brokerage Firm (3.4%) 195 154 57 70 37 Use FullSrvc Brokerage Firm (4.9%) 176 160 69 88 57 Broker: Advice/Price Quotes (3.5%) 188 171 52 82 40 Broker: Buy/Sell Bonds (1.4%) 201 152 60 51 45 Broker: Buy/Sell Stocks (5.2%) 185 157 67 85 51 Broker: Put/Call Options (0.5%) 217 91 56 60 96 Use CharlesSchwab Brokerage (1.3%) 269 169 36 52 21 Use Dean Witter Brokerage (1.1%) 165 164 101 102 43 Use Fidelity Brokerage (1.5%) 220 197 69 105 24 Use Merill Lynch Brokerage (1.5%) 193 170 95 76 36 Use Prudential Brokerage (0.8%) 193 155 40 79 63 3+ Stock Transactions LstYr (4.6%) 204 163 59 84 46 Own Any Real Estate (9.1%) 133 126 75 117 74 Real Est. Agnt 12 Mos (4.7%) 144 133 92 103 70 Own Investment RealEstate (4.1%) 145 138 82 103 89 Own Retirement RealEstate (1.3%) 104 107 89 119 56 Own US Savings Bonds (11.1%) 146 135 97 96 66 Treasury Notes/US Gov Bonds (1.9%) 180 153 78 78 28 Own Stock (10.3%) 176 159 81 97 42 Stock in Company Employd By (3.9%) 170 152 82 112 49 Own Stock Valued <$10000 (3.9%) 157 149 89 103 43 Own Stock Valued $10000+ (5.0%) 192 160 68 90 46 Own State/Local Govt Bonds (1.2%) 179 152 51 84 44 Own Money Market Funds (6.2%) 184 154 79 98 35 Own Mutual Funds (10.6%) 167 158 89 92 45 Mutual Funds <$10000 (3.8%) 150 134 108 105 57


TG A TG B TG C TG D TG E Mutual Funds $10000+ (5.5%) 176 170 74 87 40 Own Tax Exempt Funds (2.8%) 170 138 92 77 60 Own Annuities (3.5%) 163 144 86 98 56 Own Savings Certificates (1.7%) 144 118 101 94 60 Have Insured Money Market (1.9%) 171 136 103 78 45 Have 6 Months or Less CDs (3.9%) 149 127 87 95 52 Have 6+ Months CDs (6.3%) 120 128 91 104 53 Invest-Metals Coins Etc (0.7%) 147 119 86 138 30 Investment Values $50000+ (7.9%) 182 159 73 85 51 Life Insurance (57.9%) 114 117 102 108 90 Life Ins thru Mmbrshp Grp (3.3%) 127 142 93 100 81 Veterans Life Insurance (2.5%) 119 93 104 104 61 Life Insurance with Loan (3.0%) 92 97 113 119 89 Life Insurance thru Agent (25.5%) 121 130 96 113 82 Life Insurance <$20000 (14.6%) 72 91 97 115 124 Life Insurance $20K-$99K (18.8%) 98 111 109 118 91 Life Insurance $100K+ (19.4%) 161 142 96 99 61 Separate Term Life Ins (16.8%) 136 139 90 111 82 Separate Whole Life Ins (17.2%) 117 119 95 111 87 Term/Whole Life Ins (8.6%) 99 110 106 105 109 Homeowners Insurance (62.2%) 119 119 100 108 83 Home Fire Insurance (52.9%) 122 124 99 111 81 Home Liability Insurance (48.7%) 123 127 98 112 81 Home Theft & Loss Ins (46.7%) 122 130 101 113 79 Home/Tenant Ins thru Agent (51.9%) 118 124 99 112 82 Homeowners Ins <$50K (11.9%) 68 64 97 105 122 Homeowners Ins $50K-$100K (15.3%) 66 93 120 131 118 Homeowners Ins $100K+ (24.8%) 176 166 87 102 42 Home/Auto Insurance (14.4%) 127 132 112 118 74 HwnrPrsnl Prplns:PlcyFloat (12.9%) 158 135 107 99 57 Medical Insurance (72.4%) 110 111 103 103 89 Medical Ins thru Mbrshp Grp (1.2%) 144 118 98 74 68 Medicare/Medicaid (13.2%) 63 82 99 100 128 Medical Ins thru Agent (6.1%) 102 100 88 119 75 Medical Ins thru HMO (26.1%) 140 119 114 91 69 Dental Insurance (31.1%) 130 128 112 105 75 Medical Loss of Income Ins (6.4%) 114 135 102 99 75 Personal Liability Ins (6.2%) 130 141 75 108 68 Travel Insurance (2.2%) 137 134 102 84 73 Vision Care Insurance (12.5%) 128 122 116 107 76 Prescription Medicine Ins (20.5%) 123 126 102 107 90 AD&D Insurance (13.5%) 125 122 92 108 79 Long Term Care Insurance (3.7%) 120 149 109 109 58 Disability Insurance (11.4%) 134 137 90 101 66

Electronics TG A TG B TG C TG D TG E Own a Satellite Dish (5.7%) 46 81 37 165 96 Own a Small Satellite Dish (2.5%) 63 89 49 174 100 Own a Medium Satellite Dish (1.4%) 24 60 15 148 46 Own a Large Satellite Dish (1.8%) 38 87 39 161 125


TG A TG B TG C TG D TG E Computers By Mail/Phn LY (1.6%) 151 147 85 99 30 Comp Periph By Mail/Phn LY (2.0%) 154 136 95 106 28 Comp Sftware By Mail/Phn LY (4.0%) 170 132 102 88 70 Own Elec Personal Organizer (4.7%) 163 118 93 80 76 Bgt Disposable Camera LstYr (6.2%) 133 126 104 102 58 Bought 35mm Camera Last Yr (3.7%) 104 120 105 91 85 Bought Camera, Last Year (12.0%) 120 117 98 97 86 Bght Camera Accessory LstYr(15.0%) 117 123 95 101 88 $100+ Camera Accessories (1.4%) 139 148 97 92 84 Bought Any Film Last Year (53.4%) 120 116 96 101 84 Bought 7+RollOf Film LstYr (20.0%) 140 128 94 99 71 Bought CartridgeFilm LstYr (6.3%) 123 92 79 95 104 Bought 35mm PrintFilm LstYr(39.1%) 123 127 96 106 77 Bought Instant Film Last Yr (3.9%) 107 92 118 84 96 Own a VCR (69.9%) 110 109 101 105 93 Own Two or More VCRs (29.6%) 135 123 101 103 85 Own Cassette RecorderPlyer (38.4%) 117 119 98 100 87 Own Pocket Radio/Cassette (20.4%) 129 125 94 102 79 Own PortableRadioTapePlyer (28.2%) 122 115 101 100 76 Own Receiver (18.8%) 141 136 100 100 61 Own Speakers (30.3%) 129 124 104 99 71 Own DAT Player (2.5%) 149 102 102 68 52 Bght Stereo Equipment LstYr (8.7%) 100 112 99 98 107 Own Portable CD Player (20.6%) 133 123 95 101 71 Own CD Player (42.8%) 126 122 100 99 73 Own Laserdisc Player (2.9%) 133 108 121 84 86 Bght Blank Audio Tapes LY (27.1%) 111 112 96 97 92 Bght Blank Video Cass Lst6M(36.0%) 112 113 100 101 85 Own Game Boy (5.9%) 131 133 109 95 94 Own Nintendo (19.3%) 109 113 98 109 90 Own Sega (9.9%) 121 114 99 105 102 Own Sony Play Station (2.9%) 113 125 146 65 100 Own Video Game System (27.3%) 112 110 103 106 93 Own Camcorder (18.6%) 138 136 103 110 68 Own a PC (37.8%) 164 141 92 96 61 Own Desktop PC (33.4%) 164 141 91 99 60 Own Laptop/Notebook PC (4.1%) 192 157 64 82 31 Own Handheld/Palmheld PC (0.4%) 219 107 57 66 29 Own A Compaq PC At Home (3.0%) 203 156 92 77 44 Own A Dell PC At Home (0.9%) 220 147 84 84 35 Own A Gateway 2000 At Home (2.4%) 183 165 75 73 50 Own An HP PC At Home (1.7%) 187 131 84 96 99 Own An IBM PC At Home (4.7%) 160 146 85 106 56 Own A Packard Bell At Home (5.6%) 154 135 101 97 50 Own CD-ROM for Computer (22.2%) 165 148 93 94 57 Own PC Joystick (8.5%) 171 146 90 99 62 Own a Modem (16.0%) 168 152 89 93 51 Own Color Monitor (24.0%) 165 147 91 98 57 Own Dot Matrix Printer (8.3%) 146 139 98 129 61


TG A TG B TG C TG D TG E Own Ink Jet Printer (16.0%) 167 151 80 96 52 Own Laser Printer (6.9%) 191 156 100 75 54 Own PC Scanner (3.2%) 190 161 82 65 45 Own PC Speakers (17.4%) 168 148 98 96 54 Own Accounting Software (9.3%) 161 146 94 96 52 Own Communication Software (9.6%) 179 152 90 79 44 Own Filing/DB Software (9.1%) 169 152 92 99 51 Own Desktop Pub Software (9.5%) 165 150 98 88 48 Own Education Software (10.1%) 165 145 100 97 57 Own Games/Rec Software (20.2%) 168 150 88 100 61 Own Fin'l/Tax Software (12.5%) 179 155 87 87 49 Own Graphics Software (7.1%) 167 159 86 95 53 Own Spreadsheet Software (15.8%) 169 152 95 101 50 Own Utility Software (6.6%) 171 153 88 108 50 Own Word Process Software (24.3%) 166 147 90 98 56 Bght <$300 Software Last Yr(20.4%) 160 147 90 99 58 Bght $300+ Software Last Yr (4.6%) 187 145 113 76 50 <$1000 Computer System (4.8%) 128 123 88 109 84 $1000+ Computer System (27.3%) 169 149 95 95 52 Home PC Purch At Comp Str (8.2%) 194 144 88 79 63 Home PC Purch At Dept Store (2.5%) 111 127 112 124 47 Home PC Purch At Elec Store (4.7%) 153 151 87 107 50 Home PC Purch Thru Catalog (2.3%) 170 172 81 99 27 Home PC Purch At Wrhse Str (1.8%) 181 140 76 99 78 Own IBM/Compatible PC (28.7%) 164 142 90 98 63 Own Apple/Mac PC (8.2%) 167 141 103 90 51 Own a Fax Machine (8.7%) 184 143 77 81 67 Used America Online Last Mo (8.2%) 194 153 96 73 53 Used Compuserve Last Mo (1.1%) 165 150 96 68 50 Used Microsoft Online LstMo (1.9%) 151 122 88 111 64 Used Prodigy Last Mo (1.0%) 160 145 104 98 94 Online Product Info Last Mo (8.9%) 88 49 39 30 81 Online Product Purch Lst Mo(11.1%) 121 95 87 170 160 Online Chat Last Mo (8.0%) 115 106 101 110 82 Online Travel Plans Last Mo (6.2%) 72 115 161 143 42 Online Finances Last Mo (21.4%) 40 82 95 129 76 Use Online Svc 1+x a Week (8.1%) 194 153 101 77 51 Use Online Svc <4x a Mo (3.1%) 152 139 76 85 79 Have In-Home Crdless Phone (59.0%) 117 115 98 103 85 Own a Cellular Phone (22.6%) 156 143 97 95 66 Own Phone Answer Machine (48.5%) 128 124 100 105 76 Own Pagers/Beepers (13.6%) 149 118 125 70 81 Bght PreRec Tapes/Discs LY (39.7%) 126 118 98 98 83 Bght Rchrg Battery Lst 6 Mo (6.4%) 115 113 101 104 90 Own 3+ TV Sets (40.6%) 134 125 110 100 88 Own Color Port TV Set (66.2%) 101 109 101 107 100 Own Color Floor TV Set (39.2%) 113 104 101 101 100 Own Large Screen TV (38.3%) 124 118 102 99 82 Own Miniature TV (12.8%) 121 124 99 105 85


TG A TG B TG C TG D TG E Own TV Remote Control (72.9%) 104 108 100 104 97 Own Stereo TV (39.0%) 118 119 103 102 88 Bought Any TV Lst Yr (22.8%) 99 102 110 100 102 $300+ TV Set Last Year (35.8%) 115 111 100 100 87 QuickSrvcCopy/PrintLst6Mos (9.1%) 133 110 108 100 66

Media TG A TG B TG C TG D TG E Cable in Neighbrhd: Net Aud 107 105 106 94 104 Subscribe to Cable: Net Aud 110 113 98 100 97 Total TV Daytime: Net Aud 65 76 102 95 136 Newspaper Readership Read Daily Newspaper (53.9%) 119 116 96 99 90 Read Business/Finance Sec (30.5%) 142 130 93 95 76 Read Classified Section (36.6%) 86 102 96 110 119 Read Comics Section (33.0%) 103 107 99 103 92 Read Editorial Section (34.4%) 114 119 92 106 87 Read Fashion Section (17.7%) 126 114 109 90 84 Read Food/Cooking Section (28.2%) 118 117 98 97 91 Read General News Section (57.9%) 111 112 99 103 95 Read Home/Furn/Garden Sec (22.6%) 128 131 100 104 78 Read Movie Listngs&Reviews (29.2%) 127 115 104 95 83 Read Science/Tech Section (18.8%) 142 128 90 98 67 Read Sports Section (34.9%) 114 112 102 102 93 Read TV/Radio Listings (33.0%) 117 112 107 98 91 Magazine Types Airline Mags: Net Aud (4.4%) 198 154 71 63 60 Automotive Mags: Net Aud (11.1%) 91 94 107 103 112 Baby Mags: Net Aud (3.7%) 83 73 113 100 160 Boating Mags: Net Aud (2.2%) 138 115 80 106 76 Bridal Mags: Net Aud (3.6%) 92 67 101 103 139 Bus/Finance Mags: Net Aud (20.3%) 161 129 91 87 69 Computer Mags: Net Aud (9.2%) 153 124 91 89 72 Entertain/Perf Art Mag: Net (2.9%) 115 96 104 101 62 Epicurean Mags: Net Aud (5.2%) 166 138 77 80 80 Fish/Hunt Mags: Net Aud (13.6%) 58 86 81 124 118 Fitness Mags: Net Aud (4.4%) 97 96 97 96 86 Fraternal Mags: Net Aud (2.8%) 57 93 102 147 74 Gardening Mags: Net Aud (4.3%) 108 103 107 110 101 Gen Editorial Mags: Net Aud(52.7%) 107 102 99 100 94 Health Mags: Net Aud (9.9%) 118 108 96 103 93 Home Svcs Mags: Net Aud (32.9%) 115 116 91 102 96 Mature Market Mags: Net Aud (9.8%) 117 112 95 94 83 Mens Mags: Net Aud (16.5%) 107 93 108 84 91 Motorcycle Mags: Net Aud (3.1%) 78 86 140 111 102 Music Mags: Net Aud (10.2%) 74 88 112 91 117 News Weekly Mags: Net Aud (51.8%) 116 102 103 88 88 Newsppr-Distrib Mag: NetAud(62.2%) 123 115 109 99 86 Outdoor Rec Mags: Net Aud (1.2%) 135 141 83 105 72 Parenthood Mags: Net Aud (7.9%) 94 95 105 102 137 Photographic Mags: Net Aud (1.3%) 132 71 103 75 71


TG A TG B TG C TG D TG E Science/Tech Mags: Net Aud (6.5%) 118 121 99 88 84 Sports Mags: Net Aud (14.3%) 127 117 102 93 80 Travel Mags: Net Aud (7.0%) 173 139 87 78 53 Womens Mags: Net Aud (45.2%) 102 98 101 95 104 Womens Fashion Mags: NetAud (6.3%) 132 87 95 65 66 Media Sections Magazine Upper Half (50.0%) 116 105 99 89 88 Magazine Lower Half (50.0%) 84 95 101 111 112 Newspaper Upper Half (50.0%) 123 119 97 100 88 Newspaper Lower Half (50.0%) 77 81 103 100 112 Radio Upper Half (50.0%) 105 101 104 103 99 Radio Lower Half (50.0%) 95 99 96 97 101 TV(Total) Upper Half (50.1%) 84 85 101 99 116 TV(Total) Lower Half (49.9%) 116 115 99 102 84 TV(PrimeTime) Upper Half (50.0%) 91 91 101 99 108 TV(PrimeTime) Lower Half (50.0%) 109 109 99 101 92 Top 20% Magazines: Net Aud (20.0%) 121 101 102 86 96 Bottom 20% Mags: Net Aud (20.0%) 68 84 104 111 125 Top 20% Newspaper: Net Aud (20.0%) 141 124 87 94 78 Bottom 20% Newsppr: Net Aud(20.0%) 58 67 90 102 125 Top 20% Radio: Net Aud (20.0%) 88 98 115 111 107 Bottom 20% Radio: Net Aud (20.0%) 71 86 87 101 118 Top 20% Total TV: Net Aud (19.9%) 65 72 101 96 145 Bottom 20% Total TV: NetAud(19.9%) 118 118 91 106 84 Top 33% TV Daytime: Net Aud(33.0%) 74 79 91 96 128 Bottom 33% TV Day: Net Aud (33.3%) 126 113 108 95 89 Top 20% TV Prime Tm: NetAud(20.0%) 83 82 106 90 123 Bttm 20% TV Prime Tm:NetAud(20.0%) 105 112 101 100 89 Cable Channels A&E LstWk (35.8%) 107 101 101 101 94 Amer Movie Classics LstWk (22.6%) 101 100 94 95 102 BET LstWk (8.1%) 56 34 145 77 165 Bravo LstWk (3.2%) 129 87 118 57 55 Cartoon Network LstWk (10.4%) 69 78 103 92 171 Country Music TV LstWk (10.9%) 39 78 77 113 148 CNBC LstWk (16.7%) 115 114 93 89 96 CNN LstWk (56.1%) 103 102 91 102 94 Comedy Central LstWk (13.7%) 101 95 115 96 87 Court TV LstWk (4.9%) 78 67 114 88 123 Discovery Channel LstWk (53.4%) 92 95 97 100 99 E! LstWk (12.1%) 113 92 115 88 72 ESPN LstWk (43.4%) 95 94 98 102 102 ESPN2 LstWk (13.3%) 112 106 107 94 82 Family Channel LstWk (30.9%) 65 79 93 112 136 f/X LstWk (10.4%) 76 88 121 99 139 Food Network LstWk (5.1%) 113 109 95 70 108 Headline News LstWk (28.2%) 90 102 95 102 110 History Channel LstWk (12.2%) 115 106 94 99 86 Home & Garden TV LstWk (6.3%) 96 119 103 116 116


TG A TG B TG C TG D TG E Home Shopping Netwk LstWk (5.9%) 98 72 96 93 127 Learning Channel LstWk (17.3%) 98 100 97 103 100 Lifetime LstWk (31.6%) 87 88 97 107 107 MTV LstWk (18.2%) 87 79 119 89 103 Nick at Nite LstWk (16.2%) 84 81 97 106 132 Nickelodeon LstWk (15.8%) 83 83 108 103 133 Nostalgia TV LstWk (1.1%) 63 81 45 96 133 Preview Guide Channel LstWk(11.6%) 116 90 121 87 87 QVC LstWk (5.9%) 79 90 98 100 152 Sci-Fi Channel LstWk (9.8%) 85 71 109 100 91 TBS LstWk (40.1%) 75 84 99 110 123 TNN LstWk (22.7%) 51 80 83 129 141 TNT LstWk (36.7%) 79 86 98 106 117 Travel Channel LstWk (4.5%) 122 104 120 73 124 USA Network LstWk (39.6%) 79 85 100 111 113 VH1 LstWk (12.5%) 94 85 114 96 86 Weather Channel LstWk (45.7%) 89 103 92 110 113 WGN-TV LstWk (17.3%) 77 72 103 122 127 Cinemax LstWk (12.4%) 86 72 96 117 119 Disney Channel LstWk (11.5%) 96 85 97 100 110 HBO LstWk (27.6%) 97 84 103 100 100 Movie Channel LstWk (5.6%) 105 77 103 94 107 Showtime LstWk (11.1%) 105 77 107 88 120 Viewed Cable TV In PastWk (102.1%) 95 96 96 105 100 Heavy CB Viewer 15+Hrs/Wk (63.4%) 83 86 97 104 115 Have Pay Television (49.5%) 103 93 97 104 94 Any Pay-Per-View Lst Yr (16.2%) 111 95 115 90 90 Pay-Per-View Movies Lst Yr (12.3%) 110 99 109 93 89 Pay-Per-View Sports Lst Yr (6.9%) 109 84 132 75 94 Radio Dayparts Radio M-F 6am-10am: Net Aud(56.2%) 116 109 102 104 88 Radio M-F 10am-3pm: Net Aud(36.3%) 100 104 110 103 98 Radio M-F 3pm-7pm: Net Aud (43.7%) 122 114 109 100 85 Radio M-F 7pm-12am: Net Aud(15.3%) 98 92 108 110 101 Radio M-F 12am-6am: Net Aud (4.5%) 97 88 116 122 105 Radio S-S 6am-10am: Net Aud(28.3%) 96 97 103 97 109 Radio S-S 10am-3pm: Net Aud(38.8%) 110 100 109 96 100 Radio S-S 3pm-7pm: Net Aud (27.9%) 102 99 108 97 103 Radio S-S 7pm-12am: Net Aud(12.9%) 93 87 110 106 107 Radio S-S 12am-6am: Net Aud (3.1%) 107 77 118 104 147 Wkdy6-10AM:0.5-1.0Hrs Lstn (38.3%) 129 112 100 98 80 Wkdy6-10AM:1.5-2.0Hrs Lstn (10.5%) 98 109 95 114 103 Wkdy6-10AM:2.5-3.0Hrs Lstn (3.6%) 78 99 122 121 112 Wkdy6-10AM:3.5-4.0Hrs Lstn (3.8%) 80 91 114 115 108 Wkdy10AM-3PM:0.5-1Hrs Lstn (16.8%) 109 107 104 100 93 Wkdy10AM-3PM:1.5-2Hrs Lstn (7.0%) 95 98 104 102 89 Wkdy10AM-3PM:4.5+Hrs Lstn (7.7%) 97 101 126 103 108 Wkdy3PM-7PM:0.5-1Hrs Lstn (29.9%) 132 122 106 99 73 Wkdy3PM-7PM:1.5-2Hrs Lstn (8.1%) 111 106 103 101 107


TG A TG B TG C TG D TG E Wkdy3PM-7PM:3.5-4Hrs Lstn (3.0%) 77 77 132 109 120 Wkdy7PM-12AM:0.5-1Hrs Lstn (9.4%) 110 101 100 114 96 Wkdy7PM-12AM:1.5-2Hrs Lstn (3.0%) 85 83 116 113 92 Wknd6-10AM:0.5-1Hrs Lstn (21.3%) 103 100 102 97 104 Wknd6-10AM:1.5-2Hrs Lstn (5.3%) 75 91 99 94 114 Wknd10AM-3PM:0.5-1Hrs Lstn (25.1%) 119 102 108 97 95 Wknd10AM-3PM:1.5-2Hrs Lstn (6.8%) 102 105 102 89 100 Wknd10AM-3PM:2.5-3Hrs Lstn (4.2%) 88 89 107 101 100 Wknd3PM-7PM:0.5-1Hrs Lstn (20.2%) 109 102 104 99 91 Wknd3PM-7PM:1.5-2Hrs Lstn (5.5%) 86 97 116 95 121 Wknd7PM-12AM:0.5-1Hrs Lstn (9.1%) 101 92 104 108 103 Radio Formats and Networks Adult Contemporary: Net Aud(21.0%) 136 116 101 91 75 All News: Net Aud (5.2%) 215 114 85 29 23 All Sports: Net Aud (8.0%) 191 143 104 83 53 Black: Net Aud (2.0%) 82 58 124 37 132 Classical: Net Aud (2.1%) 245 142 109 48 20 Classic Rock: Net Aud (8.6%) 126 126 111 109 72 CHR/Rock: Net Aud (12.8%) 113 100 108 77 80 Country: Net Aud (19.1%) 68 99 91 128 116 Golden Oldies: Net Aud (13.7%) 149 119 113 88 79 Jazz: Net Aud (5.2%) 183 99 110 43 85 News/Talk: Net Aud (16.2%) 175 134 97 86 52 Nostalgia: Net Aud (2.6%) 156 126 113 91 76 Progressive Rock: Net Aud (9.5%) 127 129 123 97 79 Religious/Gospel: Net Aud (4.8%) 90 98 115 101 136 Soft Contemporary: Net Aud (2.5%) 190 98 74 81 41 Spanish: Net Aud (3.3%) 55 44 104 54 155 Urban Contemporary: Net Aud (7.3%) 70 50 145 93 139 Variety: Net Aud (2.0%) 110 86 73 96 136 NPR: Net Aud (3.7%) 167 145 91 96 59 WallStreetJournNtwk:NetAud (5.1%) 189 136 113 76 45 Radio Col/Pro Bsktbl:NetAud (6.5%) 115 107 102 95 84 Radio Mon/Wknd Ftbll:NetAud (7.5%) 121 107 118 102 82 Television Dayparts TV M-F 6am-7am: Net Aud (5.9%) 74 95 76 115 122 TV M-F 7am-9am: Net Aud (7.7%) 81 91 91 94 134 TV M-F 9am-1pm: Net Aud (9.3%) 55 62 106 95 143 TV M-F 1pm-4pm: Net Aud (11.1%) 57 69 101 92 161 TV M-F 4pm-5pm: Net Aud (11.3%) 65 68 107 89 142 TV M-F 5pm-6pm: Net Aud (17.4%) 80 84 105 90 130 TV M-F 6pm-6:30pm: Net Aud (27.3%) 85 90 101 102 124 TV M-F 6:30pm-7pm: Net Aud (28.6%) 86 90 100 103 123 TV M-F 7pm-7:30pm: Net Aud (34.1%) 84 87 98 99 114 TV M-F 7:30pm-8pm: Net Aud (34.6%) 83 84 101 97 114 TV M-F 8pm-11pm: Net Aud (54.0%) 94 93 102 99 106 TV M-F-11pm-11:30pm: NetAud(26.4%) 96 94 109 95 107 TV M-F 11:30pm-12:30am:NetA(11.3%) 90 91 115 94 114 TV M-F 12:30am-1am: Net Aud (4.8%) 75 76 113 92 115


TG A TG B TG C TG D TG E TV M-F 1am-2am: Net Aud (1.9%) 62 64 123 89 147 TV Sat 7am-10am: Net Aud (3.5%) 58 90 91 96 128 TV Sat 10am-1pm: Net Aud (6.5%) 75 62 127 89 125 TV Sat 1pm-4:30pm: Net Aud (10.8%) 90 85 107 98 118 TV Sat 4:30pm-6pm: Net Aud (13.0%) 77 85 95 101 125 TV Sat 6pm-7:30pm: Net Aud (18.1%) 77 81 103 102 122 TV Sat 7:30pm-8pm: Net Aud (20.9%) 80 81 93 106 118 TV Sat 8pm-11pm: Net Aud (36.9%) 85 88 98 104 108 TV Sat 11pm-11:30pm: NetAud(15.5%) 94 93 106 87 107 TV Sat 11:30pm-1am: Net Aud (5.8%) 92 78 104 78 123 TV Sunday 7am-10am: Net Aud (3.2%) 75 101 97 112 95 TV Sun 10am-1pm: Net Aud (6.6%) 83 67 114 85 122 TV Sun 1pm-4:30pm: Net Aud (15.2%) 92 84 115 101 108 TV Sun 4:30pm-6pm: Net Aud (16.5%) 86 82 109 90 118 TV Sunday 6pm-7pm: Net Aud (21.6%) 86 88 104 98 105 TV Sun 7pm-11pm: Net Aud (40.3%) 97 95 100 100 105 TV Sun 11pm-11:30pm: NetAud(14.3%) 98 96 91 94 101 TV Sun 11:30-1am: Net Aud (3.3%) 89 91 99 98 119 Television Sports Events TV Auto Racing: Net Aud (11.9%) 85 115 98 113 96 TV Baseball: Net Aud (22.2%) 112 117 102 104 82 TV Col Basketball: NetAud (17.2%) 105 106 107 102 86 TV Prof Basketball: NetAud (21.8%) 110 99 113 89 96 TV Bowling: Net Aud (4.6%) 96 94 131 111 109 TV Boxing: Net Aud (9.5%) 89 86 123 82 114 TV Figure Skating: Net Aud (13.9%) 103 119 112 99 81 TV College Football: NetAud(21.9%) 107 113 104 99 90 TV Mon Night Ftball:NetAud (30.2%) 105 107 111 100 94 TV Wknd Pro Football:NetAud(32.3%) 109 109 112 106 88 TV Golf: Net Aud (12.4%) 135 131 107 96 78 TV Horse Racing: Net Aud (3.2%) 106 117 120 98 95 TV Tennis: Net Aud (5.3%) 146 103 113 81 83 TV Prof Wrestling: Net Aud (6.8%) 62 68 120 94 170 Television Summary Categories Cat:Awards (6.6%) 94 96 115 91 106 Cat:BsktballSpecialCollege (9.1%) 122 107 108 106 86 Cat:Doc/Info ShwsPrimetime (11.4%) 102 108 115 108 92 Cat:Early Morning News (6.3%) 83 95 99 94 116 Cat:EarlyMorn Talk/InfoNws (7.2%) 102 103 96 102 107 Cat:EarlyEve Netwk Nws:M-F (12.7%) 90 100 93 94 122 Cat:EarlyEve NetwkNws:Wknd (5.8%) 78 94 102 109 116 Cat:Entertainment Specials (7.9%) 99 116 104 106 99 Cat:FeatureFilms Primetime (6.7%) 76 83 120 108 130 Cat:FtballBowlGamesSpecial (7.5%) 111 112 95 95 98 Cat:FootballSpecials- Prof (15.8%) 108 112 114 102 99 Cat:Gen Drama - Primetime (8.0%) 92 85 119 94 122 Cat:News-Specials (5.9%) 126 123 114 102 91 Cat:Pageants-Specials (8.4%) 89 85 104 102 132 Cat:Police Docudrama (8.6%) 71 78 114 120 148


TG A TG B TG C TG D TG E Cat:SuspMysPolice-Primetime (6.7%) 123 97 105 103 91 Cat:SituatComedy-Primetime (7.1%) 102 93 108 106 116 Cat:Tennis (3.7%) 151 126 111 86 76

Magazines & Newspapers TG A TG B TG C TG D TG E Allure (1.3%) 143 98 123 56 95 American Baby (2.8%) 81 81 105 102 139 American Health for Women (2.0%) 117 96 119 84 93 Architectural Digest (2.5%) 197 148 80 65 29 Audubon (0.9%) 147 131 85 114 73 Baby Talk (1.9%) 87 58 104 96 215 Bassmaster (2.0%) 60 92 88 140 101 Better Homes & Gardens (18.0%) 112 117 97 98 105 Bicycling (0.9%) 144 119 77 81 95 Boating (1.1%) 137 113 90 125 76 Bon Appetit (2.6%) 179 155 68 78 49 Bride's (2.4%) 88 73 93 103 126 Business Week (2.6%) 178 127 78 55 82 Byte (0.7%) 190 138 59 35 91 The Cable Guide (5.6%) 99 83 113 93 117 Car & Driver (3.6%) 135 120 98 84 74 Car Craft (1.5%) 70 114 125 103 79 Chicago Tribune Magazine (1.3%) 293 101 120 35 7 Colonial Homes (1.2%) 122 141 93 103 109 Conde Nast Traveler (1.3%) 216 136 78 73 39 Consumer Reports (9.3%) 159 139 91 94 60 Consumers Digest (3.6%) 123 119 99 96 79 Cooking Light (2.9%) 164 139 100 71 91 Cosmopolitan (8.0%) 103 96 123 77 85 Country Home (4.3%) 74 117 81 130 104 Country Living (5.7%) 95 127 68 146 107 Delta's SKY (1.2%) 187 163 46 54 101 Discover (2.9%) 122 99 94 85 91 Eating Well (1.4%) 152 123 86 78 106 Ebony (6.2%) 52 32 138 82 192 Elle (2.1%) 126 98 96 54 38 Entertainment Weekly (4.3%) 102 82 138 72 77 Entrepreneur (1.4%) 142 114 119 68 93 Esquire (1.6%) 140 79 88 68 90 Essence (3.7%) 68 33 153 50 144 Family Circle (11.8%) 97 112 94 113 103 Family Handyman (2.0%) 109 115 99 138 72 Field & Stream (6.2%) 53 83 70 132 121 First For Women (1.9%) 95 110 95 147 60 Flower and Garden (2.7%) 110 101 106 116 115 Food & Wine (2.1%) 176 138 77 79 88 Forbes (2.3%) 213 128 64 95 48 Fortune (2.1%) 229 122 72 76 50 4 Wheel & Off Road (1.4%) 80 88 108 107 112 Glamour (6.3%) 113 103 110 81 82


TG A TG B TG C TG D TG E Golf Digest (3.3%) 171 153 102 99 63 Golf Magazine (2.5%) 161 141 103 113 48 Good Housekeeping (13.1%) 105 111 93 110 97 Gourmet (2.3%) 181 144 69 56 69 GQ (3.4%) 105 77 125 51 80 Guns & Ammo (2.9%) 70 95 98 112 108 Handguns (1.8%) 66 78 104 83 115 Harper's Bazaar (1.6%) 117 89 91 70 106 Health (3.1%) 127 96 86 104 92 Home (2.3%) 117 115 106 95 100 Hot Rod (3.5%) 54 78 118 107 149 House Beautiful (3.6%) 139 121 84 87 85 Hunting (1.3%) 46 75 93 123 127 Inc (1.3%) 198 151 61 76 40 Inside Sports (2.9%) 87 76 116 93 121 Jet (4.7%) 51 27 134 61 176 Kiplingers Personal Finance (1.9%) 191 146 66 83 43 Ladies' Home Journal (8.1%) 102 110 93 101 103 Life (8.1%) 106 89 95 108 101 Mademoiselle (2.9%) 109 90 120 77 104 Martha Stewart Living (4.3%) 138 144 88 100 82 McCall's (7.9%) 94 99 103 101 113 Men's Health (3.1%) 139 90 100 89 77 Metropolitan Home (1.1%) 162 119 98 76 106 Modern Bride (2.0%) 108 71 89 108 150 Modern Maturity (9.4%) 116 114 94 95 86 Money (4.6%) 182 141 78 81 45 Motor Trend (3.0%) 110 100 90 111 93 Muscle & Fitness (3.5%) 91 83 100 82 82 National Enquirer (7.7%) 68 66 119 90 133 National Geographic (15.9%) 127 118 93 103 75 National Geographic Travel (2.1%) 161 123 116 99 43 New Woman (2.1%) 99 80 76 101 105 New York Magazine (0.6%) 172 92 24 26 11 The New Yorker (1.6%) 174 97 76 59 45 Newsweek (10.8%) 149 128 87 70 67 North American Hunter (1.7%) 44 95 70 141 129 Organic Gardening (2.1%) 99 114 110 108 79 Outdoor Life (3.0%) 62 83 66 148 100 Parade (42.3%) 134 111 110 89 91 Parenting (3.8%) 101 78 107 98 141 Parents Magazine (6.7%) 107 87 111 110 124 PC Computing (2.4%) 150 124 87 79 86 PC Magazine (3.4%) 173 134 90 78 56 PC World (3.0%) 167 126 90 87 49 Penthouse (1.9%) 77 77 129 55 107 People (19.0%) 128 115 105 87 79 Playboy (5.0%) 87 79 131 83 89 Popular Hot Rodding (1.8%) 56 90 155 119 144


TG A TG B TG C TG D TG E Popular Mechanics (4.9%) 86 113 93 112 108 Popular Photography (0.9%) 151 84 92 74 87 Popular Science (3.2%) 93 125 110 91 93 Prevention (5.5%) 111 118 95 119 93 Reader's Digest (26.4%) 97 106 96 113 95 Redbook (6.1%) 101 108 107 116 94 Road & Track (2.8%) 108 119 87 109 59 Rolling Stone (4.5%) 99 105 111 81 101 Runner's World (1.1%) 145 135 85 99 54 Saturday Evening Post (1.8%) 98 117 56 146 100 Scientific American (1.4%) 185 153 68 68 25 Self (2.3%) 142 132 99 75 97 Sesame Street Parents (2.7%) 87 81 114 97 163 Seventeen (3.7%) 85 83 117 107 118 Shape (1.9%) 148 114 82 78 108 Ski (0.9%) 149 140 82 75 31 Skiing (0.9%) 161 120 79 91 53 Smart Money (1.5%) 215 125 53 78 43 Smithsonian (4.1%) 157 134 96 89 55 Soap Opera Digest (4.0%) 72 72 125 91 137 Soap Opera Weekly (2.8%) 56 57 111 94 156 Southern Living (6.4%) 96 124 73 105 115 Spin (1.4%) 97 80 104 60 58 Sport (2.3%) 89 82 131 77 108 Sporting News (1.6%) 90 86 91 111 118 Sports Afield (1.5%) 57 82 92 142 117 Sports Illustrated (12.7%) 106 97 112 83 101 Star (4.1%) 78 74 106 87 156 Stereo Review (1.2%) 98 97 105 73 99 Sunset (2.3%) 179 123 58 50 41 Tennis (0.7%) 207 167 66 83 32 Time (12.2%) 138 116 96 83 73 Town & Country (1.4%) 131 110 102 88 70 Traditional Home (1.4%) 160 126 77 93 93 Travel & Leisure (2.2%) 183 149 89 79 36 True Story (1.9%) 32 41 92 102 184 TV Guide (19.9%) 92 90 100 100 107 Us (2.2%) 113 93 105 105 65 US News & World Report (5.9%) 138 124 91 100 88 USA Weekend (21.5%) 101 125 97 132 86 Vanity Fair (2.2%) 168 104 95 54 61 Vogue (4.5%) 138 91 95 61 73 Weight Watchers (2.5%) 96 87 99 114 154 Woman's Day (10.9%) 96 111 103 116 102 Woman's World (3.9%) 84 95 97 103 109 Working Mother (1.4%) 123 87 97 98 148 Working Woman (1.7%) 143 79 119 59 116 Yankee (1.1%) 123 190 53 177 43 New York Times Daily (1.5%) 252 96 55 32 22


TG A TG B TG C TG D TG E USA Today Daily (2.5%) 147 140 99 97 57 Wall Street Journal Daily (2.0%) 270 139 61 48 26

Sports & Leisure TG A TG B TG C TG D TG E Leisure Camped Overnight Last Year (17.5%) 100 102 99 108 90 4+ Overnight Camp Trips (5.1%) 83 103 109 104 83 Sew from Patterns Lst 6 Mos (4.1%) 108 118 93 105 85 Needlepoint Last 6 Months (1.4%) 100 92 98 95 104 Montblanc/Waterman Last Yr (0.8%) 172 127 64 121 61 Visit Barber Shop Lst6Mos (27.4%) 115 111 95 102 96 Barber Shop:$40+In Lst6Mos (14.5%) 136 119 94 97 91 Visit BeautyParlor Lst6Mos (34.3%) 117 114 97 107 87 BeautyParlor:$100+ Lst6Mos (12.7%) 157 131 98 99 74 QuickSrvcCopy/PrintLst6Mos (9.1%) 133 110 108 100 66 Use Dry Cleaning Lst6Mos (23.7%) 156 130 97 86 64 Dry Cleaning:$100+ Lst6Mos (6.3%) 210 145 69 69 44 Shop At FlowerShop Lst6Mos (14.9%) 128 124 86 106 73 Flowers By Wire Lst6Mos (6.2%) 151 144 83 118 61 Rent Any Videotape (41.1%) 115 114 103 103 83 Rent Videotapes 1-3x a Mo (14.8%) 114 124 98 102 81 Rent Videotapes 4-5x a Mo (8.5%) 133 112 119 96 81 Rent Videotapes 6+x a Mo (17.9%) 107 106 100 107 86 Rntd/Bght Exercise Vids LM (1.4%) 102 102 98 89 61 Rntd/Bght Fam/Kid Videos LM(14.5%) 109 117 102 113 86 Rntd/Bght Foreign Videos LM (1.5%) 143 86 83 110 42 Rntd/Bght How-To Videos LM (0.6%) 137 86 169 131 54 Rntd/Bght Musicl Videos LM (2.1%) 133 113 106 75 46 Blckbuster To Rnt/BuyVideos(14.9%) 143 121 121 92 66 Wherehouse To Rnt/BuyVideos (1.5%) 178 98 98 76 53 OthVideoSt To Rnt/BuyVideos(19.2%) 102 113 94 117 91 Conv St To Rnt/Buy Videos (2.0%) 62 72 61 154 105 Grocry St To Rnt/Buy Videos (5.8%) 98 112 112 131 83 Buy Books on Tape (1.7%) 170 133 106 74 68 Buy Classical Music (6.9%) 158 136 88 89 39 Buy Christian/Faith Music (4.4%) 117 112 104 117 94 Buy Country Music (12.2%) 95 124 94 115 97 Buy Easy Listening Music (7.6%) 139 137 93 99 61 Buy Dance Music (5.3%) 119 107 128 70 92 Buy Gospel Music (2.7%) 81 87 118 73 139 Buy Jazz Music (4.9%) 139 120 94 72 66 Buy New Age Music (3.5%) 139 128 105 120 68 Buy New Wave Music (1.3%) 129 108 107 109 75 Buy Hard Rock Music (5.8%) 122 117 111 101 73 Buy Rap Music (4.4%) 91 81 135 88 126 Buy Soft Rock Music (6.7%) 133 128 103 94 79 Bght 1960s Nostalgia (2.2%) 156 115 72 104 88 Bght 1950s Nostalgia (1.5%) 131 112 86 128 55 Bght 1940s Nostalgia (0.8%) 133 120 81 98 55 Take Adult Ed Courses (7.8%) 141 122 103 104 60


TG A TG B TG C TG D TG E Attend Music/Dance Perf (23.1%) 134 126 96 96 65 Barbecuing Last Year (31.7%) 122 116 105 102 81 Bars/Night Clubs Last Year (19.5%) 106 101 111 99 88 Go To The Beach Last Year (23.4%) 142 134 91 97 63 Billiards/Pool Last Year (11.1%) 110 102 107 95 90 Chess Last Year (4.0%) 121 101 87 99 83 Go Dancing Last Year (12.5%) 108 101 105 88 89 Go Dancing 1+x/Month (6.1%) 100 93 104 82 89 Dined Out Last Year (47.8%) 121 122 93 108 79 Dine Out 1+ x a Week (20.7%) 131 123 95 102 76 Dine Out 1-3 x a Month (16.2%) 117 126 91 116 69 Dine Out <1 x a Month (4.2%) 115 121 111 103 93 EntertainingAtHome Lst Yr (42.4%) 125 122 97 101 74 Furniture Refinishing LstYr (4.7%) 110 122 88 117 92 Go to Live Theater Lst Yr (14.1%) 157 138 92 89 69 Arts & Crafts Last Year (12.1%) 109 116 89 112 86 Visited Museum Last Year (14.1%) 162 138 94 81 53 Painting/Drawing Last Year (6.3%) 107 107 96 100 90 Photography Last Year (10.8%) 130 130 85 104 73 Play Bingo Last Year (5.9%) 87 89 125 94 115 Play Cards Last Year (27.6%) 108 104 103 102 88 Play Musical Instrument (7.2%) 126 117 81 113 61 Book Reading Last Year (39.2%) 121 118 92 101 76 Trivia Games Last Year (6.6%) 133 123 101 91 79 Woodworking Last Year (5.6%) 107 126 88 124 72 Zoo Attendance Last Year (13.4%) 130 124 110 95 75 Collecting Coins LstYr (7.7%) 107 88 102 121 86 Collect Stamps (3.4%) 125 103 84 108 80 Indoor Gardening & Plants (15.8%) 113 116 96 104 86 Own Tropical Fish (5.7%) 98 107 91 115 98 Belong to a Country Club (2.4%) 189 138 38 85 46 Do Aerobics (10.1%) 140 124 114 87 82 Go Backpacking/Hiking (7.9%) 131 120 85 105 63 Play Baseball Last Year (5.3%) 107 114 110 88 93 Play Basketball Last Year (9.8%) 101 96 109 90 97 Go Mtn Bicycling Last Year (3.8%) 133 123 101 102 58 Go Road Bicycling Last Year (9.8%) 126 133 93 98 62 Go Power Boating (6.7%) 116 141 84 112 87 Go Bowling (11.5%) 118 108 112 103 87 Go Cross Country Skiing (1.4%) 126 168 67 125 49 Go Downhill Skiing (3.8%) 152 153 83 86 52 Go Fresh Water Fishing (14.8%) 88 100 84 116 113 Go Salt Water Fishing (4.4%) 121 138 87 99 88 Go Golfing (10.8%) 149 143 97 104 62 Go Hunting with Gun (5.9%) 57 90 67 131 110 Go Jogging/Running (9.5%) 145 116 104 93 60 Play Racquetball (1.9%) 149 113 92 79 54 Go In-Line Skating (3.8%) 139 113 118 83 53 Go Roller Skating (2.3%) 111 100 133 102 78


TG A TG B TG C TG D TG E Go Sailing (1.4%) 172 139 72 62 87 Go Scuba/Skin Dive/Snorkel (2.8%) 158 151 90 87 60 Play Softball (6.0%) 114 107 112 92 70 Go Swimming (18.5%) 127 122 101 104 67 Play Tennis (5.0%) 176 112 86 80 55 Play Volleyball (5.2%) 103 103 104 92 98 Go Walking for Exercise (32.2%) 125 119 96 100 79 Do Weight Lifting (8.7%) 131 113 92 88 80 Exercise at Home 2x a Week (31.3%) 114 109 102 97 92 Exercise at Club 2x a Week (8.4%) 166 124 98 74 59 Exercise 2+/Wk LstYr:Other (6.7%) 124 116 100 83 73 Buy Greeting Cards Lst6Mos (70.9%) 109 107 102 101 91 Play Lottery Last Year (44.0%) 109 107 109 97 90 Play Lottery 1-5x Last Mo (19.5%) 109 110 101 99 86 Play Lottery 6-9x Last Mo (5.2%) 106 95 102 92 99 Play Lottery 10+x Last Mo (11.1%) 103 102 127 101 112 Go to Gambling Casinos (20.9%) 122 114 114 87 63 Go to Auto Races (5.8%) 99 114 105 113 82 Go to Baseball Games (13.7%) 140 125 109 89 65 Go to Col Basketball Games (5.3%) 112 119 102 85 97 Go to Pro Basketball Games (5.7%) 149 104 117 69 76 Go to Boxing Matches (1.8%) 108 87 105 65 119 Go to College Ftbll Games (6.9%) 117 120 95 75 102 Go to Pro Football Games (2.6%) 124 101 96 86 79 Go to Ice Hockey Games (5.1%) 160 124 121 93 55 Outdoor Gardening Last Year(30.9%) 124 123 97 113 75 Bght Fashion Dolls LY (6.9%) 102 103 111 107 112 Bght Educational Toys LY (12.4%) 126 117 106 97 94 Bght Mech/Const Toys LY (7.9%) 108 111 116 116 103 Bght Board Games LY (11.8%) 115 110 95 106 102 Bght Infant Toys LY (8.1%) 117 113 105 92 105 Bght Pre-Schl Toys LY (8.6%) 116 110 111 103 103 Bght Bikes/Trikes LY (8.3%) 98 97 110 94 125 Heavy Buyer Books LY (21.3%) 128 116 90 96 83 Bght Hardcover Book LY (25.0%) 131 122 102 93 81 Bght Computer Books LY (10.6%) 170 147 92 90 48 Bght Cookbooks LY (10.6%) 125 124 87 102 87 Bought Mystery LY (11.9%) 133 122 99 92 81 Bought Novel LY (17.2%) 141 124 90 88 78 Bought Sci Fiction LY (4.9%) 106 110 88 101 96 Bght Children's Books LY (13.4%) 119 109 101 92 94 Bought Romance LY (8.1%) 107 105 87 89 103 Bght Pers/BusSelf-HelpBooks (8.0%) 136 121 96 88 77 Book thru Book Club Lst Yr (7.2%) 121 116 104 107 79 Went to the Movie Lst 3 Mos(47.2%) 121 112 106 92 85 Attend Movies <1x/Mo L3M (26.6%) 114 116 104 103 89 Attend Movies 1x/Mo L3M (10.2%) 129 109 109 87 74 Attend Movies 2-3x/Mo L3M (7.4%) 135 108 108 73 82 Attend Movies 4+x/Mo L3M (3.0%) 123 99 116 56 90


TG A TG B TG C TG D TG E Pet Ownership (41.2%) 112 121 98 110 90 Own a Dog (28.8%) 108 117 102 112 92 Own a Cat (20.5%) 109 123 87 117 78 Own a Bird (3.7%) 102 118 102 97 105 PurchaseFlea/TickProdLstYr (26.0%) 101 113 96 107 97 Purchase Dog Food Lst6Mos (32.2%) 103 114 104 110 96 Purchase Cat Food Lst6Mos (23.6%) 104 119 89 115 86 Restaurants Fast Food Rest Lst6Mos (88.4%) 100 102 101 102 100 Fast Food Rest Last Mo (80.8%) 100 102 103 103 102 Fast Food Burger Lst6Mos (77.7%) 99 104 104 105 102 Eat at Arby's Lst6Mos (18.3%) 93 108 116 116 101 Eat at Burger Chef Lst6Mos (1.1%) 101 98 103 149 125 Eat at Burger King Lst6Mos (47.1%) 99 107 104 105 98 Eat at Chick-Fil-A Lst6Mo (6.3%) 102 112 123 115 114 Eat at Fuddrucker's Lst6Mos (3.3%) 159 144 133 61 56 Eat at Hardee's Lst6Mos (15.6%) 56 88 89 127 149 Eat at JackintheBox Lst6Mos (6.5%) 120 85 132 68 84 Eat at KFC Lst6Mos (27.9%) 87 94 105 100 115 Eat at McDonald's Lst6Mos (56.5%) 102 107 101 106 95 Eat at Roy Roger's Lst6Mos (1.8%) 177 107 101 73 24 Eat at Subway Lst6Mo (17.6%) 105 111 96 107 101 Eat at Wendy's Lst6Mos (29.7%) 99 114 110 108 104 Eat at Whataburger Lst6Mos (2.6%) 61 85 156 84 197 Eat at White Castle Lst6Mos (4.2%) 125 102 158 83 72 Fast Food Fish Lst6Mos (57.2%) 106 108 107 105 94 Eat at LngJohnSilverLst6Mos (6.8%) 62 104 103 122 152 Eat at Red Lobster Lst6Mos (15.5%) 110 105 121 103 90 Panck/Dnut/IceCrm Lst6Mos (62.5%) 106 109 105 103 92 Eat at Dairy Queen Lst6Mos (17.5%) 85 105 104 114 119 Eat at DunkinDonuts Lst6Mos (9.0%) 145 148 106 83 50 Eat at IHOP Lst6Mos (7.6%) 146 102 107 62 79 Fast Food Mexican Lst6Mos (37.8%) 96 97 110 99 107 Eat at Del Taco Lst6Mos (2.5%) 156 81 102 40 85 Eat at Taco Bell Lst6Mos (35.4%) 96 98 112 100 108 Fast Food Pizza Lst6Mos (43.5%) 92 98 104 101 113 Eat at CA PizzaKitchLst6Mos (1.2%) 273 116 59 32 18 Eat at DominosPizza Lst6Mos(12.3%) 103 108 110 91 119 Eat at LtleCaesars Lst6Mos (8.1%) 95 104 120 117 102 Eat at GdfthrsPizza Lst6Mos (2.4%) 88 90 121 107 152 Eat at Pizza Hut Lst6Mos (29.2%) 93 97 104 106 108 Eat at Pizza Inn Lst6Mos (1.9%) 78 59 81 109 124 Eat at RndTablePizzaLst6Mos (2.2%) 161 83 55 54 47 Eat at Sonic Lst6Mos (6.5%) 44 78 83 96 171 Family/Steak House Last Mos(59.4%) 109 110 107 104 92 Eat at Applebees Lst6Mos (15.7%) 120 126 127 114 75 Eat at Bennigans Lst6Mos (3.6%) 160 117 112 74 68 Eat at Bob's BigBoy Lst6Mos (0.7%) 129 109 152 94 46 Eat at BobEvansFarm Lst6Mos (4.1%) 119 150 131 159 79


TG A TG B TG C TG D TG E Eat at CrackrBarrel Lst6Mos (7.7%) 97 147 109 119 102 Eat at Denny's Lst6Mos (13.5%) 114 106 125 88 72 Eat at Friendly's Lst6Mos (4.1%) 162 187 111 112 27 Eat at GoldenCorral Lst6Mos (6.6%) 58 89 113 127 180 Eat at HowrdJohnson Lst6Mos (0.8%) 122 119 91 81 74 Eat at Olive Garden Lst6Mos(12.8%) 131 130 114 98 67 Eat at OutbckStkhse Lst6Mos (8.7%) 134 123 106 97 72 Eat at Po Folks Lst6Mos (1.1%) 47 72 95 101 142 Eat at Ponderosa Lst6Mos (4.4%) 50 84 118 148 125 Eat at Steak n Ale Lst6Mos (1.9%) 141 113 122 78 86 Eat at T.G.I.Fridys Lst6Mos (8.4%) 169 142 132 83 67 Sporting Goods Buy Any LowTcktSprtEquip LY(15.2%) 114 113 93 103 88 Buy AnyHighTcktSprtEquip LY(10.8%) 116 115 102 101 97 Own Outboard Motor (5.1%) 90 123 69 131 80 Own Power Boat (3.1%) 122 132 74 120 66 Own Hand Gun (9.3%) 93 116 91 111 77 Own Rifle/Shotgun (13.2%) 78 114 83 122 94 Own Wght Lifting Equip (11.2%) 128 121 108 98 70 Bght Sleeping Bag Last Yr (2.5%) 106 131 119 129 98 Bght Tent Last Yr (2.3%) 85 103 112 115 107 Bght Camp Stove Last Yr (0.9%) 97 74 93 110 114 Bght FishingEquipment LstYr (4.9%) 75 88 72 127 128 Bght Tennis Equip LstYr (2.2%) 167 140 86 75 71 Own Stationary Bike LstYr (10.1%) 135 139 103 102 68 Bght In-Line Skates LstYr (1.2%) 116 99 134 114 81 Bght Treadmill LstYr (1.3%) 154 152 81 82 91 Own Stair Stepper (3.8%) 155 132 123 84 46 Bght Golf Clubs LstYr (1.1%) 140 146 73 102 77 Non-Profit Belong to a Fraternal Order (5.2%) 107 121 85 122 73 Belong to a Religious Club (7.9%) 111 105 101 98 95 Belong to a Civic Club (3.5%) 137 118 82 86 68 Belong to a Veterans Club (3.4%) 77 107 107 127 82 Conservative Outlook (30.1%) 113 112 90 109 90 Liberal Outlook (14.4%) 115 104 107 86 87 Voted in Election Last Yr (46.4%) 122 121 94 100 80 WrteToMag/NwspprEdt PstYr (4.3%) 122 120 73 96 61 Contact Editr/Gvt Official (9.8%) 125 125 81 100 61 Wrt/PhoneRadio/TVSta PstYr (6.5%) 122 113 126 93 81 Wrote ElectedOfficialPstYr (5.6%) 142 133 85 100 50 Takn Prt In LocalCivicIssue (5.1%) 136 122 84 99 67 Engaged In Fundraising (9.9%) 129 127 93 104 69 Wrked For Pltcal Party/Cand (2.2%) 135 130 96 105 54 Non Political Volunteer (15.4%) 132 130 85 105 69 Partcp In EnvronGroup/Cause (2.9%) 149 124 80 94 49 Recycled Products Lst Yr (34.4%) 130 125 97 101 71 Contrib Pub Brdcstng LstYr (9.3%) 146 132 96 80 60 Contrib Less $50 PBS/LstYr (6.1%) 133 128 97 82 61


TG A TG B TG C TG D TG E Ctrb $50+ Pub Brdctg LstYr (3.0%) 173 139 92 77 63

Travel TG A TG B TG C TG D TG E Stay at Motel 6 on Vacation (2.3%) 64 89 107 105 108 PersonalDomesticTrip LstYr (14.4%) 109 117 96 95 98 Dom Trav By Motor Home LY (1.2%) 98 108 98 84 95 Took a Domestic Trip by Bus (2.1%) 98 81 106 91 91 Stay Best Western on Vacatn (5.4%) 111 116 102 107 89 Any Six Flags Park LY (7.1%) 129 100 103 65 89 Frgn Trav By Car L3Y (3.2%) 122 109 97 112 87 Stay Days Inn on Vacatn (3.9%) 116 121 81 121 86 Trav To Greece L3Y (0.6%) 154 98 98 63 86 Visited North Central (15.0%) 120 120 107 120 83 Visited South (28.5%) 125 132 97 104 83 Stay Red Roof Inn on Vactn (0.7%) 116 168 102 91 83 Frgn Trav By Bus L3Y (1.4%) 123 125 96 69 80 Visit Theme Park Last Year (26.1%) 126 117 109 88 79 Trav To Mexico L3Y (4.5%) 154 118 102 68 78 Trav To Alaska L3Y (1.1%) 134 131 61 64 78 Any Domestic Trips LstYr (54.2%) 126 121 97 100 77 Stay at Marriot on Vacation (2.3%) 180 149 76 102 76 Reno To Gamble LY (1.8%) 114 105 87 90 75 Rnd Trip Mi/Home Vacatn500+(39.7%) 134 125 96 102 74 Cruised On Princess L3Y (0.8%) 174 144 78 44 74 Rnd Trip Mi/Home Vacatn<500(21.1%) 117 131 99 99 73 Visit Sea World Last Year (4.2%) 133 119 102 75 71 Trav To Bahamas L3Y (1.8%) 146 149 108 85 70 Visited NY/PA/NJ (8.2%) 142 141 96 92 69 Domestic Vac Trip Lst Yr (37.9%) 132 126 98 102 68 Rntd Car Personal Use LstYr(12.4%) 171 141 105 78 66 Rntd Car for Business LstYr (7.0%) 176 143 102 70 65 4+ Domestic Trips Lst Yr (11.5%) 145 145 85 91 64 Own Vacation/Weekend Home (2.9%) 177 146 82 97 63 Trav To Jamaica L3Y (1.3%) 123 141 128 88 60 Stay at Hilton on Vacation (1.5%) 175 147 77 65 60 Visited UT/CO (4.2%) 136 124 93 90 58 Trav To Germany L3Y (1.5%) 156 134 69 65 58 Visited FL (10.3%) 154 142 90 107 57 Walt Disney World FL Lst Yr (4.8%) 152 144 107 95 57 Visited DE/MD/DC (3.5%) 143 169 93 91 57 Dom Trav By Rented Car LY (5.6%) 152 145 102 87 57 Any Busch Gardens Park LY (2.1%) 137 123 154 83 56 Visited West (18.7%) 143 112 96 81 56 Visited AZ/NM/NE (7.5%) 143 114 106 87 55 Any Foreign Travel L3Y (20.1%) 155 131 90 81 55 Visited North East (11.7%) 144 157 89 93 54 Trav To Canada L3Y (3.6%) 137 135 88 100 52 Any Disney Park LY (8.3%) 156 124 99 76 51 Used Travel Agent US Trip (14.9%) 152 138 91 91 50 Trip On All Inclusive Pkg (6.9%) 164 146 95 79 50


TG A TG B TG C TG D TG E Trav To Australia/NZ L3Y (0.4%) 181 215 19 80 48 Cruise Ship Vacation L3Y (5.8%) 166 142 94 86 47 Vacat Forgn Trip L3Y (14.4%) 162 138 90 83 47 Visited MA/CT/RI (2.8%) 164 176 69 80 47 Domstc Business Trip LstYr (9.0%) 151 152 86 97 46 Dom Travl By Plane LY (23.4%) 168 138 93 80 46 Forgn Trav:15+Night L3Y (4.8%) 159 126 80 76 46 Cruised On RylCaribbean L3Y (1.2%) 199 144 114 79 45 Las Vegas To Gamble LY (5.8%) 153 113 130 68 45 Trav To Italy L3Y (1.4%) 169 159 96 42 45 Have a Passport (18.9%) 171 131 87 71 44 3+ Personal Trips - Plane (3.3%) 198 147 85 72 43 Western Europe L3Y (5.7%) 175 142 95 64 43 Play Golf on Vacation (2.8%) 171 144 105 94 42 Cruised On Carnival L3Y (1.8%) 158 119 116 92 42 Visit Disneyland Lst Yr (3.6%) 163 97 94 48 42 Any Universal Studios LY (3.4%) 130 112 108 85 41 Member Freq Flyer Program (13.9%) 200 154 79 77 41 Visited ME/NH/VT (3.5%) 129 189 65 109 40 Caribbean Last L3Y (5.7%) 157 163 94 89 40 Own Timeshare Residence (1.8%) 211 168 84 81 40 3+ Foreign Trips L3Y (4.7%) 173 142 87 81 39 Trav To Ireland/UK L3Y (2.6%) 198 156 82 69 39 Visited CA (8.4%) 166 115 88 67 39 Took 1st Class Foreign Trip (1.5%) 148 121 91 84 38 Use Trvl Agnt/Foreign Trip (12.6%) 173 144 88 81 38 Took a Sched Flight/Foreign(14.2%) 167 144 88 76 38 Atlantic City To Gamble LY (3.7%) 141 130 97 68 38 Cruised On Norwegian L3Y (0.7%) 146 124 69 77 36 Membr 2+ Freq Flyer Progs (6.0%) 211 157 73 78 34 Trav To Virgin Islands L3Y (0.9%) 179 152 78 56 34 Trav To Puerto Rico L3Y (1.3%) 152 121 104 92 30 Dom Trav By RR LY (0.7%) 152 111 64 72 30 Frgn Trav By Rented Car L3Y (2.0%) 210 158 74 70 30 Trav To Hawaii L3Y (2.0%) 209 159 72 81 29 3+ Business Trips - Plane (2.7%) 221 173 66 75 28 Trav To Spain/Portugal L3Y (0.8%) 171 114 111 62 27 Frgn Trav By RR L3Y (1.1%) 190 129 78 73 26 Trav To Bermuda L3Y (0.7%) 202 207 72 75 24 Trav To France L3Y (1.7%) 175 173 74 69 22 Japan/Asia/Othr Lst 3 Yrs (1.8%) 186 145 57 69 20 Trav To Cent/SAmerica L3Y (1.2%) 153 130 98 75 17 Play Tennis on Vacation (0.7%) 211 163 63 110 13 Visit a Spa on Vacation (0.6%) 205 122 89 66 11 Lake Tahoe Gamble LY (1.2%) 159 104 96 62 0

Shopping TG A TG B TG C TG D TG E Grocery Shopping <$60 Grocery Shopping Wkly (15.4%) 64 81 101 115 110 $60-149 GroceryShoppingWkly(37.2%) 108 114 107 108 95


TG A TG B TG C TG D TG E $150+ Grocery Shopping Wkly(21.3%) 135 112 92 89 93 Shop Once Per Week (36.2%) 100 96 104 114 95 Shop Twice Per Week (27.0%) 104 112 92 103 102 Shop Three Times Per Week (12.5%) 108 110 100 103 103 TravelToStr: LessThan1Mile (21.6%) 91 86 107 75 94 Travel To Store: 1-2 Miles (27.2%) 127 105 114 87 110 Travel To Store: 3-5 Miles (21.7%) 113 125 107 111 111 Travel To Store: 6-10 Miles (9.9%) 71 107 78 170 112 Travel To Store: 11+ Miles (6.6%) 39 65 35 156 48 Shop In The Morning (25.0%) 113 109 94 104 88 Shop In The Afternoon (24.0%) 102 104 105 101 104 Shop In The Evening (23.3%) 95 90 105 114 110 Shop Various Times of Day (25.0%) 96 104 104 99 110 Always Use Grocery List (26.9%) 116 118 100 103 92 In-Home Purchase Lst 6 Mos (11.1%) 103 105 93 100 100 Coupons Cents Off Coupons Last Yr (59.7%) 109 111 106 104 92 HeavyCouponUser (12+X/3Mos)(16.1%) 121 131 110 111 77 MedCouponUser(4-11X/3Mos) (18.8%) 108 104 109 105 94 LightCouponUser(0-3X/3Mos) (24.8%) 101 104 102 98 99 Redeem Cpns Discount Store (13.7%) 99 108 113 112 102 Redeem Coupons Drug Store (10.6%) 131 124 122 97 75 Redeem Coupons Grocery St (56.9%) 109 114 104 106 91 Coupons from Handouts (16.4%) 121 119 117 101 99 Coupons from Packages (25.1%) 114 120 99 113 87 Coupons from Magazines (19.0%) 116 120 101 105 91 Coupons from Mail (24.2%) 123 121 108 99 89 Coupons from Newspapers (49.1%) 116 119 110 108 83 Coupons frm Store Dispenser(11.9%) 131 122 109 95 87 Purp:SaveMoney w/NoBrand (39.7%) 102 110 110 105 97 Purp:SaveMoney Spec Brand (34.3%) 124 125 103 106 78 Purp:TryNewProd Trial Basis(18.8%) 120 125 107 105 86 Coupons for Beverages (30.0%) 120 118 113 104 81 Coupons for Groceries (53.7%) 111 115 106 106 89 Coupons for Cosmetics (12.6%) 125 130 122 96 90 Coupons for Tobacco (6.6%) 79 94 107 119 102 Stores Order Items by Mail/Phn LY (40.0%) 120 119 93 102 82 Order Items <$50 Last Yr (7.1%) 85 110 105 110 93 Order Items >$50 Last Yr (34.4%) 124 121 91 104 82 Order Items >$200 LstYr (16.1%) 132 130 91 98 78 Shop Builder's Square LstYr (7.5%) 138 136 165 109 79 Shop Home Depot LstYr (25.7%) 164 136 107 71 61 Shop Radio Shack LstYr (18.4%) 107 102 102 100 90 Shop A&P LstMo (3.8%) 148 126 87 70 49 Shop Acme LstMo (2.0%) 134 184 144 58 37 Shop Albertson's LstMo (10.1%) 106 96 116 69 88 Shop Finast LstMo (1.1%) 126 135 186 78 83 Shop Food Lion LstMo (6.9%) 58 70 83 139 158


TG A TG B TG C TG D TG E Shop Foodtown LstMo (2.0%) 108 114 113 104 60 Shop Fred Meyer LstMo (2.4%) 85 84 92 89 90 Shop Giant LstMo (2.8%) 227 121 107 66 60 Shop Giant Eagle LstMo (1.6%) 87 118 166 125 102 Shop Grand Union LstMo (1.5%) 224 159 39 54 14 Shop Harris Teeter LstMo (2.0%) 65 112 53 81 193 Shop IGA LstMo (7.5%) 41 83 71 121 120 Shop Kroger LstMo (12.8%) 85 118 123 118 132 Shop Lucky Stores LstMo (6.0%) 161 80 106 41 44 Shop MilitaryComisary LstMo (2.0%) 109 87 98 134 52 Shop Pathmark LstMo (2.9%) 173 96 91 32 10 Shop Piggly Wiggly LstMo (4.0%) 29 71 66 95 160 Shop Publix LstMo (5.4%) 95 122 111 92 111 Shop Ralphs LstMo (2.7%) 192 73 75 26 26 Shop Safeway LstMo (7.8%) 146 78 89 73 69 Shop Shop 'N Save LstMo (3.3%) 68 104 74 166 54 Shop Smith's LstMo (2.0%) 66 110 148 80 52 Shop Stop 'N Shop LstMo (3.9%) 116 183 109 116 73 Shop Super Valu LstMo (2.2%) 55 77 83 142 94 Shop Vons LstMo (3.4%) 183 90 126 23 49 Shop Wegmans LstMo (1.2%) 88 162 165 130 12 Shop Winn Dixie LstMo (9.6%) 64 85 90 109 178 Shop Wholesale Clubs LstMo (27.2%) 134 126 104 97 75 Shop BJ's LstMo (2.8%) 167 163 99 103 17 Shop Price Costco LstMo (8.2%) 181 114 82 55 32 Shop Sam's Club LstMo (16.7%) 107 128 118 115 102 Shop ShoppersFoodWrhseLstMo (0.8%) 245 67 68 44 58 Shop Ames Lst3Mo (5.3%) 82 142 65 156 54 Shop Banana Republic Lst3Mo (2.4%) 161 137 85 58 32 Shop Bloomingdales Lst3Mo (2.0%) 254 99 65 50 23 Shop Dillards Lst3Mo (8.7%) 112 113 129 80 105 Shop Eddie Bauer Lst3Mo (5.7%) 180 150 85 90 58 Shop Express Lst3Mo (3.9%) 162 118 119 88 65 Shop J.C. Penney Lst3Mo (36.4%) 103 103 101 104 100 Shop Kmart Lst3Mo (46.5%) 87 99 108 112 108 Shop Marshall's Lst3Mo (6.7%) 183 129 118 54 55 Shop Montgomery Ward Lst3Mo (8.7%) 93 80 123 93 116 Shop Neiman-Marcus Lst3Mo (1.3%) 260 107 97 43 48 Shop Nordstrom Lst3Mo (4.6%) 232 111 76 58 33 Shop Sears Lst3Mo (28.6%) 114 112 110 108 90 Shop Target Lst3Mo (28.8%) 121 102 124 94 84 Shop The Gap Lst3Mo (8.5%) 154 123 104 76 55 Shop The Limited Lst3Mo (4.0%) 174 115 115 72 86 Shop TJ Maxx Lst3Mo (7.9%) 153 138 115 81 71 Shop Wal-Mart Lst3Mo (59.4%) 75 97 96 116 123 Shop Woolworth Lst3Mo (4.1%) 86 83 104 60 55 Shop Foot Locker LstYr (12.2%) 98 85 114 77 101 Shop Lady Foot Locker LstYr (4.8%) 109 98 112 73 98 Shop Payless Shoes LstYr (26.9%) 86 87 111 91 114


TG A TG B TG C TG D TG E Shopped Convenience Store (58.1%) 99 107 103 105 101 Spend $40+/Mo Conven Store (26.1%) 82 99 101 119 112 Shop Conven Store in Morn (20.9%) 94 108 105 107 102 Shop Conven Store Afternoon(23.6%) 86 98 97 97 122 Shop Conven Store Evening (27.2%) 100 111 106 103 95 Shop Amoco FoodMartLst6Mos (9.0%) 84 94 104 121 123 Shop Arco AM/PM Lst6Mos (4.3%) 125 86 97 62 80 Shop CircleK Lst6Mos (7.2%) 82 88 128 101 102 Shop Citgo QuickMrt Lst6Mos (4.6%) 63 103 94 124 129 Shop Conv FoodMart Lst6Mos (5.0%) 77 121 105 113 135 Shop 7-Eleven Lst6Mos (21.6%) 138 106 123 71 76 Shop StopNGo Lst6Mos (4.0%) 95 104 92 100 151 Shop Super AmericaLst6Mos (3.7%) 97 117 131 126 82 Shop White Hen Lst6Mos (1.6%) 235 124 102 75 21 Buy Fresh Sandwich Conv St (6.3%) 74 81 91 110 118 Buy Hot Dogs at Conv St (5.7%) 67 71 104 101 121 Buy Ice Cream at Conv St (8.3%) 83 92 103 97 119 Buy Brewed Coffee Conv St (13.3%) 101 108 107 108 89 Buy Candy at Conv St (18.7%) 83 93 100 105 119 Buy Snack Foods at Conv St (21.9%) 88 94 99 104 117 Buy Dairy Prodcts Conv St (13.1%) 89 109 110 109 97 Buy Bakery Items Conv St (6.9%) 101 105 102 106 94 Buy Milk at Conv St (21.0%) 96 116 102 105 99 Buy Can SoftDrinks Conv St (29.4%) 83 93 100 107 115 Buy FountSoftDrinks Conv St(11.5%) 81 95 104 95 110 Buy Juice Drink at Conv St (7.6%) 91 89 97 95 104 Buy Beer at Conv St (8.3%) 70 89 110 95 128 Buy Cigarettes at Conv St (15.6%) 73 92 111 108 126 Buy Lottery Tickets Conv St(19.3%) 102 106 116 108 107 Buy Gas at Conv St (27.1%) 71 98 97 129 110

Auto Products & Services TG A TG B TG C TG D TG E Personally Own/Lease a Car (84.7%) 109 107 102 103 94 Bought Most Recent Car (66.9%) 108 108 101 106 92 Lease Most Recent Car (5.4%) 159 128 103 94 73 Own Domestic Car (66.5%) 102 106 103 107 101 Own Imported Car (31.1%) 146 118 96 89 71 Car Bought: Past Year (23.3%) 109 110 102 108 102 Car Bought: 1-2 Years Ago (26.4%) 118 116 102 104 84 Car Bought: 3-4 Years Ago (22.3%) 123 116 104 105 86 Car Bought: 5+ Years Ago (28.9%) 125 120 99 106 78 Drive Automobile (69.9%) 109 109 103 104 91 Drive Van (5.7%) 92 127 98 106 79 Drive Mini-Van (6.9%) 131 138 108 111 70 Drive Compact PickUp Truck (4.6%) 77 118 79 125 101 Drive Regular PickUp Truck (12.0%) 66 95 74 117 112 Own Camper (4.0%) 85 117 98 118 98 Automatic Transmission (62.1%) 112 112 102 108 91 Manual Transmission (19.1%) 117 116 96 104 80 4 Cylinder Car (34.4%) 115 112 102 110 84


TG A TG B TG C TG D TG E 6 Cylinder Car (20.9%) 128 120 93 94 87 V-6 Engine (15.8%) 120 122 108 112 81 V-8 Engine (16.8%) 107 111 99 106 102 Car Has AM/FM Cassette (51.2%) 117 117 101 110 84 Car Has AM/FM CD (9.9%) 170 131 104 80 72 Car Has Fctry AirCondition (55.0%) 120 118 103 106 82 Own Car with Air Bags (34.8%) 138 129 102 101 67 STEREO SPEAKERS (41.2%) 124 121 102 107 78 Own Car with Car Phone (8.8%) 156 137 81 99 69 Own Car with CB Radio (3.0%) 79 100 91 116 114 Car Has Cruise Control (46.2%) 124 122 100 111 81 Custom Aluminum Wheels (16.8%) 133 132 107 104 73 Electronic Fuel Injection (35.7%) 120 120 98 113 77 Car Has 4-Wheel Drive (9.6%) 128 125 103 108 70 Power Locks (39.2%) 133 124 102 105 77 Auto Security/Burglar Alarm(14.7%) 164 125 116 85 60 Car Has Sunroof (13.3%) 164 133 100 86 56 Hsehld Has Radar Detector (7.5%) 119 112 101 96 84 Purchased Car w/Cash (36.5%) 113 108 101 107 93 Purchased Car w/Trade-In (20.6%) 113 114 107 105 84 Used Dealer Financing (15.2%) 118 105 104 108 101 Used Bank Car Loan (17.3%) 103 112 93 117 87 Used Credit Union Car Loan (8.7%) 133 131 114 103 68 Used Manufacturer Financing (7.2%) 116 119 115 94 85 New Cars Own Car Bought New (42.2%) 140 130 101 101 69 Car Bought New, Last Year (10.0%) 144 125 100 105 71 Spent $30K On New Car (3.0%) 189 162 73 85 66 Spent $20K-29,999 On NewCar (9.7%) 166 136 94 94 59 Spent $15K-19,999 On NewCar(13.6%) 145 139 93 105 69 Spent <$15K On New Car (41.8%) 97 103 104 111 99 Own Subcompact Car Bght New(11.4%) 146 135 105 93 71 Own Compact Car Bght New (7.9%) 148 118 108 105 52 Own Mid Size Car Bght New (10.1%) 155 144 96 88 67 Own Standrd Size CarBghtNew (4.8%) 153 137 100 100 74 Own Luxury Size Car BghtNew (5.0%) 197 137 91 85 59 Own Convertible Bght New (1.0%) 192 139 115 100 48 Own 2-Door Sports Coupe New (6.8%) 150 125 97 88 56 Own 4-Door Sedan Bght New (22.2%) 151 138 100 102 75 Own 2-Door Sedan Bght New (4.8%) 139 117 94 105 57 Own Station Wagon Bght New (2.4%) 162 173 74 76 61 Bght New Car w/ABS (20.2%) 154 135 100 93 64 Bght New Car w/Sun/MoonRoof (7.4%) 198 149 100 73 55 Own New Domestic Car (29.5%) 134 130 97 105 74 Own/Lease a New Buick (2.9%) 137 128 115 82 88 Own/Lease a New Cadillac (1.1%) 179 109 85 95 69 Own/Lease a New Chevrolet (6.7%) 120 129 87 134 62 Own/Lease a New Chrysler (1.7%) 161 140 85 78 95 Own/Lease a New Dodge (3.1%) 144 137 103 91 50


TG A TG B TG C TG D TG E Own/Lease a New Ford (7.7%) 133 121 98 97 87 Own/Lease a New Mercury (1.7%) 162 136 113 88 55 Own/Lease a New Oldsmobile (2.7%) 125 120 116 89 100 Own/Lease a New Plymouth (1.4%) 128 154 97 113 84 Own/Lease a New Pontiac (2.7%) 137 141 87 81 95 Own/Lease a New Saturn (1.1%) 189 142 70 97 72 Own New Import Car (15.4%) 169 138 105 87 51 Own/Lse NewAcura/Infnti/Lex (1.1%) 240 126 94 50 36 Own/Lease a New Honda (3.7%) 180 141 115 76 59 Own/Lease a New Mazda (1.3%) 175 127 94 85 53 Own/Lease a New Nissan (2.4%) 157 138 118 81 46 Own/Lease a New Toyota (4.7%) 162 132 109 90 58 Own/Lease a New Volkswagen (0.8%) 138 143 101 86 72 Own/Lse New European Luxury (2.0%) 206 155 62 69 46 Own/Lease Other NewAsianCar (2.0%) 157 137 116 98 30 Used Cars Own Car Bought Used (43.3%) 93 98 103 111 104 Car Bought Used, Last Year (13.7%) 82 99 104 113 122 Dom Car Bght Used LY (10.2%) 78 95 107 120 128 Bght Used Buick (3.6%) 82 112 106 108 100 Bght Used Cadillac (1.5%) 129 111 117 87 79 Bght Used Chevrolet (5.2%) 78 104 97 137 122 Bght Used Chry/Ply (3.1%) 85 93 115 113 143 Bght Used Dodge (3.4%) 74 96 102 117 95 Bght Used Ford (9.0%) 88 99 107 116 89 Bght Used Linc/Merc (5.6%) 117 115 107 101 83 Bght Used Pontiac (3.6%) 84 85 109 142 125 Import Car Bght Used LY (3.6%) 104 111 90 96 120 Bght Used Acura/Infnti/Lex (0.5%) 161 162 97 57 155 Bght Used Honda (2.6%) 127 98 90 109 88 Bght Used Hyundai/Kia (0.4%) 116 65 143 83 117 Bght Used Mazda (1.1%) 78 78 109 121 100 Bght Used Nissan (2.3%) 111 99 63 108 88 Bght Used Toyota (3.2%) 115 101 91 115 87 Bght Used Subaru (0.7%) 64 142 61 121 83 Bght Used Volkswagen (1.0%) 122 108 119 136 88 Bght Used EuropeanLuxury (1.3%) 203 130 76 73 36 Motorcycles Own Motorcycle (5.5%) 88 100 97 121 78 Own A Dirt/Trail Motorcycle (1.1%) 78 108 110 141 55 Own All Terrain Vehicle (3.5%) 65 104 68 127 74 Trucks, Vans, SUVs Truck/Trailer Rental/LstYr (7.4%) 117 111 103 102 85 Own Truck, Van, Or S.U.V. (40.7%) 106 118 98 113 90 Own/Lease a New Chevy Truck (4.9%) 120 136 92 123 94 Own/Lease a New Dodge Truck (2.9%) 149 156 88 120 53 Own/Lease a New Ford Truck (6.3%) 121 142 96 100 84 Own/Lease a New GMC Truck (1.3%) 145 132 91 106 99 Own/Lease a New ToyotaTruck (1.1%) 146 147 93 72 11


TG A TG B TG C TG D TG E TruckVanSport Util w/4-W.D.(14.9%) 116 128 95 118 76 Own New Trck/Van/Sport Util(21.0%) 135 139 98 106 75 Bght Chevy/Geo/GMC PU (14.6%) 87 105 88 123 100 Bght Dodge PU (10.3%) 84 102 92 120 100 Bght Ford PU (14.5%) 82 104 93 123 108 Bght Nssn/Maz/Toy PU (11.8%) 91 106 97 111 88 Bght Chry/Ply/DdgeMinivn/Vn(11.7%) 128 130 97 116 76 Bght Ford Minivan/Van (10.7%) 129 136 98 112 73 Bght Nssn/Maz/Toy Minivn/Vn(11.2%) 129 130 98 109 68 Bght Chevy/GMC Minivan (5.0%) 115 120 78 113 97 Bght Chevy SUV (9.7%) 130 137 102 104 69 Bght Ford SUV (8.4%) 132 137 107 100 70 Bght Jeep SUV (7.7%) 136 135 110 98 69 Bght Nssn/Maz/Toy SUV (10.0%) 132 131 109 96 68 Auto Services Car Svcd By Dealer (37.5%) 133 127 105 100 73 Car Svcd By Gas Station (25.3%) 125 116 94 105 71 Car Svcd By Auto ChainStore(11.2%) 131 113 123 94 87 Car Svcd By Disc Dept Store (3.1%) 84 104 117 107 120 Car Svcd By Self (28.5%) 90 103 107 116 102 Alignment Done LY (20.9%) 123 121 103 101 76 Brake Lngs/Pads Chgd LY (25.0%) 122 114 106 104 93 Clutch Replaced LY (2.6%) 107 101 93 100 92 Major Engine Repair LY (5.0%) 103 103 91 108 107 Minor Engine Repair LY (10.1%) 112 107 107 109 92 Paint Job Last Yr (4.1%) 97 122 123 98 96 Tune Up In Last Year (33.4%) 118 112 105 103 87 Belong to an Auto Club (30.6%) 150 127 104 88 61 Belongs To AAA (21.9%) 165 135 101 84 52 Drive 1-4,999 Miles/Yr (22.4%) 78 87 102 99 118 Drive 5,000-14,999 Miles/Yr(36.9%) 123 112 106 101 86 Drive 15,000+ Miles/Yr (23.2%) 114 123 88 115 80 Gasoline Last 6 Months (87.7%) 107 106 101 105 95 Gasoline 21+ Gallons/Week (15.9%) 106 112 91 109 90 Use Premium Gasoline Lst6Mo(17.9%) 112 102 109 94 84 Use Mid-Grade Gas Lst6Mos (18.5%) 108 110 105 112 93 Use Regular Gas Lst6Mos (52.9%) 106 111 96 110 93 Full Service Gasoline (10.9%) 130 123 87 93 80 Self Service Gasoline (71.1%) 103 105 101 111 96 Buy Gasoline w/Cash LstMo (63.5%) 91 98 102 110 108 Paid for Gas w/Credit Card (24.7%) 154 134 97 96 55 Oil Filter Last Yr (47.4%) 89 103 101 107 99 Oil Filter Inst by Self (23.3%) 79 99 103 115 105 Oil Filter Chngd at Garage (21.1%) 104 113 99 102 83 Buy OilFiltr AutoPartsStr (15.8%) 88 92 111 102 125 Purch OilFilter CarDealer (5.0%) 113 133 110 112 82 Buy OilFltr GasSta/Garage (5.3%) 105 105 82 104 82 Purch Oil Filter K Mart (4.2%) 68 107 97 132 97 Buy OilFltr QuickLubeCentr (6.3%) 117 119 123 110 65


TG A TG B TG C TG D TG E Motor Oil Additive LstYr (10.4%) 73 88 103 102 104 Motor Oil Last Year (57.5%) 95 100 104 105 98 Oil Changed by Self (31.2%) 82 95 106 113 108 Oil Change by GasSta/Garage (6.3%) 105 106 88 85 77 Oil Change by Dealer (5.7%) 125 121 108 106 67 Oil Change QuickLubeCenter (11.9%) 113 112 110 107 78 Transmission Svc LY (10.6%) 87 95 105 90 89 Air Filter Last Year (35.0%) 90 100 104 107 100 Air Filter Inst by Self (22.0%) 82 97 102 114 106 Air Filter Chngd at Garage (9.7%) 107 115 106 97 85 BuyAirFilterAutoPartsStore (13.0%) 94 97 119 102 111 Purch Air Filt atGas/Garage (2.5%) 101 108 85 81 79 Purchase Air Filter K-MART (3.3%) 107 102 105 103 68 Leather/Vinyl Protection (24.4%) 89 94 107 107 101 Lthr/Vinyl Protect0-1LstYr (7.1%) 98 90 104 106 89 Lthr/Vinyl Protect2-3LstYr (7.0%) 88 98 111 117 109 Lthr/Vinyl Protect 4+LstYr (10.3%) 84 93 107 102 104 Mufflers Last Year (11.3%) 82 98 102 111 92 Muffler Changed By Self (2.3%) 65 87 90 140 111 Muffler Changed By Other (7.7%) 84 99 105 109 89 Used Car Wax Last Year (25.6%) 93 106 105 108 98 Car Batteries Last Year (24.7%) 92 101 105 96 106 Car Battery Inst by Self (13.0%) 81 91 103 113 109 Car Battery Chngd at Garage (7.8%) 114 123 111 81 93 Bought Car Battery at Sears (5.1%) 124 122 126 89 88 Shock Absorbers Last Year (6.5%) 88 94 108 109 90 Shocks Changed by Self (2.5%) 78 91 137 121 61 Shocks Changed by Other (3.5%) 93 98 95 107 111 Spark Plugs Last Year (21.4%) 79 90 108 107 116 Spark Plugs Chngd by Self (14.3%) 72 88 107 116 124 Spark Plugs Chngd by Other (5.7%) 97 98 116 89 101 Any Tires Last Year (33.1%) 99 109 99 106 93 Bght All Terrain Tires LY (2.3%) 111 119 91 93 90 Bght All Season Tires LY (13.1%) 90 112 101 127 94 Bght High Perfrmnce TiresLY (3.1%) 116 98 129 83 100 Bght Mud/Snow Tires LY (1.8%) 63 114 55 120 52 Bght Passenger Tires LY (7.2%) 101 98 98 95 98 Bias Belted/Ply Tires (2.0%) 79 90 124 96 114 Bght Radial Tires Lst Yr (20.4%) 102 113 94 110 87 Bght BFGoodrich Tires LYr (3.7%) 99 105 88 98 112 Bght Bridgestone Tires LYr (1.6%) 118 118 77 80 80 Bght Dunlop Tires LstYr (1.3%) 115 139 82 114 39 Bght Firestone Tires Lst Yr (3.5%) 98 104 104 99 95 Bght Goodyear Tires Lst Yr (7.8%) 94 104 103 105 97 Bght Kelly Sprgfld Tire LY (1.1%) 62 125 101 136 80 Bght Michelin Tires Lst Yr (3.8%) 140 118 96 103 84 Bght Pirelli Tires LstYr (0.6%) 132 124 73 111 62 Bght Sears Tires Lst Yr (1.7%) 88 99 142 74 122 Bght Uniroyal Tires LstYr (0.8%) 59 107 69 125 100


TG A TG B TG C TG D TG E Bgt Tires at Autopartstore (2.3%) 85 87 103 109 104 Bgt Tires at Tiredealr/Str (21.4%) 104 112 99 111 85 Bght Tires at Gas Station (1.7%) 92 93 70 112 62 PurpTruckVanSUV:HaulPersnl (14.2%) 92 111 90 131 92 PurpTruckVanSUV:LocalTrans (25.3%) 112 126 97 108 90 Purpose TruckVanSUV:Recr (10.9%) 117 124 100 111 86


Appendix H: Market Profiles

Date post:	28-Jul-2020
Category:	Documents
Upload:	others
View:	0 times
Download:	0 times

Enrollment Market Analysis for University of Michigan – Flint · Enrollment Market Analysis for...

Documents