Research

Web professionals have always frown upon the use of PDF as the online version of a print newsletter or magazine.

For some publication officers and college magazine editors, PDF is an easy way to provide the online version of their hard print work.

Just take the final file from the designer (PDF has been used for proofs for many years), have it uploaded to the web server and… voila!

According to The State of Print and Electronic Publications in Higher Ed, a survey completed by 198 professionals last year, PDF is the format of choice for the electronic version of the main magazine in 38% of the cases as shown below.

• PDF file of the print magazine: 38%
• Website powered by content management system: 21%
• Email newsletter: 18%
• Flash-based flipping-through digital magazine: 12%
• Website powered by a blogging platform: 6%
• Other: 4%

Even if the practice is quick and cost-effective, it has been proven by many usability studies that PDF isn’t a user-friendly format for people browsing on computers. These files were also problematic for search optimization as their content was not indexed by search engines in the past – but this isn’t the case anymore.

Yet, in web circles, PDF still has a bad vibe. No respectable web professional wants to see PDF used on web servers for anything except maybe for official forms that needs to be printed.

While I still think web versions of print magazines or other publications are a better way to cater to readers using a computer or even a smartphone (or a pocket sized web mobile device like the iPod Touch), I can’t help think it won’t be the case for ebook readers or tablets – especially when these new “reading” devices are going to get a big push from students looking for a better text book solution.

So, what should a college magazine or publication officer do?

Adopt a multichannel approach: develop a real online version and keep the PDF version for print publications – even if they end up not printing them anymore in the future.

What do YOU think?

Don’t know if you’ve noticed but YouTube released about a month ago a new feature available by default for all the videos it hosts (unless you disable it): Data and Statistics.

As explained on the YouTube Help Center’s section about Data and Statistics, this new feature is meant to “show you what factors are driving the video viewcounts on the site” and can be used to better understand how other videos became popular and learn how to grow your own audience and increase the popularity of your uploads.

When available, Statistics and Data can actually tell you a lot about how the videos from other institutions perform.

Here is an example for a fairly successful video (36 139 views at the time of this writing) from Duke University uploaded in January 2008: Mind Control Monkey Moves Robot in Japan

As I mentioned above this default feature can be disabled (and some of the front runners on YouTube EDU have already chosen to keep the data to themselves), but it does make a lot of sense to share this data with the rest of the higher ed community (and the world) so we can all learn from successful higher ed videos.

Elizabeth Giorgi from the University of Minnesota has been working on this formula for some time and with some noticeable successes including an online video with more than 1.5 million views in less than 2 months. She will explain what she has learned in the webinar she is scheduled to present on September 17, 2009, as part of the Online Videos 360 series: Going Viral With Your Video: How to produce and promote a YouTube hit.

But beyond this kind of individual contribution to the general body of knowledge, if we all share this data, we might be able to come up collectively with the right formula for the perfect viral video.

So, do you share this data for your videos or do prefer to keep it private? Why?

What I really like with Twitter is that it’s a great medium to get answers to most questions.

Earlier this week, I asked a quick question to the people who follow me on Twitter – and the general Twitterverse:

Twitter / karinejoly: Quick question: Why and what do you retweet?

I got a few answers to my question, but nothing that could help me get a better understanding of the practice of retweeting.

@mgraca: @karinejoly Any message I want to spread from the Wheaton College account, as well as interesting items from people I follow. #pleaseRT

@davidlmulder: @karinejoly I retweet anything that is particularly useful or interesting that I think people would enjoy #pleaseRT

@sliebler: I RT anything I find insightful, usually interesting blog posts since interesting blog posts are so difficult to find on my own. #pleaseRT

And, then tonight, as I’m doing my usual session of blog reading, I find this gem courtesy of danah boyd: the draft of a descriptive paper about retweeting as a conversational practice written by her, Scott Golder and Gilad Lotan.

The paper – currently under review – is titled “Tweet, Tweet, Retweet: Conversational Aspects of Retweeting on Twitter” and is available as an 11-page PDF file.

I’ve just finished reading it and thought I’d share some of interesting points found in the analysis of the data sets used for this research – to get you to read it:

About tweets – from a sample of 720,000 retrieved from Jan 26 to June 13, 2009
22% of tweets include a URL (‘http:’)
36% of tweets mention a user in the form ‘@user’;
86% of tweets with @user begin with @user and are presumably a directed @reply
5% of tweets contain a hashtag (#) with 41% of these also containing a URL

About retweets – from a sample of 107,116 retrieved from April 20 to June 13, 2009
52% of retweets contain a URL
18% of retweets contain a hashtag
11% of retweets contain an encapsulated retweet (RT @user1 RT @user2 …message..)
9% of retweets contain an @reply that refers to the person retweeting the post

There’s definitely more to this draft paper, so go read it now!

But, before, why not tell us why and what you retweet by posting a comment?

The Pew Internet and American Life Project released, in March 2009, a typology of tech users incorporating attitudes towards the mobile web (which was an addition compared to their previous typology I wrote about in May 2007) in a report titled “The Mobile Difference.”

Two days ago was released an online quiz composed of 14 questions to help you place yourself in one of these categories in the Pew Internet Project’s Typology of Information and Communication Technology Users

I filled out the survey and got the verdict the Pew’s verdict: I’m a Digital Collaborator – and part of a minority group – only 8% of the population.

If you are a Digital Collaborator, you use information technology to work with and share your creations with others. You are enthusiastic about how ICTs help you connect with others and confident in how to manage digital devices and information. For you, the digital commons can be a camp, a lab, or a theater group – places to gather with others to develop something new.

I bet many readers of this blog are probably digital collaborators as well.

Let’s try to find out!
Please take the quiz and post YOUR resulting type in a comment.

As you might know, I conducted an online survey a couple of months ago to assess the state of print and electronic publications in higher ed.

This was an updated version of a previous survey I did in the summer of 2007.

A total of 198 professionals working in institutions representing more than 2.3 million students completed this survey from January 29 to February 17, 2009.

The survey was completed by people working in marketing/communications (66%), web (7%) and other offices. 38% of the respondents indicated working in private non-profit 4-year colleges, 42% in 4-year public colleges and 6% in public 2-year colleges. The average student population across the data amounts to 11,936 students vs. 15,405 in 2007.

I’ve shared the 7-page executive summary with the respondents, but thought you might all be interested in the following high level findings:

There is a significant budgetary shift towards electronic publications: institutions with growing electronic budgets outnumber those with growing print budgets in the last 2 years— 42% responding note increasing electronic publications budgets while the same is true for only 27% of print. Note that in 2007 the percentages were 44% and 36%, respectively.

82% of survey respondents (vs 77% in 2007) state that their institutions are relying more on electronic publications (Web, blog, email, PDF, RSS, etc) to reduce the budget of print publications.

While the majority of the publications produced by surveyed institutions are primarily available in both print and electronic formats, there is a significant trend across most publications to have them in electronic format only.

• The main publication types showing this trend are: Newsletter (43% vs 29% in 2007), Press Kits (21% vs 10%), Financial Aid Handbook (19% vs 8%) and Student Handbook (25% vs 18%).
• Viewbook (40% print only) remains the only publication primarily available in print only. The Annual Report (34%) and the Admission/Search Brochure (31%) also show significant print only percentages.

Just like the 2007 survey showed, news-oriented publications as well as publications targeted to current students are the most transferable ones to electronic only according to survey respondents, and publications targeted to donors and alums as well as admissions marketing pieces seem to be the least transferable. However, for most publications, except Viewbook, there are on average 8% more respondents who think they can be transferred to electronic only.

40% of respondents on average across all publications types have started moving towards replacing print publications with electronic publications. This trend is most pronounced for Campus News (64%), Campus Calendar of Events (57%) and Newsletters (55%)

If you’d like to get a copy of the 7-page executive summary including charts, just post a comment below. I’ll email everybody early next week.

Times are tough for anybody working on print publications. With tighter budgets come more and more questions related to the costs and ROI of any printed pieces. Magazines are no exception.

In this context, a bit of research never hurts – and can even help balance the need to streamline budgets while keeping readers and stakeholders happy.

Dennis Smith, the managing editor of Innovate (Iowa State University College of Engineering) and Joan Slattery Wall, the editor of News in Engineering (The Ohio State University College of Engineering), have conducted a 13-question survey of their peers at the CASE-CUE listserv from March 25 to April 1st, 2009.

The goal of this survey was to assess the situation of research and alum magazines in higher ed institutions as explained by its authors:

As endowments and budgets for both public and private institutions shrink in the current economic crisis, many communications offices are being asked by administrators to scrutinize and/or justify their print publications and staffing levels. In advance of the 2010 fiscal year, we thought it might be helpful to conduct an unscientific survey of college and university editors and other communications professionals to get a snapshot of where their publications, particularly alumni and research magazines,stand at present.

Close to 150 (148 exactly) of the 1,000 members of the listserv took this survey, and Joan was nice enough to share with me (and you, by extension) the results.

Here are some of the findings of this interesting (if not scientific) survey:

• 72.8% of the respondents manage magazines that have been published for more than 10 years (40% more than 25 years).
• 92.5% of the respondents publish their magazine between 2 and 4 times a year (4 times a year for 32.4%)
• 33.1% have a circulation size between 10,000 to 24,999 copies
  27% between 25,000 and 49,999 copies
  33.1% more than 50,000 copies
• 58.8% of the respondents have a full-production four-color glossy magazine, at least 24 pages (not including cover), with an HTML version available online
  35.1% a full-production four-color glossy magazine, at least 24 pages (not including cover), with no HTML version available online
• The approximate printing and postage total cost per issue ranges between $1 and $1.50 for 40.3% of the respondents, between 75 cents and $1 for 25.7% and exceeds $1.50 in 18.8% of the cases.
• 67.1% of respondents plan to maintain levels of production both in print and on the Web
  12.3% plan to increase the frequency or level of publication of their magazine on the Web and 17.8% to decrease publication of the print version while enhancing publication on the web.
• Only 34.2% of the respondents haven’t been advised or instructed by administrators to review/reduce costs.
  The same proportion – 34.2% – has been asked to produce the magazine at a lower cost while 17.8% of survey respondents have been advised to review the line-up of all their marketing publications including the magazine.
• 54.5% expect a decrease in their budget and staffing levels for 2010 given the current economic situation.

I’ll soon share the results of the survey I conducted a few weeks ago about the state of electronic and print publications in higher education – and as you’ll see things are definitely changing.

My next UB column, scheduled for the June issue, will actually try to provide some useful tips to make the transition from print to Web. I’m wrapping it up as I write these lines, but if you have ideas or good examples to share, feel free to post a comment.

First, let me start with a disclaimer:

I’ve just received and browsed my electronic review copy of The eduStyle Guide to Usable Higher Ed Homepage Design (email arrived a bit before 6AM this morning). I knew it was supposed to be released any day now, but I had no clue when it would hit my inbox.

Stewart Foss, one of the co-authors of this brand new book (who will present the first of the 3 webinars about Web Redesign offered in April by Higher Ed Experts), and I have been talking about the book for a couple of months now as I wanted to mention it in my column about Web Redesign to be published in the April issue of University Business (which was due to my editor on Feb 1st).

Writing a book is always a bold move and I think the Foss brothers have done a very good job with this first 95-page volume, a book inspired by and written for the eduStyle community as well as the higher ed web professionals.

So, here’s my 1-1-1 Express Book Review for The eduStyle Guide to Usable Higher Ed Homepage Design (electronic version available now for $39.99) by Stewart, Cody and Andy Foss:

1 (bunch of) things I liked:

Instead of focusing on design mistakes, the authors have decided to review only 20 of the best web homepages among the 2,700 referenced in the eduStyle gallery. They explain what works, why and offer some pieces of advice to improve on great web design.

I especially like the profile page that precedes every web design analysis. It includes some quick facts about the institution, the file size of the homepage and the number of different files and types necessary to come up with the end result.

I also love the sidebar where they referenced other comparable institutions that you can find in the book (with their respective page numbers). You can look for comparable institutions by size, geographic area and type (private vs. public).

Here’s a 6-page excerpt in PDF format that will give you a good idea of what I mean above.

1 thing I didn’t like that much:

The recommendations and tips for good practices are available for each of the 20 reviewed websites. I would have loved to be able to get those nuggets of design wisdom listed in another section of the book – at the end for easy reference. There is an index, so it’s possible to find your way and this is just a tiny thing.

1 big take-away from the book:
Successful homepage web design can take many forms. While there are some common features in the 20 homepages reviewed in this book, they all have their unique web design.

So, go buy this electronic version (email me first at karine@collegewebeditor.com today to request a discount code that will get you 10% off the book – what would have been my affiliate fee had I decided to sign up for the book affiliate program) – and if you want to get the print version, here’s what the Foss brothers have in store for you as explained in an email they sent this morning to folks who registered to get the early bird pricing

We expect the print version to be ready in the next two weeks. Once released we’ll offer a $19.99 US credit toward the purchase of the print version to anyone who couldn’t wait and bought the electronic version early.

Oh, and if you are wondering which institutions are featured in the book, here’s the complete list:

• Biola University
• Boston University
• University of California, Riverside
• Case Western Reserve University
• Champlain College
• Concordia University, St. Paul
• Cornell University
• Denver Seminary
• Indiana University-Purdue University Indianapolis
• The University of Louisville
• Loyola Marymount University
• Marylhurst University
• University of Nebraska-Lincoln
• North Carolina State University
• University of Notre Dame
• Portland State University
• Rice University
• Saxion Universities of Applied Sciences
• University of St. Thomas
• The College of William & Mary

Have you checked out the book yet? Tell us what you think (good or bad) by posting a comment.

In the summer of 2007, I created a survey about the state of print and electronic publications in higher education. At that time, more than 200 institutions took the time to complete this survey.

Later, I produced a 5-page executive summary PDF file presenting the main results and wrote a column “Demand Print or Print On-Demand,” published in October 2007 in University Business.

Last week, I was interviewed about the digital future of alum magazines for an article to be published in the March issue of CASE Currents, and as I was discussing best practices, I realized that this topic has never been THAT timely.

With the current budget crisis accelerating the shift from print to electronic when it comes to higher ed publications, I think it’s time to find out how things have changed over the past year and half.

This is the reason why I’ve put together an updated version of this previous short online survey to get a better idea of the state of print and electronic publications in higher education and the impact of the economy downturn on the gone-digital-going-paperless trend.

The results of this survey will be used for a research I’m conducting, a subsequent white paper and depending on the results for a future University Business column.

My goal is to assess how the Web and other electronic media (email, blog, RSS, etc.) are used in universities and colleges as complements or replacements for print publications.

This online survey has only 20 questions. It should take you 3 to 4 minutes to fill it out. The data you provide will only be used for its statistical interest.

If you include your name and email address at the end of the survey (although this isn’t mandatory), you’ll get a chance to win one of the 2 free passes to be drawn among responders for a future webinar series from Higher Ed Experts, a way for me to thank you for your participation.

So, please take 3 minutes now to do this survey!

Andy Shaindlin and Elizabeth Allen from Alumni Futures has just published a very interesting white paper: Activating Alumni Networks with Twitter.

This free 36-page PDF file includes a good primer about Twitter (aimed at the non-user), an overview about different uses, some recommendations as well as the results of a recent online survey conducted from January 6 to January 13, 2009 with 330 folks working in higher education.

I read Andy’s white paper this morning and so should you (download a copy and share it with your alum association).

Here’s an excerpt of what the practical-tip addict I am found the most interesting in this research paper, i.e the 8-step plan to get your alum association on Twitter:

• Create Twitter accounts in the name of your school and alumni association even if you do not intend to use Twitter for institutional purposes. This will prevent unauthorized or unexpected use (“squatting”) of the names by opportunistic students, alumni, marketers, or others.
• Describe Twitter on your web site and direct alumni to your association profile and other school-related users.
• Consider establishing a professionally oriented use of a personal Twitter account, as an additional channel
  for connecting with constituents with whom you have established an institutional relationship. An alumni
  director might tweet individually and follow his alumni board members.

• Schedule institutional tweets for the weekday, when most users are watching the Twitter stream, and pay attention to time zones. Overnight and weekend tweets will be long gone from the public timeline when alumni log on in the morning.
• Establish a user-populated directory of alumni Twitter usernames.
• Profile publicly how alumni are connecting with each other – not just with the institution – by using Twitter.
• Tell alumni to seek out other alumni among the institution’s or the association’s followers on Twitter.
• Add alumni Twitter usernames to alumni records in the secure online directory and even in the development
  database, and encourage alumni to update their own records with this information.

What did I find interesting in the survey results?

• 36% of respondents are currently using Twitter; a comparable number (37%) know what Twitter is, but have not used it.
• Of those currently using Twitter, 44% are Twittering both for their school and themselves (Karine’s note: this result might be a bit skewed as Twitter users might be more inclined to do a survey about Twitter usage)
• 85% of institutional users are sending out event updates and invites; news of updated web content is broadcast by 59% of institutions, and news of students, faculty and alumni accounts for some tweets from half the respondents.
• Half the institutions using Twitter had fewer than 25 followers. Another 17% had between 25 and 50. 19% boasted more than 100 followers.

Unless you’ve been on a very, very long vacation (or are one of the lucky few), you are currently facing budget cuts at your institution.

I know I wrote a lot about this lately, but I’m trying to find ways to help you weather that storm.

In a few days, my next University Business column to be published in the Februay issue will even provide you with some very practical tips to do more with less. And, you probably know by now that you can also register for Saving Big Webinars scheduled on February 4 & 5 to listen to 2 of your colleagues, Joe Hice from the University of Florida and Rachel Reuben from SUNY New Paltz, to find out about creative ways to save your institution big money while getting great results.

In the meantime, I’d like to share with you some of the notes I took while reading a very interesting and timely white paper written by Philip J. Goldstein and published as a 10-page PDF file by Educause this week:

Managing the Funding Gap:
How Today’s Economic Downturn Is Impacting IT Leaders and Their Organizations

This paper summarizes the discusssions that took place in December 2008 at an ECAR workshop for IT leaders.

What tactics have been implemented by IT leaders to cut costs?

Most approaches started with freezing open positions, cutting budgets for travel, discontinuing plans to expand services, and the cancellation of discretionary projects. As the budget situation has worsened, other tactics are also being implemented:

• Deployment of software to turn off desktop computers to reduce power consumption
• Accelerated plans to implement server virtualization, accompanied by increased server consolidation
• Retirement of underutilized technologies where viable alternatives exist (such as modem pools or legacy applications with small groups of users)
• Elimination of less-strategic or less widely used services
• Expanding use of videoconferencing as an alternative to travel

Is it all that bad? Aren’t there any opportunities out there?

However, some participants saw opportunity in the degree of challenge institutions face today. Perhaps never before have institutions and institutional leaders had more reason and need to try to work differently. Things that even a few months ago might have seemed politically impossible to accomplish now seem possible.

Winning strategies include:

• Rebalancing Services: rationalize services by centralizing IT services for bigger institutions.
• Sourcing Externally: explore open-source services, the cloud and collaboration with other institutions
• Targeted Operational Efficiency: focus on smallest projects that improve a particular business process to save money or increase productivity across the institution.

These participants believed that institutions would become more willing than they were in the past to make the changes required to benefit from technology.
[...]
Some IT leaders have been reticent to engage in collaborations or be early adopters of new technologies like cloud computing because their institutions had little tolerance for risk and provided little reward for innovation. Perhaps institutions, IT organizations, and IT leaders will now be more receptive to these risks.

So, there’s definitely an opportunity for Web professionals to push for more cost-effective solutions (aren’t all Web solutions more cost-effective by nature?) in institutions looking for ways to do more with less.

Have you managed to get approval lately on a project that you tried to push for months or years?
Tell us by posting a comment!