University of Houston Awareness Survey Results

University of HoustonAwareness Survey Results

Presented to

University of Houston

February 5, 2002

Presented by

Customer Value Systems, Inc.

Brant Wilson, President

2

2001 UH Awareness Survey Agenda

• Background and Objectives• Methodology• Executive Summary • Key Findings• Recommendations• Q & A/Discussion

3

2001 UH Awareness SurveyBackground and Objectives

• UH running ad campaign since early 2000• Measured awareness levels in late 2000 • Updated measurement was needed• Track progress in key measures• Assess differences within target segments• Evaluate progress compared to other Texas

Universities• Review image vs. campaign impact, key points

4

2001 UH Awareness Survey Methodology

• Phone survey among key audiences – same questions: brand awareness (aided), advertising awareness (unaided and aided), advertising recall, image ratings for major universities

• Completed 800 interviews by phone: – Key Executives 80

– Community Leaders 70

– HR Managers 150

– Faculty/staff 100

– Students 200

– Alumni 200

• Interviews took approximately 10 minutes each• Surveys conducted Dec 3 through Dec 17

5

2001 UH Awareness Survey Executive Summary

• Both brand and advertising awareness of UH have noticeably improved among the Key Executives and Human Resource managers – especially in Top of Mind awareness.

• UH awareness now trails only UT and Texas A&M among Key Executives, trails only UT among Community Leaders, and has moved ahead of all other Universities among Human Resource Managers.

6


• UH ad awareness increased only for Human Resource managers and Key Executives.

• Direct message recall for UH ads increased significantly in the past year across most stakeholder groups, except faculty/staff.

• Both top-of-mind brand awareness and direct message recall decreased sharply for faculty/staff.

7


• Unaided advertising awareness for UH remains higher than for the key competitive universities Rice, A & M, and UT.

• Ad awareness among Human Resource managers decreased for both A & M and UT.

• Ad awareness among Key Executives increased sharply for both A & M and Rice. This is probably not driven by advertising, but by PR and activities covered in the news (A & M game and the Vladimir Putin Symposium at Rice).

8

2001 UH Awareness Survey Executive Summary (Cont’d)

• TV, newspapers, and billboards were mentioned most often as the source of advertising for UH.

• Sharp increases in those noting TV as the source of ads.

• Percentage of those citing newspapers dropped sharply across all targets.

• Alumni was the only segment with significant mentions of magazine advertising.

9


UH Main Campus image is now comparable or superior to other Texas Universities in the areas of:

1) Providing quality employees to the Houston Business Community2) Contributions to the Houston Community

3) Importance to the Houston Economy.

10


UH image has gained ground on Rice, UT and Texas A&M in the areas of:

1)Quality of Education2)Quality of Faculty3)Quality of Academic Programs

11

UH - Top of Mind Brand Awareness 2001 vs. 2000

7%

24%

14%

40%

64%

36%

21%

29%

37%

43%

45%

49%

40%

51%

Key Executives

CommunityLeaders

HumanResources

Alumni

Students

Faculty/Staff

All Audiences

2001

2000

12

UH - Total Unaided Brand Awareness 2001 vs. 2000

48%

55%

84%

51%

87%

71%

55%

59%

73%

75%

77%

85%

73%

80%

Key Executives

CommunityLeaders

Students

HumanResources

Alumni

Faculty/Staff

All Audiences

2001

2000

13

Detailed Findings

2001 UH Awareness Survey Unaided Advertising Awareness

20%

27%

46%

46%

67%

44%

27%

29%

31%

33%

49%

61%

38%

53%

HumanResources

KeyExecutives

Alumni

CommunityLeaders

Students

Faculty/Staff

All Audiences

2001

2000

14

2001 UH Awareness SurveyTotal Advertising Awareness

27%

28%

53%

51%

77%

51%

32%

35%

43%

41%

61%

74%

48%

63%

HumanResources

KeyExecutives

Alumni

CommunityLeaders

Students

Faculty/Staff

All Audiences

2001

2000

15

2001 UH Awareness Survey Total Unaided Awareness

Texas Universities

Key Community Faculty/ HumanExecutives Leaders Staff Alumni Resources Students

University of Houston 55% 59% 85% 77% 74% 76%Rice University 40% 34% 22% 35% 48% 36%Texas A & M 70% 51% 51% 65% 54% 54%University of Texas 66% 71% 67% 73% 69% 71%Texas Tech 19% 11% 15% 20% 19% 18%Baylor 31% 16% 14% 19% 29% 19%

16

Image Ratings – UH vs. A&MAmong Business Leaders

Top 3 box Ratings*

48%

69%

73%

75%

79%

78%

85%

48%

64%

65%

68%

61%

64%

68%

Source of community leaders

Importance to the Houston economy

Contributions to the Houston Community

Providing quality employees to the Houstonbusiness community

Quality of Academic Programs

Quality of Faculty

Quality of Education Offered

UH

A&M

17

Image Ratings – UH vs. UTAmong Business Leaders

Top 3 box Ratings*

48%

69%

69%

70%

74%

71%

76%

48%

64%

65%

68%

61%

64%

68%






Quality of Faculty


UH

UT

18

Image Ratings – UH vs. RiceAmong Business Leaders

Top 3 box Ratings*

49%

71%

74%

73%

73%

74%

79%

48%

64%

65%

68%

61%

64%

68%






Quality of Faculty


UH

Rice

19

Image Gaps: UH vs. UTAmong HR Managers

0%

3%

1%

1%

-2%

-5%

-5%


Importance to the Houstoneconomy

Contributions to the HoustonCommunity

Providing quality employeesto the Houston business

community

Quality of AcademicPrograms

Quality of Faculty


20

2001 UH Awareness Survey Source of advertising recall

Billboards33%

TV41%

Radio7%

Magazines6%

Internet1%

Newspaper12%

21

2001 UH Awareness Survey Valid Recall of advertising points

68%

43%

25%

49%

44%

50%

43%

46%

63%

66%

76%

77%

71%

71%

Faculty/Staff

KeyExecutives

HumanResources

Students

CommunityLeaders

Alumni

All Audiences

2001

2000

Base consists onlyof the respondents

aware of UH advertising

22

2001 UH Awareness Survey Other advertising issues recalled

Recall of “Learning and Leading” key points was: 13% across all audiences that recalled a UH ad.

Other messages most recalled were:

1) Quality of Education 13% 2) Academics 9% 3) The Cougar 8% 4) Courses being offered 6% 5) Excellent professors 5% 6) Recruitment 5%

23

2001 UH Awareness Survey Recommendations

• Overall, continue to run the campaign with the core message of “Learning and Leading” and track progress on key measures in 4Q2002

– Message is memorable– Seems to resonate with business audiences

• Consider leveraging UH image ratings in ad copy where appropriate (Direct Mail & Online) to illustrate the stature UH now has in the Houston business community (eg. “one of the leading Texas Universities among…..when it comes to….”)

– Importance to Houston economy– Contribution to Houston community– Source of quality employees

24


• Build on the gains among key segments in the past year (Executives, HR Managers, Community Leaders with an additional brochure targeted to hiring/recruiting venues

– Entry level job hunting for grads will be more competitive than ever in current economic environment

• Continue to use TV as high impact medium to deliver UH message to key audiences

– Reinforce with billboard, radio and print

• Consider using the web or university network to expand frequency with student, alumni and faculty groups (only 1% have heard messages that way)

25


• Consider tighter integration in all communication efforts (Business School, Athletic Department, etc..) with the umbrella UH image campaign to avoid confusion among all target groups, particularly faculty and students.

• To capitalize on and leverage the gains in UH image ratings, consider tweaking the 2002 media plan to increase insertions in the more prestigious MNI and WSJ publications and reduce insertions in the Houston Chronicle.

University of Houston Awareness Survey Results

Documents

Transcript of University of Houston Awareness Survey Results