What do students like and not like about their experiences at higher education websites? The presentation for the J.Boye Aarhus09 conference reports results from 12 college and university surveys, comparing responses from current students and future students. See the example from St. Edward's University of the one page you can add to your website that will increase visitor satisfaction.
- 1. Rating Higher Education Websites:The Student Experience
Robert E. Johnson, Ph.D. 2009 J.Boye Conference Aarhus 2009
November 4, 2009 Aarhus, Denmark
2. Who is Bob Johnson?
- Higher education marketer since 1980s
- Writer of monthly Your Higher Education Marketing
Newsletter
- Owner Bob Johnson Consulting, LLC
- Partner w/Gerry McGovern at Customer Carewords
- Chair of Symposium for the Marketing of Higher Education, 1994
to 2003
- Ph.D. in political science (UMass Amherst)
3. In todays presentation
- Identifying website factors that are most important to
visitors
- Comparing responses from future or prospective students with
those from current students
- Where to focus website improvement efforts
- If you could only make one change
4. Customer Centric Index (CCI) survey
- Asks website visitors to select from 13 website attributes to
identify top 3 positive or negative experiences
- CCI = % of positive votes cast
5. 13 survey factors in 3 groups
6. 7. 8. 9. Copyright Customer Carewords Ltd.
- Please choose the THREE factors from the list below that best
describe your actual experience with the Enormous State University
website.
- Give a score of 3 to the factor which best describes your
experience, 2 to the next best description, and then 1.
- Please give only one score of3, 2 and 1.
10. Investing improvement resources 11. Typical voting spread
12. Action priorities 13. CCI at 12 schools
-
- East Stroudsburg University
-
- University of Hertfordshire
-
-
- On next CCI ratings page only
14. 11 CCI Survey Results % External Voters.. % Positive
Votes
15. More often than not
- External users were happier than internal users
-
- Future students were happier than current students
-
- Alumni were close to future students
- High concern overall with deficiencies in:
16. Audience specific results
17. Areas of interest by votes received
- Information Architecture factors
-
- 4,490 votes = 49.3% of total
-
- 2,763 votes = 30.3% of total
-
- 1,856 votes = 20.3% of total
18. Audience specific results
19. Areas of interest by votes received
- Information Architecture factors
-
- 5,391 votes = 54.4% of total
-
- 2,786 votes = 28.1% of total
-
- 1,739 votes = 17.5% of total
20. Key comparison areas Current students vs. Future students
21. Top 5 factors by votes cast
22. Highest difference between positive and negative votes
23. Least difference between positive and negative votes
24. What do CCI results mean?
- Difficult for one website to meet internal and external users
needs
- Argues for Internet and Intranet websites
-
- Intranet users need nuts and bolts website that focuses on
frequent task completion
- Special attention to navigation & search
-
- Help people to quickly find things
- Less focus on beauty & cool
- Increased audience research
25. If you can make only one change Consider this Search + Site
Map 26. Combine search & site map
http://www.stedwards.edu/siteindex.htm 27. Key challenges forhigher
education websites
- Acceptance of intranet and internet approach
- Easier access to most important content and completion of top
tasks
- Greater use of web analytics
- Continued growth of web content editor positions the website as
on online publication
28. Meeting the first challenge http://www.devry.edu/ 29. Thank
You! Bob Johnson, Ph.D. President Bob Johnson Consulting,
LLC248.766.6425[email_address] http://twitter.com/HighEdMarketing
Customer Carewords Research for Online Marketing
Success:http://www.bobjohnsonconsulting.com/customercarewords.html
30. Addendum Overall CCI data results 31. Total Results from 4
Audiences
32. Voters by audience category
33. Areas of interest by total votes
- IA 14,325 votes = 53.4% of total
-
- Visual Appeal (2,834) High: 87% Low: 57%
-
- Layout (3,354) High: 85% Low: 61%
-
- Speed (1,797) High: 84% Low: 49%
-
- Navigation (3,940) High: 62% Low: 35%
-
- Search (2,712) High: 55% Low: 24%
34. Areas of interest by votes
- Content 7,396 votes = 27.5% of total
-
- Language (1,263)High:100%Low: 79%
-
- Accurate (1,861)High: 100%Low: 63%
-
- Up-to-date (2,382) High: 86% Low: 41%
-
- Complete (1,890)High: 82% Low: 40%
35. Areas of interest by votes
- Social. 4,709 votes = 17.5% of total
-
- Open (1,590)High: 90%Low: 60%
-
- Contact (1,871) High: 72%Low: 42%
-
- Participation (913) High: 73%Low: 33%
-
- Recommendations (486) High: 76% Low:0%
36. Audience specific results
37. Areas of interest by votes received
- IA 4,490 votes = 49.3% of total
-
- Visual Appeal (1,059) High: 93% Low:4%
-
- Layout (1,194) High: 96% Low: 26%
-
- Speed (714) High: 87% Low: 41%
-
- Navigation (1,332) High: 83% Low: 24%
-
- Search (701) High: 92% Low: 50%
38. Areas of interest by votes received
- Content 2,763 votes = 30.3% of total
-
- Language (424)High: 100%Low: 79%
-
- Accurate (810)High: 93% Low: 63%
-
- Up-to-date (677) High: 86% Low: 41%
-
- Complete (852)High: 82% Low: 40%
39. Areas of interest by votes received
- Social. 1,856 votes = 20.3% of total
-
- Open (739)High: 100%Low: 76%
-
- Contact (575) High: 100% Low:32%
-
- Participation (314) High: 100% Low:59%
-
- Recommendations (228)High: 100%Low:61%
40. Audience specific results
41. Areas of interest by votes received
- IA5,391 votes = 54.4% of total
-
- Visual Appeal (866) High: 88% Low: 57%
-
- Layout (1,254) High: 88% Low: 58%
-
- Speed (812) High: 74% Low: 48%
-
- Navigation (1,054) High: 62% Low: 24%
-
- Search (1,405) High: 40% Low: 20%
42. Areas of interest by votes received
- Content 2,786 votes = 28.1% of total
-
- Language (480)High: 100%Low: 75%
-
- Accurate (637)High: 100%Low: 74%
-
- Complete (651)High: 74% Low: 39%
-
- Up-to-date (1,018) High: 75% Low: 38%
43. Areas of interest by votes received
- Social. 1,739 votes = 17.5% of total
-
- Open (437)High: 90%Low: 50%
-
- Contact (824) High: 78%Low: 50%
-
- Participation (302) High: 82%Low: 15%
-
- Recommendations (176)High: 57% Low:0%