Returning students arrived on campus this fall to three major new developments at American University. First, a big ol’ new building to house the School of International Service. Second, “American Wonks“–a high-powered marketing campaign designed to highlight the passionate intellectualism of AU students. And third, a campus community saturated with various objections to the “Wonk” campaign (go to the comments section of this article for a sampling) for its supposed folly or wastefulness.
We picked up on a rumor that American University had spent $4 million on costs associated with the Wonk campaign. AWOL’s Peter Harrison did some digging and found that the rumor, it seems, is not true. Teresa Flannery, AU’s Executive Director of Communications and Marketing, emailed us a breakdown of Wonk-related expenses, which are expected to total $675,000. Here’s what she sent:
To date:
FY09
225,000 Baseline stakeholder study with 12 different audiences to set baseline and identify positioningFY10
100,000 For items including:Additional copywriting capacity
Wonk characters and work by Nate Beeler commissioned for campaign and American magazine
Creative testing
Linguistics study (term or words that sound like it in the languages spoken in countries where our students and faculty come from)
Thirty-five trademark applications for variations in selected categories
urls in various forms
Grassroots activity by student teams
Campus launch – direct costs (less than one wash post ad) for t-shirts, tents, food, presentations and events (e.g., student presentations, luncheons, teas, Celebrate AU)Still to come later this fiscal year:
200,000 Create 2011 Welcome Center/Experience that integrates the brand messages in the creative
150,000 Estimated cost KNOW/WONK in fall graduate student recruitment advertisingThen there are the hundreds of communications (colleges and schools, admissions (71 alone in that unit), alumni that will incorporate the concept into existing materials. No new costs, but our internal team will be dedicated to producing these in house.
It’s not $4 million, but $675,000 is a significant chunk of money nonetheless. So American University students, what do you think? Was your dough well-spent on “Wonk”? Give us your take in the comments.
Photo: A bunch of wonks-to-be at American University’s graduation in 2006. (Flickr/Laura Padgett)
This is such a load of crap. It really bothers me that the AU administration spends the tuition money of hardworking students and parents on marketing campaigns like this. I can think of many different ways that AU could spend $675,000. For starters, how about hiring a full-time director for the Women’s Center, instead of the part-time position (without any benefits) that the admin created in response to student demand? What this “wonk” campaign tells me is that AU cares more about creating a shiny stupid marketing strategy to lure in new students, rather then providing current students with an adequately funded Women’s Center director. Thanks, administration. I see where your priorities lie.
If I was a parent paying $40,000 a year to send my student to AU, I’d be pissed off to find out about this marketing campaign. What a waste of money.
As an alumna, I’m surprised how little merit students and parents seem to give marketing and branding the university, based on what I’ve read on The Eagle’s website and Twitter, etc. Everything a university (ANY university, not just AU) does, including and especially providing for the needs of current students, is directly related to admissions. If it weren’t, you couldn’t sustain the institution.
Publishing, awards, Dean’s List, new centers, new buildings, new degrees, hiring, scholarships, events, and many more things, all with marketing and communications fuel applications, which in turn creates a more selective admissions process, raising the universities ranking, and adding value to your degree. Sure, things like the WRC and other student resources and groups add significant value, but there is an overall picture.
People may not like the “Wonk” idea, but marketing is a very real and legitimate need.
Also, how about posting the university’s operating budget and reports to put that $675,000 in context? For example, since tuition keeps coming up ($36,180/year for an undergrad student), it’s the equivalent of 19 out of nearly 10,000 students. Beyond that, the university’s budget and funding comes from other sources (like endowment) than tuition.
I’ve linked to my objections to the “wonk” campaign elsewhere, but if AWOL readers are interested, I’d encourage you to read my critique here: http://roguishcommonwealth.blogspot.com/2010/08/not-wonk-or-specialization-is-for.html.
In essence, my concerns are two-fold. First, it’s absurd to base a marketing campaign on a word the connotations of which are ambiguous at best and derogatory at worst. Second, our university should not be in the business of cranking out narrowly specialized pre-professional “wonks” —w e shouldn’t be in the “business” of anything; AU should be a place where students come to learn how to learn and think and question and equip themselves with the critical and analytical tools necessary for whatever they choose to do with those talents. I recognize that many AU grads may wish to go on to the professional world, but I think that they’ll be better served by the latter set of skills than by an intensive focus on internships and job training to the exclusion of things like the arts and sciences.
$675,000 is far less than the rumored amounts spent on this marketing campaign, but that AU somehow scraped together that not insignificant sum to research, produce, and promote this campaign —and distribute 3,500 free t-shirts to freshmen on the quad — while cancelling the lunchtime Atrium Series concerts due to “lack of funding” is symptomatic of a profound distortion of priorities and inattention to the needs and desires of undergraduate students.
The price is about what you would expect to pay for a serious marketing campaign and it is vitally important for schools to promote and market themselves. My alma mater failed to do this, went bankrupt, and closed. My problem with Wonk is that in addition to several derogatory connotations, the word suggests that AU students are narrow in focus and not the broadminded, well rounded, renaissance men and women that the world needs more of. But hey, it might work.
Bettina,
I am absolutely in favor of American University branding itself. In fact, I’m strongly in favor of marketing. What I am not in favor of is “WONK,” a $600,000+ marketing campaign that makes us sound like Sloth from the freaking Goonies.
American University’s operating budget comes almost exclusively from tuition and not our endowment – its comprised of over 95% tuition revenue. Students are essentially funding the operation of our university, yet the administration has consistently failed to hold our opinions or priorities as valid. The failure of the wonk campaign, like many of AU’s other failures, could have been prevented by the administration 1) seeking out student input (from the entire population not just SG officials), 2) valuing students’ input, 3) reflecting student input in decisions and policies and 4) including students in policy making processes. Students fund this institution and we deserve a more democratic process of decision making from our administration!
This is outrageous and EXECTLY why I transferred to a much better school after starting at AU. I’m sorry, but I read this and thought it was a joke. There is a strict recipe for creating a more “marketable” institution: 1. Research 2.Pay more for more respected experts 3. Hire more talented career center staff 4. Create expert students, which means cut the fluffy volunteering and giving back to the community crap and focus on a rigorous academic curriculum that will be respected in the labor market. 5. Let Kogod lead AU even more so. And the list goes on… If the institution made some simple structural changes, they would not need “marketing” in this laughable sense. I really hope they can take some of these steps, its getting old and a bit sad.
it’s the biggest waste of money ever. could pay for more than 3 student’s ENTIRE tuition, room, and board for all four years. why do they waste our money like this?
that’s AU
The discussion continues:
http://www.insidehighered.com/news/2010/10/19/branding
I think Drake’s D+ and Purdue’s Makers campaigns may even be worse.
There is no inclusion here of undergraduate student recruitment advertising costs, which seem like they would be rather large?