FUATT wrote: ↑Tue Mar 25, 2025 8:51 am
I think that the data clearly indicates that hoops provides more eyeballs, when we win. As for brand exposure, it is hard to question the ROI on hoops given that we get game son the main ESPN platforms (not streaming) and the FU/Wofford game was discussed on the Today Show even because of the Craig Melvin connection. I'll accept that there is a direct correlation between the uptick in the application rate and the recent basketball success.
But anyone will also tell you that "impressions" can be fools gold in marketing. You'd rather have them than not, but if they are not supported by attributes that will create brand engagement and ultimately conversion to sale, they don't mean anything. The university's biggest challenge now is that.
And price seems to be the biggest obstacle, but there are probably other contributing factors. I am sure that the Bain process is looking at al of this and the role that athletics, in conjunction with athletics, student life, housing, financial aid, Institutes, etc. etc. all play.
You also have to consider, if Furman is not providing students with a great experience overall, how does that impact the brand? Football is a big part of that experience, of revenue, of alumni engagement, of the culture and ethos of Furman. It creates value in a way that "impressions" do not.
Both are very valuable. In different ways. I think it's silly to try to say one is more valuable than the other, they are just different, and provide value in different ways.
We need both, and need both to be successful overall as an institution.
Excellent - nice to see some thoughtful posts on the topic.
Reckon though (granted w/o knowledge of Bain's study/recommendations) if "price" is actually the biggest issue. FUBeAR has heard (uncomfirmed) that FU's "yield" is markedly lower than our peer institutions. In this context FUBeAR believes "yield" is defined as % of accepted students who enroll.
So...if so, then we (or Bain) has to REALLY dig deep as to why these accepted student did not enroll. They knew the 'sticker price' (most likely) when they applied. They probably didn't know the 'discounted price' though, relative to other schools where they applied and were accepted. So, just a few top-of-head ways to resolve that...
* find funding to allow for deeper discounting
* Increase (counter-intuitively) sticker price to limit the type of demographic that applies to those that have higher price elasticity - decreases time wasted pursuing / courting accepted, don't enroll students/families
* provide more realistic discounted price earlier in process to, again, focus on more likely to enroll students/families
* cut budgets to decrease sticker price and discount price
* etc., etc., etc.
And, maybe it's not even "price" at all. Maybe FU was 100% of the accepted/not enrolled student's 'safety school' and they instead enrolled at an Ivy, Duke, Vandy, etc. Unlikely to be 100%, but definitely a consideration - which means it's not a price issue, but more of a marketing / customer segmentation / target customer alignment issue.
FUBeAR's point in posting this is to, hopefully, amplify the concept that this is a highly complex issue with many, many, many variables to consider and options which may run in opposite directions to solve the same issue. We're not gonna solve it on this message board, unless, perhaps, Stumpy gets more engaged and GUS returns.
FUBeAR wishes the very best to FU's Leaders in overcoming the current challenges and deeply hopes they have the ability to do so, along with the humility to change course, on a timely basis, as needed, and/or to realize, if necessary, that others may be more able to guide the FU ship through these currently choppy waters.
