Siblings, Not Twins
Photo: Christina @ wocintechchat.com
Synergy and Nuance Between Admissions and Advancement
Many schools struggle to align their Advancement and Admissions messaging. Brand can unify their approach, but there are important differences that must be honored if the message is to resonate with its intended audience.
Like the braided strands of a rope, communications streams at independent schools interweave to create something stronger than any of the parts alone while retaining their own distinct characters. Judging by the frequency with which conferences host panels on getting Admissions and Advancement to align, it’s not uncommon for these strands to fray, and when that happens, it can be challenging to get them effectively working together again.
This is most common at schools that haven’t clearly articulated their brand, as happens all too often when schools assume it’s understood, or when they go through a branding process that stays on the surface, focusing on fonts, colors, taglines, logos, etc. without doing the hard work of getting to the bedrock of what distinguishes this school. When that core idea has been clearly identified, fonts, colors, taglines, etc. are far easier to design and approve, because everyone understands what those things are trying to express—ambition, connection, nurturing, innovation, and so on.
Of course, a brand only sticks if it’s true. When branding fails to connect with the general population, that’s usually a sign that ambition outpaced reality. But if the unique essence of the institution has been correctly identified, all kinds of things align easily. Communication strategies, cultural expectations, collaboration dynamics, and more. In other words, a clear, authentic brand describes the lived reality of the school, and so marketing and informal word-of-mouth support each other.
Using this common reference point creates easy synergies between admissions and development teams. They’re both in the business of extolling the virtues of the school, and a clear commitment to one idea at the heart of the brand gives them a unified approach to their storytelling. A student’s service trip is almost always a worthwhile and meaningful learning experience, but brand will shade the telling of that tale—to emphasize personal growth, or advanced achievement, or empathy and connection, etc.—to reinforce the core message of the school.
This kind of alignment can be a money-saver, allowing both departments to pool resources for higher-quality design and production, price breaks for higher quantities when printing, ordering apparel, and more.
The primary distinction between Admissions and Development is that their audiences have different levels of context. An Admissions audience knows very little about the school, while an Advancement or Development audience includes parents (past and present), alumni, board members, former faculty, and more. They know a great deal about the place, or at least they think they do, since their memories may be somewhat off-center from the school culture of today.
This is why it’s generally best to reduce the presence of development on your school’s homepage as much as possible. The public-facing website is primarily for people who don’t know the school: admissions prospects, journalists, families from other schools who wish to attend an event, and the like. It is vanishingly rare for a donor to visit a school’s website unprompted and make a gift.
That prompt can direct donors to a section of the website designed just for them, invoking insider knowledge and cultural touchstones that would be meaningless for an admissions visitor. And all of these elements can maximize the donor’s affinity, gratitude, loyalty, and generosity in ways that would be ineffective or inappropriate on the public-facing homepage.
However, there is a deeper difference that is especially important when writing for Admissions and Advancement audiences, and that is the emotional need of the reader.
Admissions visitors are trying to select a school. Faced with multiple options that likely have many of the same positive attributes, they have two basic cognitive tasks. The first is to filter out any schools lacking essential features. The second is to choose from among the remaining options, which will naturally share many similar features. In other words, see which schools pass the smell test, figure out how they’re different, and make your choice.
Accordingly, Admissions communication should emphasize what’s special ahead of what’s good. Be clear about what’s good—academic support, or advanced courses, athletic teams, arts opportunities, etc.—but the constant refrain, even when talking about those things, should be how they are different and special at this school. Ideally, “how they are different” should reflect the school’s brand. This is because Admissions communication is helping people choose—it’s guidance.
Advancement communications are a different matter. Anyone receiving fundraising communications from a school almost attended it, worked there, or had a family member with a similar relationship. They don’t need guidance choosing between options anymore.
The key to shifting between these two audiences is to think like a sommelier.
When ordering wine at a fine restaurant, it’s common to ask the sommelier for guidance. They’ll tell you what is special about each wine—guidance. And once you select a wine for dinner, what do they say? “Good choice.”
Good choice—that’s the heart of Development communications. A fundraising audience wants to be reminded of the brand idea that guided their selection because it feels good to have one’s judgment affirmed. But they also want to hear about all the other good things that were part of that choice. Other school’s features are irrelevant, because the donor isn’t comparing between similar schools. They want to be reminded that the school they chose was great. So when writing for Development audiences, it’s wise to emphasize what’s good over what’s special—it’s reassurance.
The trick is to remember that it’s a continuum. Just as few people enjoy a shower that’s scalding hot or freezing cold, most audiences are best served with a blended strategy that leans more to guidance or reassurance as appropriate.
One final consideration is the role of urgency. Admissions audiences have some built-in urgency based on contract and enrollment dates. They know why they’re looking at this particular moment. Development audiences often need to be told. Often the hardest part of development communications is articulating “why now?” Being able to state that clearly can save many rounds of revision and costly meetings that go in circles.
As you review the communications coming from your Admissions, Advancement, and Communications teams, it can be helpful to remember: Admission should lean towards guidance, Advancement should lean towards reassurance—and internal communication to students, faculty, staff, and parents should emphasize logistics—sweetened with a dollop of reassurance.
Adam Olenn is the CEO of Rustle & Spark, a branding and marketing agency that specializes in independent schools.