CMED 2013 Benchmarking & Industry Trends Survey€¦ · CMED 2013 Benchmarking & Industry Trends Survey Martina Bison-Huckaby Arne Johnson Linda Halliburton . 2013 Team Martina Bison-Huckaby
Post on 25-Aug-2020
4 Views
Preview:
Transcript
CMED 2013 Benchmarking
& Industry Trends Survey Martina Bison-Huckaby
Arne Johnson
Linda Halliburton
2013 Team
Martina Bison-Huckaby
Director, Center for Executive Education College of Business and Economics
Arne Johnson Marketing Manager, Continuing Professional Education College of Continuing Education
Linda Halliburton Asst. Dir. Of Custom Programs, Executive Education Carlson School of Management
2
3
Today’s Agenda
Wrap- Up
• Linda
Program / Instruction
• Linda
Revenue
• Martina
Marketing
• Arne
Financial
• Martina
Population
• Linda
Welcome & Survey History
• Linda
POPULATION
Linda
4
Canada: 21.1%
United States: 71.5%
Middle East/Africa: 1.4%
Asia/Oceania: 2.1%
Europe: 3.6%
Caribbean/Central/South/ Latin America: 0%
Who responded?
38%
6%
24%
9%
15%
6%
Who responded?
Who responded? Population of Metro Areas
Under 100,000 14%
100,000 - 500,000 42%
500,000 - 1M 12%
1M - 2.5M 14%
Over 2.5M 18%
Public 70%
Private Non-Profit 27%
Private For-
Profit 3%
Institution Type
7
Con Ed 41%
Exec Ed 46%
Other 13%
Unit within Institution
Job title or function of
respondents
8
11%
11%
35% 13%
8%
2%
20%
Assistant/Associate Director (ofthe entire department)
Dean (Associate, Assistant, Full)
Executive Director (of the entiredepartment)
Marketing Manager/Director;Business DevelopmentManager/DirectorMarketing/Program/OperationsCoordinator or Specialist
Operations Manager/Director
How Would You Describe
Your Department?
9
10%
43%
2%
49%
9%
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60%
Start-Ups
Established
Declining
Growing
No change
How would you describe your
department? CE EE Other
Established 14% 13% 7%
Established and no change 2% 0% 0%
Established and growing 3% 1% 0%
Established and declining 1% 0% 0%
Declining 1% 0% 0%
Growing 11% 26% 4%
Startup 0% 4% 1%
Startup and no change 0% 1% 0%
Startup and growing 2% 1% 0%
No change 3% 1% 1%
10
FINANCIAL MODELS
Martina
11
Department’s Contribution to the
University
12
65%
19%
16%
0% 20% 40% 60% 80%
We must pay direct expenses, indirectdepartment expenses and contribute
or pay a tax to the university.
We must pay for all of our directexpenses, indirect department
expenses and that is all.
We must pay for all of our directexpenses.
How Has Contribution
Changed?
“Victims of our success!!!”
Contributions to college or university are expected to be higher and higher also due to the fact that state contributions (for public universities) have been cut
13
How is Contribution
Determined?
Executive Education
- Most share a percentage of their revenue with the business school
- Percentage varies, generally set annually based on performance
- Some share other costs (building and other OH)
Continuing Education and Other Centers Types
Most Continuing Education Centers have to pay a “university tax” or other type of contribution towards indirect administrative and operating cost.
14
Have Dedicated Staff to Perform
Sales Activities
15
Completely describes mydepartment
Somewhat describes mydepartment
Does not describe mydepartment
25%
42%
33%
Higher revenue (3MM+) tend to have more dedicated sales staff
Sales Staff Compensation
16
0% 20% 40% 60% 80%
Don't Know/not sure
Salary only
Salary plus bonus or commission
13%
71%
16%
12% paid commission or bonus in 2012 as compared to 16% in 2013
MARKETING
Arne
17
How are marketing responsibilities
handled for your programs?
18
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50%
Dedicated marketing person
Hire outside experts
Do some of it ourselves
Do it all ourselves
Support from school/university
2012 31% said they have dedicated marketing staff
42%
29%
36%
30%
43%
How is your marketing budget
determined?
19
Percentage of projected revenue 21.51%
Flat dollar amount 45.16%
Don't know 8.60%
What marketing budget? 18.28%
Other 6.45%
% Rev. 1-5% 6-10% 11-15% 16-25%
% of total 33% 45% 9% 13%
How has the Marketing Budget
Changed?
20
2013
2012
2011
Spend more or the same
70%
83%
80%
48% more 22% the same
32% more 51% the same
47% more 33% the same
How has the Marketing Budget
Changed?
21
0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 30%
2013
2012
2011
Spend less
14% a little less
6% a lot less
30%
17%
20%
What are your most effective
marketing vehicles and offers?
Top marketing vehicles
1. E-mail marketing
2. Online advertising / Pay per click
3. Website
Top offers
1. Information sessions
2. Discounts (early bird, certificate reg discount)
22
Rank of marketing spend
23
Top 5
1. Website
2. E-mail
3. Print advertising
4. Pay per click
5. Direct mail
Bottom 5
6. Social media
7. On-line display ads
8. Event based marketing
9. Info sessions
10. Referral programs
64% of marketing spend is on digital*
*Website, e-mail, pay per click, social media, on-line ads
Regularly Analyze Effectiveness of
our Marketing Efforts
24
Completely describes myorganization
Somewhat describes myorganization
Does not describe myorganization
25%
55%
20%
-12% +4%
+8%
Role of Social Media
25
Small but growing
Just starting
Established
34%
29%
37%
Without specifics on why/how it is so successful with Some, it’s difficult to draw any conclusions about this.
Have CRM System
26
Completely describes mydepartment
Somewhat describes mydepartment
Does not describe mydepartment
44%
21%
35%
REVENUE
Martina
27
Business Performance in
Most Recent FY
28
30%
39%
17%
13%
1%
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50%
Grew significantly
Grew somewhat
Flat
Declined somewhat
Declined significantly
Business Performance in
Most Recent FY (CE vs EE)
29
38%
25%
21%
13%
4%
35%
55%
10%
0%
0%
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60%
Grew significantly
Grew somewhat
Flat
Declined somewhat
Declined significantly
CE
EE
Contributing Factors to
Business Performance
Growing (69%)
Economy improving
Increase demand for online programs
Better marketing expertise
Stronger brand recognition
More and larger custom contracts
Cutting edge technology
New partnerships intra-university
New course offerings
Declining (14%)
Sequestration
Staff changes
Focus on OE rather than custom
Increase in competition
Economy slow recovery
Lack in sales expertise
End of large contracts
30
Total Gross Revenue in Most
Recent FY
31
0%
5%
10%
15%
20%
25%
30%
35%
40%
11%
30% 28%
16%
2%
14% 13%
17%
38%
14%
1%
17%
2012
2013
Total Gross Revenue in Most
Recent FY Continuing Education Executive Education
32
0%
5%
10%
15%
20%
25%
30%
35%
40%
6%
16%
38%
13%
3%
25%
0%
5%
10%
15%
20%
25%
30%
35%
14%
19%
33%
19%
0%
14%
Total Gross Revenue
in Most Recent FY
33
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
6%
16%
38%
13%
3%
25%
14%
19%
33%
19%
0%
14%
30%
10%
60%
0% 0% 0%
CE
EE
Other
Gross Revenue per FTEs 2013
34
$0
$20,000
$40,000
$60,000
$80,000
$100,000
$120,000
$140,000
$160,000
$180,000
$200,000
$143,220
$158,136 $151,470 $154,803 $164,703
$187,203
1 to 4
2 to 6
4 to 11
10 to 25
25
20 to 65
Average $ 4,457,557
Mode $ 2,000,000
Minimum $ 35,000
Maximum $ 60,000,000
Std. Dev $ 9,440,589
Gross Revenue per FTEs 2012
Average $ 248,127
Mode $ 350,000
Minimum $ 50,000
Maximum $ 875,000
Std Dev $ 156,200
$-
$50,000
$100,000
$150,000
$200,000
$250,000
$300,000
$350,000
$400,000
$123,133
$215,047
$290,987
$357,633
$206,673
1 to 5
2 to 8
3 to 14
4 to 100
40 to 150
35
Number of Full Time Equivalents (FTEs)
36
2 1 1.5 3 3 3 2 2 1 4 3 6 3 3 2 4 2 3 2 5 4 5 3 4.5 3.5 9 4 5 3 6 3 2.5 5 6 5 7 7 4
50
11 5 1 9 8 9
20
11 6 4.3 4 11 4.5 5
20 22
9.5 13
24
7.5
35
18 10
18 18 25
13
30 38
63 55
104
60
30
50
60
12 20 20
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
$- $10,000,000 $20,000,000 $30,000,000 $40,000,000 $50,000,000 $60,000,000
2
1 1.5
3 3 3
2 2
1
4
3
6
3 3
2
4
2
3
2
5
4
5
3
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
$- $200,000 $400,000 $600,000 $800,000 $1,000,000
Under 1 Million Dollars
4.5 3.5
9
4 5 3 6 3 2.5
5 6 5 7 7
4
50
11
5 1
9 8 9
20
11
6 4.3 4
11
4.5 5 0
10
20
30
40
50
60
$1,000,000 $1,500,000 $2,000,000 $2,500,000 $3,000,000
1 to 3 Million Dollars
Gross Revenue per Size of
Metropolitan Area
37
$6,937,313
$3,949,402
$3,838,499
$2,744,286
$8,804,355
$- $4,000,000 $8,000,000
Under 100,000 people
Between 100,000 and 500,000people
Between 500,000 and one millionpeople
Between 1 to 2.5 million people
Over 2.5 million people
Net Profit Margin 2013 (reflecting revenue - direct and indirect costs)
38
0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 30% 35%
Loss
No Profit
Less than 9%
10 - 19%
20 - 29%
30 - 39%
40 - 49%
50 % or more
6%
2%
17%
30%
19%
11%
11%
4%
Net Profit Margin 2012 (reflecting revenue, direct and indirect costs)
39
0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25%
No profit
Less than 5%
6%-10%
11%-15%
16%-19%
20%-29%
30%-39%
40%-49%
50% or more
Don't know
6%
17%
19%
20%
15%
6%
7%
0%
2%
9%
Revenue – Open Enrollment
40
45%
58%
50%
39%
41%
33%
33%
44%
14%
9%
17%
17%
Average enrollment in public courses orprograms
Number of public courses or programsoffered
Public program revenue
Profitability of public programs
Revenue – Custom
41
29%
57%
56%
38%
48%
30%
30%
48%
23%
13%
14%
14%
Length of decision cycle or lead timeof client
Number of Custom ProgramEngagements
Custom Program Revenue
Profitability of Custom Engagements
Who is our competition?
42
30%
41%
45%
56%
58%
52%
14%
2%
3%
Competitors within our institution
Other higher education institutions ascompetitors
Competition from other professionaldevelopment providers
Percentage of Gross Revenue
by Program Type
43
5%
5%
9%
18%
39%
41%
Conferences/events
Other sources
Online/blended custom programs
Online/blended open enrollmentprograms
Face-to-face custom programs
Face-to-face open enrollmentprograms.
0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 30% 35% 40% 45%
Percentage of Gross Revenue by Program Type
44
Executive Education Continuing Education
7%
11%
11%
22%
29%
42%
Conferences/events
Online/bl. Custom
Other sources
Face-to-face Custom
Online/blended OE
Face-to-face OE
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50%
2%
2%
3%
9%
40%
55%
Conferences/events
Other sources
Online/blended OE
Online/bl. Custom
Face-to-face OE
Face-to-face Custom
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60%
Percentage of Gross Revenue from Credit or Non Credit-Bearing Programs
45
CREDIT-BEARING PROGRAMS
NON CREDIT-BEARING PROGRAMS
33%
74%
In 2012 it was a 20/80 split
Percentage of Gross Revenue from Credit or Non Credit-Bearing Programs
46
33%
74%
16%
89%
Executive Education Continuing Education
CREDIT-BEARING PROGRAMS
NON CREDIT-BEARING PROGRAMS
Percentage of Gross Revenue from New and Existing Customers
47
43%
58%
NEW CUSTOMERS
EXISTING CUSTOMERS In 2012 it was a 42/56 split
Percentage of Gross Revenue By Participants’ Nationality
48
10%
23%
70%
INTERNATIONAL AUDIENCES
NATIONAL AUDIENCES
LOCAL/REGIONAL AUDIENCES
Changes in Program Reach?
49
40%
39%
42%
48%
18%
13%
Taking programs to other parts of thecountry or world
Attendance by people from other parts of thecountry or world
PROGRAM/INSTRUCTION
Linda
50
Successful new initiatives
•Expansion of programs beyond traditional metropolitan area via partnerships.*
•Unbundling management seminars and allowing participants to have the choice of selecting the seminars they want to earn certificate. Larger and more diverse "audience", growth of program, projection of increased revenue.
•Expanded the number of online programs.*
•Niche products with brand recognition.
Collaboration & Partnership 10.87%
Delivery Format 19.57%
Marketing 19.57%
Programming 41.3%
51
New initiatives (cont.)
•No notebooks for a custom (four week long) program - use only tablets/IPad.
•Alumni events to get a guest lecture from a premier faculty. Yes it was successful. We had over 250 alumni show up and it lead to many sales leads.*
•New website with enhanced RFIs married to landers and implementation of CRM and Marketing Automation tools.*
•New higher level business education format for experienced managers. Result is a contract to conduct program every six months through 2014. It succeeds because it has been a collaborative effort between our faculty and the employee development personnel at the client.
52
Who teaches?
CE EE Other
Tenured 21% 44% 27%
Non-tenured 24% 19% 22%
Practitioner 55% 36% 51%
53
Average Pay per Classroom
Hour
54
<$100 $100-149 $150-199 $200-299 $300-399 $400+
Most institutions pay between $200-$299.
How do you compare?
Average Pay per Classroom Hour
by Instructor Type
55
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
400+
300 - $399
$200 - $299
$150 - $199
100 - $149
Less than $100
Tenured faculty are the highest paid type.
Does size matter?
56
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
400+
300 - $399
$200 - $299
$150 - $199
100 - $149
Less than $100
Average Pay per Classroom Hour
by Market Size Fewer than 500k
Tenured
Non-tenured
Consultant
Less than $100
3% 10% 11%
$100 - $149 19% 26% 9%
$150 - $199 16% 19% 20%
$200 - $299 22% 16% 31%
$300 - $399 19% 16% 14%
$400+ 25% 13% 14%
More than 500K
Tenured
Non-tenured
Consultant
Less than $100
8% 13% 16%
$100 - $149 13% 13% 16%
$150 - $199 21% 26% 16%
$200 - $299 17% 13% 28%
$300 - $399 17% 13% 12%
$400+ 25% 22% 12%
57
Regardless of market size, tenured faculty are higher paid. Smaller markets tend to pay all
instructor types more than do larger markets.
But Exec Ed pays more than
Con Ed, right?
ConEd
ExecEd
58
Right!
Intellectual Property
Ownership
Faculty 40%
University 41%
Shared 9%
Other 7%
Client 3%
59
Who owns the intellectual property used in a course?
Do we pay for course development?
Pre-packaged Course-
ware 3%
Separate Fee
51%
Included with Fee
28%
Don't Pay 13%
Other 5%
60
When do we pay for course
development?
61
2
1
3
28
40
24
23
20
8
11
4
8
3
6
0
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45
Open
Custom
Online
Other Don't Pay Development
Included with Instructional Fee Separate Development Fee
Pre-packaged Courseware
Who owns it if we pay for it?
Faculty 41%
University 38%
Shared 15%
Client 6%
Other 0%
Classroom
62
Faculty 40%
University 41%
Shared 9%
Other 7%
Client 3%
Online
When development is paid for, 41% of faculty retain ownership of intellectual property
Program Interests Changes?
63
44%
16%
33%
52%
48%
55%
47%
56%
45%
32%
43%
37%
10%
28%
22%
16%
10%
8%
Interest in multiple courses orcertificates
Interest in resume-buildingcourses
Interest in credit-bearing courses
Interest in totally online courses
Interest in blended or hybridcourses
Need for instructors with onlineteaching experience
Changes in types of courses
or content
64
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
65
Questions? Comments?
We are happy to help you!
top related