Helping HBCUs Optimize Student Data, Onboarding, and Lifecycle Marketing Opportunities

HBCUs are different. There’s universal inside jokes about the outdated processes of financial aid departments taking forever during registration only to end up with blaring errors, hiccups, and long waits. Whether we’re talking about institutions’ slowness to adapt to more progressive technologies for completing registration, for instance, requiring paper versions of digital assets, or mistakes like presenting campus housing hurdles delaying move-in dates, it seems that these challenges exist across multiple historical black colleges and universities. In the HBCU alumni circles, we all agree that these obstacles are a part of the core experience and teach us first-hand about patience, efficiency, and persistence.

This idea got me thinking about my major and how I didn’t feel quite prepared for the world after graduating with my Bachelor of Arts in Mass Communication in 2008. My classes at that time centered around using Web 1.0 (the read only web) methodologies like QuarkExpress for newspaper layouts, various journalistic writing styles, and other key philosophies that I’d argue were outdated as major course focuses by the time I graduated. The transition to Web 2.0 (the participative social web) was in full swing and along with it came real-time comments, social networks, and algorithms. I graduated in a time where newspapers were becoming phased out as news took to social media, but my college coursework hadn’t factored in these changes to the landscape.

Higher education meets lifecycle marketing with proper data maintenance

Enter today. I’m wondering if the curriculum has kept up, but more importantly to me as a marketer, how are HBCUs keeping up on the data front. Southern University as an institution has been around since 1880, so naturally there should be a treasure trove of data from matriculating students, prospects, and alumni. In the most basic of expectations, there should be a relevant database from the past 15 years (I graduated in 2008) as this would represent alumni still ripe for post-graduate programs, Southern University Law School, doctoral programs, and more importantly this range would include alumni with current high school graduate aged children who could be marketed to as new college enrollees.

You see, I’d expect a major university to have a Lifecycle Marketing program in place that segments and markets 1:1 to their marketable audience. For instance, if an individual happens to load the Southern University homepage, I’d expect some Form to trigger in an attempt to capture that person’s information. We might even tie that form to a Subscribe to Newsletter, Stay Connected, or some other enticing call-to-action. The goal is to discover each stranger’s intent and then to place them in Lifecycle marketing funnels, nurture journeys, or various other communications that ultimately result in a conversion through enrollment or other performance indicator. As a University, there’s at the very least 4 years to acquire over 500 different points of data for each prospect, student, or alumni that we can use to further market for profitability later down the funnel. We should be building a student or lead profile for each person who completes our form or indicates explicit interest in our Courses, Pricing, or other trigger content.

I’m 37, and I just had my first set of twins, who are also my first children, however many of my college colleagues had children far earlier than I did. So, my crude math says that there is a contingent of alumni who are 38 and had kids by at least 20, so they’d have 18 year olds who can be marketed to as long as we have the data. This brings me to my point about keeping up with the times. The data. We should be able to segment students and people who visit our web properties into specific buckets based on all the collected data points if we’re allowing data into the system properly. 

One university as a case study

As a small case study, I decided to log back into Southern University’s Apply portal to do some digging. My case study would entail logging into SUBR online to start an application for enrollment. This login would be my first since 2008 and will tell me a lot about SUBR’s data governance. Simply possessing data doesn’t equate to much without actually leveraging it. I’d wager that leveraging this data properly can be the deciding factor for enrollment numbers. Luckily, Southern has been doing something right in the realm of out-of-state enrollees as they had 891 total out of state students in 2017, while in fall of 2023 the school boasted that the number rose to 2,196 – an increase of 146% says a report by the Public Affairs Research Council.

Its not my intent to bully Southern University A&M or any other Historical Black College or University, but rather to bring light to an often forgotten area of responsibility we should be investing into – the data. Its our responsibility as stewards of website channels and student relationships to apply proper guardianship towards data collection. As a marketer, I’m a firm believer that appropriate marketing programs are just as valuable and essential to data guardianship as safeguarding data and not leveraging it. In fact, in the age of algorithms, I’d rather be marketed relevant content than irrelevant, but I’m aware that that’s subjective positioning as its not a black and white topic. I do want HBCUs to start paying closer attention to how they are collecting, curating, and leveraging data. If I had to stand on a reason for using them as an example, its that. In comparison, universities like Louisiana State University, Alabama State University, and Cornell, don’t have the same issues – they have their own unique data issues that I might explore in a later blog post. 

96,000+ untapped student profiles

I’ve worked for over a dozen universities who are all utilizing unique methods for acquiring student prospective information online. One of the most prevalent and easy to accomplish would be that of a Journey. There should be a clean student, prospect, or lead profile that can be sorted and segmented into a list that can be included in one of several journeys. For instance, prospective students from Louisiana could be tagged in Salesforce, synced into Marketing Cloud, and fall within a data extension for InStateUndergradProspects2025. We could even take it a step further and segment down into InStateUndergrad_CommsProspects2025 to specify a degree program. We can only safely and efficiently use lists/data extensions for journeys if the journey criteria/ data is clean, up to date, and accurate. A great journey options would even entail repeating an information confirmation email yearly to keep track of former students as they travel throughout life. In this way, we can smartly implement 1:1 strategies that reinvest, onboard, and speak to people where they are in their journey. 

Since 2008, Southern University has matriculated or enrolled around 96,000 individuals. Where is their data? What dorms did they live in? What can we tell about their campus experience from their data? Well, we can only speak to that if we have the data in question. I consider it an egregious misstep to allow that data to go unused, untapped, and out dated. Those 96,000 records easily equated to over 30,000 potential alumni children who could have been marketed to for enrollment. That’s over $48,000 in potential revenue per email campaign and over 250 potential additional new student registrations per semester. 

Just some quick student math

I’d log my experience, much like I’m doing here, to determine what HBCUs are actually doing under the hood as it relates to housing the data of over 96,000 individuals give or take. First, let’s breakdown how I got the 96k number:

To estimate the total number of students who likely matriculated through Southern University Baton Rouge since 2008, we can use a simple estimation method based on average annual enrollment figures and the number of years since 2008.

Let’s assume a conservative estimate of the annual enrollment at Southern University Baton Rouge has been around 6,000 students since 2008. This is a rough approximation and may not reflect actual enrollment figures for each year, but it provides a baseline for estimation.

Now, let’s calculate the total number of students who likely matriculated through Southern University Baton Rouge since 2008:

  • Total years since 2008 = 2024 (current year) – 2008 (starting year) = 16 years
    Average annual enrollment = 6,000 students
  • Total estimated students = Average annual enrollment × Total years since 2008
  • Total estimated students = 6,000 students/year × 16 years = 96,000 students

So, using this estimation method, it’s likely that approximately 96,000 students have matriculated through Southern University Baton Rouge since 2008. Keep in mind that this is a rough estimate and the actual number may vary.

SUBR's Apply Now intake form can use some TLC

Consider the importance of intake forms, which serve as a crucial data source and support various firm processes. However, managing the sheer volume of information captured, sometimes up to 500 data points per form, can be daunting. While data is essential for firm operations, it’s crucial to assess whether each piece of information collected is truly necessary and accurate. In the case of Southern’s initial Apply Now form, it represents a broken data source in need of some TLC. 

Educating client-facing and support teams about the required data and its purpose is invaluable. The primary intake form for Southern’s Apply Now is in desperate need of review and rebuild. Each data point requires input and review, potentially leading to time-consuming back-and-forth communications in case of inaccuracies. Emphasizing a “right first-time” approach where all stakeholders take accountability can minimize such inefficiencies. As the form lives now, its creating student profiles with bad county and country fields, while also just maintaining old data with no means of updating it. We can’t effectively and safely include records in journeys with this configuration as we can’t trust the data. I haven’t logged in in years but the system displayed my old data quick and effortlessly (this isn’t a good thing lol). 

1. Old and outdated data

I think its commendable that Southern University still has my outdated data on file, as its a testament to at least 15 years of data housing. The fact that data must live somewhere and storage costs should also be in the back of our minds as we unravel the online application experience and its subsequent leveraging of our data through marketing. As a stakeholder, I’d want to be making money off of my housed data or at least moving needles to justify housing old data. We could be leveraging data for marketing to prospective students, post graduates who might re-enroll, and even to support other business initiatives. 

In a perfect world, SUBR would be sending me annual emails leading to landing pages prompting me to update all my personal information. That info should then update my student/alumni record and be used to segment me into various buckets, for instance Alumni NOT registered in Alumni Federation or Alumni Residing in Texas, or even a repository that checks for my status in the enrollment system to cross verify my alumni status. This would also allow us to send mail like promotions for football games, vouchers for alumni shopping, etc. 

2. Make Picklists tight for better data hygiene

“Your data should tell a story. You want to be sure that story is accurate, and that you’re able to report it up correctly and with confidence.”

This form uses Picklists to populate options for Country, but as we can see in the example, there are duplicates and misspells in some of the options. It’s tough to ascertain as to what extent this misconfiguration is affecting data as we don’t know what data types each selection is tied to. At best, selecting either of the duplicate options would register as a Country input. At worst, both options are misconfigured in their data type.  

In the spirit of troubleshooting, we’d also want to explore where these duplicated and misspelled Picklist options are coming into the system from. Are they configured in a universal settings for the field or is the system somehow allowing users to update the Picklist options with their responses. I can see the second scenario if this was set up during a time where we expected the user to know more countries than we have list options, but I can’t see this as a viable setup in modern times. Today, we should be allowing the options we want and including any straightforward options, but not allowing field options to be updated based on submission values – not that we’ve solidified this as the case per se, but it does look that way. 

3. Tidy up dependent Picklist fields

Another error in the intake form lies in the Parish Picklist item. I think this form field was intended to refer dependent on the State field so it shows counties or parishes native to the specified State selection. Instead, what we get here is a Picklist that populates Louisiana Parishes with the odd additions of specific Countries as selections. This should have been caught in QA, UAT, or level of software delivery. The first Picklist scenario was definitely a user configuration error, but this seems to be more of system generated error. It seems as though the list just isn’t updating with the field dependency. Either way, this hurts the student onboarding experience and is a bad look for the university before even stepping foot on campus. In this particular instance, the error could really make the brand look uncooked or unfinished. It doesn’t inspire confidence in the institution when critical items like this are mismanaged on the frontend no less. 

On the data front, this Picklist inconsistency is directly impacting data health and data integrity. Now, there are a number of profiles that using duplicated and misconfigured field values, misplaced Countries, and jumbled info in the County/Parish field. Again, we can’t properly set up clean nurture journeys with this level of erroneous data.  

4. Phase out traditional for digital first experiences


HBCUs are acquiring data but not doing anything with it. We could easily fix these issues by redesigning and reproaching the way we develop forms. By missing out on opportunities for good data, we forfeit the gains, profits, and key performance indicators possible with lifecycle marketing programs. HBCUs often seem like last to the table in several essential technological innovations among higher education institutions. We can turn the tides on several worthy fronts by taking data serious and leveraging it towards actionable insights. Finally, I’d love to see HBCUs like my alma mater adopt progressive data governance strategies and grow to their maximum potential across digital.

Summary

In conclusion, its my current short-term mission to audit and advocate for historically black colleges and universities to catch-up to best practices in data management. Organizations are losing out on countless 1:1 marketing engagements through a lack of actionable data. In addition, students would love to receive relevant information to help pad out their knowledge of their university, college, or activity programs – what better way than to use CRM platforms and available data. 

The Art of Re-Engagement: Less Can Be More

In the fast-paced world of email marketing, maintaining a healthy subscriber list is paramount. However, what many marketers fail to realize is that sometimes, letting go of certain subscribers can actually be a strategic move. In this blog post, we’ll delve into the importance of reengagement strategies, the inevitability of unsubscribes, and why it’s crucial to recognize when it’s best to bid farewell to certain subscribers.

Understanding Reengagement Strategies

Reengagement strategies are the lifeline of any successful email marketing campaign. They are designed to rekindle the interest of subscribers who have become disengaged or inactive. Whether it’s through targeted offers, personalized content, or simply reaching out to ask for feedback, reengagement strategies aim to reignite the spark that initially drew subscribers to your brand.

However, despite our best efforts, not all subscribers can be won back. And that’s okay. There are a ton of scenarios that prove that subscribers are petty by their very nature. If you think about it, there are subscribers who only subscribed due to a moment in time, wanting to receive a particular benefit of subscribing, or otherwise some reason that buckets them as a temporary engagement. Therefore, all subscribes aren’t good subs, just like all unsubscribes aren’t indicative of doing something wrong in all cases.

Leveraging Reengagement

There are some cases where we can use re-engagement campaigns as a means to clean up our data, learn our subscribers’/customers’ pain points, and work our email strategy. I’ve worked on re-engagement campaigns where we emailed customers links to fill in their own personal data, hence giving us the data we need to segment them into more profitable buckets. For instance, having a college graduate fill in their college major, their current career, and their career goals – now, we have data that shows where their interests lie. By tapping into their interest, we increase the likelihood that they will engage or convert.

“I’d take an account with 100 highly engaged subscribers over a low engaged 1,000, any day of the week. “

Embracing Unsubscribes

Unsubscribes are an inevitable part of email marketing. While they may sting at first, they also present an opportunity for growth and refinement. Instead of viewing unsubscribes as a failure, consider them as a natural filter that helps you refine your subscriber list.

Think of unsubscribes as a way to prune your garden. By removing subscribers who are no longer interested or engaged, you’re allowing space for new growth and ensuring that your messages are reaching those who truly value them.

The Power of Letting Go

Sometimes, despite our best efforts, certain subscribers simply aren’t the right fit for our brand. And that’s perfectly okay. In fact, holding onto disengaged subscribers can actually be detrimental to your email marketing efforts. ESPs have all types of background algorithms that determine reputation across sender profiles and having unengaged subscribers hurts overall reputation. 

In one of my previous roles, we were so focused on engagement and reputation that we would only send internal test emails to users who committed to clicking through them. It doesn’t help our reputation to have subscribers who pad our numbers but aren’t engaged with the content. I’d choose 100 highly engaged openers over 1,000 unengaged subscribers any day of the week. 

By letting go of subscribers who aren’t actively engaging with your content, you free up resources that can be better allocated towards nurturing relationships with those who are genuinely interested in what you have to offer. This not only improves the overall quality of your subscriber list but also allows you to focus your efforts where they will have the greatest impact.

Conclusion

In the world of email marketing, reengagement strategies are essential for maintaining a healthy subscriber list. However, it’s equally important to recognize when it’s time to let certain subscribers go. By embracing unsubscribes and acknowledging that not every subscriber is the right fit for your brand, you can focus your efforts on nurturing relationships with those who truly value your content. So, don’t be afraid to bid farewell to certain subscribers – sometimes, letting go is the best way to move forward.

2024 Guide to Email Authentication: SPF, DKIM, DMARC, and BIMI Explained – Part 1

Ever wondered how mailbox providers such as Gmail and Yahoo distinguish legitimate senders from potential spammers or scammers? The key lies in email authentication protocols.

Email fraud, particularly through tactics like email spoofing, poses a significant challenge. Ensuring the safety of email recipients is paramount to mailbox providers, and it should be a priority for us as email senders as well.

As an email marketer, building trust with subscribers is essential, and maintaining the integrity of the email channel is crucial for fostering meaningful connections between brands and customers. Beginning in 2024, implementing email authentication protocols will be mandatory for senders aiming to reach users on major platforms like Gmail and Yahoo Mail.

However, navigating through terms such as SPF, DKIM, DMARC, and BIMI, alongside other acronyms like SMTP and MTAs, can feel like wading through a bowl of alphabet soup. But fear not! This guide is here to illuminate the essentials and guide you towards setting up email authentication protocols effectively.

Email authentication protocols quietly work behind the scenes, acting as unsung heroes to verify the identity of senders before their emails land in inboxes. By implementing these verification methods, not only do senders demonstrate responsibility, but they also enhance email deliverability.

Though the technical intricacies of these protocols may seem daunting, with acronyms reminiscent of a bowl of Alpha-Bits cereal, let’s begin by unraveling the basics.

Email Authentication Explained

Email authentication is a crucial process employed to ensure the integrity of email messages, guarding against fakery and forgery before they reach their intended recipients. Operating in the background, email authentication protocols are utilized by mail servers on the receiving end to validate crucial sender information, particularly the identity listed in the “from” field and other pertinent data within the email header.

These protocols serve multiple functions, including verifying that emails have not been tampered with during transit and providing directives to mail servers regarding the treatment of messages that fail authentication.

By safeguarding against spam and phishing attacks, particularly those stemming from email spoofing, email authentication protocols play a vital role in protecting users.

Here’s a concise overview of the primary protocols and specifications associated with email authentication:

  • Sender Policy Framework (SPF): This protocol maintains a list of approved sources authorized to send emails on behalf of your domain.
  • DomainKeys Identified Mail (DKIM): DKIM utilizes a blend of public and encrypted keys to authenticate the identity of a sender before a receiving mail server accepts the message for delivery.
  • Domain-based Message Authentication, Reporting, and Conformance (DMARC): DMARC serves as a specification that verifies SPF and DKIM alignment before providing instructions to receiving mail servers on how to handle authentication failures. Additionally, DMARC furnishes senders with reports on email traffic.
  • Brand Indicators for Message Identification (BIMI): BIMI is an email specification enabling senders to display a verified logo at the inbox level when DMARC enforcement is in place.

These email authentication protocols and specifications are encapsulated within DNS TXT records, which mailbox providers and receiving mail servers reference when determining whether to accept messages for delivery and how to classify them, whether as spam or as eligible for delivery to users’ inboxes.

2024 Email Authentication Protocol Requirements Explained

In 2024, the landscape of email authentication protocol requirements shifted significantly, notably with announcements from Gmail and Yahoo regarding new mandates for bulk senders. One of the most substantial changes introduced was the mandatory adoption of email authentication protocols.
Previously, Sender Policy Framework (SPF), DomainKeys Identified Mail (DKIM), and Domain-based Message Authentication, Reporting, and Conformance (DMARC) were strongly recommended but not obligatory. However, the tides have turned. As of 2024, all senders are required to employ some form of email authentication. Specifically, bulk senders—typically those dispatching thousands of emails daily—are mandated to implement all three authentication methods.

Yet, even for non-bulk senders, integrating SPF, DKIM, and DMARC into their email infrastructure is a prudent decision. Mailbox providers are ramping up efforts to combat issues such as spoofing and spam proliferation, underlining the importance of robust authentication measures.

A survey conducted by Sinch Mailgun for its exclusive report, “The State of Email Deliverability 2023,” revealed alarming findings. A notable portion of senders were found to be not utilizing SPF, DKIM, and DMARC, while many others remained uncertain about the authentication status of their emails.

According to the survey conducted by Sinch Mailgun, the findings regarding the implementation of email authentication protocols among senders are as follows:

  • SPF Usage:
    • Yes: 55.4%
    • No: 12.8%
    • Unsure: 31.8%
  • DKIM Usage:
    • Yes: 58.5%
    • No: 11.1%
    • Unsure: 30.4%
  • DMARC Usage:
    • Yes: 42.5%
    • No: 18.7%
    • Unsure: 38.8%

These statistics underscore a significant portion of senders who have yet to fully implement SPF, DKIM, and DMARC. Notably, a considerable number of respondents remain uncertain about their email authentication practices. These figures emphasize the urgent need for senders to prioritize the adoption of robust email authentication protocols to enhance deliverability and mitigate potential security risks.

How Email Authentication Works

Email authentication is a crucial process that verifies the origin of an email and confirms domain ownership for the message transfer agents (MTAs) involved in its transmission or modification.
In essence, when an email is sent, it originates from a specific domain or subdomain. Email authentication protocols consist of rules embedded within DNS (domain name system) records for these sending domains. To authenticate an email, the sending mail server and the receiving mail server engage in a dialogue, cross-referencing protocols in the DNS to validate the sender’s identity.

Though each protocol operates uniquely, the general process unfolds as follows:

  • Establishing Authentication Rules: The sender or domain owner defines rules for authenticating emails sent from or on behalf of its domains.
  • Configuring Sending Servers: The sender configures its sending email servers and publishes the authentication rules within the DNS records.
  • Authentication by Receiving Servers: Upon receipt, the receiving email servers authenticate incoming messages from the sender by applying the published rules.
  • Action by Receiving Servers: Subsequently, the receiving email servers adhere to the published rules and proceed to either deliver, quarantine, or reject the message based on authentication outcomes.

Beyond confirming legitimate senders, email authentication protocols also play a pivotal role in establishing IP address and domain reputation. This enables the more efficient identification of malicious senders, thereby enhancing email security measures.

Conclusion

The foundation of email communication lies in the Simple Mail Transfer Protocol (SMTP), which facilitates the exchange of messages. However, SMTP lacks built-in mechanisms for validating the identity of senders, rendering it vulnerable to abuse by spammers and phishing attempts.


To address these vulnerabilities, email authentication protocols emerged in the early 2000s, aiming to bolster the security of SMTP and combat the proliferation of email spam. Among the earliest and most widely adopted protocols were Sender Policy Framework (SPF) and DomainKeys Identified Mail (DKIM). Subsequently, Domain-based Message Authentication, Reporting, and Conformance (DMARC) emerged as a policy framework to augment and standardize SPF and DKIM. More recently, Brand Indicators for Message Identification (BIMI) has emerged as a novel email specification.


These authentication protocols establish a standardized approach for email services such as Gmail, Outlook, Yahoo, and Apple Mail to verify sender identities, eliminating the need for disparate, proprietary authentication methods.