Ever have “one of those days?” Well, UNM Athletics is having “one of those semesters.”

UNM Athletics has been hammered by issue after issue making the national and international news – none of them in a good way. Bear with me as I recap the incidents briefly.

The first dealt with Lobo head football coach, Mike Locksley, who was hired in December 2008 and since then has created controversy left and right.  According to a California news website a former administrative assistant “accused Locksley of sexual harassment, age discrimination and retaliation. The plaintiff’s lawyer said Locksley told the woman she was too old to be attractive to recruits.” According to the NCAA Football Fanhouse (click here), the issue was resolved out of court and “All EEOC claims have been withdrawn.”

Then there was a terribly misguided September ad campaign tying Lobo Athletics to a local casino promotion: Lobo Loco ads blog (click here).

Next came an incident that recently played itself out over national ESPN interviews, where Locksley was accused of hitting an assistant coach. See this Associated Press article.   This was followed up by the thorough bungling of the investigation of the fight incident by the UNM Athletics department, as painfully described in this ill-advised and poorly executed press conference by UNM President David Schmidly and VP of Athletics Paul Krebs

As of Tuesday night, I understand the issue is now under further investigation by the UNM staff committee. All of this on top of UNM’s on-field troubles of a 0-9 losing football season.

And now comes the BYU vs UNM soccer incident that has again made the international news. I will let the video clip below from ESPN’s Sports Center speak for itself.

The player has been suspended indefinitely, issued a written apology, and has gone into hiding due to wide release of and strong negative reaction to the incident.  There have been many articles regarding the situation. Here are a couple of them:

• A letter to the editor of the DailyLobo (UNM student newspaper) by a BYU student
• UK’s Sky News call player “dirtiest” soccer player ever
• Brisbane Times calls incident an internet hit

UNM had no way of preventing or controlling this series of events, of course. Every school has or will have unforeseeable issues that plague them like this, although this non-stop series of one after the other has got to set some sort of record.

Yet several of UNM’s recent wounds were self-infllicted.  The Lobo Loco ad campaign, for example, was misguided from the start, and should never have seen the light of day.  And the press conference in which the UNM President and VP of Athletics tediously slogged through a laundry list of what UNM did wrong in the Locksley assault case was badly mishandled.

In fact, there has been scant evidence of any judicious, well-planned issues management from the institution.  Here’s what we all might take away from this unfortunate series of events:

1. Have an “issues management plan” (not just a “crisis plan”) in place that defines policies, procedures, and responsibilities.  Responses should be directed by a small team of the most experienced and trusted communicators on campus, rather than departmental (in this case, Athletics) staff.  Make sure administrators approve the plan in advance.
2. One clear, credible spokesperson should consistently deal with the media throughout.
3. Create talking points and guidelines for those who need to know regarding policy issues and the institutional responses and solutions.
4. Resolve the issue quickly, completely, and decisively the first time, rather than trying to “contain” or “compartmentalize responses. Letting issues trickle on is the worst possible approach.
5. Never allow the CEO to “own” all the problems and errors, only the solutions.
6. Act fast, act honestly, act comprehensively.

Hopefully this will mark the end of issues for UNM Athletics and they’ll be able to move forward with academics and athletics more productively.  We hope so!

If you follow what’s new with Twitter, you’re certainly aware of their latest and most significant announcement in some time: lists. It’s safe to say that the new feature has already been a huge hit and is one of the  most requested features (along with integrated retweeting). Via 3^rd party tools such as TweetDeck and Seesmic, you’ve been able to create groups and break out those you follow.  This was a great way to solve the common issue of too much noise in your Twitter stream, especially when following a large number of people. I also used this for categorizing.

Thankfully for us tweeters, this functionality is now integrated into twitter.com and in my opinion, Twitter hit the ball out of the park, as the implementation is extremely well done.

When you create a list, you’re able to add people you’re following and edit out those you’re not. Following/follower status is irrelevant. Anytime you are on anyone’s profile page, you have the ability to add them to a list. The result is your created list(s) contain the Twitter streams of those who have been added to the list.  Simple enough, right?

Examples of lists in action are the six lists (as of this writing) Techcrunch has created: @TechCrunch/microsoft. It looks like they’ve collected all of Microsoft’s official Twitter entities, along with a few other Microsoft-related accounts. The cool thing is that this list will be accessible from my profile page, hence anyone who visits my page can see that I follow it. I love that the ability to follow lists exists without having to individually follow each member of a list (Hope I didn’t lose you there). The Twitter users in the Microsoft list will not show up in my timeline.

Since lists act like their own person and are accessible to anyone, I imagine there will soon be a directory ranking of the most popular Twitter lists  (Kevin Rose of WeFollow just announced WeFollow’s lists of top influential users. No rankings of lists just yet). This assumes the list is not private as Twitter offers the option of making lists private, too.

The most creative example I’ve seen so far (I have to admit I’m a tad biased here, is what the NHL has done. They’re using lists as a method to categorize NHL fans by favorite team. They’re methodology is simple: ask users to send an @message to them including their favorite team and the hashtag #myfavoriteNHLteam. Presto, like-minded fans join their team’s “official Twitter fan club”.

Here at EMG, we’ve brainstormed how lists can be used in higher education. There’s real opportunity to get in on this Twitter feature. Let’s say we use an NHL-like approach. Your institution can assemble current and prospective students by academic interest/major. By tweeting, “Please tweet @XYZuniversity your desired/current major and include the hashtag #mymajor,” you create a public forum for students interested in their major.

Another possibility is to create lists for alumni by graduating class. Or you might organize your faculties by college, providing students the ability to gain insights from every professor in their area of study. You could run contests and as prospective or current students achieve a challenge set out by your institution, they are added to a list. The idea of creating a “prestigious” list in which you had to earn your way on to sounds kind of nifty to me.

To wrap up this post, it’s important to follow pertinent lists yourself. Lists are still in their infancy, but well-populated lists are popping up fast, and of course doing more following will increase your chances of both your account or your lists being followed. Now if you’ll excuse me, I’m gong to see if an EMG developer can help me create a site that categorizes and ranks Twitter lists!

All kidding aside, is there one out there currently? If so, please let me know in the comments!

This is the second of my two-part post recounting what we learned in a recent series of online focus groups on website design and navigation.  The objective of the research was to gather input to guide development of a client’s new website.  Participants were high school students from the Midwest reacting and responding to  the client site and four carefully selected comparator websites.

We often use online focus groups to understand how and why target audiences respond to various types of communications.  Like all of our focus group work, these were designed for a specific school, but much of what we learned applies to any college website.

In the first post, What Students Really Want (click here), we laid out four factors that the focus group participants indicated were shaping their reactions when they visited a home page for the first time:

1. Design, content, color that define a strong personality
2. High-impact, descriptive photography
3. Friendly content that gets to the point fast
4. Clear navigation to find desired information easily

With regard to #4 above, careful interpretation of the user-group input identified two categories of information that prospects looked for in the initial website visit to see if they were interested enough to learn more:  Info they needed, and info they wanted.

Information that students need encompasses “Threshold Factors” that determine whether or not your institution can make it to the short list of schools that can be considered.  User group input showed that the pathways to Threshold information have to be clearly identified and easy to follow from your home page:

1. Program listings
2. Tuition and fees
3. Financial aid
4. Location

While you need to have clearly defined pathways to such information, it doesn’t necessarily mean that program listings, tuition and fees, location, and financial aid information should be at the very top of your navigational scheme.

Here’s why:  Focus group participants identified a second critical category of initial information – information they wanted to see.  These are Motivational Factors” that get prospects excited and energized enough to stay on your site and to find out more:

1. Campus setting and student life
2. Scholarships and Awards
3. Reputation
4. Brand personality and promise

Based on the user group input, shaping the user experience in a way that blends both Threshold and Motivational factors in a seamless and compelling way is the sine qua non for an elegant, effective student prospect website.

The more powerfully you communicate Motivational elements on the home page and throughout the pathways that prospects use to navigate to Threshold information – through engaging student-life images, concise brand messages, teasers about scholarship opportunities, designs that convey distinctive personality, and reputation-building proof points –  the more successful your site will be in generating inquiries and interest.

The trick is to communicate this sort of branded motivational information pervasively on your site in short, intriguing bits and pieces so that prospects are interested enough to get to the information they feel they need.  And once they arrive at Threshold information, you want that information to be absorbed within the context of your most motivational branding environment.

As the snow started falling like crazy in Colorado on Wednesday of this week,  I came across an article about the ski industry in Colorado. Due to lingering effects of the economic downturn, the ski industry has shifted its marketing strategy from marketing nationally and internationally to marketing in-state and  regionally. People aren’t driving as much, aren’t planning to go too far from home and aren’t spending that much money on a luxury like skiing.

Similar, but not exactly the same issues are being felt in higher education. Rising tuition, lower income, loss of jobs are being faced by many families. Which is one reason why I was surprised to see many universities last week mention they are going to start, are thinking about, or are being to pressured to increasing their out-of-state admissions.  UC Berkeley, University of Colorado, and the State University of New York are thinking of ways to increase out-of-state and international student numbers.

A couple notes before I begin. While I understand the  state funding issues and other budgetary issues revolving around this  issue, I want to mention some of the  marketing issues these schools may face in the near future as they move forward in their decision, at least in the short term. Also, this is not a bashing on the schools strategic decision, but more of a brain dump on potential issues.

• Costs families have to weigh. Students and their families, for the most part, have less money and may not be able to be accepted for a loan. This means that many students and families will have to debate whether they actually can afford some of the additional costs of an out-of-state education:
  • housing
  • transportation, both for local driving and back-to-home visits
  • transportation,  family visits on campus
  • long-distance communication
  • parking
  • out-of-state tuition
• Scattered audiences. While there are still many families doing “okay” and are able to afford or receive loans for many of the items listed above, being able to market to them en-masse may be difficult.  So money will be needed to boost marketing for a more scattered and widespread audience.
• Angering the local stakeholders. Community members, alumni, donors, and others may feel slided by the nearby university’s decision to target more out-of-staters. Some may disagree with the idea their higher education institution is not educating their local community. Some may even feel so strongly about it, they will no longer donate to or cut ties with the school.
• Reworking marketing materials. Many organizations have a single search mailer or viewbook they send to prospective students and they often tend to focus the style, language, and voice to match their major audience. Depending on where they shift there attention to grab out-of-state students, the schools above may need to rework their marketing materials to effectively reach their new audiences.
• Understanding and communicating with new audiences. To increase out-of-state enrollment, many will have to look to new markets and new audiences to reach their goals. This means that marketing research should be done to find  potential students and understand their motives.  Also an increase in out-of-state or international recruiters may be needed.
• Increased competition. Trying to sway a potential student away from a less-expensive,  in-state  university may be hard sell. Also, many institutions have been increasing their marketing capabilities to reach the increase of potential students (via – more higher ed students during poor economy). They are also trying to protect the markets they themselves consider strongholds.
• Educating new audiences. Many schools have market strongholds where the audiences know them fairly well. The audience knows about the school, have been on the campus a couple times, have considered going there, and have friends or family members that have gone there. When shifting markets, especially out-of-state markets, the marketing will have to start from scratch in many areas and educate the audience about the school.

Many universities have done almost the opposite based on their situations. They are bunkering down and, as mentioned, protecting or solidifying their current markets often with great benefits. They may even be venturing into a few newer markets to look for potential students.  Seems like a risky time to be frustrating current market strongholds and venturing heavily into new markets.

This is a risky move by UC Berkeley, University of Colorado and State University of New York with several potential issues, but only time will tell if  the benefits will outweigh the costs and if this is a strategy they plan on keeping in the long-term. All the luck to them and others facing this type of situation.

For the past month, we’ve been slowly packing up our office in preparation for a move to our new space.  At first, the slowly emptying walls and filing cabinets made me uneasy. I felt as if the world around me was becoming ever more unsettled and uncertain.

As we went through the house-cleaning process, I sought to find reason to cling to every piece we’d ever done.  Surely one day we’d need to pull those pieces out and revisit them in all their glory, even though we’d found no such reason in the past three years!

But as I grew accustomed to this shifting landscape, a feeling of possibility, opportunity, and optimism replaced my unease.  I realized that removing the daily reminders of previous accomplishments had also had the effect of opening and redirecting my perspective, releasing my mind’s grip on all that past clutter and freeing it to look at what lay ahead.

As part of my job, I reach for new perspective on a regular basis.  I’m supposed to be stretching my vision forward to the next five years and on.  I didn’t realize how much being surrounded by what’s been done, in effect, kept me from seeing what could be.

Don’t get me wrong, I’m not advocating that we all move…or empty out our offices!  In effect, that could be the easy way to do it.  But the idea of carving out an area in our offices, where we simulate a sort of sensory deprivation tank, where we can allow new thoughts and perspectives to occupy our minds is not be a bad idea.  Why?  Well that’s what’s at the crux of this blog.

The next five years for everyone, will be one giant shifting landscape.  I’m not necessarily talking about the economic climate in the country and on our campuses…although, these days, we are all being asked to do more with less.  I’m talking about the escalating change in communications.  And that doesn’t mean the move from print to online.  That train has already left the station.  If you don’t have a strategy for this, you are already well behind.  I’m not even talking about the social media space, which is already overwhelming many of us.

I’m talking about another shift in digital communications.  Just when many of us are sort of waking up to the idea that our website is an important communications tool, we have this to prepare for.  There is growing movement away from single-source environments on the Web.  Yes that means the care and feeding of your website, soon will not be enough, if we haven’t already started to reach that point.

Witness the explosion of applications for devices like the iPhone and popular programs like Facebook and Twitter.  What do these applications have in common?  They draw from various web tools to create a richer experience for the user.  For example, augmented reality technology allows your phone or your computer to not only see a map of the real world, but to also grab additional information such as the location of subway entrances, the price of houses in that area, or Twitter messages that have been posted nearby.  Wired had a nice piece on this recently.

There are apps that allow students on campus to locate one another, like the app developed by Stanford University. Or Princeton’s reunions mobile site that allows alumni to download an app to their phone with all the reunion information, saving the planet a few trees, the University a few dollars, and putting information at alumni fingertips without having to carry around bulky paper packets.

Needless to say, the potential with these types of apps is limitless.  More importantly this trend of aggregating various types of data into customized efficient packets for users is here to stay and only gaining in potential and popularity.  That means getting a grip on the data you already collect on campus and understanding what it is and how it might be used.  Identifying gaps in your data collection and new data you may want to collect.  Once you’ve done that, the next step is to imagine how to package this data in meaningful ways for your audiences.

Overwhelmed?  I think most of us are.  This whole notion of ones and zeros is a foreign language to most communicators and one I bet none of us thought we’d have to learn on at least a basic level.

I go back to my earlier statement about creating a space in your offices devoid of the past, where you can start to imagine tomorrow and the next day without the past surrounding you.  You’ll need all that white space to map out a plan for how all these new communications tactics will interconnect with each other and how you’ll manage them.  Then empty a drawer in the office where you can dump all the things you used to do.  One day, when you really move, you’ll be ready to let go of them for good!

Developing a website information architecture for an institution is usually a fun, yet humbling experience. And I swear I’m not just saying the fun part just for this blog! The process is also humbling in the sense that colleges and universities are complex entities, some more so than others. Some are small, some are large, but in their own ways, all are unique, influential, and mean something to a lot of people (students, faculty, staff, alumni, donors, community members, etc.). Producing a website characteristically entails having to please many audiences, making difficult decisions, as well as reviewing and revising lots of material. Keeping the big picture in mind at all times is especially important.

When I begin the process, I make a point to start with a clear mind and a completely blank slate. I’ll go as far to say that having a cup of my favorite tea hits the spot. I don’t think about previous architectures I’ve helped make or work from any kind of template. Being able to start fresh is a wonderful feeling. This allows for a lot of freedom at the start of the process, but sooner than you might think, there does come a moment that you’ll be reminded of certain rules and/or limitations you need to abide by. Nobody wants to spend time working on something for no reason and working on something that is going in the wrong direction. An example of a limitation might be trying to get the best result with a difference between expectations. Some people have exaggerated expectations, while some have humble expectations and everything in between. Where is the happy middle ground or compromise? Another limitation is the issue of what pages/copy will be migrated over from the clients’ old site is vital to consider. And another limitation is that universities and colleges continuously seem to change and goals always seem to fluctuate and may go under considerable change as you develop the architecture. This mean you’ve got to mix and match what makes the most sense, while at all times striving to create the best possible and most relevant architecture.

But I’d quickly argue that these limitations are where creativity cultivates (say that 5 times fast). It’s not too difficult for me to remember several instances in which I was faced with having to venture away from initial plans, only to end up with a better end product. Stumbling across an alternative solution to your initial issue while all of a sudden simultaneously enhancing another area of the site? That’s a stellar feeling. Additionally, always keeping in mind basic principles and best practices is a given. Nobody likes to overlook the obvious.

To wrap this up, I’d like to revisit the beginning of the process, even before I sat down to drink my tea. Before the development stage, you obviously have to do your research, which includes a review of their current website (all factors, including navigation and brand presentation), several comparator websites, and analytics/web stats. The other part of the preparation is hearing the voices of campus stakeholders. We go through an intricate interview process with as many institution representatives as possible, everyone from the Presidents to students. This is where the nitty-gritty is learned. Little tidbits from different departments and different personalities can mean the world, both in terms of what needs to be done and inspiration for what could be done. Referring to our notes isn’t at all a trying process, it’s again… here comes that word… fun. Searching for the nuggets or website architecture-pertinent information from our conversations is personally rewarding. Without these intimate, in-person conversations, in my opinion, nothing mind-blowing would get made. Hitting on all the details you can while not compromising the overall integrity, usability, and impression of the site is clutch.

According to the consultancy Black Coffee, a Brand Advocate is a consumer who preaches the merits of a given brand when prompted. According to Dave Chaffey, a Brand Advocate is a customer who has favorable perceptions of a brand who will talk favorably about a brand to their acquaintances to help generate awareness of the brand or influence purchase intent.

Where I’m going with this is in both these instances, the advocate is not actually ‘part of the team’. In both these definitions the advocate is the customer. You could even say they’re sitting up in the stands cheering for their team. If you are an institution of higher education, they are your alumni, your community, and yes, your fans in the stands. So when I read this article from Advertising Age about ‘Why It’s Time to Do Away With the Brand Manager’ it got me thinking… Is it? Is it a silly title based on the fact we all know the consumer is the one that truly defines your brands, especially with the constantly changing online social landscape. It’s a two-way street now more than ever before. Is it time to have the title of Brand Manager go the way of the cassette tapes? While the article is a great read, I’m not necessarily convinced. The actual report suggesting this change will be released by Forrester next week.

I believe there is still a place for what we’ve come to know as marketing management. There’s a lot more to be responsible for than what you might find in an ‘advocate’. In the higher ed space, a central figure in your marketing department remains the optimal setup. An employee who’s looking at both the means and the end.

There’s a few other snippets in this article from the report that  got my attention, one being, “…ditching the formal annual budgeting process and upfront media-specific allocation in favor of frequently updated, on-the-fly plans that adapt quickly as conditions change and money earmarked upfront for initiatives, not specific media. In my view, some of this applies to higher education and some doesn’t. I don’t think ditching the annual budgeting process can be done. There are too many logistics that make this a bit on the impossible side for universities. However, while potentially risky in dealing with the unknown, it might be possible to consider planning for initiatives rather than specific media. I’m going to let that thought simmer for a while…

Another passage that was attention grabbing was “…marketing executives should think less about anchoring annual plans around one or two big hits and more about doing many smaller things quickly and adapting based on real-time consumer feedback and other data.” There are still good in having a fairly robust and solid marketing plan in place, but still have areas of flexibility. In today’s environment, changes can happen quickly, but at the same time, the reason for many of those changes can be pinpointed to social networking and analytics. This can result in a university or college taking quick action.

All in all in regards to the position title, we’re just talking about a technicality here. A title is a title. The duties and responsibilities of a position are obviously what really counts. You’re always going to need someone to keep a close eye and make observations and decisions on what to do in the marketing world. You’re still managing the brand and there are still shots to call… you just might have a little less control over the results.

I just spent a few days reviewing and analyzing input from a series of recent online focus groups.  The focus groups were with college-bound high school students – second-year to fourth-year – who we had asked to react and respond to four carefully selected college websites.

Online focus groups are a great – low-cost – way to crawl inside the heads of your target audiences and understand how and why they respond to your most important recruitment tool – your website.  You should think about doing these on a regular basis.

The Test
We had the focus group participants visit four comparator websites (plus the client’s site) and react to a series of questions about each.  We selected four very different websites for our prospects to review:

1. One was very sophisticated, with high-concept design using graphic treatment instead of imagery, clear navigation, and an array of multimedia and the latest applications on second-level pages;
2. One was businesslike, with a traditional block layout built around a high-impact, attention-grabbing image and prominent text/image teasers guiding users along focused second-level information paths;
3. One displayed a distinctive and inviting brand personality carefully targeting the priority audience segment with inviting, colorful design and intriguing headlines, followed by an extensive list of links to all kinds of information;
4. One was visually busy, filled to brimming with images and eclectic design and typography spaces, news, spotlights, highlighted by conspicuous, inventive links for specific audience segments.

Which of these would you guess got the highest marks for interest and usability?

Winners and Losers
While each of the sites generated positive comments, two of them jumped out at prospects as far-and-away superior in interest, impact, and usability:  The second and third of the four website described above (I’ll send you the urls we tested if you email me by clicking here)!   Surprised?

The website that communicated a distinctive brand personality (#3 above) created the strongest positive impact and “buzz” with participants.  And to address the obvious objection, it even fared well with those who weren’t in the target segment and didn’t resonant with the personality!  Everyone appreciated the fact that the college conveyed pride and openness about their distinctive world view.  “You know right away what’s important to them, and what they stand for.  That’s great,” said one.

Unfortunately, that website lost its appeal just as fast due to its extensive list of poorly organized links, which required too much reading to be worth the effort!   The students didn’t bother with trying to find information; they simply gave up, and fast.

The second winner in our mini-sweepstakes was the traditionally designed workmanlike site that gained power from a single, high-quality branded image and clean navigation.  Based in large part on the impact of the great image, students said the layout projected sophistication, prestige, and elegance.  And unlike #3, this site kept visitors engaged by presenting a clear, logical information flow.  Students liked the pathways to important information in quick, intuitive steps.

The biggest loser was the sophisticated, high-concept site (#1 above).  High school students are so used to reading and interpreting imagery that the absence of it turned them off.   They immediately judged the site to be boring and unimaginative despite the attempt at a chic graphic style.  Too bad, since most participants weren’t interested enough to get to the next level, which was engaging, attractive, fun, and filled with innovative multimedia attractions.   What a waste!

The moral of our focus group study?

Four basic factors have huge impact within 20–30 seconds of a prospect opening your page on their browser:

1. Conveying your unique brand personality through design, content, color
2. Strong, branded imagery that intrigues and/or conveys emotion
3. Concise, conversational copy that gets to the point fast
4. Clear navigational paths to the information that students want most

OK, so that brings up another crucial question:  What information do prospects want most from a website?

The answer – which may surprise you – will have to wait until my next blog post…stay tuned!

Within 10 minutes I came across two topics I couldn’t pass on discussing especially since I touched on both of the subjects recently. The first is about Terp pride at the University of Maryland and the second is about another sponsorship debate at the University of Kentucky’s Sex Week.

First, I came across a recent blog post on The Old College Try: Marketing Higher Ed, about one of my favorite subjects, guerrilla marketing, as mentioned in one of my previous blogs. The University of Maryland is currently implementing an internal marketing tactic to boost Terp pride and calm fears that the popular “Fear the Turtle” calling was going to be retired.  The University hid 570 tiny plastic turtles for students to find throughout the campus. Once a student finds a turtle, they can enter a code found on the plastic figure at the companion Fear the Turtle ‘09 website. Based on the code, a “tile” is flipped on the campus map on the Fear the Turtle website and the student has a chance to win a prize. According to an article in University of Maryland’s Independent Student Newspaper, “prizes range from ice cream cones, Starbucks and Applebee’s gift cards to iPods, T-shirts and tote bags.” There is also a “grand daddy” prize that has yet to be revealed. It was mentioned in the article that posters were placed around the campus to explain the tactic. As of writing this, 461 turtles have been found.

This is an excellent example of using guerrilla marketing that brings in many people in a non-traditional manner. It is fun. It coincides with the university brand. It uses a web-centric approach and also has the ability to share news on social networks. It brings the campus community together. Kudos to the University of Maryland team!

Moving on… last week I wrote about an odd sponsorship of a university athletic program and concerns about how that sponsorship was being portrayed. Before going on, I want to mention that the rest of this post talks about sex and may be uncomfortable to some.

This week, we find yet another odd sponsor of an educational event called Sex Week at the University of Kentucky. The Sex Week says that the week long event is to “increase sexual literacy by initiating an informed, open, and sustained dialog about human sexuality throughout the campus community.” As we all know, this is a great topic for a campus community that has been making the news recently as some universities are taking steps to regulate sexual activity in dorms, according to an article in U.S. News and World Report.

However, I heard in the local news, that one of the sponsors of the event is Pure Romance. The company is an “in-home party company which offers an exclusive line of heighteners, lubricants and bedroom accessories for relationship enhancement.” According to the event website, on Monday October 5, “Pure Romance will tackle myths and misconceptions surrounding bedroon accessories. Discover the truth before getting naked.”  While the sponsorship itself is a bit odd, the session itself may sound a bit more like a sales pitch than an learning opportunity. Also, according to news article published in Kentucky, it was suggested that some of the sponsor’s products promote violence against women.

Both the previous blog post about the athletic sponsor and the sponsor in this blog seem to suggest that there may be a concerning growing fad of allowing any sponsors in without worrying about whether or not the sponsor is actually appropriate to the audience, setting, brands, etc. As long as they have the cash, then it is okay to let them sponsor.

Could it really be possible that the NFL has more standards regarding advertising/sponsorships than some higher ed institutions? Below are NFL advertising guidelines found in their media kit,

The NFL will NOT accept advertising promoting the offering of or making reference to any of the following products or services (partial list)

• Distilled Spirits
• Tobacco Products (including cigarettes, cigars, tobacco, chewing tobacco and snuff)
• Contraceptives
• Feminine Hygiene Products
• Fireworks
• Firearms and Ammunition
• Lotteries
• Gambling (including Horse or Dog Racing and products or services relating in any way to gambling)