IUCRC Marketing & Recruiting Survey

IUCRC Marketing & Recruiting Survey May-June, 2005 Gray & Rivers, NCSU **Preliminary Data** **Do Not Share Results**

Motivation • Recruitment of new members is one of the most, if not the most, important challenge a CD confronts • A variety of factors probably affect the success of member recruitment efforts • Marketing strategy used by the center • Center Characteristics • Industry Characteristics • Firm Characteristics (e.g., size, strategy, decision making) • Individual Characteristics: Attitudes, beliefs etc. of the firm representative • Marketing is the only factor the center has direct control over

Purpose • Identify which advertising, marketing and recruiting strategies directors currently use, and which they think are most effective. • A follow-up phase of research will involve industry firms that either joined, remain undecided, or did not join an IUCRC.

Overview • Web-based survey • 15+ minutes • Pilot tested with directors and evaluators • Fielded in May 2005

Sample • 29 responses • Response rate: 27% • 14 reported to be from multi-university sites (12 of whom reported to be to be center directors) • *Plan to get more records (~n=50) • Sample characteristics

Relationship Development Model Termination Initiation Establishment Development Maintenance Dormant • States model (versus growth model) Rao, S. & Perry, C. (2002). Thinking about relationship marketing: Where are we now? The Journal of Business and Industrial Marketing, 17 (7), pp 598 –614.

Survey design Acceptance & Rejection factors Outcomes (DVs) Identifying prospects Marketing tools Recruiting approaches & responsibilities Center & Director characteristics

Director Experience 24) How would you describe your professional experience prior to becoming a center/site director? (n=29) • 58%: Most of prior career in academia • 21%: A balance of academia and industry or entrepreneurship • 21%: Most of prior career in industry or entrepreneurship

Marketing Plans 19) Does your center/site have a formal, written marketing plan? (n=29) • 7% Yes 20) Does your center/site set formal goals for the recruitment of new industry members? (n=29) • 35% Yes 21) Aside from staff time, about how much does your site have budgeted for recruiting in the current year? (n=24) • Mean: $8,521 • Median: $5,000 • Std dev: $11,117 • Range: $0 - $50,000

Identifying potential members 1) Consider how your center/site identifies potential industry members. How effective have you found the following activities in generating leads for new members? Scale 4= highly eff. 3= Moderately eff. 2= Somewhat eff. 1= Not at all eff. 0= Do not use

1) Consider how your center/site identifies potential industry members. How effective have you found the following activities in generating leads for new members? Identifying potential members (2) Percent reporting use Effectiveness

Marketing activity outcomes • Non-significant bivariate correlation between the number of different marketing activities (count of Q1a-Q1j) and the number of new leads generated (Q2). • On average, 70% of new leads emerge from existing relationships (Q3 / Q2).

Marketing Tools 4) How effective are the following marketing materials, documents or similar information pieces at communicating the strengths of your center/site? Scale 4= highly eff. 3= Moderately eff. 2= Somewhat eff. 1= Not at all eff. 0= Do not use

Recruiting approaches 6) For those organizations interested in learning more about your center/site, how effective have you found the following approaches at securing new members? Scale 4= highly eff. 3= Moderately eff. 2= Somewhat eff. 1= Not at all eff. 0= Do not use

Recruiting responsibilities 7) To what degree are the following individuals or groups actively involved in the recruitment of industry members? Scale 4= To a great extent 3= To a moderate extent 2= To some extent 1= To a little extent 0= Not at all/ Does not apply

7) To what degree are the following individuals or groups actively involved in the recruitment of industry members? Recruiting responsibilities (2) Percent reporting involvement Degree of involvement

Multi-site center recruiting [If your site is part of a multi-site center, please answer item 9] 9) Which of the following best describes how your multi-site center handles recruiting? (n=19) • 37%: Each site handles recruiting independently of other sites • 21%: Each site establishes their own leads, but other sites help 'sell' the center • 42%: Sites work closely together throughout the recruitment process

Recruiting Success Rates • On average, directors reported a 26% success rate in recruiting new members (Q10b / Q10a), and a 16% rejection rate (Q10d / Q10a).

Acceptance factors 11) Consider those organizations that have decided to join the center/site recently. In your opinion how important were the following factors to their making an affirmative decision? Scale 4= Very important 3= Important 2= Somewhat imp. 1= Not important. 0= Not sure Total respondents N= 29

Rejection factors 14) Consider those organizations that explicitly turned down membership or remain undecided. In your opinion, how important do you think the following factors were in their failure to join? Scale 4= Very important 3= Important 2= Somewhat imp. 1= Not important 0 = Does not apply Total respondents N= 29

Changes to membership structure 17) Has your center made any changes to membership format or structure (like adding tiered membership) or offering special services (like testing) that have helped build your membership? (n=27) • 33% Yes • Select comments (verbatim): • Membership payments "in kind" (e.g., equipment suppliers) are being discussed • Expanded to 3 levels of membership. • We have guaranteed new sponsors that they will get a research project. Veteran sponsors have no such guarantee. • Provide samples for testing to members. Do instrumental analysis on samples from company. • Allowing IAB Chair to "broker" multiple, outside small company investments into full Member fee for common action within Center prospectus

Recruiting Government Agencies 18) Has your center/site tried to recruit government agencies or research groups in the past? (n=29) • 90% Yes [If 18 = Yes] 18a) Is your center/site's recruitment process for government agencies different from your efforts to recruit member firms? (n=26) • 35% Yes • Select comments (verbatim): • We are more flexible in handling membership fee. • I would let them participate at a lower membership cost. • Some federal agencies prefer grants. • Mostly through direct research contacts

Some Key Points • 58% of directors spent most of prior careers in academia. • Few (7%) directors have a formal marketing plan, and only 35% have formal recruiting goals. • Networking is the dominant and reportedly most effective form of recruiting; Tradeshow presentations may be a promising yet untapped source of new leads. • About 70% of new leads emerge from existing relationships. • The most effective marketing tools are IAB lists, websites, and abstracts of current projects • Visiting the organization and hosting visits during non-IAB meetings are utilized most frequently and rated as most effective at securing new members.

Some Key Points cont’d • Directors rate themselves as most involved in recruiting; Faculty PI’s and IAB members are utilized frequently in recruiting, though their level of involvement is limited. • Other site directors and consultants are utilized in recruiting less frequently, though they tend to be more involved in the process compared to faculty PIs and IAB members. • Multi-site centers reported varied approaches to teaming up during the recruitment process. • On average, directors experience a 26% success rate in new member recruitment, and a 16% rejection rate. • According to directors, firms join for relevant research, tech transfer, and past research accomplishments at the center. • According to directors, firms do not join due to cost of membership fees, lack of relevance in research, and IP and licensing issues. • One in three directors have changed their membership structure • 90% of directors have pursued government agencies for membership

Next Steps • Increase response count (to ~ 50) • Merge with existing center data (e.g., center size, age, productivity) • Run multivariate stats (e.g., ID predictors of recruitment success) • Conduct follow-up interviews with directors • Initiate industry study • Exploratory interviews • Quantitative survey (joined, undecided, did not join)

Appendix Verbatim comments

Item 1- Other ways to identify prospects • Focused Workshop • Holding Open Houses for prospective sponsors • Hosting sessions for prospects along with faculty to discuss prospect's problems they need help on. • Identification of competitors to present IAB members • Networking at technical meetings • Networking through contacts of Center sponsors and faculty far and away produces the best results • Organizing center-sponsored conferences • Organizing Workshops and Tutorials • Participating in related technical society activities; Writing proposals with industry partners • Respond to industry need for consulting and then turning this into opportunity to gain a new sponsor • Responding to any and all invitation to give a talk at a professional meeting of colleagues.

Item 4: Other marketing tools • Talking about center membership during recruiting visits to the school form companies • Visits to companies in addition to our own workshop and tutorials • Informational CD • Center presentation delivered on-site to potential sponsors • Virtual Tour in Video Format • Getting publications in trade magazines • Reprints of publications • attendance at Standards committee meetings (ASME) • Branding via multi-year, multi-site use of unique logo

Item 6: Other recruiting approaches • Use existing members to recruit new ones • Attending International professional meeting! • Invitations to participate in tele-seminars. • Doing "free" demonstration research projects, to establish credentials and goodwill.

Item 8: Others involved in recruiting • CATT (New York State Center of Excellence at Poly) • Primarily Center Directors • Local "public interest" group participants, like Asthma Coalition • Director of Centers and Institutes at EMU

Item 13: Other acceptance factors • Because others joined. • Health of candidate companies. How tight is their budget? • Membership of other government agency • Track record of working with industry • Have a large number of international competitor companies in the center • Economic climate • Networking-new business contacts • Recruiting international level companies, competitors also structure to the membership, companies interested in materials, devices and systems • Collaboration with industry & government, education & student contact, networking • Linkage with organization's strategic plans • Quick turn-around on industry requests; outreach to companies' customers

Item 16: Other rejection factors • It was almost all about the money. Hard times in Detroit.... • Company policy does not support affiliate programs • Some companies prefer to pay for contract research specific to their product portfolio • Ability to commit long term funding from industry • Government politics-as where FDA is putting its $s, or Natick-they sell what makes them look good. • Only support local university • Complications of Membership Agreement requirements, per I/U CRC standards

Item 17: Changes to membership structure • We have a complimentary testing facility available but not directly to my CACC • Membership payments "in kind" (e.g., equipment suppliers) are being discussed • Expanded to 3 levels of membership. • We have guaranteed new sponsors that they will get a research project. Veteran sponsors have no such guarantee. • Explicitly guarantee that a new member will receive the project of their choice • 3-tiered membership. Offered workshop based on training provided to FDA. • Project based operation • Provide samples for testing to members. Do instrumental analysis on samples from company. • We have established a tiered membership, became multi-site, but most importantly we changed our focus to meet the interest of new members. • Introduced an associate membership status that gives organizations additional flexibility in interacting with us • Allowing IAB Chair to "broker" multiple, outside small company investments into full Member fee for common action within Center prospectus

Item 18: Recruiting government agencies • NHTSA will likely join as a non-voting member through a cooperative research agreement. Very difficult to get this through the lawyers. • Focuses on access to industrial needs rather than solving problems of a particular sponsoring company • We emphasize how the membership fee payment can be simplified via a MPPIR through NSF. • We are more flexible in handling membership fee. • I would let them participate at a lower membership cost • Joint research is emphasized • Some federal agencies prefer grants. • Mostly through direct research contacts

Open Comments • Finding the right person to champion the center. Our members are very committed. We have champions in other companies but they haven't been able to turn their efforts into $$. • Statistics about the number of center supported graduates and the companies where they found employment after graduation • Only a dedicated and active effort produces positive results. • The CFSP is a new multi-university I/UCRC established in October 2004. we established an intensive mailing and telecom system to obtain our initial 18 members. The most important factor in recruiting membership is the one-on-one interaction with potential • If one wants to sell shoes you must have the best shoes in the world. We have to not only sell memberships but we have to have something to sell. We have always recruited PIs from all over the country-the best science and the best PIs!-that is what sells!

Open Comments cont’d • From conferences you can see what companies are attending, what level of research a company does and how far reaching that research is, also companies that sponsor meetings and seminars will have a more generous out look and would see value in an IUCRC. • Access to students for internships and employment • Need a MAJOR common mission, and intense multi-year effort, to create sustainable Center membership base-- and then I/U CRC program requires shifting from that every 5 years--- leading to Center "fatigue" [ as anticipated by "not to be perceived as an 'entitlement'" philosophy ].

IUCRC Marketing & Recruiting Survey