University of Phoenix adds “bio” blurb to Twitter site since the debut…

Phoenix Adds “Bio” to Twitter Site After Launch

The University of Phoenix effort had only been underway since May 12 when I checked the Phoenix Twitter site for my May 21 blog entry on how several schools were using Twitter for adult student recruitment.

In what otherwise seemed a robust effort based on initial frequency of updates (far more often than the other schools), there was no “bio” included. That’s a marketing opportunity lost, as the right bio message can repeat and reinforce the primary brand message.

When revisiting the site today, a bio has now appeared. And here it is:

  • Bio: “We provide a quality higher education for working students and offer associates, bachelors, masters and doctoral degrees in small class sizes.” The emphasis on “working students” and the degree levels offered is good. A future version might well include the number of degrees offered in each category as the total array is high and sets Phoenix apart from most competitors.

So, late is indeed better than never in this case.

And since my last blog post, updates increased from 44 to 54 and followers from 179 to 224. Several of those updates seem directed to potential students, an example of “talking with” rather than just “talking at.”

Phoenix is often considered the goliath of higher education marketing, with an annual marketing budget of more than $15 million and an online ad presence just about everywhere. That makes it a prime candidate to follow on Twitter over the next few months to watch the growth in followers and the way that Phoenix engages them on that site.

 That’s all for now.



  1. Hi Bob,
    I’m currently moderating 2 Twitter accounts, one for Strayer University (GKatStrayer) that focuses on admissions and one for University of Notre Dame alumni (NDalumni). Would you say followers, bio, and update frequency are the only best practices in all university twitter accounts (admissions, athletics, alumni)?
    How do you see these best practices (for example, update frequency and level of interaction) shifting to meet the needs of target audiences?

  2. Garrett… thanks for your note.
    I’d not say that followers, bio, and update frequency were the only important elements. Conversations with followers and RTs are indicators of follower engagement and should be part of any overall assessment.
    And I’d pay attention to how many were following links from Twitter updates to better understand what topics were of most interest to the audience. I’ve tried cligs and to do that.
    I have been a bit surprised at how little attention some folks want to give to follower numbers. Granted, some of these may be bogus (I’ve blocked more than a few myself) and not all are paying attention, but the potential marketing impact will always be higher if the number of followers grows. Better placement of links to Twitter on higher ed websites, for instance, might make that happen faster than it is now.
    One person wrote to me that he/she would be satisfied with 2 followers because it was so easy to set up an account that it was worthwhile with that small number. Everyone’s entitled to an opinion, but from my marketing perspective, that’s nuts.
    Not sure I’ve venture a guess on how or how fast these things will shift. I’d be at least as interested in link following as conversation based on Forrester Research information that many if not most people who follow social media sites are not active participants. Updated 2008 info on that at the Groundswell blog.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *