I really love what the Wall Street Journal is doing with its web platform.
As the World Cup approaches (author note: I am a ravenous soccer fan) take a look at this fantastic multi-media news story by Matthew Futterman
Soccer, Made in America
Not only is the piece insightful on the current state of the United States Men's National Soccer Team and the evolution of its style of play, but structurally, it adeptly utilizes the various strengths of different mediums of communication in order to complement the text of the central article. Smart, thoughtful stories like these offer a refreshing view of successful sythetic journalism going forward, in an era that more often than not looks splintered by the various mediums of delivery.
In further breaking down these structural elements, I absolutely love the active graphics, complete with video links, for the various national soccer styles described in the article. By providing context for the importance of these styles in relation to the larger story and then providing animated content for the user to navigate, the visualizations provide greater contextual depth for the interested user.
The tactical graphics highlighting ball movement by the U.S. team similarly utilize the strengths of the medium, by encouraging users to move through the graphical progressions. This graphic reinforces visually many of the abstract concepts mentioned in the text, and provides more detail for the curious, or tactically-inclined reader (count me as one!)
Similarly, the "Anatomy of a Goal" complete with insightful voice-over and tactical breakdown, shows the power of multi-modal tools. My only gripe here would be that its location in the article might be placed closer to the discussion of the goal in the article.
Finally, the interview videos provided on the right hand side are expertly chosen and placed throughout the article. Providing for video and audio integration with the news piece, these excerpts again complement the broader story. While seemingly the most straightforward alternative medium when compared to the active graphics described above, video content is also the most often misused format. I can not tell you how many times video content is provided with no connection to the written article. (I'm looking squarely at you, ESPN). Too often media websites treat these spaces like unorganized warehouses. Content is merely uploaded with little thought to their integration or organization. Often driven by algorithms, print articles will be linked with video clips that are only loosely related.
Compare some of this less thoughtful, volume-driven web content to the holistic, immersive, and carefully curated experience of an article like this.
Bravo to Matt, Chris and the rest of the staff at the Wall Street Journal. Really great story.
Thursday, June 5, 2014
Wednesday, June 4, 2014
B-Schools and MOOCs: The Debate Continues
On the heels of this weekend's New York Times Article concerning online course offerings and how and where business schools are choosing to play in this arena, Gayle Christensen, Brandon Alcorn, and Ezekiel Emanuel present some intriguing findings from their study of online participation in courses l.
MOOCs Won't Replace Business Schools--They'll Diversify Them
The authors step right into the current debate within business school circles that questions whether low-cost online alternatives such as MOOCs, may undercut the business model of current B-school programs, or provide an opportunity to adapt and further these brands. Their findings ultimately side with the latter constituency and reflect the potential value MOOCs may currently provide for business school brands, though the current MOOC business model may not be properly taking advantage of the current consumer market.
Christensen, Alcorn, and Emanuel, all from the University of Pennsylvania, draw upon student data from nine MOOCs, or Massive Open Online Courses, offered by the University of Pennsylvania's Wharton School, upwards of 875,000 students to build their analysis. Their demographic findings reveal a decidedly different student body from the traditional business school student. The MOOC students are predominantly international., and even domestically, skews to foreign-born U.S. residents and underrepresented minorities. These also happen to be population groups in which business schools are actively recruiting students today.
The authors found that 78% of MOOC enrollees registered from outside the United States, far exceeding the current international student enrollment at Wharton (45% for traditional full-time 2-year MBA). For the domestic students, a disproportionate number of students are advanced degree-holding foreign-born U.S. residents, and underrepresented minorities. With 19% of U.S. MOOC students from underrepresented minority populations, compared to the 11% average enrollment at the top MBA schools, MOOCs are able to reach over 150,000 such students, compared to 315 at the top nine business schools. The evidence shows that MOOCs are successfully reaching populations that business schools struggle to recruit.
The evidence presented does strongly support the fact that the MOOC student body is very different from the traditional business school student, and that MOOCs do indeed expand the reach of these B-school brands, particularly to areas where business education options are limited. Where I differ from the authors is on their zero-sum conclusion, that because of these facts, MOOCs are therefore not cannibalizing business school course offerings and the traditional course model. The authors are correct in asserting that by reaching these student populations in easily accessible ways such as MOOCs they may be creating a "highly enriched recruiting pool for full-time and executive MBA" programs. But I believe that while doing this, they can simultaneously be cannibalizing their traditional program offerings. The two facts are not mutually exclusive, as the authors seem to imply. While targeted recruiting can certainly be enhanced, one needs to better understand the yield that such a population would produce in matriculated full-time or executive MBA programs. The barriers of cost, and the questions of return on investment remain, particularly when low-cost options are so accessible. More synthesis of these two aspects of research are needed over the coming years to more fully understand the impact. I agree that online education, and open access courses offer a major opportunity, but in taking advantage of that opportunity, strategists also need to recognize the inherent threats in weighing their decisions.
That said, the authors also present some compelling suggestions for restructuring the current MOOC model to better serve the interests of B-schools. Once again, a better understanding of the consumer of such products is invaluable in establishing a model that both builds the brand, reaches the target consumer, and meets the exhibited needs. The authors highlight that the underserved populations that business schools are targeting in recruiting, are often not completing certificates, and quite often, not even seeking completion as a goal. By shifting the MOOC model away from an emphasis on certification, and towards a pay-as-you-go, or subscription model, schools may better recruit such students, and may also distinguish this model from the degree-driven programs provided by the traditional schools.
There are so many good points of discussion wrapped up in the debate over higher education structure: equity, access, recruitment, brand development, perceived value, and more.
What do you see as the biggest benefit and/or complication of online open-access courses for both B-schools and the business community at large?
MOOCs Won't Replace Business Schools--They'll Diversify Them
The authors step right into the current debate within business school circles that questions whether low-cost online alternatives such as MOOCs, may undercut the business model of current B-school programs, or provide an opportunity to adapt and further these brands. Their findings ultimately side with the latter constituency and reflect the potential value MOOCs may currently provide for business school brands, though the current MOOC business model may not be properly taking advantage of the current consumer market.
Christensen, Alcorn, and Emanuel, all from the University of Pennsylvania, draw upon student data from nine MOOCs, or Massive Open Online Courses, offered by the University of Pennsylvania's Wharton School, upwards of 875,000 students to build their analysis. Their demographic findings reveal a decidedly different student body from the traditional business school student. The MOOC students are predominantly international., and even domestically, skews to foreign-born U.S. residents and underrepresented minorities. These also happen to be population groups in which business schools are actively recruiting students today.
The authors found that 78% of MOOC enrollees registered from outside the United States, far exceeding the current international student enrollment at Wharton (45% for traditional full-time 2-year MBA). For the domestic students, a disproportionate number of students are advanced degree-holding foreign-born U.S. residents, and underrepresented minorities. With 19% of U.S. MOOC students from underrepresented minority populations, compared to the 11% average enrollment at the top MBA schools, MOOCs are able to reach over 150,000 such students, compared to 315 at the top nine business schools. The evidence shows that MOOCs are successfully reaching populations that business schools struggle to recruit.
The evidence presented does strongly support the fact that the MOOC student body is very different from the traditional business school student, and that MOOCs do indeed expand the reach of these B-school brands, particularly to areas where business education options are limited. Where I differ from the authors is on their zero-sum conclusion, that because of these facts, MOOCs are therefore not cannibalizing business school course offerings and the traditional course model. The authors are correct in asserting that by reaching these student populations in easily accessible ways such as MOOCs they may be creating a "highly enriched recruiting pool for full-time and executive MBA" programs. But I believe that while doing this, they can simultaneously be cannibalizing their traditional program offerings. The two facts are not mutually exclusive, as the authors seem to imply. While targeted recruiting can certainly be enhanced, one needs to better understand the yield that such a population would produce in matriculated full-time or executive MBA programs. The barriers of cost, and the questions of return on investment remain, particularly when low-cost options are so accessible. More synthesis of these two aspects of research are needed over the coming years to more fully understand the impact. I agree that online education, and open access courses offer a major opportunity, but in taking advantage of that opportunity, strategists also need to recognize the inherent threats in weighing their decisions.
That said, the authors also present some compelling suggestions for restructuring the current MOOC model to better serve the interests of B-schools. Once again, a better understanding of the consumer of such products is invaluable in establishing a model that both builds the brand, reaches the target consumer, and meets the exhibited needs. The authors highlight that the underserved populations that business schools are targeting in recruiting, are often not completing certificates, and quite often, not even seeking completion as a goal. By shifting the MOOC model away from an emphasis on certification, and towards a pay-as-you-go, or subscription model, schools may better recruit such students, and may also distinguish this model from the degree-driven programs provided by the traditional schools.
There are so many good points of discussion wrapped up in the debate over higher education structure: equity, access, recruitment, brand development, perceived value, and more.
What do you see as the biggest benefit and/or complication of online open-access courses for both B-schools and the business community at large?
Tuesday, June 3, 2014
Big-Brand B-Schools Navigate Online Course Offerings
On Sunday, the New York Times published an excellent article on the dilemma that online education presents for business schools today: Business School, Disrupted
How can industry-leading, heritage brands, such as Harvard Business School, Wharton, and others, address the murky waters of online education?
The differing perspectives from Michael Porter and Clayton Christensen on the degree to which the "disruptive intervention" of online course offerings might affect these institutions nicely frames the argument.
The dilemma facing these bastions of business education reflect some of the same questions facing other arms of higher education, as well as other industries, struggling with new threats entering the environment.
Perhaps the most interesting scenario presented here, is the potential for the very structure of branded institutions breaking down as expert business professors and engaging instructors create their own individual brand outside of the institution, made possible through digital opportunities for online courses with broader audience, alternative publishing models, and more.
While for high-end market schools, such as Harvard and Wharton, such a possibility seems unlikely, smaller-market schools are certainly already facing these direct challenges from online alternatives. It will continue to be interesting to see the role online education takes in preparing business professionals. Does the model need to replace the current structures, or can we create online options that supplement and further build the existing brands?
What are your thoughts?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)