Among other things

1. John's message is clear, singular, short - Design rules and he understands it, in twitter. By comparison Parsons has no message on Twitter.

2. There is a #thenewschool tag which is functional but only for those who understand that Parsons is part of TNS. #johmaeda is a name, a brand, and a representative. People who follow him, also retweet his posts. No one retweets a post about a faculty member nobody knows that only gives an anonymous (and shortened) link.

3. TNS branding is not working, at least online and for Parsons. Most applicants still don't know or don't care about TNS until they get here and the brand message isn't at all relevant to most designers I speak to. We knew this was a problem but now it is working against us because online the length of a brand name matters even more than in word-of-mouth communication. Think about Tropicana's disaster this summer. All they did was modify the packaging! Also think 'Tide, the new detergent for cleaning', or 'Wendy's the new burger for taste'. It's still Parsons and online that's all it should be - particularly when you only get 140 characters. *It would be interesting to see if there are corollary impact issues for other schools but because Parsons had the strongest branding in the first place it will be harder to assess.

4. John's tweets are short and to the point. Only about Design. The New School's tweets are long and wide-ranging. They typically link back to new school and discuss a smattering of faculty or events but provide no depth or serial-relevance. The message is muddy at best.

5. Don't discount the value of Twitter to undecided applicants or thought leaders - and don't disregard the value of proper brand messaging. Design School's are notoriously bad at this game but in the past few years Art institutes, SVA, and Parsons-CDT has done a good job.

6. Our 'target market' is texting and tweeting constantly - almost unconsciously - and though it might sound absurd it is already a fâit accompli for them. John seems to get this and we look like a second-act comparatively.

Colleges and Universities need to appreciate some key points here...

1. Twitter is not a typical message engine. The successful brands are dividing their message to scale with the technology (Twitter, Facebook, etc.). New School is doing the opposite!
examples - zappos! , kiehl's, and (of all things) microsoft with 'Scobleizer's' blog. I can go into detail but these the first and last are well documented.

2. The message and the medium are subject to framing that must be done consciously. Every day there are a million ideas and messages coming and going from faculty at universities across the country. Its not the typical role of a faculty member to consciously frame their messages but its important to consider. Aggregators can help by allowing individuals to seed their own digital library with comments and articles of others. Its easier to make your message clear when you can see how others frame similar issues.

3. Related to the above - programs and schools within universities need to share approaches to outreach so that they don't have to be 'integrated' by a central admin group.

Its a new game and the next few years are going to be madness trying to predict enrollment without under or over reaching. The benefit of individuals within the university having a voice outside of it, is that once the students do arrive, they already have a sense of what they might expect. Savvy students already come prepared to learn and already have opinions - connecting them with the right academic community can provide both them and the faculty with an audience of mutual appreciation, or at least mutual interest.