JOURNAL OF MARKETING FOR HIGHER EDUCATION

2018, VOL. 28, NO. 2, 232–246

https://doi.org/10.1080/08841241.2018.1467991

Media relations and universities: an assessment of digital

newsrooms
Nicole M. Leea and Patrick F. Merleb
a
Department of Communication, North Carolina State University, Raleigh, USA; bSchool of Communication,
Florida State University, Tallahassee, USA

ABSTRACT ARTICLE HISTORY

Reviews of editorial practices and academic studies have shown that Received 18 December 2016
journalists often rely on organization websites—and online Accepted 16 October 2017
newsrooms in particular—to inform news stories. Yet, at a time
KEYWORDS
when many academics are called upon as experts by the media, University rankings; online
university newsrooms have been ignored. To fill this gap, this newsroom; content analysis;
study assesses newsrooms of universities to determine whether public relations; media
they are providing adequate resources to cover the institution or relations
identify experts. Previous research demonstrated higher ranked
Fortune 500 companies have more comprehensive newsrooms,
potentially putting them at an advantage when it comes to news
coverage. To better understand whether disparities exist among
the top US institutions, this study features a content analysis of
the newsrooms of the top 202 universities ranked by U.S. News &
World Report. Findings show that although higher ranked
universities typically feature more comprehensive newsrooms,
universities at all levels are missing opportunities to provide
journalists with information necessary to cover the university, thus
limiting visibility to outside stakeholders. The most common
features were internally written news stories and links to social
media. Resources specifically for journalists were less common.
Assessing newsrooms is valuable because they influence media
coverage, which can improve credibility and perceived external
prestige.

A university’s brand image or reputation affects not only external publics, but also has a
significant impact on the supportive attitudes of internal publics, such as students. In
fact, students often care more about how their university is perceived by others than
their own perceptions based on firsthand experience (Sung & Yang, 2008). This concept
of perceived external prestige (Carmeli, 2005) and how to increase these perceptions
has significant implications for marketing in higher education. Positive media coverage
and the use of faculty as expert sources impact a university’s brand image and credibility
(Allgaier, Dunwoody, Brossard, Lo, & Peters, 2013). It thus bears value to examine to what
extent an institution’s webpage—specifically their online newsroom—meets the needs of
journalists by reviewing whether universities provide news professionals with valuable
material, such as a database of faculty experts. Online newsrooms are dedicated web

CONTACT Nicole M. Lee nmlee2@ncsu.edu

© 2018 Informa UK Limited, trading as Taylor & Francis Group
 JOURNAL OF MARKETING FOR HIGHER EDUCATION 233

pages within an organization’s website that provide journalists with information necessary
to report on an organization. These resources may include organizational facts, multimedia
materials, and contact information for public relations professionals (Callison, 2003). Eval-
uating these pages is of particular value considering the extent to which US journalists rely
on web content. According to the 2016 TEKGroup online newsroom survey report, nearly
50% of journalists consider online newsrooms very important for their job and more than
90% admit that online newsrooms are useful for their job.
University websites serve a variety of purposes for various audiences, such as potential
students, current students, parents, faculty, staff, and the media (Hite & Railsback, 2010).
Prior studies conducted by McAllister (2012a) highlighted the fact that colleges and uni-
versities were not using the Internet to its full potential. While this is likely still true for
some higher education institutions, over time many colleges and universities have recog-
nized the potential of their websites, particularly in a market-driven context. Marketing
and branding have increasingly become more important in higher education (Stephenson,
Heckert, & Yerger, 2016; Williams & Omar, 2014). Consequently, universities have adjusted
their websites to match current demands and adopt newer communication trends (Zhang
& O’Halloran, 2013). However, much of the focus has been on student recruitment and
admissions, and less attention has been granted to media relations and how universities
can use their websites to target different audiences and cater different web pages for
different needs. This is particularly important considering journalists depend on organiz-
ation websites for much of their initial research into a story (Bransford, 2001).
To fill a gap in existing research, the present study features a content analysis of the
digital newsrooms of the top 202 US national universities listed in the 2014 rankings pub-
lished by the U.S. News & World Report. This study utilized the list of top US national uni-
versities, but other lists, such as best graduate schools or best institutions for individual
majors, are also available. The top universities were chosen for study because they
offered a diverse sample of universities likely to receive media coverage and a sampling
frame similar to previous research (e.g. Callison, 2003; McAllister, 2012a). The rankings,
published online, establishes lists of the best universities in the United States according
to an overall score. Rankings are based on ‘assessment by administrators at peer insti-
tutions, retention of students, faculty resources, student selectivity, financial resources,
alumni giving, graduation rate performance and, for National Universities and National
Liberal Arts Colleges only, high school counselor ratings of colleges’ (U.S. News, 2015,
para. 13). Potential students and their parents often heavily rely upon college rankings
when choosing an academic institution, and research suggests that rankings impact appli-
cation numbers (Alter & Reback, 2014). Although some scholars have questioned the val-
idity of such rankings (e.g. Alter & Reback, 2014; Poole, Levin, & Elam, 2017), determining
whether these universities are truly the ‘best’ is beyond the scope of this study.
This project specifically assesses the online newsrooms of these top-ranked institutions.
Newsrooms were examined for their availability, thoroughness, and the inclusion of
various features deemed important through previous research (Callison, 2003; TekGroup,
2016). The relationship between ranking and the thoroughness of newsrooms was also
explored. Based on an a-priori design, this study focuses on two units of analysis: (a) a uni-
versity’s home page to record the presence or absence of direct links to a newsroom; and
(b) the individual content features available in the digital newsrooms.
234 N. M. LEE AND P. F. MERLE

Literature review
This study integrates marketing and public relations research to highlight the importance
of media relations in building a strong brand image and fostering supportive attitudes
among internal and external publics.

Media coverage and university marketing

The way universities handle media relations is important in that it impacts the overall news
coverage of the university. News coverage is important to university marketing because
media coverage can influence how audiences think about certain topics and how they
associate organizations with issues (Scheufele, 1999). Further, media coverage plays an
important role in developing an organization’s reputation (Kiousis, Popescu, & Mitrook,
2007; Panico, Raithel, & Michel, 2014). Although an organization may sacrifice control
over the message, earned media coming from editorial sources is often seen as more cred-
ible than advertisements or owned media (Eisend & Küster, 2011). At a time when so much
focus is given to the use of social media by universities and faculty, it is important to
acknowledge the role of traditional media and how these relationships can impact
organizations.
Uniquely relevant to university marketing, effectively managing media relations can
also influence whom journalists end up utilizing as expert sources. The use of expert
sources has increased over the past several decades as media has shifted from descriptive
news reports to interpretive and investigative journalism (Albæk, 2011). Social scientists in
particular have been utilized to comment on both political and general interest issues
(Albæk, Christiansen, & Togeby, 2003). However, research suggests that the pool of
expert sources utilized for certain topic areas is unnecessarily small, with the same
experts utilized time and again (Hallin, Manoff, & Weddle, 1993; Kruvand, 2012), which
may or may not be related to the media relations efforts of specific universities. The
research in this area fails to address why specific experts appear over and over or how uni-
versity ranking or prestige may play into these decisions. Having university researchers
appear as topic-area experts in the media benefits institutions through increasing visibility
and credibility, which in turn can have benefits for the organization such as helping secure
funding (Allgaier et al., 2013; Peters, 1995). Moreover, as higher education institutions in
the US face strong competition, marketing and branding have become priorities (Stephen-
son et al., 2016; Williams & Omar, 2014). Colleges and universities battle to showcase their
respective achievements and indices of performance in an attempt to recruit prospective
students and top faculty. Their online visibility to stakeholders is paramount, allowing
media to easily learn about their achievements and consequently promote their brands
(Stephenson et al., 2016).
In addition to external publics, media coverage can have significant impacts on internal
publics as well, such as students (Sung & Yang, 2008). Perceptions of media coverage of a
university are a key component of perceived external prestige (Mael & Ashworth, 1992;
Sung & Yang, 2008). Perceived external prestige is how internal stakeholders evaluate
an organization based on their beliefs about how external stakeholders view the organiz-
ation (Carmeli, 2005). Although different internal stakeholders can have different percep-
tions of external prestige, factors such as media coverage play a role in those perceptions.
 JOURNAL OF MARKETING FOR HIGHER EDUCATION 235

Scholars (e.g. Smidts, Pruyn, & van Riel, 2001) have argued that increasing a brand’s visi-
bility though external communication can improve perceived external prestige. This is
important for university marketing because perceived external prestige has been shown
to increase overall positive attitudes toward the university, which in turn affects variables
such as pride in the university (Sung & Yang, 2008).

University websites
University websites serve a variety of purposes and audiences. Marketing and public
relations scholars have examined the effectiveness of these sites (Will & Callison, 2006),
their branding strategies (Chapleo, Durán, & Díaz, 2011), their use of dialogic strategies
(Gordon & Berhow, 2009; Kittle & Ciba, 2001; McAllister, 2012a), and practitioner percep-
tions of university website use (McAllister, 2012b).
Previous works on the content of university websites found that a majority of websites
from the world’s top 100 universities featured RSS feed and/or news aggregates, and more
than a third already offered links to Facebook and Twitter pages (McAllister, 2012a).
According to Zhang and O’Halloran (2013), many universities have adjusted their websites
to adapt to the marketization of higher education and appeal to potential students. Includ-
ing social media buttons or links speaks to such adaptations (Zhang & O’Halloran, 2013).
Hite and Railsback (2010) found university homepages consistently include common links
such as ‘alumni’, ‘admissions’, ‘athletics’, ‘about the university’, and ‘current students’.
However, they did not find a consistent hyperlink term on homepages that directed to
newsrooms or press materials, indicating that journalists are not a primary targeted
audience.
A survey of communication professionals involved with college and university web-
sites revealed that RSS feeds and social networks were considered as important com-
ponents in a website (McAllister, 2012b). Findings also revealed that there was a
large gap between practitioners’ perceptions of best practices, and what they were actu-
ally able to accomplish due to various organizational factors such as time, money, and
competing priorities within an institution. Interestingly, however, participants surveyed
never listed media relations as an important function of new media tools (McAllister,
2012b).
Some researchers (Kang & Norton, 2006; McAllister & Taylor, 2007) have suggested col-
leges and universities should improve how they utilize their websites for media relations. A
decade has passed since scholars called for these adaptations and online technology has
changed and improved in many ways. However, it is unclear if universities have utilized
these advances to improve their online media relations.

Online media relations

The rise of the Internet has changed the relationship between journalists and public
relations practitioners, including those in a university setting. Public relations practitioners
no longer solely rely on media to broadcast their messages to target publics. Likewise,
journalists can find more and more information online. Further, online tools have
allowed public relations practitioners to communicate with journalists in new ways
using social media and online news release distributors.
236 N. M. LEE AND P. F. MERLE

One way in which public relations professionals have embraced the digital age is
through creating online newsrooms or media centers where journalists can access the
materials typically found in a press kit and often much more. González-Herrero and Ruiz
de Valbuena (2006) argued that online newsrooms are important tools that allow organ-
izations to meet journalists’ needs for information and multimedia material. A recent
survey further underlined that journalists in the US praise the availability of information
through online newsrooms (TekGroup, 2016). Reporters expressed their interest in
having public relations contacts available, search options, background information on
the organization, photos and videos, and news releases. Although some journalists may
contact academics or public relations professionals directly, this data highlights the neces-
sity for an organization to have an online newsroom accessible for journalists seeking
information online. However, previous research has not examined whether universities
are indeed providing this feature. Thus, the following research question is posed:
Research Question 1: How often do top-ranked universities link directly to a digital news-
room from their homepage?

One of the first studies on such web pages focused on the online newsrooms of Fortune
500 companies (Callison, 2003). The content analysis of Fortune 500 company websites
revealed that most organizations (61%) at that time did not have labeled news sites.
The majority of online newsrooms contained press releases, and about half featured
executive bios and photos (Callison, 2003). Other documents and information, such as
annual reports and video archives, were less common.
Reber and Kim (2006) conducted a similar study analyzing the online newsrooms of
activist groups. Data showed that only about a third of activist organizations had online
newsrooms. Unlike the corporate sites, the activist organizations’ newsrooms were most
likely to contain organizational history. About half featured organization mission state-
ments and organization publications, while only a third included press releases. These
studies did not include universities but offer a framework for examining the features
included in university newsrooms. Because the studies are over a decade old, additional
features will also likely be present, which leads to the second research question:
Research Question 2: What features are most common on universities’ digital newsrooms?

Other scholars have focused on how websites and online newsrooms can impact the
media coverage an organization receives (e.g. Esrock & Leichty, 1999; Middleberg &
Ross, 2002). For instance, Middleberg and Ross (2002) found that 70% of journalists
utilize a company’s website as their first resource when gathering information for a
story. Similarly, Bransford (2001) found 90% of journalists use the web to research an
organization. However, journalists’ stories may be negatively skewed or they may not
write about an organization at all if they are unable to find the information that they
need online (Esrock & Leichty, 1999). Therefore, it is not surprising that scholars have
argued that one of the primary ways public relations professionals should use websites
is to provide information for journalists (Shin & Cameron, 2003).
One gap in this line of research is an examination of what attributes of an organization
make it more likely to provide a comprehensive newsroom. Do higher ranked universities
receive more media coverage, and if so, is it because they have more resources allocated
to media relations? Callison (2003) found that higher ranked Fortune 500 companies had
 JOURNAL OF MARKETING FOR HIGHER EDUCATION 237

more comprehensive newsrooms. Perhaps it is because a higher ranking results in more

media requests and therefore more of a need for a complete newsroom, or it could be
an issue of resources. Although the current study cannot address all of these topics, the
following research questions are put forth:
Research Question 3: To what extent is university ranking related to the presence of various
features in digital newsrooms?

Research Question 4: Which universities have the most comprehensive newsrooms?

Method
The present examination assessed digital newsrooms for the top 202 national universities
ranked by the 2014 U.S. News & World Report. These pages, randomly distributed between
two independent coders, were accessed in October 2014. A content analysis was deemed
an appropriate method because the study focuses on what universities are actually provid-
ing in digital newsrooms, not their perceptions or the perceptions of journalists.

Sample
This study used the ranking of US national universities as established by U.S. News & World
Report in 2014. In addition to providing a sample that included both public and private
universities with geographic diversity, this sampling method was similar to previous
research (Callison, 2003; Pettigrew & Reber, 2010) that used an established credible
ranking (i.e. the Fortune 500 list) to examine digital newsrooms in the private sector.
The ranking, available online, features a total of 202 ranked universities and 78 unranked
institutions. U.S. News & World Report declares a university unranked whenever such insti-
tutions do not use SAT or ACT test scores in their admissions procedures. For the purpose
of this study, only the ranked institutions were integrated in the sample, which resulted in
a total of 202 universities due to a tie at certain levels.

Coding categories
The first level of analysis was university homepages, which were coded for the presence or
absence of a labeled newsroom. Because previous research indicated some newsrooms
are not labeled as such, but defined by other terms (Callison, 2003), coders also reported
the actual terms used by each institution from a list. If there was not a labeled newsroom,
the number of clicks to reach a newsroom was recorded.
The second level of analysis was the individual features available in each newsroom.
Coders examined the presence or absence of multiple items. These 14 coding categories
were adapted from Callison (2003) to fit an academic context. Some updates were also
made for changes in technology such as coding for links to social media profiles.
Items useful to journalists but also potentially of general interest were one set of coding
categories. The first feature was internal stories. Such stories were defined as articles pro-
duced by the university’s staff and not by journalists or student journalists. Other such fea-
tures were a searchable archive of stories or press releases, a calendar of events, the option
to sign up for news alerts, and an RSS feed.
238 N. M. LEE AND P. F. MERLE

The next set of coding categories included items specifically provided for journalists.
These were an expert database, name and contact details for a specific public relations
contact person, a film policy, and audio or visual content to be used in news stories.
Lastly, links to social media accounts were also coded for. Specific platforms included
were Twitter, Facebook, Instagram, YouTube, and Pinterest pages. Any additional plat-
forms were also listed in the coding process.

Coding procedure
The webpages of all 202 ranked universities were randomly assigned to two coders who
visited the sites in October 2014. Items were only coded as present if coders were able to
locate them within the newsroom within three clicks. The purpose of the study was to
assess the thoroughness of the web pages created for the press. If newsrooms or specific
features are difficult to find, they are not serving the purpose of providing journalists with
easily accessible information and resources. For this reason, coders did not leave the news-
rooms or media pages to search for features. A university may have a Twitter page or film
policy, but be coded as absent if links were not provided in the newsroom.

Coder training
The two independent coders tested the coding protocol through several training sessions.
An initial discussion of the codebook and guidelines facilitated a complete understanding
of the process and what each coding category referred to. Coders independently analyzed
10 universities ranked in the Times Higher Education world university rankings not present
in the U.S. News & World Report rankings. After coding, they discussed any discrepancies
and amended the codebook accordingly. Coders continued with a second round of prac-
tice coding, this time of five universities’ webpages from the world university rankings not
included in the full study’s sample of interest. The second round of practice coding served
to confirm that changes and clarifications were fully understood, namely the definition of
internal stories and the addition of certain newsroom labels.

Reliability
Intercoder reliability was established on 28 articles (14% of the overall sample). As advised
by literature (Lombard, Snyder-Duch, & Bracken, 2002), reliability was assessed through
two indices, the percentage of agreement as well as Krippendorff’s alpha. As shown in
Table 1, there was a high level of intercoder reliability for all variables. Percent agreement
ranged from 92.86% to 100%, and Krippendorff’s alpha ranged from .83 to 1. For the final
dataset, both coders reassessed any discrepancies in their coding in order to make final
coding decisions.

Results
In order to answer Research Question 1, descriptive statistics were consulted. A total of 196
(97%) of the universities had a link directly to their newsroom on the homepage. Titles for
the newsrooms varied greatly. The most common label was ‘news’ (n = 92), followed
by ‘news and events’ (n = 25), ‘newsroom’ (n = 9), ‘news center’ (n = 8), ‘media relations’
 JOURNAL OF MARKETING FOR HIGHER EDUCATION 239

Table 1. Reliability.
Variables Percentage of agreement Krippendorff’s Alpha
Labeled newsroom 100 1
Term used 96 .91
Number of clicks 100 1
Internal stories 100 1
Experts database 93 .83
Archive system 96 .91
News alerts system 100 1
RSS feed 96 .92
Twitter account 100 1
Facebook account 100 1
YouTube account 100 1
Instagram account 100 1
Pinterest account 100 1
Calendar 100 1
Film policy 100 1
Video/audio database 100 1
Name of PR contact 100 1

(n = 7), and ‘media’ (n = 6). For all other universities, it took three or fewer clicks to find the
newsroom.
Descriptive statistics were also used to answer Research Question 2. The most common
feature of the newsrooms was news stories written about the university by internal writers,
(n = 200, 99%). Links to social media profiles were the second most common feature. Like
the news stories, these cater to a variety of audiences. Twitter was the most common (n =
180, 89.1%), followed by Facebook (n = 177, 87.6%), YouTube (n = 155, 76.7%), Instagram
(n = 58, 28.7%), and Pinterest (n = 34, 16.8%). A large portion of newsrooms included an
event calendar (n = 133, 65.8%). Visitors to many newsrooms could also opt to receive
news alerts through either a news alert email sign-up (n = 70, 34.7%) or RSS feed (n =
126, 62.4%).
A majority of newsrooms included a specific public relations contact person (n = 173,
85.6%). The next most common media relations feature was searchable press release data-
bases (n = 134, 66.3%). Many newsrooms included a faculty expert database (n = 123,
60.9%) for journalists to search for topic-area experts to interview for news stories.
Finally, some of the more thorough newsrooms included b-roll video and audio resources
(n = 71, 35.1%) and film policies for shooting video on campus (n = 45, 22.3%). The preva-
lence of all these features can be seen in Figure 1.
In order to address Research Question 3, a Pearson correlation coefficient was first con-
ducted to assess the relationship between ranking and total number of features included
in the newsrooms, of the 14 coded. Results indicated a significant positive relationship
between rank and newsroom thoroughness, r = .45, p < .001. Next, point-biserial corre-
lation coefficients were computed (see Table 2). The tests revealed significant, positive
relationships between ranking and several of the newsroom features. For the general
newsroom items, there was a significant correlation between ranking and news alert
sign-up forms, rpb = .34, p < .001. Similarly, there was a significant relationship between
ranking and an RSS feed option, rpb = .39, p < .001. There was no significant relationship
between ranking and the inclusion of an event calendar or news stories.
The relationship between ranking and the inclusion of social media links was also
mixed. Ranking and links to Facebook (rpb = .20, p = .005), Twitter (rpb = .19, p = .008),
240 N. M. LEE AND P. F. MERLE

Figure 1. Prevalence of newsroom features.

and YouTube (rpb = .22, p = .001) were all correlated. However, there were no significant
correlations for Instagram or Pinterest.
Higher rankings were positively related to the inclusion of all the traditional media
relations features. The strongest correlation was between ranking and film policies,
rpb = .40, p < .001. The next strongest was that between ranking and including a specific
public relations contact person, rpb = .31, p < .001. Additionally, searchable press release
databases (rpb = .16, p = .03), expert databases (rpb = .23, p = .001), and b-roll film and
audio resources (rpb = .25, p < .001) were all positively and significantly associated with
ranking.
In order to answer Research Question 4, universities were ranked based on the total
number of features included in their newsrooms (see Table 3). None of the features

Table 2. Point Biserial correlation coefficients between ranking and

each dichotomous variable.
Variables rpb
Labeled newsroom 0.041
Internal stories 0.045
Experts database 0.234**
Archive system 0.157*
News alerts system 0.337**
RSS feed 0.393**
Twitter account 0.186**
Facebook account 0.199**
YouTube account 0.222**
Instagram account .125
Pinterest account .050
Calendar −0.029
Film policy 0.400**
Video/audio database 0.256**
Name of PR contact 0.308**
Note. Each dichotomous variable was recorded as 0 (absent) or 1 (present). Posi-
tive correlations indicate that the variable was more likely to be present the
higher the university was ranked. *p < .05; **p < .01.
 JOURNAL OF MARKETING FOR HIGHER EDUCATION 241

Table 3. Ranking of the most thorough newsrooms.

University Number of features US News ranking
University of Buffalo 14 103
UC Berkeley 13 20
Emory University 13 21
Carnegie Mellon University 13 25
University of Southern California 13 25
Colorado State University 13 121
Texas Tech University 13 156
UMass Lowell 13 156
Yale University 12 3
Stanford University 12 4
Duke University 12 8
University of Pennsylvania 12 8
Dartmouth University 12 11
Vanderbilt University 12 16
University of Notre Dame 12 16
Georgetown University 12 21
University of Washington 12 48
Penn State University 12 48
North Carolina State University 12 95
University of Arizona 12 121
Mississippi State University 12 156

were weighted more than the others, and quality of the various features was not assessed.
Only one newsroom had all 14 features and that was the University of Buffalo, which was
ranked 103 by U.S. News & World Report. Seven universities included 13 out of 14 features:
University of California at Berkeley, Emory University, Carnegie Mellon University, Univer-
sity of Southern California, Colorado State University, Texas Tech University, and University
of Massachusetts Lowell. These universities were ranked between 20 and 156 by U.S. News
& World Report. With the exception of Columbia University, which included nine features,
top-ten universities included 11 or 12 features out of 14.

Discussion
Overall, findings revealed that although higher ranked universities typically feature more
comprehensive newsrooms, universities at all levels are missing opportunities to provide
journalists with the information necessary to cover the university or identify and access
faculty experts, thus limiting visibility to outside stakeholders. The most common features
in newsrooms were internally written news stories and links to social media profiles.

Discussion of findings
Research Question 1 asked what portion of universities included direct links to digital
newsrooms from their homepages. Results showed that the vast majority did (97%).
However, unlike the consistently named hyperlinks for other types of information (e.g.
Admissions), the labels for newsrooms varied widely and included terms such as ‘news’,
‘news center’, and ‘media’. This inconsistent labeling across various sites, which Callison
(2003) also discovered, makes them less user-centric because the information is not as
easily located (Hite & Railsback, 2010). Some universities included labels specifically for
news media, while most had labels such as ‘news’ that were geared toward multiple
242 N. M. LEE AND P. F. MERLE

audiences. For the latter, information for news media was typically linked to within the
newsroom. At a time when universities are pressured to promote their brands (Stephenson
et al., 2016), making information accessible for journalists through online newsrooms
should be a priority. Universities should consider including a link specifically for journalists
on their homepage.
Findings from Research Question 2, which asked which newsroom features are most
common, revealed that features that appeal to general audiences as well as media were
most common. Media relations-specific resources, such as expert directory and searchable
press release databases, were less widely used. This suggests that university public
relations departments are not all utilizing online newsrooms for media relations, but
rather use them to communicate news directly with other publics. Although the general
features such as internally written news stories and event calendars were most popular,
expert databases and searchable press release databases were each present in approxi-
mately two thirds of newsrooms.
The most common media relations feature was the inclusion of a specific public relations
contact person, which was present in 85.6% of newsrooms. Compared to some other fea-
tures, this seems like a lot. However, that means that 29 universities in the top 202 did
not have a public relations contact person listed on their news site, which is arguably a sub-
stantial media relations oversight. This finding is of particular interest for universities consid-
ering that recent data indicated that nearly 90% of journalists in the US think that it is
important to access public relations contacts within an online newsroom (TekGroup, 2016).
Results from Research Question 3 indicated that higher ranked universities had more
comprehensive online newsrooms. There was a positive relationship between ranking and
inclusion of almost all individual features and also a positive relationship between ranking
and the overall number of features. A few possible explanations exist for this relationship.
First, higher ranked universities may have larger media and marketing budgets that allow
them to create more comprehensive newsrooms. In a study of community colleges, McAll-
ister and Taylor (2007) found that funding and resources were a major factor in how well
public relations practitioners developed college websites, even when they recognized the
importance of their websites and wanted to do more. It is also possible that higher ranked
universities also have more media interest, necessitating a more thorough media relations
approach. Specifically, it is likely that higher ranked universities field media requests from
more national and international media outlets than lower ranking universities do, due to
their historical prestige and/or existing links with established news organizations.
The results of Research Question 4 revealed that thoroughness was positively correlated
with ranking. Although higher was typically better, the university with the most features was
ranked 103. It is also important to note that overall thoroughness was coded. We can con-
clude that higher ranking universities typically had more comprehensive newsrooms, but
conclusions cannot be drawn related to the quality of newsrooms in terms of design or
navigability.

Consistency with prior research

Findings revealed some similarities and some discrepancies with the prior research of Cal-
lison (2003) and Reber and Kim (2006) who studied the online newsrooms of Fortune 500
and activist organizations respectively. The present study found that nearly all universities
 JOURNAL OF MARKETING FOR HIGHER EDUCATION 243

not only had a newsroom but also linked directly to it from their homepage. That was not
the case for Callison (2003) who found that about two-thirds of companies had an online
newsroom, or Reber and Kim (2006) who found that one-third of activist groups had one.
This is not surprising given the time between studies and increased focus on online com-
munication. One finding that has remained consistent is the variety of terms used to label
newsrooms.

Conclusion
This study successfully analyzed the online newsrooms of the top 202 US universities
through a content analysis. All universities included in the sample had a digital newsroom,
and coders were able to assess how thorough these resources were. This process allowed
the authors to examine the relationship between university ranking and newsroom features.

Theoretical implications
This study holds both theoretical and practical implications. At a time when universities
compete against one another to market themselves to the public, the study can serve
as a foundation for researchers studying how universities build relationships with
media, which in turn influences a variety of audiences. Although there is little research
on media relations and its role in marketing in higher education, findings do relate to scho-
larship on perceived external prestige (e.g. Sung & Yang, 2008). Because external visibility
and media coverage help build perceived external prestige (Smidts et al., 2001), this study
sheds light on one of the factors that may contribute to executing these goals successfully.
This is just one step toward integrating these areas of scholarship.
Previous researchers (Kang & Norton, 2006; McAllister & Taylor, 2007) suggested insti-
tutions of higher education should improve how they utilize their websites for media
relations. This study builds on this previous research by offering concrete ways universities
can do that. It also adds to the body of literature that has examined university websites
and their various uses. Previous research has looked at attributes such as branding strat-
egies (Chapleo et al., 2011) and the overall effectiveness of university websites (Will & Cal-
lison, 2006), but did not examine online newsrooms specifically.

Practical implications
From a practical standpoint, results allow universities to see what peer institutions are
doing in terms of media relations and give insight into how they may improve their news-
rooms. Although ranking and the number of features in the newsrooms were correlated,
many lower ranked universities offered very comprehensive newsrooms, which could
serve as examples for similar institutions. For instance, the University of Buffalo had the
most comprehensive newsroom and was ranked 103 by U.S. News & World Report.
Findings overall indicate that universities are missing an important opportunity to
connect with journalists and therefore gain stronger visibility, which can increase credi-
bility among external publics and perceived external prestige among internal publics (All-
gaier et al., 2013; Sung & Yang, 2008). Public relations practitioners must consider the
potential impact of neglecting to make information readily available to journalists.
244 N. M. LEE AND P. F. MERLE

Although some journalists—especially those already familiar with an institution—may

contact academics or public relations professionals directly, prior research has found
the vast majority of journalists use organization websites to gather information (Middle-
berg & Ross, 2002; TekGroup, 2016) and the information that is available or unavailable
may influence their coverage (Esrock & Leichty, 1999).
Results revealed that the majority of homepages had a general ‘news’ link and infor-
mation for journalists was embedded—taking additional clicks—within a news page
designed for various audiences. Having a ‘media relations’ or ‘for media’ link on the home-
page among links for students, prospective students, or faculty could help journalists find
resources more quickly and demonstrate the university’s willingness to work with media.
One surprising finding that practitioners should take note of is that not all newsrooms pro-
vided contact information for a specific media relations professional. This may be a simple
oversight that communications departments can easily rectify. Further, many universities
did not provide an expert database. This is a missed opportunity to showcase research
being conducted by faculty. Such efforts would not only benefit the individual institution
but also help make academic research more accessible to the general public and poten-
tially broaden the impacts of academic research.

Limitations and future research

As with all research, this study has limitations. This study sought to assess the features
present in university newsrooms, which it did. However, content analyses are limited to
the content being coded and do not assess the producer’s intentions or audience’s
interpretations. Future research should expand on this through experimental and
survey research to see how effective university newsrooms are in communicating with
various publics, especially journalists. Likewise, future research should take individual uni-
versities’ goals into consideration.
Another limitation is that only US institutions were included in the study. Findings may
differ drastically in other countries with different media systems. In countries with similar
media practices, practitioners could still use these findings to assess their own digital news-
rooms. However, in some cultures, journalists might not rely on websites as heavily as they
do in the US (TekGroup, 2016). Further research is needed to test potential differences.
This project focused on the comprehensiveness of newsrooms and did not assess the
quality in any way. Future research may consider design features, navigability, or type of
brand being portrayed by various universities and the impact such aspects have on mes-
saging, information availability and image management.

Disclosure statement
No potential conflict of interest was reported by the authors.

References
Albæk, E. (2011). The interaction between experts and journalists in news journalism. Journalism, 12
(3), 335–348.
Albæk, E., Christiansen, P. M., & Togeby, L. (2003). Experts in the mass media: Researchers as sources
in Danish daily newspapers, 1961–2001. Journalism & Mass Communication Quarterly, 80(4), 937–948.
 JOURNAL OF MARKETING FOR HIGHER EDUCATION 245

Allgaier, J., Dunwoody, S., Brossard, D., Lo, Y., & Peters, H. P. (2013). Medialized science? Journalism
Practice, 7(4), 413–429.
Alter, M., & Reback, R. (2014). True for your school? How changing reputations alter demand for selec-
tive U.S. colleges. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 36(3), 346–370.
Bransford, K. (2001). Better access, better information, better news: The ten essential elements of an
online newsroom. Retrieved from http://www.vocus.com/TenElements/
Callison, C. (2003). Media relations and the Internet: How Fortune 500 company Web sites assist jour-
nalists in news gathering. Public Relations Review, 29(1), 29–41.
Carmeli, A. (2005). Perceived external prestige, affective commitment, and citizenship behaviors.
Organization Studies, 26(3), 443–464.
Chapleo, C., Durán, M. V. C., & Díaz, A. C. (2011). Do UK universities communicate their brands effec-
tively through their websites? Journal of Marketing for Higher Education, 21(1), 25–46.
Eisend, M., & Küster, F. J. (2011). The effectiveness of publicity versus advertising: A meta-analytic
investigation of its moderators. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 39(6), 906–921.
Esrock, S. L., & Leichty, G. B. (1999). Corporate world wide web pages: Serving the news media and
other publics. Journalism & Mass Communication Quarterly, 76(3), 456–467.
González-Herrero, A., & Ruiz de Valbuena, M. (2006). Trends in online media relations: Web-based cor-
porate press rooms in leading international companies. Public Relations Review, 33(3), 267–275.
Gordon, J., & Berhow, S. (2009). University websites and dialogic features for building relationships
with potential students. Public Relations Review, 35(2), 150–152.
Hallin, D. C., Manoff, R. K., & Weddle, J. K. (1993). Sourcing patterns of national security reporters.
Journalism Quarterly, 70(4), 753–766.
Hite, N. G., & Railsback, B. (2010). Analysis of the content and characteristics of university websites
with implications for web designers and educators. The Journal of Computer Information
Systems, 51(4), 107–113.
Kang, S., & Norton, H. E. (2006). College and universities’ use of the World Wide Web: A public
relations tool for the digital age. Public Relations Review, 32(4), 426–428.
Kiousis, S., Popescu, C., & Mitrook, M. (2007). Understanding influence on corporate reputation: An
examination of public relations efforts, media coverage, public opinion, and financial performance
from an agenda-building and agenda-setting perspective. Journal of Public Relations Research, 19
(2), 147–165.
Kittle, B., & Ciba, D. (2001). Using college web sites for student recruitment: A relationship marketing
study. Journal of Marketing for Higher Education, 11(3), 17–37.
Kruvand, M. (2012). “Dr. Soundbite”: The making of an expert source in science and medical stories.
Science Communication, 34(5), 566–591.
Lombard, M., Snyder-Duch, J., & Bracken, C. C. (2002). Content analysis in mass communication
research: An assessment and reporting of intercoder reliability. Human Communication
Research, 28(4), 587–604.
Mael, F., & Ashworth, B. E. (1992). Alumni and their alma mater: A partial test of the reformulated
model of organizational identification. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 13(2), 103–123.
McAllister, S. M. (2012a). How the world’s top universities provide dialogic forums for marginalized
voices. Public Relations Review, 38(2), 319–327.
McAllister, S. M. (2012b). Practitioner perceptions of the importance, function, and actual utilization
of dialogic Internet tools and institutional resources at American colleges. Atlantic Journal of
Communication, 20(4), 221–236.
McAllister, S. M., & Taylor, M. (2007). Community college web sites as tools for fostering dialogue.
Public Relations Review, 33(2), 230–232.
Middleberg, D., & Ross, S. S. (2002). The Middleberg/Ross media survey: Change and its impact on com-
munications. New York: Middleberg Euro RSCG.
Panico, M., Raithel, S., & Michel, E. (2014). The effect of media coverage on employer reputation.
Journal of Media Economics, 27(4), 181–198.
Peters, H. P. (1995). The interaction of journalists and scientific experts: Co-operation and conflict
between two professional cultures. Media, Culture & Society, 17(1), 31–48.
246 N. M. LEE AND P. F. MERLE

Pettigrew, J. E., & Reber, B. H. (2010). The new dynamic in corporate media relations: How Fortune 500
companies are using virtual press rooms to engage the press. Journal of Public Relations Research,
22(4), 404–428.
Poole, S. M., Levin, M. A., & Elam, K. (2017). Getting out of the rankings game: A better way to evaluate
higher education institutions for best fit. Journal of Marketing for Higher Education. Advance online
publication. doi:10.1080/08841241.2017.1311981
Reber, B. H., & Kim, J. K. (2006). How activist groups use websites in media relations: Evaluating online
press rooms. Journal of Public Relations Research, 18(4), 313–333.
Scheufele, D. A. (1999). Framing as a theory of media effects. Journal of Communication, 49(1), 103–
122.
Shin, J., & Cameron, G. T. (2003). The interplay of professional and cultural factors in the online
source-reporter relationship. Journalism Studies, 4(2), 253–272.
Smidts, A., Pruyn, A. H., & van Riel, C. B. M. (2001). The impact of employee communication and per-
ceived external prestige on organizational identification. Academy of Management Journal, 44(5),
1051–1062.
Stephenson, A. L., Heckert, A., & Yerger, D. B. (2016). College choice and the university brand:
Exploring the consumer decision framework. Higher Education, 71(4), 489–503.
Sung, M., & Yang, S. U. (2008). Toward the model of university image: The influence of brand person-
ality, external prestige, and reputation. Journal of Public Relations Research, 20(4), 357–376.
TekGroup. (2016). Online newsroom survey report: The intersection of content and distribution.
TekGroup.
U. S. News. (2015, September 8). How U.S. News calculated the 2016 best colleges rankings. U.S. News
& World Report. Retrieved from http://www.usnews.com/education/best-colleges/articles/how-us-
news-calculated-the-rankings?page=2
Will, E. M., & Callison, C. (2006). Web presence of universities: Is higher education sending the right
message online? Public Relations Review, 32(2), 180–183.
Williams, R. L., & Omar, M. (2014). How branding process activities impact brand equity within higher
education institutions. Journal of Marketing for Higher Education, 24(1), 1–10.
Zhang, Y., & O’Halloran, K. L. (2013). Toward a global knowledge enterprise: University websites as
portals to the ongoing marketization of higher education. Critical Discourse Studies, 10(4), 468–485.
Copyright of Journal of Marketing for Higher Education is the property of Taylor & Francis
Ltd and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv
without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print,
download, or email articles for individual use.