Ending Alumni Engagement on Autopilot
Originally posted on LinkedIn on July 10, 2025
At CMAC, we are often hired by advancement leaders when they sense that their alumni engagement strategies and programs are stagnant. Current approaches are not creating a growth trajectory; instead, year after year, there’s a maintenance approach. The goal is to return to the same place as last year, rather than to grow. It’s not necessarily intentional, but the mix of programs, initiatives, and a lack of available metrics doesn’t allow for increased participation.
It’s also the case that there’s a hesitancy to make fundamental changes. It's an inertia problem. My observations suggest that several approaches to alumni engagement contribute to this sense of being stuck. I realize that what follows may be controversial for some folks, but I think it’s time we address a few of these publicly and have a conversation about it.
A dedication to expanding and maintaining the number of regional clubs and chapters is killing engagement at the vast majority of schools.
When I interview alumni pros as part of a program review, I’ll often ask the question somewhat jokingly, “So how many chapters do you have, and how many of them are real?” Invariably, the answer is that about one-third of the regional organizations listed on the website are functioning, and a smaller percentage are thriving. The rest are somewhere between sporadic and dead.
For years, alumni leaders have touted their success by pointing to an increasing number of official clubs or chapters, even if they aren't really functioning. To admit that the number of real organizations is only a fraction of the number that have been promoted is a bridge too far for most alumni pros. In addition, there’s a fear that volunteers who have served as chapter presidents for decades will protest if the university makes fundamental changes. Even though there might be a realization that changes are needed, this dynamic of fear is holding back many advancement shops from creating a successful regional engagement program.
My take is that the vast majority of schools should trim the fat and focus on the top five regional metro areas that represent the highest concentration of alumni. We need to help volunteer leaders in these key areas establish stronger organizations and expand their local footprint. Rather than building a new chapter in a far-off place, create a suburban sub-group that makes events and activities more accessible to the largest number of people in those key regions.
We can also scale regional engagement without creating formal volunteer-run organizations. After interviewing dozens of chapter volunteers as a consultant, I can tell you that the majority feel unappreciated. Instead of putting the burden on volunteers to grow mini-organizations, why not ask them to help host a single event or maybe two each year? Alumni teams can scale a regional initiative without a formal chapter or group.
The expectation of hosting reunions and Homecoming annually is preventing growth, and often engages the same individuals year after year.
Why do we feel compelled to uphold these alumni traditions each year? The answer is, “because we always have done it that way, some alumni enjoy it, and because we can’t stop or else people will complain.”
But what if the pushback is imagined and not real, and Homecoming or Reunions happen every other year? Or every third year? During those off-years, we execute new initiatives that have the potential to engage new alumni or deepen engagement with donors who may not be interested in events with a nostalgic core.
One of my favorite initiatives in higher ed is Bentley University’s Alumni Conference. It’s a bold, new, future-focused program designed to engage alumni and donors who seek a unique experience on campus. Most alumni pros will look at this program and say, “Boy, I wish we had the bandwidth to create something like this.”
Alumni teams can create bandwidth by not delivering the same programs each year and instead executing big new ideas that have been on the shelf due to the need to satisfy these annual traditions. The key is that when alumni professionals need to communicate with stakeholders that a program is changing, it’s imperative to note that the change will bring forth something new and special.
Yes, adjust the rhythms of the 5-year reunion schedule. It will be OK. No... it will be BETTER.
Alumni awards programs are great for building brand equity, but they aren't good engagement for the resources needed to deliver the program.
Alumni leaders spend countless hours working to execute awards programs that have no capacity for growth and engage a minimal number of alumni, given the high demand on resources.
Alumni awards programs often represent one of the most significant engagement initiatives of the year. They’re expensive banquets that include a $100+ per person steak and shrimp combo. Universities spend tens of thousands on this single event, but in the room are often the families of the recipients, campus leadership, and a few volunteer alumni board members.
The recipients may be donors, which helps justify the award and, in turn, supports stewardship. However, the real engagement comes from the stories told on social media or through other digital means. But most schools don’t track social media engagement or even communications-based engagement more broadly. Ultimately, most alumni awards programs create a vibe, rather than genuine engagement.
Instead, I’d focus on programs and initiatives that recognize volunteerism on behalf of the university, rather than career success. This is the absolute commitment and achievements we should be honoring: volunteers and their gifts of time.
At some point, alumni engagement leaders must ask themselves a challenging question: Are we in the business of making people feel comfortable, or do we exist to create meaningful engagement that drives the future of our institutions through investment?
The truth is, many advancement teams have become caretakers of nostalgia — preserving programs and events not because they work exceptionally well, but because they’ve always existed. We cling to outdated models, such as scaling through the number of regional chapters, annual reunions, and resource-intensive award banquets, as if they are sacred cows, immune to scrutiny. But the metrics tell a different story: flat participation, declining relevance, and missed opportunities for innovation.
Assuming university leadership is on board, and I literally mean the President or Chancellor has your back, it’s time for us engagement pros to stop being afraid of alumni who might grumble on Facebook or of longtime volunteers who fear change. The bigger risk is failing to engage the tens of thousands of alumni who are not involved or who love the school and participate as donors, but stay on the sidelines.
Ryan Catherwood serves as Executive Vice President and Senior Consultant at Chris Marshall Advancement Consulting (CMAC), consulting partner with Washburn & McGoldrick LLC, and co-host of the Alumless and Alumless World web series and podcasts.
