Why Your Rankings Strategy Isn’t Working (And What Actually Does)

The institutions achieving dramatic rankings gains aren’t just marketing better. They’re synchronizing operational excellence with strategic communication.

Jason Cohen, PhD, Director of Research+Insights at Frankel

Here’s an uncomfortable truth: most university rankings strategies fail. Not because institutions lack ambition or resources, but because they’re solving the wrong problem.

Over the past year, my research team analyzed the marketing, communications, and reputation campaigns of ten universities that achieved significant U.S. News rankings improvements between 2015 and 2026. What we found challenges conventional wisdom about how rankings improvement actually works.

The institutions that climbed 30, 50, even 70 positions didn’t just market better. They didn’t just improve graduation rates. They did something more sophisticated: they synchronized their operational improvements with their marketing communications, creating a virtuous cycle that neither strategy could achieve alone.

The Virtuous Cycle Nobody Talks About

When we mapped the success patterns across all ten institutions, a reinforcing feedback loop emerged:

Marketing Investment → Application Volume → Enhanced Selectivity → Rankings Improvement → (cycle repeats)

This isn’t revolutionary on its own. What’s revolutionary is understanding that this cycle only works when there’s substance behind the marketing—and when that substance gets communicated effectively to the people who matter most.

Peer assessment accounts for 20% of the U.S. News ranking formula. That’s presidents, provosts, and admissions leadership at other institutions rating your academic quality. They’re not impressed by advertising. They’re impressed by trajectory, credibility, and momentum.

What the Data Actually Shows

We found one threshold that separated institutions that reached Top 50 status from those that didn’t:

The 75% Threshold

Getting enough of the right students in the door – students who will move your institution forward – is mission critical for graduation rates, future alumni engagement, and community development.

Every institution in our study that exceeded +75% application growth achieved Top 50 rankings status. Every single one.

Northwestern saw +253% application growth alongside its rise from #13 to #6. FSU’s +182% growth mirrored its climb from #81 to #51. USF’s +79% growth powered the fastest rankings ascent in our dataset: #159 to #88.

But here’s the thing about application growth: it doesn’t happen because you asked nicely. It happens because prospective students—and their parents and families, and their guidance counselors—believe something substantive is happening at your institution.

Three Institutions That Got It Right

University of South Florida: #159 → #100 (+59 positions)

USF achieved AAU membership in 2023—the first Florida public university invited to join in nearly 40 years. Then they marketed it. The “Be Bold” campaign used real students and faculty, not actors. The sequencing mattered: substance first, communication second.

Key move: Graduation rate improved from 48% to 76% (6-year rate). That’s not a marketing message. That’s a fundamental institutional transformation that became a marketing message.

Northwestern University: #13 → #9 (+4 positions)

Pre-2013, Northwestern had 80+ different logos across campus. Every school and program had created its own identity. The result? Brand fragmentation that diluted recognition.

The consolidation to “AND is in our DNA” was painful—faculty resistance, alumni nostalgia—but it created the foundation for the “We Will” Campaign, which raised $6.1Bn from 174,380 donors. That’s 63% above the original $3.75Bn goal.

Key move: Brand unification enabled fundraising success, which funded operational improvements, which sustained the top-10 position.

NC State University: #95 → #73 (+22 positions)

On March 24, 2021, NC State’s Day of Giving raised $58.1 million in 24 hours, a national record for university giving days, surpassing Purdue’s $42.2 million the year before.

That record became the story. It garnered national media coverage worth more than any advertising buy. Visibility among peer voters. Credibility signals that marketing alone can’t generate.

Key move: Fundraising milestones became marketing events. The “Think and Do” campaign has maintained consistent messaging for 16 years.

Long term, consistent messaging beats the flashy one-off headline every time.

Want the full analysis? Our complete white paper includes detailed case studies of all 10 institutions, quantitative analysis, and the strategic frameworks behind their success. Download the White Paper →

The Investment Equation Most Schools Get Wrong

Here’s where it gets counterintuitive: duration and persistence matter more than absolute annual investment levels.

Your institution needs to countenance the decade, not the year, as the horizon for change.

We found three distinct investment zones:

High ROI Zone: $3-5M annually for 10+ years

Rutgers, FSU, and NC State achieved +22 to +59 position improvements with sustained moderate investment. Each year builds on the previous. Compound returns accrue across brand equity.

Strategic Acceleration Zone: $5-7M annually for 10+ years

Ohio State and Virginia Tech achieved gains of +13 to +20 positions. Ohio State’s creation of a Strategy Management Office enabled coordinated execution across all channels.

Elite Maintenance Zone: $8-15M annually for 10+ years

Northwestern and Michigan invest heavily to maintain excellence rather than climb. In this echelon, the goal is defending top-tier positions while raising billions.

One pattern is clear: sustained moderate investment outperforms sporadic large spending. One-year campaigns, no matter how well-funded, consistently fail to move rankings.

What Doesn’t Work (That Schools Keep Doing Anyway)

Our analysis also revealed the approaches that consistently fail:

Rankings-Only Messaging: No Top 50 institution leads with “We’re #X!” Elite schools cite rankings as proof, not promotion. Leading with rankings signals insecurity.

Marketing Without Substance: Campaigns that precede operational achievement lack credibility. Peer voters see through promotional messaging that isn’t backed by reality.

Short-Term Campaigns: One-year efforts without follow-through consistently fail. The compound benefits of marketing investment require sustained commitment.

Fragmented Brand: Multiple logos, inconsistent messaging, and decentralized communication dilute recognition and waste resources.

The Synchronization Imperative

Here’s what this all comes down to:

Rankings improvement is not a marketing problem or an operational problem. It’s a synchronization problem.

Operational excellence without marketing communication leaves achievements invisible to peer voters and prospective students. The 20% peer assessment weight in the U.S. News formula responds to perceptions, perceptions shaped by consistent, credible signals of academic quality.

Marketing investment without operational substance lacks credibility. Academic leaders distrust marketing language. They respect institutional trajectory demonstrated through verifiable achievements.

The institutions that achieved dramatic, durable gains were the ones that aligned their operational improvements with marketing campaigns that communicated those achievements to the audiences that matter most.

That’s the synchronization imperative.

Ready to Synchronize Your Strategy?

Our complete white paper, “The Synchronization Imperative,” includes detailed analysis of all 10 institutions, the full quantitative methodology, investment frameworks, and actionable strategic recommendations.

Download the Full White Paper | And, contact us to discuss how these insights apply to your institution.

Frankel is a higher education marketing agency specializing in rankings improvement strategy, brand development, and institutional advancement.