Five reputation numbers every university board should see

I’ve sat on and chaired a number of boards over the years, from charities and schools to the commercial marketing board for a global hotel group. The best ones share a habit: they ask for evidence, and they ask about the things that genuinely drive the organisation’s future.

In universities, reputation is one of those things, yet it rarely appears on a governing body’s agenda in any structured way. It comes up when something goes wrong, or when a rankings result arrives. That leaves boards reacting to reputation rather than overseeing it.

I’d like to see that change. Here are the five numbers I’d put in front of every university board, every quarter.

1. Reputation by priority audience

A single brand score hides more than it reveals. Boards should see how the institution is perceived by the three or four audiences that matter most to its strategy: prospective students in key markets, academics in priority disciplines, employers, and policymakers or funders. The trend over time matters more than any single reading.

2. The perception gap

This is the difference between how good an institution actually is, on measures like research quality or graduate outcomes, and how good it’s perceived to be. A large gap is an opportunity. It tells the board that the story hasn’t reached the people who need to hear it, and it gives the marketing and communications team a clear brief.

3. Share of voice in the conversations that count

How often is the university mentioned, and in what light, in the media, social channels and AI search results that its audiences actually use, compared with its real competitors? Boards don’t need every mention. They need to know whether the institution is gaining or losing ground.

Boards should be overseeing reputation, not just reacting to it.

4. Conversion from interest to commitment

Reputation shows up in behaviour. Enquiry to application, application to enrolment, first contact to research partnership: these conversion rates tell the board whether a strong reputation is turning into outcomes. A falling rate is often an early warning of a reputation issue before it appears anywhere else.

5. Reputational risk, assessed honestly

Every institution carries risks that could damage how it’s seen, from financial headlines to campus incidents to policy changes in key markets. Boards should see a short, honest assessment of the top risks, their likelihood, and how prepared the institution is to respond. It belongs alongside the financial risk register, because the two are closely linked.

Making it work

None of this needs a heavy reporting burden. A single page, updated quarterly, with clear trends and a short commentary from the director responsible, is enough to change the quality of the conversation. In my experience, what boards ask about is what institutions prioritise. Put reputation on the agenda with real numbers, and the rest of the organisation will start to manage it with the same seriousness.

If you’re a governor or a vice-chancellor and you’d like to compare notes on what this could look like for your institution, I’m always happy to talk.

Jonathan Sabarre FCIM MBA is Principal Consultant at QS Quacquarelli Symonds, a keynote speaker and host of Marketing Greats in Higher Education. Get the weekly email or invite him to speak.