Walsh University Finalist Deck Direction

Date: 2026-05-07

Purpose: Proposed slide direction before building Walsh finalist/RFP discussion deck.

Inputs reviewed: Walsh RFP, SI proposal PDF/Google Slides, two Walsh discovery/strategy transcripts, UNC finalist presentation PDF, and internal Walsh prep transcript.

Core read

The Walsh finalist deck should not be a walkthrough of the full proposal. It should be a strategic discussion deck that makes the tradeoff obvious:

Walsh is not lacking activity. The issue is diffusion: too many audiences, programs, platforms, and goals are competing for the same fixed budget. Search Influence’s recommendation is to focus spend, structure campaigns around intent and seasonality, connect activity to Slate/enrollment outcomes, and use AI SEO where paid media cannot carry every program alone.

Use the UNC deck pattern, but adapt it for paid media + AI SEO

What to reuse from UNC:

• Open by setting expectations: they already have the proposal; this meeting is for the recommendation logic and discussion.
• Start with a compelling “why now / why this matters” section.
• Use live/custom proof early, not generic capabilities first.
• Show “current reality vs what we would do differently.”
• Keep scope light but concrete enough that Walsh understands the relationship.
• Keep dashboard/reporting and timeline slides, adjusted for Walsh.
• End with discussion priorities / decisions, not a hard sell.

What to change for Walsh:

• UNC was primarily AI/organic SEO. Walsh is primarily paid media structure and budget focus, with AI SEO as an additive strategic layer.
• Instead of program-page live proof as the whole center, Walsh needs audience-by-audience paid media strategy plus an AI SEO proof case for DPT/MOT.
• The deck should avoid six pages of SOW. Collapse paid search, Meta, Demand Gen, and LinkedIn into one setup/launch slide and one optimization/ongoing slide.

Recommended slide arc

1. Cover

Walsh University — Online Marketing Campaigns & AI SEO Discussion

Simple finalist/RFP discussion cover using Walsh proposal branding/assets.

2. How we’ll use the time

You have the proposal. Today is about the recommendation.

• We will not walk through every line item.
• We will focus on what we heard, what we recommend changing, how the strategy works by audience, and what decisions need to be made before launch.

3. Walsh’s key opportunity

Focus before scale.

Message:

• The budget can work harder, but not if every audience, program, and platform gets a thin slice.
• Adult learners need urgent lift.
• Graduate programs need seasonal prioritization.
• Undergraduate needs efficient brand/intent coverage.
• AI is changing where students make their shortlist.

4. Visual: Current reality vs recommended strategy

From fragmented spend to focused impact

Build the visual Paula described: audience-by-audience “today vs recommended” comparison.

Possible layout:

Visual idea: left side = many small slices/drops spread thin; right side = concentrated channels creating bigger impact by audience.

5. Audience slide 1 — Undergraduate

Current reality: brand matters, but the budget still has to concentrate.

Structure:

• Current reality: undergrad has offline/admissions support, broad brand goals, Catholic identity/fit, past pressure to advertise outside Ohio.
• What we would do differently: paid search for high-intent demand + Demand Gen/YouTube/Gmail for awareness and familiarity.
• Why it works: uses Walsh’s in-house video/creative strength; keeps regional/faith-fit focus; avoids spreading budget across too many platforms.

6. Audience slide 2 — Adult Learners

Current reality: adult learner demand needs a cleaner path to conversion.

Structure:

• Current reality: historically broad “finish your degree” messaging; recent healthcare/business buckets; leads still declining.
• What we would do differently: Google Paid Search for active degree-completion demand + Meta for awareness/retargeting.
• Add: conversion landing pages with Slate forms if approved.
• Why it works: clearer audience pathways, better conversion environment, and faster feedback into qualified lead/application performance.

7. Audience slide 3 — Graduate

Current reality: graduate programs need prioritization, not equal slices.

Structure:

• Current reality: five programs with different audiences and cycles; MBA is expensive and can crowd out niche programs.
• What we would do differently: search foundation across priority programs, LinkedIn where career profile matters, seasonal shifts for DPT/MOT and MAED.
• Why it works: spend moves when student demand moves; programs are not forced to compete evenly every month.

8. Proof that the focused playbook works — Tulane School of Architecture

Similar challenge: limited budget, graduate enrollment pressure, and the need to choose the right channels.

Place this before the AI search section, per Paula’s direction.

Slide message:

• Tulane School of Architecture needed to drive graduate enrollment with a limited budget.
• Search Influence recommended focusing on Google Search and LinkedIn.
• The focused strategy drove 5x more inquiries than the year prior.

Recommended graphics:

• Use `image59.png` as the available Tulane-family logo unless Paula provides a Tulane School of Architecture-specific mark.
• Use `image33.png` for Google Search.
• Use a native text chip for LinkedIn unless a LinkedIn logo is supplied.
• Use `image18.png` or a native large-stat treatment for the 5x lift.

9. Why now — AI search and the shortlist

AI is where niche graduate programs can win before the click.

This should be the Walsh version of UNC’s “AI visitors convert higher / AI isn’t saying so” section.

Focus:

• DPT and MOT prospects ask detailed, high-intent questions.
• If AI answers cite other schools first, Walsh may not make the shortlist.
• AI SEO gives Walsh a way to support program visibility beyond paid media limits.

Potential live-finding pattern to build later:

• Query: “best Doctor of Physical Therapy programs near Ohio with strong clinical placements”
• What AI sees: named competing schools/sources from live testing.
• What Walsh has and should be the answer: verified DPT proof points from Walsh pages/assets.
• What we’d build: crawlable outcomes/clinical placement/accreditation/program-fit content + schema/citations.

Need live research before finalizing the actual query/competitor/proof text.

10. What setup looks like

Before launch: simplify the architecture and connect the data.

Collapse SOW detail into setup work:

• Confirm goals and campaign priorities by audience.
• Audit current accounts/campaigns/data.
• Build campaign architecture by audience and platform.
• Align creative needs with Walsh’s in-house team.
• Configure Slate/GA4/conversion tracking and dashboard inputs.
• Build landing pages if approved.

11. What ongoing optimization looks like

After launch: pace, learn, and reallocate.

Collapse ongoing paid media scope:

• Weekly/monthly budget pacing.
• Search query and audience refinement.
• Creative testing and refresh recommendations.
• Seasonal shifts by program.
• Qualified lead/application feedback loop from Slate.
• AI SEO execution if included.

12. Dashboard, analytics, and reporting

Measure what moves enrollment, not just what generates clicks.

Adapt UNC dashboard slide:

• Program-level performance.
• CPL / cost per application where trackable.
• Conversion by audience and channel.
• Slate-qualified lead/application reporting.
• AI traffic and AI visibility if AI SEO is selected.

13. Timeline for impact

May/June setup → July launch → seasonal optimization.

Adapt UNC timeline:

• May/June: onboarding, access, creative/data alignment, campaign architecture.
• July: launch/takeover, tracking validation, first pacing decisions.
• Late summer/fall: heavier DPT/MOT emphasis before December 1 deadline.
• Late winter/spring: MAED emphasis.
• Ongoing: optimize, report, reallocate.

14. Discussion priorities / decisions

What we should align on before launch.

• Which audiences/programs get the strongest first push?
• Is additive AI SEO approved, and should DPT/MOT be first?
• Are conversion landing pages approved?
• What current vendor data can be shared before kickoff?
• What needs to be live July 1 vs transitioned after July 1?

Information needed from Paula / Walsh

• Walsh graphical assets from the proposal/source deck: logo, campus/student images, icons, charts, any brand elements used in the submitted deck.
• Confirmation of presentation audience and date/time.
• Whether Walsh expects a budget slide in this finalist deck, or whether we should keep budget as discussion only because the proposal already has it.
• Any current performance data by audience/channel/program: spend, leads, CPL, applications, lead quality, or notes from current vendors.
• Confirmation of whether AI SEO should appear as a central recommendation or clearly as an optional/additive path.
• Tulane School of Architecture graphical assets/logo if the attached files do not come through cleanly on my side.
• Whether Paula wants one combined current-vs-recommended visual or three separate audience visuals.

Recommended build approach

Build a 12–14 slide deck first, not a full proposal rewrite. Keep it discussion-oriented and client-facing. Reuse the submitted Walsh proposal visuals/assets, the UNC narrative structure, and only enough SOW/timeline detail to make the relationship concrete.