Stanford University: Their website is part of a shift in research impact communication, but is it enough?

From Silicon Valley to surgical breakthroughs, Stanford’s legacy is beyond enviable. They’ve made some changes—but more can be done.

They have a beautiful campus—but surely that’s not the most important thing about them?

Over the last few months, I’ve noticed the beginning of a major shift in how US-based universities communicate. They’ve begun to move from the same-old same-old approaches (an unstrategic conveyor belt of press releases, promotional content and announcements) to a new approach. Now, they’re beginning to lead with their impact, their inventions and innovation and how they’ve changed the world. 

It’s a welcome shift.

As I’ve shared before, one of the biggest challenges facing universities is … themselves. Despite its incredible importance, communicating the importance and benefit of research is just an afterthought to them. Instead, chasing students takes top priority, seemingly at the expense of everything else. I’ve talked about this before in several newsletters which I encourage you to visit: my guide to communicating research impact, A Tale of Two Tonys; the Gardasil gap, a case study about the University of Queensland; and my website reviews of Harvard and Oxford.  

Why is this happening now? Trump’s war on research funding. 

While I welcome and love that universities are shifting their approach, I am saddened that it takes an existential threat for university leadership to embrace the importance of communicating research impact. Even attending the annual American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS) conference earlier this year, I was surprised by how little discussion time was given to the impact of dozens of universities from around the world represented there. 

I don’t blame universities for these attacks. But as I’ve said several times, they are leaving their flanks exposed. You need to bring society with you if you want their support. And that takes more than a press release. 

Harvard leads the pack

Perhaps unsurprisingly, Harvard was one of the first universities in the US to make the shift and focus on their research impact. I had already reviewed their website before they made this shift, and was really impressed—I had praised its absolutely brilliant audience focus, and how it was so clearly the result of a top-down strategy based around audience engagement. But I had also lamented that it was difficult to work out their impact.

Within two months, they had shifted the front page to lead with their research impact. And they did a masterful job of communicating it. 

Was it because of my article? Well, it’s possible. Was it because of Trump? Most certainly.

As I visit more US university websites, I’m seeing this shift more and more. 

In fact, just a few weeks ago, I was drafting the finishing touches to my latest university website review looking at Stanford. My headline was as follows: They’ve changed their world, but their website is a boring brochure. From Silicon Valley to surgical breakthroughs, Stanford’s legacy is beyond enviable. So why aren’t they owning it?

Their research impact was absolutely buried. The only place that I could find any kind of research impact was on their Office of Technology Licensing (OTL) page, which was difficult to find and aimed at researchers and potential industry partners. 

And Stanford is catching up—somewhat.

But in the week before I published my newsletter, Stanford changed its website to talk more about their impact (great for them—but what timing for me!!). 

On its front page (although it’s still a little buried) some impressive stats are listed: Stanford has produced more than 3,000 patents; created 400+ startups; created 350,000+ jobs through companies founded at Stanford; and received 36 Nobel Prizes.

When you click through onto the research page, it gives you an incredible resume: fundamental research that has made everything from cancer treatments to the founding of Google possible. 

But isn’t it equally extraordinary that only a few weeks back they started really promoting this on their website? And even then, it’s not at the quality of Harvard’s website—it’s just tweaks to the existing framework. 

It’s not surprising to me because I read university websites as part of my work, but it’s still extraordinary that you’d bury those stories. But there’s a widespread belief behind these inexplicable choices: the idea that university websites don’t matter. 

News of the death of websites has been greatly exaggerated 

I must confess I get a bit tired of the line “websites are dead” line I am hearing regularly. A university exec told me that the proof is in the low visitor numbers. But of course these numbers are low—because there is nothing there to engage the average person. 

Instead, university websites are outdated, with little investment and no editorial structure designed to engage audiences and build trust. 

As part of this argument, I also hear that social media has eclipsed websites—so why bother? Of course, it’s true that social media dominates. But it only gives the smallest peek into your story. Whether future students, collaborators, philanthropists, policy-makers or elected officials—those who are interested in learning more will still go to your website to learn about you. But instead, they’re greeted with generic copy and statistics.

Instead, if they want to find out more about you, they will need to find your story from the media. And we’ve seen how that plays out. The media has its own agenda. If you want to control your story, you need to actually tell it yourself. 

Where do people find your story?

When I wrote the Stanford article I did two searches to try and find Stanford’s impact: one within Stanford’s website,  which pulled up nothing. For the second, I used a Gen AI engine (in this case, Perplexity). None of the sources linked back to Stanford. 

This is wild! Stanford should be the source of its own impact narrative. Yet I had to piece everything together from third-party websites.

They have the kind of impact that Fortune 500 companies and countries alike would kill for—and they’ve buried it. It’s like they don’t want us to know. 

As I have said many times before, this is a strategy issue. You can’t blame the communications team when communications is seen as a brochure or press release department—instead of a crucial strategic lever in how you build your organisation. A great communications strategy will grow your student numbers, grants, philanthropy and industry partnerships. It should be a fundamental part of your strategy, helping you identify your business objectives, your audiences, and what (and how) to communicate to these audiences to achieve your goals. 

Websites tell people what you value. 

Your website is not just a reflection of you—it shows how you value engaging with your audiences. If you don’t have your narrative right, it shows on your website. If you haven’t strategically thought through your impact, it shows on your website. If you aren’t serious at the most senior levels about engagement, it shows on your website. 

Whether you are a small university or a giant like Stanford, take a good hard look at what you are writing about yourself on your website. Is that what you most want people to know about? 

Websites aren’t dead or irrelevant, they are just suffering from a lack of underinvestment. 

Unfortunately, as brilliant as Stanford is—and even though Stanford has made some good changes, their website doesn’t reflect their place in the world or their impact on society. But it’s not just Stanford, it’s everyone. And in an era of existential threat, this approach is no longer fit for purpose. 

To change public opinion, to galvanise people and turn them into advocates and allies, to attract new investment and partnerships—we simply can’t afford to let this enormous strategic misstep continue. Instead, the sector must re envision how it connects with the world around it, or risk getting left behind.