Since 2004, IPEDS data has been diffused via a product known as the Data Feedback Report (DFR). Produced yearly for each institution in the IPEDS universe, the DFR is a print product that contrasts the IPEDS data submitted by an institution with its institutionally-defined comparison group. The DFR is free to all users, covers a wide range of metrics, facilitates comparisons against peer groups of virtually any combination imaginable, and is accessible in a variety of forms. As such, the DFR is positioned to be the preeminent source of comparative data nation-wide. The results of this study suggest that the DFR has not yet attained that status, however, and offers some insight as to why this might be. While DFR utilization rates are hard to determine, a potential proxy--the rate at which institutions choose to upload custom comparison groups to enhance the utility of their DFR--varies widely by sector. While this rate hovers near 50% for public, 4-year institutions, it falls to approximately 5% among for-profit institutions, overall. Even if utilization rates are twice as large as rate of customization, this suggests a large swath of postsecondary institutions is not using the DFR: - Campus executives, the target audience for DFRs, report relatively little diffusion of the product beyond the cabinet level. Rates of diffusion off-campus are particularly low. - Based upon feedback provided by campus executives, the metrics contained on the DFR are appropriate for its purpose. All were rated as "somewhat important" by at least 70% of campus executives, although a clear preference for student-based metrics was detected. - Although campus executives are most prone to turn to on-campus research staff to get information they need for their day-to-day work, their use of the DFR is on-par with other off-campus data sources. - Alternative data providers in general--be they benchmarkers or consortia--are enjoying relatively frequent use by institutional research staff, although their use is greatest among public institutions and 4-year, not-for-profits. Institutions report using alternative data providers because they facilitate benchmarking, they allow the use of preferred metrics and the answering of specific questions of interest to the institution, provide access to confidential data, and have a relatively rapid turn-around time (often within the quarter). - The Consortia for Student Retention Data Exchange (CSRDE) and the National Community College Benchmarking Project (NCCBP) were amongst the most frequently mentioned alternative data providers in this study. More details about their work can be found in Appendix B. CSRDE's prominence parallel's chief executive's most important metric: student persistence and attrition. - Indicators of institutional financial health and institutional sustainability efforts were among the emerging metrics most frequently identified by alternative data providers as being increasingly relevant for their constituents, although indicators of student success remain important.