Recomanadations for Selling Higher Education

8/13/2019 Recomanadations for Selling Higher Education

1/11

89Selling Higher Education

Recommendations for Selling Higher Education

NO MONOGRAPH ON MARKETING AND ADVERTISINGHIGHER EDUCATION would be complete without a section of

recommendations. What follows are general marketing and advertising observations for business (as well as higher education), interspersed withrecommendations targeted to colleges and universities. These observationsand recommendations are by no means comprehensive, but they are presentedto give you ideas about how best you might go about redesigning yourmarketing efforts or changing course in the face of increasing competition,declining enrollments, or a new marketing campaign.

These recommendations derive from basic market principles that make upthe foundation of sound business marketing practice. They have been testedby countless businesses in a variety of elds, all trying to accomplish the samething: persuading consumers to buy a product or service and then persuading them to repeat the action. And they work. How do we know? Because they have withstood the test of time; if capitalism teaches us one thing, it is thatbad ideas do not last long in an open market. If these recommendations werenot protable, they would long have been forgotten.

As we have seen thus far, marketing and advertising the modern college or

university are compounded by two forces, each working in concert to challengeeven the best marketer. Higher education is an intangible product working formarket differentiation in a crowded eld. Moreover, higher education is some-times a product, sometimes a service. The customers are students, but they arealso the products. Colleges and universities are social institutions, but theyare also forced to behave like modern businesses. Given all these factors, it is


2/11

no wonder that Jugenheimer (1995) believes colleges and universities generally do a poor job of advertising and marketing. He cites several reasons contributing to this conclusion: inadequate planning, a general resistance to advertising (by

academics and administrators alike), and the lack of a comprehensive market-ing plan. Jugenheimer believes these poor marketing practices have their rootsin the inexperience of administrators in advertising and marketing, as evidencedby research that reveals confusion among administrators about advertising termsused (Jugenheimer, 1995; Kittle, 2000) and about many marketing practices.

Administrators often ascend from the faculty ranks and do not have the busi-ness degrees or marketing experience that would make them better suited forthe demands of marketing higher education.

Compounded with this inexperience is the difficulty of marketing a col-lege or university for all the reasons described in the opening of the preceding paragraph. And it does not help matters that very little research has been doneon the actual practices of higher education institutional advertising (Kittle,2000). We know institutions advertise and market themselves, but it is a highly underresearched area, making it difficult to implement empirically drivenchanges or strategies. Sometimes we just do not know why markets in highereducation behave the way they do, and we have to make decisions based onthe available data.

Despite these challenges, we do know that marketing and advertising highereducation are about understanding the product, dening the central message,and creating memorable images that an audience can associate with the par-ticular college or university. Although the eld of marketing higher educationis relatively new, much has been written about general market research tech-niques to measure image, and advice abounds about how to create or improvean image so that it contributes to a unied marketing plan (Topor, 1986).

Marketing higher education should be thought of as a two-step approach

with two clear objectives:

Create a positive common image that is easy to communicate to all audiences.It could include a common logo, a slogan, or some other identifying char-acteristic that is exclusive to your institutional brand. Brand status is notlikely to happen overnight, but it is possible to develop a common image

90


3/11

that faculty, staff, students, and alumni recognize and promote. A brandcommunity depends on a common core for identication, something torally around.

Within your common image, communicate distinct images for the variety of target audiences you wish to reach: current and prospective students, par-ents, alumni, faculty and staff, donors, the community (local, regional,national), legislators, and the media. Each niche market expects differentthings from your institution; you should research and identify their expec-tations so you have an appeal that reaches their needs.

Kittles research (2000) into advertising practices has found that most insti-tutions use all major media and that communication objectives most often men-tioned were general image enhancement and awareness of the institution (p. 37).

Image and awareness should be at the core of your efforts, regardless of themedia used for advertising purposes or your institutional type. According toNewmans study (2002), which measured the current state of marketing inhigher education, Nearly all of the marketing and planning activities includedin the study were consistently practiced across the various types of institutions inthe United States, lending support to the assertion that the practice of marketing is not substantially affected by the differentiated structure of highereducation (p. 25). Although theory and existing research suggest that insti-tution size, funding type, and innovativeness have signicant impacts on themarket orientation of higher education (Wasmer and Bruner, 1999, p. 104),it need not prevent a wide assortment of media venues or the content of mes-sages. Be open-minded about the media available to you and the types of messages you create and disseminate. Creativity is hard to ignore.

Collaborative PartnersHigher education is not business, and the distinction is important. Bay and Daniel(2001) write that the fundamental differences between higher education and busi-ness also preclude the customer-focus so prevalent in the business literaturefrom being an entirely useful one when applied to marketing strategies of highereducation (p. 1). In fact, they write, the student-as-a-customer paradigm may



4/11

cause institutions to concentrate on short-term, narrow student satisfaction, ratherthan meeting the long-term needs of an entire range of stakeholders (p. 1). Bay and Daniel propose that the student be regarded as a collaborative partner rather

than as a customer or consumer of higher education. They believe aninstitutionstudent collaborative partnership allows for the different kindsof relationships that exist between the institution and the student.

This concept is sound, and using the term collaborative partnersaddresses the issues many academicians have regarding higher education as a business with customers who must be satisfied, regardless of the effortrequired to do so. Higher education is a complicated business. Sometimes thestudent is a customer buying living space or meals or shopping at the book-store and using various facilities on campus (Bay and Daniel, 2001). Othertimes the student is a learner or the product of education. Regardless, studentsroles and their relationship to the university are dynamic and cannot bereduced to a customer-business paradigm alone. Further, a collaborative part-nership recognizes that each party brings something that benets the other ina complex, evolving relationship (p. 8). To stay vital, the partnership mustgrow and evolve.

The orientation toward collaborative partnerships is also critical becausestudents represent a difficult market for colleges and universities. Litten (1980)claims that the most problematic set of consumers for the responsive mar-keter is the traditional prospective studentthe high school senior. . . . A young person graduating from high school frequently knows only vaguely

what educational benets he or she wants and only a little about what he orshe needs (p. 88). Students are not traditional customers with specic needsor expectations. They are often confused about what exactly they are looking for, but they also recognize the decision they will make will have great inu-ence over the rest of their lives.

Of the choice process, Galotti and Kozberg (1996) write that students under-stand their choice is, in several ways, life framing, and they recognize the factthat the college decision is one of great magnitude, with many ramications forcareer and family choices (p. 3). The magnitude of the decision, the complex-ity of the choices, and their uncertainty about what they need lead to greatparental involvement for many prospective students. As such, parents should be

92


5/11

considered key elements in the collaborative partnership. By the senior year,parents have played a key, if subliminal, role in establishing constraints onstudents consideration sets (Hossler, Schmit, and Vesper, 1999, p. 133). There-

fore, marketing should be directed to parents as much as to students.Clinton (1989) echoes this sentiment when he advises that promotional

efforts:

Be directed to parents as well as potential students; Include parental gures and peers in promotional materials, as they weigh

heavily in the choice process; Be designed with a friendly atmosphere that is inviting and inclusive; Stress quality of education for the cost; and Mention a good track record of prompt responses to inquiries and early

notication of acceptance, as both signicantly increase enrollments.

McDonough, Antonio, and Horvat (1996) have demonstrated thatstudents make a college choice based on the advice of family and schoolpersonnel, their perceptions of key anticipated social experiences, and whatthey perceive as the ability to convert their college degree into a job oradvanced education. Marketing efforts should be targeted with these consid-erations in mind but recognize they are not mutually exclusive. Marketers areadvised that college choice is grounded in a sort of holistic pragmatism andthat nal choice is likely to be based as much on a feeling of well-being, orat least a lack of discomfort, as on any rational calculation of costs and benetsor systematic ratings of institutional characteristics (Litten, 1991, p. 132)

which explains the conclusion Karp, Holmstrom, and Gray (1998) reach whenthey write, It is not especially surprising that one of the most consistent anduniversal patterns in our data is the effort expended by students to find a

school where a person like me will feel comfortable (p. 275).The search for a good t often comes down to the campus visit. The litera-

ture is clear that the campus visit creates a personal contact in what has been, untilthen, a fairly impersonal relationship. The campus visit is literally a handshakeand a welcome. It is the campus visit where the student experiences what haslargely been an abstraction and allows them to test the assumptions they have



6/11

carried based on their other information channels (print materials, online infor-mation, and others perceptions). Campus visits represent an important factor instudent choice that can be changed more easily than the number of majors

offered or the location of the school. Consequently, it offers enormous potentialas a recruiting tool (Rosen, Curran, and Greenlee, 1998, p. 90). Finally, Clinton(1989) believes campus tours should be conducted by selected college students

who embody the characteristics a campus hopes to promote. Fears of theunknown are quickly dissolved with a friendly campus tour (p. 40).

Strategic Marketing Plans for Higher EducationIf you want to be successful in marketing, think like a marketer. Marketers

who are successful think strategically about two things: the product and themarket. The first step toward marketing higher education is to establish a strategic marketing plan that considers two overarching concerns: (1) yourposition in the competitive marketplace and (2) how you will implement andsupport your strategy on a day-to-day basis (Hiebing and Cooper, 1997;Kotler, 1999; Kotler and Keller, 2006). It is essential that a college or univer-sity know what it is, whom it serves, and who the competition is. Likewise, itis important that the day-to-day operations, including budgets and personnel,be able to support the market strategy that is created. Having an extensive plan

with no means to support it is pointless. A strategic marketing plan begins with a marketing audit, which is a tool

for analyzing an institutions internal strengths and weaknesses and matching them with external opportunities and threats (Goldgehn, 1990). Simply put,a marketing audit is a self-assessment applied to the market. It asks what youdo well and to articulate your strengths and cite evidence to support whatmakes you strong in those particular areas. Likewise, it asks you to evaluate

your weaknesses, both relative and by comparison. Are you able to identify external opportunities in the market that you currently use and those youcould better exploit? What about your threats? Who are your competitors,both immediate and distant?

The ability to classify strengths and weaknesses and to assess opportunitiesand threats satises what Sands and Smith (1999) believe is key to organizational

94


7/11

effectiveness that communicates a strong identity: the development of aneffective market and communications plan that melds the capability to . . . effec-tively respond to those opportunities identied through an integrated market-

ing effort (p. 41). Although true integration is a lofty goal, Sands and Smithcontend it is critical in todays noisy marketplace because the more integratedand consistent an institutions marketing and communications activities are, themore likely it is to realize signicant gains in its visibility and reputation (p. 42).

Successful market orientation requires innovative ideas. Organizationalculture that supports good internal communication polices and internal mar-keting practices is more likely to foster organizational values that promoteinnovative practice (Wasmer and Bruner, 1999), of which marketing andstrategic planning can be a major part. Marketing orientation that is clearly communicated and accepted across an organizations central units is most likely to communicate values that are at the core of the institutions identity and canthen be communicated to external audiences.

The process by which prospective students arrive at a decision to attend a college or university varies substantially, but certain actions that students takedemonstrate their interest and eventual decision regarding enrollment (Capraro,Patrick, and Wilson 2004; Coccari and Javalgi, 1995; Kallio, 1995)requesting more information, visiting campus, and applying for admission(Capraro, Patrick, and Wilson, 2004). Your marketing plan should follow them every step of the way as you anticipate their needs, answer their ques-tions, respond to their needs, and demonstrate your good t.

Relationship Marketing Relationship marketing emphasizes building long-term relationships with cus-tomers rather than focusing on each individual transaction (Berry, 1995, 2002;

Gordon, 1998; Jackson, 1982). It involves understanding customers needsover a long period of time; as they change, so too do their needs. Businessneeds to be responsive to these changing needs and offer a range of products orservices to existing customers as needed.

Fundamentally, relationship marketing is the concept that the purpose of a business is to create and keep a customer (Levitt, 1986, p. 19). According to



8/11

Berry (1995), relationship marketing examines the relationship between thebusiness that is being marketed and the customer that is being marketed to inan effort to earn and retain customer loyalty by fostering a long-term relation-

ship. One method of examining this relationship is to provide opportunitiesfor feedback from customers and potential customers (Normann, 1991).

Relationship marketing is an ongoing process of identifying and creating new value with individual customers and then sharing the benets from [it]over a lifetime of association (Gordon, 1998, p. 18). According to Kittle andCiba (1997), doing so encourages colleges and universities to attract students,help them graduate, assist them in their careers, and seek their moral andfinancial support for the rest of their lives (p. 19). Thus, institutions mustemploy a wide range of marketing techniques to communicate to their vari-ous market audiences that what they seek is a relationship, not simply a busi-ness transaction. Colleges and universities have an advantage over onlinehigher education providers in that they bring the power of a social institutionand the cultures that swirl around campus experiences to forge true partner-ships with students, alumni, and supporters. They must recognize this powerin their relationships with their various audiences.

The most enduring benets of relationship marketing come from identi-fying the relationships members of the university community value, and pro-viding for the experiential contexts in which they can be formed(McAlexander, Koenig, and Schouten, 2004, p. 77), which helps to explain

why rallying around the team works so well as a manifestation of that brandedcommunity.

Relationship marketing applies directly to the consumer engagement needsof higher education. Colleges and universities are big places that often do nothave a good sense of themselves or what they do. When the organizationalmission is clearly defined and articulated, people respond. They want a

clear mission and vision. They want to know what the organization is aboutand how they t in. Marketing provides a vehicle for a college or university todefine what it does and for whom. Each part works together instead of inisolation. A new marketing campaign is an opportunity for everyone to seehow he or she ts into the larger institution, who the customers are, and how the organization can address customers needs across their lifetime.

96


9/11

The ultimate goal of relationship marketing as applied to higher educa-tion is for institutions to:

1. Communicate who they are and what they have to offer to their marketaudiences. No market audience should question how it personally relatesto the institution; the relationship should be explicit.

2. Address the individual needs of their market audiences as appropriate. Forexample, prospective students, current students, and alumni all have dif-ferent relationships with an institution; care must be taken to communicateto each audience that the institution understands its needs.

3. Fulll their promises. Expectations have been set and should be met. Notmeeting expectations will cause market audiences to question the quality of the relationship and the institutions.

By taking these steps, institutions have an opportunity to build a base of loyal and committed partners who understand the institution and how they t in it and are likely to remain in the relationship for a long time.

Importance of Internal Marketing Relationship marketing largely depends on successful internal marketing foran organization. Internal marketing is simply the act of using marketing tech-niques in the institution itself to enhance the organizational relationshipsamong employees, departments, and leaders (George, 1990). If things work as they should, each person working in the organization gives and receives pos-itive services in their interactions with one another, and, it is hoped, this positiveinteraction is communicated to external audiences. George (1990) writes thatit works best when those working in the organization understand the signi-

cance of their own roles as well as the role and signicance of others. An effectiveinternal marketing program is thought to be essential for external marketing efforts, as each person understands customer needs from the customersperspective as well as the organizations mission, vision, and goals.

The goal for marketing your particular institution is to communicate toall members of the organization what your institutional priorities are and how



10/11

each individual plays a role in advancing your collective mission. Successfulmarketing in higher education begins internally. Discuss your goals, developyour strategy, communicate your message, and be sure it all begins at home.

Branding is most successful when it involves many facets of marketing suchas use of slogans and logo design but also when it is consistent across the orga-nization and provides a common image that brand communities can attachthemselves to as an expression of their loyalty. A clear brand image functionsas a relationship builder between individual members of the community andfurther binds them to the institution, both as individuals but also as separatecommunities that share the institution in common. Difficulties often accom-pany efforts to market an intangible product, which points to the importanceof branding as a critical component of image construction. Branding cre-ates a clear message about an intangible product and helps to build awarenessand relevance in an often crowded marketplace. This factor is especially impor-tant as colleges and universities struggle to stand out, or even to be noticed,in a crowded marketplace.

Ultimately, the marketing goal for colleges and universities should betwofold: (1) make the intangible tangible and (2) nd areas of market differ-entiation. When considering the intangible nature of education, marketing researchers (see, for example, Johnson and Sallee, 1994; Kotler and Armstrong,1996) suggest asking what evidence you can offer that reects who you are and

what you do as an institution. The key here isevidence. What can you point toand say, See that?That is what we do? Because the results of education, suchas knowledge, values, ethics, and skills are hard to conceptualize . . . admissionsprofessionals must nd and supply tangible evidence that successfully distin-guishes their institution from all others (Johnson and Sallee, 1994, p. 16).

98


11/11

Recomanadations for Selling Higher Education

Documents

Transcript of Recomanadations for Selling Higher Education