Kathryn Jones
Kathryn Jones, Director of Marketing and Communications, Birmingham City University
As Birmingham City University launches its ‘Upgrade your future’ campaign to demonstrate how we deliver a student experience that gives students the skills employer want and combat the negative publicity around rising costs of HE, it will only be a matter of time before we receive the inevitable question – how much did it cost?
Whenever a University dares to re-brand, develop its website or launch a marketing campaign, the spotlight is immediately and often publicly drawn to the thousands of pounds being spent on these endeavours. The general criticism is that universities are spending “tax payers’ money” – but is this accurate any more and is it justified?
Public funding to universities has been decreasing at phenomenal rates over the last decade and increasingly universities are having to source income from elsewhere – not only additional tuition fees from students themselves, but also third stream income and, in many cases, voluntary giving. Over the last three years, funding to the University through the Funding Councils has fallen by nearly 25 per cent and now represents less than a third of the University’s total income.
What about our motivations for advertising? Are we wasting money that should be diverted instead to enhance the teaching experience – implied in the criticisms we receive – or is this a fundamental part of any business.
It’s not an exaggeration to say that every business, organisation and charity promotes itself in some way. From the adverts in Yellow Pages and local newspapers placed by smaller businesses to multi-million pound global advertising of companies like Nike and Microsoft and the direct mail and television campaigns of charities like the NSPCC and Marie Curie, advertising is a means to an end. People don’t come knocking on your door (or website as is increasingly the call to action) unless you first tell them who you are, what you do and give them a reason to want to find out more. Universities are no different.
There are now hundreds of universities and colleges in the UK and if we genuinely want students and businesses to find the university that’s right for them and their individual needs, we have to give them the information they need to make that decision and first point them in the right direction. Advertising remains the quickest way to do this, though we are all looking at the new channels provided by social media and remain reliant on some of the traditional channels of media coverage, school liaison and word-of-mouth.
The Chartered Institute of Marketing’s 2010 Marketing Trends Survey found the average marketing spend as a percentage of turnover (excluding marketing salaries) for all UK organisations to be 7.29%. For public sector/charity it is 6.55%, compared with 7.79% for the financial services sector. Having worked at four universities, I can tell you that my budgets have never been anywhere near these levels – I generally benchmark at about 2%.
The reason I’ll make do with my 2% is that I believe investment in the teaching, research and business experience should quite rightfully be the priority for universities, but in order to ensure that the right people access these services, there has to be marketing spend as well. Why not let individual universities decide the balance of that spend and respect the professional decisions being made? In what can only be described as a very difficult financial climate, no university is going to be taking financial decisions lightly. So, please give us a break. Why not focus on the messages of our advertising – and the value in what we deliver as educational establishments – rather than the cost?
Tell us your views? Do you agree with Kathryn or do you feel universities should not spend money this way?
Kathryn Jones joined Birmingham City University as Director of Marketing and Communications in 2008, having worked in journalism, PR and marketing for 20 years, specialising in HE Marketing since 1998. She has worked previously at the universities of Nottingham, Wolverhampton and Northampton, winning an array of marketing and PR awards.
Kathryn Jones
Latest posts by Kathryn Jones (see all)
- Clearing the way for Clearing - July 23, 2013
- The White Paper: A personal perspective - July 1, 2011
- Universities – what’s the big idea? - June 13, 2011
My son mentioned the campaign on Spotify and commented that he thought that is how Universities should be advertising and promoting themselves. I think the University has the balance right with the marketing approach. It would be fine to put all available monies into learning and teaching but we need to be able to create demand for the product we offer and for that we need to market our wares.Well done.
I believe advertising is important as this is one of the most effective way of making businesses, prospective students, charities and local schools understand more about Birmingham City University.Due to funding cuts that have been announced by the Government; it is understandable why funding for advertising may be an issue that needs to be raised. My stern belief is advertising is the only effective way of making our university stand out, however taking into account that prospective students will be hit hardest once tuition fees are raised from 2012, it will be sensible to restrict funding for advertising that can otherwise be used for students resources. In the economic sense, I would advise the funding can be used on student resources as I believe as a student at Birmingham City University, I believe there aren’t many resources available to student.Current student at BCU.
hi Kathryn – congratulations on tackling a controversial subject head on! For me the key issues are: 1. is advertising appropriate to your target market (in this case I’m sure the answer is yes or you wouldn’t be doing it!) 2. is it rigorously evaluated to demonstrate ROI – and what measures do you use (increase in awareness is the obvious metric but changes in perceptions as a result of the campaign are obviously key but more complex to measure without investment in more expensive research; impact onenquiries/applications is obviously the most tangible measure of ROI but making a causal link here is harder as the HE decision process is so complex and multifaceted. I’m sure that it’s possible to convince those who are die-hard marketing sceptics of the value of promotional spend but providing hard data and evidence of ROII will undoubtedly help. Also, staff internally need to understand the rationale behind the campaign themes and messages to gain buy in.It’s been my experience that marketing departments can often be criticised by staff for NOT advertising, particularly if competitors are doing so. Advertising can have a positive impact on morale and pride in the university. Obviously if a university is going through tough financial times and jobs may be at risk then marketing is an easy target and it’s very difficult (and risky!) to demonstrate the negative impact of not advertising (the ‘do nothing’ scenario). As you’ve said, marketing budgets in HE are typically low as a % of turnover and I think these metrics are well worth highlighting to develop a better understanding of marketing within the institution – that it’s an investment not a cost. For example, why does London Business School, a highly successful and oversubscribed institution, regularly advertise its MBA in media like the FT? Because maintaining awareness and share of voice is important more important than ever in competitive markets.Good luck and I look forward to a very interesting and ongoing debate!Amanda
You can be the best university in the country but if potential students don’t know where you are, what you do, and why they should study at BCU they won’t come. We have moved into a competitive market so rightly or wrongly advertising should be an integral part of the business plan. Regional TV advertising is expensive but very affective in boosting moral and raising BCU’s profile. However, I’d like to see more selective and targeted marketing of our flagship courses via the web so news of how great they are reaches a wider audience.
I think you raise some very important questions. At a time when all expenditure will be subject to rigorous scrutiny it is almost certain that advertising and marketing budgets will be popular targets for the critics (everyone is an advertising expert after all) and those fighting to protect their own budgets. Its true in every sector that the marketing budget is often the first victim in a recession. There are also many well-written treatises on why this is a huge mistake (‘Proactive Marketing During a Recession” from Smeal College of Business Penn State University is just one example). Rigorous defences will need to be mounted in finance meetings in universities across the country. Can I be contentious and say that for many institutions this will be a good thing? Why? In my experience observing at first hand I have witnessed how a huge amount of money is being wasted by universities on advertising. The main reasons for this are: 1) Vanity purchases by seemingly unaccountable stakeholders going unchecked or unchallenged by marketing professionals; 2) Repetition of historic media purchases with little or no evaluation of past effectiveness for purely habitual rather than strategic reasons; 3) Lack of a clear brand strategy and understanding of the reasons for and desired outcomes from advertising, usually epitomised by the lack of a marketing media planning and buying schedule informed by meaningful metrics. In fact the research at Penn State I alluded to earlier makes it clear that “[organisations] without these strategic marketing traits are unlikely to derive economic benefits from a proactive marketing response during a recession. Such companies are better served by not increasing marketing spending until conditions improve.” In short – have a strategy or don’t bother.As the market becomes increasingly competitive it will be an imperative for every institution to address these issues and those raised by Amanda above, with whom I wholeheartedly agree. No longer will it be sufficient to throw money at advertising that merely says “We are XX University, we do courses.” The changing media landscape allows for much greater audience segmentation and targeted advertising. Consumers (for that is what students will be) will want to know more about value for money, quality of teaching, meaningful assessments of their employment chances and so much more. And if our marketing doesn’t provide them with that information, where they want it, when they want it, how they want it, they will turn yet further to social media and the opinions of their peer groups to inform their decision-making through conversations about which we will have no knowledge or influence. The case for protecting HE marketing budgets in order to respond to these challenges, to my mind at least, really couldn’t be stronger – but it is incumbent on those of us entrusted with these budgets to demonstrate that we are using them effectively and have a robust strategy in place to justify that expenditure and demonstrate genuine ROI.
Ian Morgan cites Penn State University in his reply. Have a look at the Penn State Univerity website – http://www.psu.edu and please tell me that is not an example of proactive marketing.
I don’ think they should advertise, as far as i’m concerned, if a university is worth goign to, its reputation should speak for itself. Rather than adverstise, they should use that money to improve themselves (geting higher rankings is in itself advertising)