The marketing strategies of universities in the United
Kingdom
Pete NaudeÂ
University of Bath, Bath, UK
Jonathan Ivy
Technikon Natal, Durban, South Africa
Keywords
Marketing strategy,
Tertiary education,
United Kingdom, Universities
Abstract
Universities in the UK are facing
huge changes to their environment, in terms of both supply of
funding and level of demand for
their courses. One of the most
dramatic recent changes has been
the alteration in status of the
former polytechnics to fully
fledged universities. In order to
find out how both old and new
universities are responding to this
rapidly changing environment, we
sent questionnaires to a number of
senior staff. Based on 131 responses (81 from old universities,
50 from new), we have been able
to paint a picture of how marketing is undertaken in these two
segments. We report on how these
institutions perceive their marketing task, and also the extent to
which these two traditionally different sectors agree on the role
marketing plays in their sector.
Our research clearly indicates
these two groups of institutions
have fundamentally different approaches to operationalising their
marketing strategies.
The International Journal of
Educational Management
13/3 [1999] 126±134
# MCB University Press
[ISSN 0951-354X]
[ 126 ]
Introduction
In the past many institutions of higher
education within the UK have taken a somewhat passive approach to student recruitment. Universities have relied to a large
extent on selecting students from those
applications that came through their student
admissions department or the Universities
and Colleges Admissions Service (UCAS). As
long as demand for places at universities was
greater than the universities' ability to
satisfy that demand, ``marketing'' the institution to attract better students or increase
student enrolments was an unnecessary expense.
Times have changed. The tertiary education system in the UK is undergoing a
fundamental metamorphosis. While the system used to operate as a cartel (Shattock et
al., 1989), this is no longer the case, due
largely to three changes to the traditional
university environment. First, changes in
government funding have meant that total
undergraduate student numbers in any institution are effectively capped, and in addition students have to live on ever decreasing
grants. Second, in 1992 the former polytechnics were given university status, and a wide
variety of colleges and educational institutes
now offer accredited or franchised university
degree courses, thereby dramatically expanding the number and variety of degree
courses on offer. Finally, changes in technology have lowered the cost of entering the
market, leading to an increase in both
distance-learning and Internet-based courses.
While the overall number of institutions
offering degree courses may have expanded,
there has been downward pressure on student numbers. Estimates of the exact nature
of the decline in overall applications vary
from 7.5 per cent (Scott-Clark, 1995) to 1.5
percent (Tysome, 1996; UCAS, 1996).
Although this does vary between the newer
and the traditional old universities, many of
the universities are finding themselves
operating in an unfamiliar environment:
having to compete for students.
One result of these environmental changes
has been that academic institutions are
marketing themselves ever more aggressively in order to increase their market
share, whether in terms of student numbers
or the quality of those enrolling. Anecdotal
evidence, based simply on exposure to local
press and radio advertising, suggests that
this is particularly true of the new universities, which have tended to market their
degrees far more aggressively than was the
norm in tertiary education a few years ago.
In the light of these very real changes to the
sector, and our perception that the two
segments market themselves very differently, this paper seeks to examine and
compare the marketing strategies of the new
and the old universities in the UK.
Marketing and the university
sector
Marketing has come a long way since the rise
of the subject as an academic discipline in the
1960s. It has evolved steadily from being
product-oriented through to recognising the
importance of services marketing (for reviews see GroÈnroos, 1990; Gummesson, 1991;
Edgett and Parkinson, 1993), and then on to
the role that marketing can play within the
not-for-profit sector (Kotler and Andreasen,
1987; Lovelock and Weinberg, 1989; Hannagan, 1992). Throughout this change in emphasis, one theme has remained dominant:
that, in order to remain viable in the longer
term, organisations need to recognise the
sovereignty of their customers (see, for
example, Narver and Slater, 1990; Kohli and
Jaworski, 1990; Kohli et al., 1993). However,
within the framework of the university
sector, this perspective raises two problematic issues. First, who is the customer in
this marketplace, and which other stakeholders are important? Second, what does
Pete Naude and Jonathan Ivy
The marketing strategies of
universities in the United
Kingdom
The International Journal of
Educational Management
13/3 [1999] 126±134
``marketing orientation'' mean in this environment?
At the simplest level, institutions can
regard the students as their customers. After
all, it is they who enter into the relationship
with us. It is this paradigm of consumer
sovereignty, where the focus is on the needs
of the recipient of the service, that underlies
the recent attempts to apply TQM methodologies to teaching practices (Hall, 1996; Lomas,
1996). This, though, raises two obvious additional problems. First, if one of the goals of
marketing is to retain current customers
rather than continually seek to get new ones,
how does this apply to tertiary education?
The percentage of students that remain loyal
to an institution and stay on to pursue
postgraduate courses is certainly too small to
be the focus of any institution's marketing
strategy at the undergraduate level. So there
are certainly compelling reasons to regard
the students as consumers, but not as customers, a fact that has been recognized by
others (e.g. Moore, 1989; Conway et al., 1994;
Nicholls et al., 1995). Robinson and Long
(1988) distinguished between the different
interested parties by categorizing them into
three groups: primary (students), secondary
(the ``paymasters'' such as government agencies and donors), and tertiary (other publics
that have an interest, such as alumni,
accreditation organizations, and parents).
Kotler and Fox expanded upon this model by
suggesting up to 16 different publics who
have an ``actual or potential interest in or
effect on the institution'' (Kotler and Fox,
1995, p. 20). These different stakeholders are
shown in Figure 1.
The second problem concerns market orientation. The traditional view of marketing
orientation is that ``the key to achieving
organizational goals consists in determining
the needs and wants of ... (customers)''
(Kotler, 1991, p. 16). As noted above, identifying just whom the customer is remains
problematic. At the simplest perspective, if
we were to assume that it is the student, then
this raises the unacceptable corollary of
universities teaching students what they say
they want to learn. While this might appear
anathema to many in the university sector, it
does tend to be more widely accepted in the
broader area of adult education (see, for
example, Brookfield, 1986). The extent to
which educational institutions must trade off
matching the needs of the marketplace
(Coldstream, 1989) with preserving their own
perceived academic integrity and freedom is
a debate familiar to any academic who has
been exposed to course design.
Within the university sector, the nature of
the product being ``sold'' has been widely
debated. Kotler and Fox (1995), for example,
argue that students are raw materials, graduates the product, and prospective employers
the customer. Based on the earlier work of
Levitt (1980), they see the universities' offerings as being made up of different products
that can be regarded as existing on three
separate and distinct levels ± the core,
tangible, and augmented product. The most
basic level is the core benefit being sought ±
students are not buying degrees; they are
buying the benefits that a degree can provide
in terms of employment, status, lifestyle, etc.
At the second level, tangible attributes might
include the physical layout of the campus,
the library, laboratories and sporting facilities. Finally, the augmented level is made up
of intangible attributes such as library
membership for graduates, student loans and
finance, an employment or placement service, etc.
The marketing approach of
universities
Given the changing environment within
which universities operate, how is the marketing task executed? We do not wish to delve
into the difference between strategic planning and marketing planning activities, but
note our agreement with the approach that
it is only with ... (a strategic) plan that an
institution can co-ordinate and focus its
various activities including its marketing
(Moore, 1989, p. 118).
In a study carried out in the USA over a
decade ago, the question ``What is marketing?'' was asked of 300 educational institution
administrators, whose institutions were facing declining student enrolments, increasing costs and rising tuition fees. The results
indicated that
Sixty-one percent viewed marketing as a
combination of selling, advertising, and public relations. Another 21 percent said it was
only one of these three activities. Only a few
percent knew that marketing had something
to do with needs assessment, market research, product development, pricing, and
distribution (Murphy et al., as cited by Kotler
and Fox, 1985, p. 6).
It appears that the same is true within the
UK. There was little to no marketing activity
prior to 1945, with the sector only growing
significantly as a result of the Robbins report
in 1963 (Moore, 1989). While various Government White Papers and Audit Commission
reports called for Colleges and Local Education Authorities to become more marketing
oriented (Robinson and Long, 1988; Ardley,
1994), in 1985 the Jarratt Report found that
few universities were involved in systematic
[ 127 ]
Pete Naude and Jonathan Ivy
The marketing strategies of
universities in the United
Kingdom
Figure 1
Stakeholders in the educational market
The International Journal of
Educational Management
13/3 [1999] 126±134
marketing or strategic planning. The need to
do so, however, was recognised, with Port
and Burke (1989) arguing that those universities ``which do not already have a ...
strategy will find they have to develop one in
order to succeed in the new funding competition'' (1989, p. 125). The extent to which the
marketing activities of universities within
the UK have been undergoing fundamental
changes recently has been well documented
by Smith et al. (1995) who identified five
phases in the development of marketing
activity, culminating with the current phase
of what they term ``the marketing institution.'' Such institutions have an integrated
marketing function, increased interdepartmental co-ordination, and appropriate organizational structures. Marketing typically
moves from selling the institution to a more
proactive role of determining future strategies. These ideas link directly to the next
section: it was our goal to see to what extent
this description was true across all academic
institutions in the UK.
Objectives and methodology of the
study
The main objective of our investigation was
to determine how universities within the UK
currently market themselves. To what extent
is there evidence of what Smith et al. (1995)
called an ``integrated marketing function'', or
is the norm a more rudimentary approach to
[ 128 ]
marketing? Within this overall objective, we
had a number of areas of interest. These
included:
.
to investigate the use of strategic marketing plans in higher education;
.
to establish the degree to which each of
the elements of the marketing mix is used;
.
to determine which elements of the marketing mix offer opportunities for marketing of higher education.
The primary research was executed through
an anonymous self-completion postal survey.
Based on our own insights developed during
teaching marketing, and also from managerial experience in our own institutions, a
questionnaire was developed and tested on a
judgemental sample of our colleagues, resulting in some changes being made to clarify
certain issues. Thereafter the admissions
officers, public relations and marketing officers in both old and new universities in the
UK were mailed a copy, with 104 universities
and 44 graduate schools of business being
included in the study. Three questionnaires
were sent to each university, and one was
sent to the marketing officer of the graduate
school of business (it would therefore be
possible for one university, including its
graduate school of business, to return up to
four questionnaires).
Out of a total of 356 questionnaires sent to
148 institutions, 131 usable responses (36.7
per cent) were received by the cut-off date,
reflecting responses from 71 different
Pete Naude and Jonathan Ivy
The marketing strategies of
universities in the United
Kingdom
The International Journal of
Educational Management
13/3 [1999] 126±134
institutions. Table I indicates the make-up of
the sample. There were responses from 81
``old'' and 50 ``new'' universities, and as
expected the sample was biased heavily
towards those universities in England. A
range of different people filled in the questionnaire. The fact that the questionnaire
was passed on to an academic to complete in
only 7 per cent of the cases fits the view
proposed by Smith et al. (1995), with most
institutions having a non-academic position
covering the area of marketing. Finally, the
responses were spread relatively evenly
among institutions of different sizes.
Results
The planning process
The analysis showed that 75 per cent of the
respondents indicated that their institution
had a marketing department, the average
size of which was ten people, and very few
had more than 15 staff. As shown in Table II,
it would appear that the need to have a
strategic plan as outlined above by Moore
(1989) and also by Port and Burke (1989), has
been recognised: 118 of the respondents said
that their institution did have a five-year
strategic plan covering areas such as situation analysis, mission statement, objectives,
strategies to achieve those objectives, and
organizational design. A range of different
Table I
The spread of respondents
Number of
respondents
Percentage of
respondents
Institution type
New university
Old university
Total
81
50
131
61.8
38.2
100
Geographical region
England
Ireland
Scotland
Wales
106
2
17
6
80.9
1.5
13.0
4.6
Respondent
Admissions officer
Marketing officer
PR officer
Other admin.
Academic
24
50
23
25
9
18.3
38.3
17.6
19.1
6.9
Number of students
0-4,999
5,000-10,000
10,001- 15,000
Over 15,000
21
33
43
34
16.0
25.2
32.8
26.0
Table II
The strategic and marketing plans
Yes
No
Don't know
Does a long-term (5 year) 118
6
7
strategic plan exist?
(90.1%) (4.6%) (5.3%)
Does a short-term (1 year) 80
42
9
marketing plan exist?
(61.1%) (32.1%) (6.8%)
Do academic departments 71
20
40
draft their own short-term (54.2%) (15.3%) (30.5%)
marketing plans?
people had been involved in the drawing up
of this plan, as outlined in Table III. Shorter
term marketing plans were not as common,
with 61 per cent of respondents reporting
their existence. It would appear, therefore,
that the longer-term visions in the strategic
plans are not accompanied by short-term
plans that focus on what is to be implemented
within the forthcoming year. The majority of
academic departments appeared to draft
their own short-term marketing plans,
although there was greater uncertainty surrounding this question (i.e. 30 per cent ``don't
knows'').
The effectiveness of specific aspects
The respondents were asked to score the
effectiveness of a range of up to 28 different
marketing tools or features in attracting new
students to their degree/diploma courses.
This was done on a 5-point scale, (1 = very
ineffective, 5 = very effective), and the results
are shown in Figure 2. In this figure the
various factors are shown according to the
extent to which the old and the new universities differ.
As shown in Figure 2, if the net difference
in the scores between the two types of
institution was less than 0.3, we have treated
them as being of equally perceived effectiveness (although it varies slightly according to
the standard deviation of the particular
question, it is at about this level of difference
that the results are significant at the 1 per
cent level). At the top of Figure 2, therefore,
are those marketing tools perceived by the
new universities to be more effective, while
Table III
The staff involved in the strategic plan
Staff involved
Council
Vice-chancellor
Pro-vice chancellor
Registrar
Planning officer
Deans
Heads of departments
No. mentions
53
100
89
82
58
92
86
[ 129 ]
Pete Naude and Jonathan Ivy
The marketing strategies of
universities in the United
Kingdom
Figure 2
The effectiveness of various marketing tools
The International Journal of
Educational Management
13/3 [1999] 126±134
those at the bottom reflect their perceived
relative effectiveness to the old universities.
There are seven features that new universities found more effective, ranging from
offering part-time tuition through to using
direct mail to schools. There were nine
aspects (from the image portrayed to the
public through to the research output) that
were seen as more effective by the old
universities. Both sectors have similar views
as to the importance of a range of factors. Of
these, the most effective were accreditation
from professional bodies, offering a broad
range of courses, geographical position or
location, the use of open days, and maintaining close links with industry.
[ 130 ]
The extent to which the two types of institutions have differing perceptions is more
revealing. It is clear to us that the new
universities have a strategy that is based on a
more aggressive strategy. They clearly see
differing modes of delivery (i.e. offering parttime tuition), coupled with proactive selling
of their courses (advertising, visiting schools
and careers councillors, direct mail, etc.) as
the means of achieving market share. The old
universities, on the other hand, have a very
different approach, based more on passive
image management than on aggressive promotion. To them, public image, being perceived to offer top quality teaching,
reputation of faculty and the related
Pete Naude and Jonathan Ivy
The marketing strategies of
universities in the United
Kingdom
The International Journal of
Educational Management
13/3 [1999] 126±134
dimension of academic reputation as well as
their research output, form the cornerstones
of their strategy. These conclusions were
supported by the results of a discriminant
analysis: although the output is not shown
here, the 28 variables shown in Figure 2
could correctly classify 87 per cent of the
cases as either new or old. However, when
just the top and bottom three variables from
Figure 2 were used, that figure dropped only
marginally to 82 per cent.
Our results suggest that the Government's
move to do away with the barriers between
``old'' and ``new'' universities has not worked
in that the two groups themselves have very
different perspectives on their positions in
the market place and how best to capture
market share. In that sense, not much has
changed. Table II indicates that the old
universities are more traditional, trying to
extract market value from their image and
expertise. The new universities, on the other
hand, seem to be more aggressively promoting their products.
The role of marketing
In a similar way to the question analysed
above, we also asked the respondents to
indicate (again on a five-point scale) the
extent to which they agreed or disagreed
with a range of 32 comments, all of which
related to their perception of the role of
marketing within their own institution. The
comments are shown in full in the Appendix,
and the results in Table IV and Figure 3.
When examining the perceived importance of
the different aspects, we can see from Table
IV that there is little overall difference in
Table IV
Attitudes towards marketing (the numbers refer to the statements in the
Appendix)
Low
agreement
(< 2.5)
Low
agreement
(< 2.5)
Old
universities
Medium
agreement
(2.5-3.5)
High
agreement
(> 3.5)
New universities
Medium
agreement
(2.5-3.5)
High
agreement
(> 3.5)
1, 3, 5, 6, 8,
13, 14, 19,
21,
31
7, 9
20
2, 4,
11, 12, 17, 18,
22, 26, 27, 28,
29,
30, 32
15
16
10,
23, 24, 25
perception between the two populations. In
this table the scores for the two groups are
divided into those that show low (less than
2.5), medium (2.5-3.5), and high (over 3.5)
levels of agreement with the statements. The
overriding conclusion points to the high level
of overlap in perception. In no case does one
group have a high level of agreement with a
statement and the other a low level of
agreement.
In Figure 3 we have applied a similar
analytic procedure to that used in Figure 2.
Again, the differences in the two sets of
average scores have been calculated, and
scores with a net difference of more than 0.3
identified. We can see that there are just
three statements with which the new universities agree more than the old. These are
11 (``The number of applications from new
students is lower this year than last year''),
seven (``Marketing in this institution means
advertising'') and 18 (``Setting tuition fees is
outside the role of marketing at this institution''). The extent to which the new universities have a practical, hands-on approach to
marketing, whereas the old universities have
a more conservative approach is echoed by
the results at the bottom of Figure 3. It may
be seen that most of the comments relate to
the extent to which older universities agree
that marketing is either not relevant (statements 1, 3, 6 and 31), or else not required
(given that distance learning is perceived as
less of a threat). This is coupled with the fact
that they still feel that they get adequate
numbers of students of the calibre they want
(statements 12 and 16). The extent to which
the eight statements at the bottom of Figure 3
discriminate between the two data sets is
shown in Table V, which was generated
using discriminant analysis. As can be seen,
all comments other than No. 3 (``Marketing is
an abstract theory. . .'') had a positive discriminant score, with a resultant 75 per cent
being correctly classified (using all 32 variables resulted in 82 per cent of the institutions being correctly classified).
Conclusion
Within a short period of time conditions in
the UK ``have moved from a shortage of
higher education, where sellers have been
able to determine the conditions on which
their services are provided, to a position of
oversupply in which the terms are dictated
by the buyers'' (Shattock et al., 1989). How do
the two major categories of players appear to
be responding to this new environment? Does
it still hold true that ``many academics in
educational establishments seem to feel
[ 131 ]
Pete Naude and Jonathan Ivy
The marketing strategies of
universities in the United
Kingdom
Figure 3
The attitude towards marketing
The International Journal of
Educational Management
13/3 [1999] 126±134
Table V
Standardised canonical discriminant function scores
uncomfortable with an increasing marketing
orientation, regarding marketing as too close
Discriminant to sordid commercialism, and expect stuStatement Topic
score
dents to compete for selection rather than
institutions actively to market themselves to
31
Involving prospective employers in course content would
0.401
suitable customers'' (Nicholls et al., 1995,
provide little additional benefit
p. 35)?
3
Marketing is an abstract theory that works better in profit±0.036
making industries than in higher education
Our results would suggest that this latter
6
Marketing planning in higher education offers little, if any,
0.203
quotation is more likely to reflect the perbenefits to society at large
spective of the old universities. As Figures 2
1
Marketing plays little, if any, role in attracting students to
0.209
and 3 indicate, they appear to market themthis institution
selves by doing what they consider they do
22
Distance learning institutions (like Open University) pose very
0.157
best ± research and teaching in the classlittle threat to our student numbers
room. In other words, they try to optimise the
16
On the whole the academics seem satisfied with the quality
0.106
learning process once the students are in
of students enrolled in our programmes
their classrooms. The new universities, on
12
Demand for most of our programmes regularly outstrips the
0.383
the other hand, seem to be focusing their
number of places we have available
attention on trying to influence the students'
20
New universities offering tuition in our geographic area will
0.718
perceptions about where to study. Given that
pose very little threat to our student numbers
they cannot rely on traditions of teaching
Percentage
and research excellence, they are adopting a
correctly classified
75.0%
more aggressive approach by actively
[ 132 ]
Pete Naude and Jonathan Ivy
The marketing strategies of
universities in the United
Kingdom
The International Journal of
Educational Management
13/3 [1999] 126±134
reaching out to prospective students earlier
in the decision-making process. For the new
universities this strategy makes sense: the
decision surrounding where to study is
typically a very complex one, with there
being high involvement by the prospective
student in the decision, and yet also a high
degree of difference between the different
``products'' on offer (Assael, 1981). The decision maker's task therefore centres on how to
reduce risk, and for the prospective students
to hear tangible details about universities
early in their decision cycle is clearly to the
newer universities' benefit.
But where does this leave the old universities if they wish to retain/increase their
market share in the face of this aggressive
competition? One approach is to adopt a
passive strategy and hope, based on their
historical positioning, that prospective students continue to apply. We consider it more
likely, however, that they will need to react
more aggressively. A core issues then revolves around who is responsible for the
marketing task. As mentioned earlier, 75 per
cent of our respondents indicated that marketing was a centralised function. But we
would posit that this reflects better the
position of the new universities, where
marketing is a more clearly defined process
(advertising, school visits, etc.). If old universities are to continue to rely on their
traditional strengths of faculty, teaching, and
research standing, then we would argue that
it is not sufficient to rely on professional
marketers to sell these very intangible benefits. They are best sold by the people
involved in generating and maintaining
these standards. This, of course, requires a
recognition of the fundamental role played by
academic staff in marketing their institutions (Ardley, 1994). We would suggest that
this interpretation offers support for what
Robinson and Long (1988) a decade ago
described as the ``Pigeon-hole'' and the ``Total
Marketing'' approaches. In the former case,
marketing is the responsibility of a clearly
defined number of people, while in the latter
it is more pervasive throughout the organization. The problem in the latter case, of
course, is to manage and control the extent to
which marketing is effectively done, with all
the contingent implications for staff training
(Michael, 1990). Persuading senior academics
to be involved in marketing their institutions
will not be easy, given the perceptions of
marketing in old universities shown at the
bottom of Table III. However, we would argue
that this is a necessary task, if old universities are to prevent the newer, more aggressive players growing their market share. The
old universities can no longer be complacent
in their belief that they will continue to
attract sufficient students of the desired
quality.
References
Ardley, B. (1994), ``College marketing and the
management of change'', Journal of Further
and Higher Education, Vol. 18 No. 1, pp. 3-13.
Assael, H. (1981), Consumer Behavior and Marketing Action, Kent Publishing Company,
Boston, MA.
Brookfield, S.D. (1986), Understanding and Facilitating Adult Learning, Open University
Press, Milton Keynes.
Coldstream, P. (1989), ``Marketing as matching'',
Higher Education Quarterly, Vol. 43 No. 2,
Spring, pp. 99-107.
Conway, T., Mackay, S. and Yorke, D. (1994),
``Strategic planning in higher education: who
are the customers?'', International Journal of
Educational Management, Vol. 8 No. 6,
pp. 29-36.
Edgett, S. and Parkinson, S. (1993), ``Marketing for
service industries: a review'', Service Industries Journal, Vol. 13 No. 3, pp. 19-39.
GroÈnroos, C. (1990), Service Management and
Marketing, Lexington Books, Massachusetts.
Gummesson, E. (1991), ``Service quality ± a
holistic view'', in Brown, S.W., Gummesson,
E., Edvardson, B. and Gustavson, B., Service
Quality ± Multidisciplinary and Multinational
Perspectives, Lexington Books, MA, pp. 3-22.
Hall, D. (1996), ``How useful is the concept of total
quality management to the university of the
'90s?'', Journal of Further and Higher Education, Vol. 20 No. 2, pp. 20-32.
Hannagan, T. (1992), Marketing for the Non-Profit
Sector, Macmillan, London.
Kohli, A.K. and Jaworski, B.J. (1990), ``Market
orientation: the construct, research propositions, and managerial implications'', Journal
of Marketing, Vol. 54, April, pp. 1-18.
Kohli, A.K., Jaworski, B.J. and Kumar, A. (1993),
``MARKOR: a measure of market orientation'',
Journal of Marketing Research, Vol. 30, pp.
467-77.
Kotler, P. (1991), Marketing Management, (7th
ed.), Prentice-Hall, London.
Kotler, P. and Andreasen, A. (1987), Strategic
Marketing for Nonprofit Organisations, (3rd
ed.), Prentice-Hall, London.
Kotler, P. and Fox, K. (1985), Strategic Marketing
for Educational Institutions, Prentice-Hall,
Englewood Cliffs, NJ.
Kotler, P. and Fox, K. (1995), Strategic Marketing
for Educational Institutions (2nd ed.), Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ.
Levitt, T. (1980), ``Marketing success through
differentiation ± of anything'', Harvard Business Review, January-February, pp. 83-91.
Lomas, L. (1996), ``An evaluation of early developments in higher education quality management'', Journal of Further and Higher
Education, Vol. 20 No. 3, pp. 60-9.
Lovelock, C. and Weinberg, C. (1989), Public and
Nonprofit Marketing, The Scientific Press,
South San Francisco, CA.
[ 133 ]
Pete Naude and Jonathan Ivy
The marketing strategies of
universities in the United
Kingdom
The International Journal of
Educational Management
13/3 [1999] 126±134
Michael, S. (1990), ``Marketing educational institutions: implications for administrators'', The
International Journal of Educational Management, Vol. 4 No. 5, pp. 23-30.
Moore, P.G. (1989), ``Marketing higher education'',
Higher Education Quarterly, Vol. 43 No. 2,
Spring, pp. 108-24.
Narver, J.C. and Slater, S.F. (1990), ``The effect of a
market orientation on business profitability'',
Journal of Marketing, Vol. 54, October,
pp. 20-35.
Nicholls, J., Harris, J., Morgan, E., Clarke, K. and
Sims, D. (1995), ``Marketing higher education:
the MBA experience'', The International
Journal of Educational Management, Vol. 9
No. 2, pp. 31-8.
Port, J. and Burke, J. (1989), ``Business planning
for higher education institutions'', Higher
Education Quarterly, Vol. 43 No. 2, pp. 125-41.
Robinson, A. and Long, G. (1988), ``Substance vs.
trappings in marketing non-advanced F.E.'',
Journal of Further and Higher Education,
Vol. 12 No. 1, pp. 42-53.
Scott-Clark, C. (1995), ``Degrees fall out of favour'',
The Sunday Times, 31 December, p. 1.6.
Shattock, M., Booth, C., Wagner, L. and Williams,
G. (1989), ``Editorial'', Higher Education
Quarterly, Vol. 43 No. 2, Spring, pp. 95-8.
Smith, D., Scott, P. and Lynch, J. (1995), The Role
of Marketing in the University and College
Sector, Centre for Policy Studies in Education, University of Leeds.
Tysome, T. (1996), ``Admissions chiefs slam `inaccurate statistics''', The Times Higher Education Supplement, 5 January, p. 3.
UCAS Applications Digest (1996), 13/96, 21 February.
Appendix
The role of marketing
1 Marketing plays little, if any, role in
attracting students to this institution.
2 Marketing has been a major factor in
raising the quality of education in our
institution.
3 Marketing is an abstract theory that
works better in profit-making industries
than in higher education.
4 Marketing is a philosophy that has been
enthusiastically adopted by this institution.
5 Marketing has had little impact on the day
to day operations of this institution.
6 Marketing planning in higher education
offers few, if any, benefits to society at
large.
7 Marketing in this institution means ``advertising''.
8 Marketing plans are drafted, but are
seldom put into practice.
9 Interest in marketing only occurs prior to
new student enrolments, just before the
start of the academic year.
[ 134 ]
10 Academic institutions that are currently
not developing marketing plans will be
doing so in the not too distant future.
11 The number of applications from new
students is lower this year than last year.
(UCAS system has changed.)
12 Demand for most of our programmes
regularly outstrips the number of places
we have available.
13 Research on prospective requirements by
universities is unnecessary, as so many
young people have few ideas as to what
they want to do anyway.
14 Student needs are secondary to those
prospective employers.
15 Researching student ``drop outs'' is being
conducted by this situation.
16 On the whole the academics seem satisfied
with the quality of students enrolled in
our programmes.
17 Enrollments (by programme) are an effective measurement of programme performance.
18 Setting tuition fees is outside the role of
marketing at this institution.
19 A Department's financial contribution to
the institution is the most effective measure of that Department's performance.
20 New universities offering tuition in our
geographic area will pose very little threat
to our student numbers.
21 Students in our geographic area have very
little choice as to where they can study.
22 Distance learning institutions (like Open
University) pose very little threat to our
student numbers.
23 Analysis of competitor institutions is an
important component of our marketing
planning.
24 Most deans and departmental heads would
not know how to write a marketing plan if
asked.
25 Academic department heads are there
because they are scholars, not managers.
26 Academics have little or no involvement
in marketing planning at this institution.
27 Academics only get involved in marketing
when it comes to attracting postgraduate
and research students.
28 Most deans and departmental heads are
already writing marketing plans to attract
postgraduate students.
29 Deans and department chairs do not have
the time to write formal plans.
30 Academics will only get excited about
marketing if it means more research
funding.
31 Involving prospective employers in
course content would provide little additional benefit.
32 In the event that there is a conflict
between satisfying students' needs and
educational objectives, educational objectives should be the overriding consideration.