higher education provision in a crowded marketplace
TRANSCRIPT
HIGHER EDUCATION PROVISION IN A CROWDED MARKETPLACE
Schofield*1, C., Cotton2, D.R.E., Gresty2, K., Kneale2, P. and Winter2, J.
* Corresponding author
1 Truro & Penwith College
2 Pedagogic Research Institute and Observatory (PedRIO), Plymouth
University
Address for correspondence:
Truro & Penwith College, University of Plymouth Colleges
College Road,
Truro,
Cornwall,
TR1 3XX.
01872 267517
Cathy Schofield is a lecturer in sport psychology and research methods and
has worked in higher education for over ten years. She has a particular
interest in the research-teaching nexus.
1
Debby Cotton is Head of Educational Development with Pedagogic
Research at Plymouth University. She has published widely on a range of
aspects of higher education.
Karen Gresty is an Associate Dean (Teaching & Learning) and a National
Teaching Fellow at Plymouth University, with current research interests
centred on research-informed teaching.
Pauline Kneale is Pro Vice Chancellor (Teaching & Learning) at Plymouth
University and a Senior Fellow of the HEA. She is Head of th Pedagogic
Research Institute and Observatory at Plymouth.
Jennie Winter is an educational developer at Plymouth University. Her
professional interests focus on education for sustainable development and
linking research and teaching in higher education curricula.
2
Abstract
Current changes to policy around higher education (HE) in the UK are leading
to an increasingly marketised system. As funding is transferred from the
government to the individual student, universities will be required to pay more
careful attention to marketing of opportunities and prospects. This paper
draws on the literature relating to marketing of services to assess the extent to
which HE marketing addresses issues of covenant, quiddity and
representation. Using a mixed sample of universities and associated further
education colleges (FECs) who provide higher education opportunities, this
research investigates the marketing strategies of different types of higher
education institution (HEI). Differences identified include the extent to which
reputation, educational experience, research, and student life are used in
marketing. We conclude that newer universities and FECs appear to be more
greatly influenced by contemporary government policy agenda than are the
older more traditional institutions, which continue to trade largely on their
established strong reputations.
Keywords: Higher education, marketing, HE in FE, university, branding
3
INTRODUCTION
Marketisation of education
We are entering uncharted waters within the world of higher education (HE) in
the UK. Recent changes to the way that HE is funded and students are
recruited have been brought in through the Government White Paper
Students at the Heart of the System (BIS, 2011). These changes will
significantly affect the way higher education is marketed and delivered. Whilst
retaining control of educational standards in terms of quality assurance HE
providers, like many other UK public services, will be increasingly open to the
demands of the free market. Arguably market forces applied to the private
sector may function effectively; however there are already incidences of
failure of such an approach to essential services such as care homes (Syal,
2011).
Although many of the mechanisms one might expect from a free market
approach are evident in the new HE context, there are also some restricting
factors that may yet create practical and ethical problems. The free market
approach functions such that those who can attract the most customers will
succeed by balancing service with cost. However, in the HE pseudo-market,
fees chargeable are restricted as are student numbers (BIS, 2011). For any
individual (public) institution, student numbers are set centrally to ensure that
the student loan costs remain affordable. Ethical issues also come into play
since those who offer the best quality (or have the strongest reputation) can
charge the highest fees, irrespective of the true cost of delivery, thus
4
restricting access to those unable to afford such long-term outlay (Hemsley-
Brown, 2011).
This increasing marketisation of HE seems likely to lead to changes in the
way that higher education institutions (HEIs) promote their services. As such
this paper investigates the different approaches taken by a range of higher
education providers in order to assess their early responses to the new policy
context and to identify any differences in their approach to attracting potential
students in the new climate.
Marketing theory
Marketing is defined as ‘the activity, set of institutions, and processes for
creating, communicating, delivering, and exchanging offerings that have value
for customers, clients, partners, and society at large’ (AMA, 2007). This
illustrates the need for marketing to go beyond the advertisement that
captures the consumer’s eye, to include the delivery and maintenance of the
service beyond the initial purchase point. The definition also hints at the
responsibility to work beyond the individual customer, towards serving a
purpose within the community or society.
Putting higher education into a marketing framework is seen by some as
problematic and by others as heresy (Hemsley-Brown, 2011). At the
problematic end of the spectrum it can be argued that students cannot rightly
be conceptualised as customers since failure in their qualification cannot
necessarily be seen as a failure of the product or service. Education is only as
5
effective as the intellect and motivations that the student brings to the
experience: the co-creative nature of education means that it is not possible to
apply a customer model, therefore a client approach may be more appropriate
(Coates, 1998).
However, in order to attract students to an institution it is essential that it
stands out against the competition. This is achieved through branding; a
process which highlights the institution’s distinguishing features (Bennett &
Ali-Choudhury, 2009). The traditional model of brand development was based
on the Four Ps; where product, place, price and promotion are seen as key
(Heding, Knudtzen & Bjerr, 2009). In the educational context the product is
the learning experience encountered through enrolling on the course as well
as the qualification received; the place encompasses the institutional
environment, campus and wider locality; the price should be considered as all
those economic factors that culminate in the learning experience, including
fees and bursaries; and finally promotion is the overt advertising and the
association with a strong brand, such as being a member of the Russell
Group (a group of leading UK research-intensive universities).
It is widely agreed that education is not a product, it is a process, therefore a
service model such as the University Experiences Framework (Ng & Forbes,
2009) should be applied. This model introduces three more Ps through
people, including all staff and students alike as interactions with other
students inform their view of the experience, physical evidence which refers to
the environment from buildings to equipment, and processes which are the
procedures that one must go through such as enrolment and award boards.
These models do include a temporal aspect, in that the marketing does not
6
end at the point of purchase but must be maintained throughout the lifetime of
the service.
Arguably, it is the interactional qualities that have more impact on service
users’ behaviour than the tangible outputs. Helgesen (2008) suggests that
relationship marketing has an overarching impact: that if we experience good
products and service we are more likely to return to a provider if we have
formed a relationship with them. We may also avoid searching out other
service providers if there has been a joint investment in the relationship, thus
developing a brand loyalty (Ravald & Grönroos, 1996). If this is the case, vital
factors in the marketing of HE are not the colourful logo or interactive website,
but the long term ability to meet the clients’ needs and maintain satisfaction
thereby ensuring repeat trade and word of mouth recommendations (Coates,
1998).
Branding within higher education can be divided into three components:
covenant, quiddity and representation (Bennett & Ali-Choudhury, 2009). The
covenant consists of the intangible core values that are communicated with
the outside world, whereas the quiddity represents the distinctive features in
the institutional offer (including location, values, make-up of the student body
and the types of programmes offered). The final aspect is the symbolism
through which the institution is represented. This includes aesthetic
components such as the logo and communication channels such as the
prospectus and websites. In their research investigating students’ views of
higher education institutions, Bennett and Ali-Choudhury (2009) found
quiddity to be the most important branding factor as this informed students’
attitudes in both affect and subsequent behaviour. However, this research
7
focused on non-traditional learners in a ‘new’ university (established after
1992) so it is not possible to state whether this would hold true for more
established universities or more traditional learners.
One contentious issue within the marketing of higher education is whether
branding and reputation are distinguishable from one another. Chapleo (2007)
interviewed fifteen Vice Chancellors and Principals from a range of different
types of HEI in order to identify their perspectives. What emerged were
differing views of the concept of branding dependent upon the type of
institution. The ‘old’ universities (established prior to 1992) saw reputation as
an evolving perception from which their differentiated brand was created,
whereas the ‘new’ universities saw a brand as a manufactured method of
differentiating the institution from others; a commercial venture undertaken by
the marketing department. Bennett and Ali-Choudhury (2009) go further by
suggesting that it is the branding that is antecedent to the reputation,
successful marketing of the values and services are the creation of the
reputation.
Communicating effectively with the audience
Effective organizational communication – conveying meaning from sender to
receiver - is a key part of marketing, and depends upon a variety of inter-
linked elements. Using a model of interpersonal communication offered by
Huczynski and Buchanan (2007), it is clear that effective communication
requires a transmitter (in this case the university), who encodes the message,
which then travels through communication channels to the receiver (in this
case, the prospective students), who decode it. During both coding and
8
decoding, perceptual filters and ‘noise’ can distort the meaning of the
message.
Understanding the receivers’ wants and needs is very important in this
process, and this is somewhat dependent upon the student body to whom the
institution is trying to appeal. Yet standardized branding is the method
generally employed - where the institution simply indicates what it offers and
how this may be experienced based on the known market (Gray, Fam &
Llanes, 2003). In addition to this a globalised approach may be taken to
attract international students as a supplementary income source. This
marketing strategy is tailored to the unique requirements of each country. It is
clear therefore that HEIs do take account of the different perspectives of
receivers of their marketing messages, albeit to a limited extent.
A systematic review conducted by Hemsley-Brown and Oplatka (2006) found
that there was an information gap between what prospective students are
interested in and what is included in the available literature, primarily
concerning issues of teaching and timetabling. Moogan, Baron and
Bainbridge (2001) found that when UK students narrow down their choice to
six prospective institutions, the most vital aspect was course content. When it
came to deciding between the institutions that had made offers to them the
students were affected by the location (including economic decisions such as
proximity to home), atmosphere and social life, based on their visits to open
day events. This suggests that different features figure in the decision making
process at different times and through different means.
9
For international students the branding position statements that had most
effect were those focused on the learning environment, followed by the
institution’s reputation then the career prospects, indicating that the reputation
of the institution from which they gain their degree may impact upon their
long-term employability (Binsardi & Ekwulugo, 2003; Gray, Fam & Llanes,
2003).
The method of communication is also influential and may impact on the
perceptual filter used by students to ‘decode’ marketing messages. Pampaloni
(2010) surveyed American high school students in order to establish the most
influential information sources in their decision making process. Vital to their
decision was a focus on self-sourced information rather than unsolicited
marketing. Their preferred media was the internet, a finding which was
echoed in other research with international students (Gray, Fam & Llanes,
2003).
Given this information about what students would like to receive, how well do
the institutions offering higher education know their market? In a content
analysis of Australian international student guides, Gatfield, Barker and
Graham (1999) found that campus life was the most prominent point of
communication, followed by reputation and then academic issues. They note
that many of the student guides failed to include vital information regarding
their provision, creating a communication gap. However this problem was less
evident when UK university websites were similarly analysed (Chapleo, Durán
& Díaz, 2011).
10
Research with marketing officers for over one hundred UK HEIs found
differing approaches based on the type of institution: old universities believed
their reputation to be their most effective marketing tool, followed by the
quality of teaching and then the impact of visits, whereas the new universities
saw student visits as the most effective tool followed by accreditation by
professional bodies (Ivy, 2001). Clearly, new universities need to attract
students in a different way in the absence of an established reputation for
excellence. Bennett and Ali-Choudhury (2009) argue that such institutions
need to work harder to create awareness in order to gain their market share
and show their calibre when compared to other universities.
New providers of higher education
If the new universities are employing sophisticated marketing techniques to
promote their institutions against the older established universities then it
would be anticipated that other, more recent entrants to the HE market, would
have to work even harder to promote their brand. The last decade has seen
the consolidation of further education colleges (FECs) offering higher
education courses based on franchises with already established universities.
These arrangements are made either tied to one HEI or by several
agreements with a range of HE providers. Due to the range and variety of
such agreements the tendency is for FECs to organize their own marketing,
independent of the HEIs to which they may be connected.
Based on Bennett and Ali-Choudhury’s (2009) model the research reported
here aims to establish whether the representations of a range of higher
11
education institutions indicate their differences in quiddity as a way of
highlighting their distinguishing features to aid student choice.
12
METHODOLOGY
Sample
A sample was selected by identifying regions of the UK that included both a
new (post-1992) university and an old civic or redbrick university. The
resultant sampling frame was reduced down to five different regions
incorporating a range of metropolitan, rural and coastal environments. Having
tied a new and traditional university together geographically, the website of
each HEI was then searched to identify FECs with whom partnerships had
been formed. The 2012 HE prospectus of each franchised college was
downloaded and analysed to identify the number and range of courses that
were franchised from the HEI in question. The FEC that had the largest
portfolio of courses was then selected.
The final sample included ten HEIs and nine FECs (owing to one of the HEIs
not having any partnership arrangements with FECs). The regions included
the northeast, northwest, southeast, south and the midlands.
Stimuli
As a means of establishing what message the institution intended to
communicate to their prospective students, the welcome message from two
potential sources was analysed. In the case of the HEIs the welcome
message on their website homepage was analysed where available (N=3).
For FECs the welcome message directed to their prospective HE students on
the homepage was utilised (N=3). In addition, the college Principal’s welcome
message from the HE prospectus was downloaded from the college website
13
and was also analysed (N=8). The university Vice Chancellor’s welcome
message from each university’s prospectus (hard copy or online) was also
analysed (N=9).
Data analysis
An inductive approach utilising thematic analysis was conducted on all the
texts (Braun & Clarke, 2006). Themes based on the institution’s approaches
to attracting new students were identified and defined. A comparison was
undertaken between the FECs’ and HEIs’ data, and a subsequent comparison
of old and new universities was conducted. Clearly, the degree of
generalisation which can be made from such a sample is limited. However, it
is possible to use the data collected to theorise about the possible wider
applicability of the findings about marketing of higher education, by using
‘theoretical inference’ (Hammersley, 1998). Any theoretical understanding
thus produced should be considered provisional in nature and would benefit
from further investigation.
Six themes emerged:
Reputation – This refers to any item that promoted the good name of
the institution, be it documentable by awards, league tables or
associations, or simply unsubstantiated claims
Local economic links – This refers to aspects that tied the institution to
its community by consideration of the economic climate of its
businesses or residents
14
Educational ethos – This refers to the intangible attributes of the study
environment with a focus on the academic strands; such as student
experience and dynamic and innovative atmospheres
Student life – This was concerned with extra curricula activities
students may expect from social to sporting events
Teaching and learning – This represented all the tangible services,
through curriculum, staffing and resources, available to students in
order for learning to take place
Graduate potential – This theme included employment opportunities,
postgraduate study or achieving personal goals
15
RESULTS
[Insert Table 1 here]
[Insert Table 2 here]
[Insert figure 1 here]
Reputation
The HEIs made far more references to aspects that could be seen as
reputation confirming or enhancing, either making unqualified claims
regarding their excellence or their standing in the academic world through
statements referring to their ‘reputation for academic excellence’. The FECs
made comparatively little reference to reputation; where they did, the majority
of colleges focused on documented statements that emphasised the links
they had to the universities within their partnership. Some HEIs’ documented
statements were based on student assessment of their provision, such as
National Student Survey or Student Union awards, or rankings in various
league tables. Where the institution type differed was with regard to their
international status and research quality, with no FEC making reference to
either. The traditional universities however frequently made statements about
their ‘global reputation’ and their ‘excellent reputation for world class
research’, whereas the new universities made no reference to historical or
international reputations and limited comments on documented achievements,
such as ‘success in the National Student Survey and our ranking in the top
third of UK universities’.
16
Local economic links
Clear differences were seen when local issues were considered with the
FECs being more in tune with the local economy and the local needs. Seven
out of the nine colleges either considering the training needs of the local
community or the financial constraints of its residents offering solutions to
these problems such as local convenience or widening participation. Two new
universities made reference to contributions to the community, with no HEI
considering the financial issues of their students or encouraging a local
cohort.
Educational ethos
The educational ethos was an important factor within the universities, with the
traditional universities emphasising the aesthetics of their campus and
investment in building to support the changing nature of education, as well as
their international, welcoming environment. In contrast, all of the new
universities referred to the academic context, claiming that the atmosphere
was either dynamic, stimulating or innovative. The colleges made much less
of this aspect only really making mention of new, purpose built facilities.
Student life
There were twice as many references to student life made by the universities,
the HEIs making occasional mention of their sporting and social facilities,
whereas the FECs only mentioned student life with respect to what the local
town had to offer. Social and extra-curricular activities were mentioned by
both traditional and new universities.
17
Teaching and Learning
Similar emphasis was put on teaching and learning by FECs and HEIs. The
FECs emphasised student support and how their students would benefit from
‘small class sizes and close tutorial support’ whereas the traditional
universities tended to refer to ‘access to specialised academic support’. The
colleges also emphasised curriculum issues such as the range of courses,
levels and modes of study available. The traditional universities highlighted
the heavy investment that they have made in facilities and resources. With
respect to academic staff, the traditional universities emphasised the
investments they make in human resources to attract ‘rising academic stars’
at the ‘cutting edge of their disciplines’. The new universities tended to refer to
their academic staff as experts or professionals and the colleges promoted
‘high quality teaching’ a phrase not used by the traditional institutions.
Graduate potential
There was an equal emphasis between HE and FE institutions regarding the
tangible postgraduate opportunities as a result of the programmes offered
being ‘developed in collaboration with employers’ or their concern in filling the
‘regional skills gap’. The new universities also saw this as an important issue
but made more general statements regarding research or entrepreneurial
skills. The traditional universities made comparatively little reference to the
earning potential of graduating students. Another difference between the
FECs and the HEIs was with regard to students’ aspirations of success and
achievement where the colleges emphasised this and the traditional
universities made no reference whatsoever to this element.
18
DISCUSSION
The study set out to examine whether there are different marketing strategies
employed by different types of HEI. Thematic analysis of the welcome
messages from old universities, new universities and FECs that are in
partnership with universities suggest that there are different strategies based
on institution type.
What institutions offer potential students differs in distinct ways with the
universities emphasising quality and reputation and the colleges relying on
flexibility, local access and student support. There are also more subtle
distinctions: within the old universities their international reputation and the
calibre of their staff are emphasised to assure the quality of education,
whereas the focus of the new universities is much more strongly on the
student experience. This may well be a response to the BIS (2011) white
paper, where chapter 3 emphasises the importance of the student experience
with the recommendation of a Student Charter to ensure quality of provision
assessed by students as opposed to claims by the institution. Arguably
therefore newer universities are more influenced by government policy.
An important factor that seems to have impacted on the marketing strategy is
perception of the potential market. The concentration of old universities on the
international aspects of their research and their global appeal may indicate
the importance of this area for recruitment. This contrasted with the FECs who
made minimal reference to international aspects, focusing instead on issues
that may appeal to local students. The FECs actively encouraged local
enrolment by highlighting the financial benefits of study close to home as well
19
as the impact that the new student finance package will have. This type of
approach might appeal to non-traditional learners and mature students
(Connor, Burton, Pearson, Pollard & Regan, 1999), and may explain why the
frequent reference to the range of courses and flexibility of delivery was
made, as a possible strategy to encourage these individuals back into higher
education. In contrast, the universities are appealing to those who have
already made the decision to participate in HE and are simply selecting a
place to study. These strategies may be driven by economic factors. The
White Paper (BIS, 2011) also notes that additional student numbers will be
available to institutions that consider widening participation and community
focus, an aspect not mentioned by the old universities. Traditional universities
may, however, be tapping into additional student numbers through alternative
an international income streams, with 14% of first degree students being
classified as international in the academic year 2010-11 (UKCISA, 2012),
hence the focus on this element in their marketing. Alternatively their
emphasis on reputation may be a means of attracting the students who
achieve AAB grades in their A Levels, and under the new system are not
included in the student number restriction (BIS, 2011).
Interestingly, the new universities had a strong focus on the student lifestyle,
through social and sporting opportunities. They may lack the same
educational reputation of old universities, yet compared to FEcs they are more
likely to attract students who are moving away from home and want
reassurance that there will be more to life than academia. A balanced
educational and social life may enhance retention, and therefore future
20
funding for the HEI (Bridgers Porter, 2008). Lack of mention of social aspects
within the FEC's literature supports the fact that they are more likely to attract
local students who are familiar with local social networks, or mature students
who are more likely to approach their studies as a job rather than a lifestyle.
The outcomes of the educational process as suggested by Gutman and
Miaoulis (2003) was also a matter of importance where both the FECs and the
new universities focused on these issues. The new universities were in tune
with issues of employer engagement as recommended by BIS (2011) which
highlights the links with business and opportunities for students to undertake
work placements. This corresponds with Ivy’s (2001) suggestion that the links
made with professional bodies was an important factor. Employability was
also a feature of the colleges' literature but with more of a focus on courses
providing students with opportunities to bridge the local skills gap. This again
reinforces the view that attracting the local student, who is possibly retraining,
was a strategic approach. In addition to the tangible outputs of their education
the FECs also made reference to aspirations and achievement of success.
This may appeal to the non-traditional learner, who tending to be older and
having not followed a consistent route form school into further and higher
education (Macdonald & Stratta, 2001) may see these statements as
supporting and confidence-enhancing. Little mention was made by the older
universities of such outcomes, possibly assuming students to have a clear
idea of their direction and confidence in their ability to succeed, and that the
institution’s reputation will enhance the students’ career prospects (Ivy, 2001;
Gray, Fam & Llanes, 2003).
21
The one focus where the traditional universities dominated was that of
research. This makes absolute sense when compared to FECs as colleges
are not traditionally research-active and are not part of the RAE/REF (national
research evaluation exercises undertaken in the UK every few years). What is
slightly more unexpected is that the new universities are part of this process
but did not emphasise this aspect of their work strongly. One possible
explanation is provided by Bennett and Ali-Choudhury (2009), who suggested
that the new universities have not yet had the time to make a sufficient
reputation in this field.
The different types of institution also employed the ‘four P’ branding strands
differently (Heding, Knudtzen & Bjerr, 2009). Both the old universities and the
colleges emphasised issues of place; the older institutions referred to their
beautiful campus whereas the colleges promoting their new purpose-built
facilities, recently developed to meet the changing needs of the market. With
respect to price it was only the FECs who promoted cost as an issue, claiming
that they are cheaper than universities, especially for the local student. With
respect to product all institutions highlighted the benefits of their own type of
student experience to appeal to their market share, and the promotional
aspect was more of a focus for the traditional universities as they have
already cultivated a brand based on institutional reputation. The application of
Ng and Forbes’ (2009) University Experiences Framework was not so evident.
The universities highlighted the aspect of people more than the colleges,
again due to the fact that new social lives may have to be created away from
22
home for these students. The physical environment was the most emphasized
aspect and was dealt with by all types of institution, but there was no real
reference to processes, possibly not relevant at this stage of decision-making.
Corresponding with Bennett and Ali-Choudhury’s (2009) findings, quiddity was
one of the most important aspects for all types of institution through the
promotion of their curriculum, facilities and support. However, the component
of covenant was much more emphasised by the traditional universities
through promotion of their global, international and academic reputation.
This study is a brief snapshot in time and was restricted in its breadth as it
only focused on the welcome message of the Principal or Vice Chancellor.
However, it is reasonable to assume that this message to prospective
students sets out the mission of the institution with their core values at the
fore. It must also be acknowledged that the production of such literature may
have been completed prior to the publication of the reforms outlined in the
white paper so may not have responded to the changing landscape yet.
In order to test this element it is intended that this study forms a baseline for a
longitudinal project to track changes in emphasis over the next five years. By
examining the development of HEI marketing in line with policy changes, and
by reviewing institutional identity, the changes in provision of HE can be
potentially mapped across the sector.
Conclusions and Recommendations
The type of institutions used within this sample have shown three distinct
approaches to marketing based on what type of student they wish to attract
23
possibly as a response to current changes in funding mechanisms. The old
universities promote their reputation as a marker for quality education with an
emphasis on internationalism as a means of attracting international students
to extend their funding stream. The new universities focused more on UK
students by promoting the employability of their graduates. This too was a
feature of the FECs suggesting that these students need reassurance that
there will be a return on their investment in such a fragile economic climate.
Where the FECs differed from the universities was that they seemed to be
trying to advertise the commodity of higher education to local residents who
had not necessarily chosen to enter HE as yet, whereas the universities were
working to appeal to those who had chosen education and were now deciding
on the institution.
The range of approaches indicates that the different types of institutions have
a clear focus on who they wish to attract and what will appeal to that student
group. The old universities are expanding their portfolio through the
international market whereas the FECs are maximising their opportunities
through the widening participation agenda highlighted in the White Paper,
whilst the new universities are also focusing on White Paper changes with the
student experience as their main focus. Due to their differing appeal to diverse
groups of students, there appears to be room in this crowded market place for
the different types of institution, all fulfilling different roles in the evolving mass
market of higher education. Whether this will continue to be the case remains
to be seen.
24
REFERENCES
AMA (2007). Definition of Marketing. American Marketing Association. [www]
URL:http://www.marketingpower.com/AboutAMA/Pages/
DefinitionofMarketing.aspx. (accessed 23rd January 2012).
Bennett, R. & Ali-Choudhury, R. (2009). Prospective Students' Perceptions of
University Brands: An Empirical Study. Journal of Marketing for Higher
Education, 19 (1), 85-107.
Binsardi, A. & Ekwulugo, F. (2003). International marketing of British
education: research on the students' perception and the UK market
penetration. Marketing Intelligence & Planning, 21 (5), 318-327.
BIS (2011). Higher Education: Students at the Heart of the System. HMSO.
Braun, V. & Clarke, V. (2006). Using thematic analysis in psychology.
Qualitative Research in Psychology, 3 (2), 77-101.
Bridgers Porter, K. (2008). Current trends in student retention: A literature
review. Teaching and Learning in Nursing, 3, 3–5.
Chapleo, C. (2007). Barriers to brand building the UK universities?
International Journal of Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Marketing, 12 (1),
23–32.
Chapleo, C., Durán, M.V.C. & Díaz, A.C. (2011). Do UK universities
communicate their brands effectively through their websites? Journal of
Marketing for Higher Education, 21 (1), 25-46.
Coates, D. (1998). Marketing of Further and Higher Education: an equal
opportunities perspective. Journal of Further and Higher Education, 22
(2), 135-142.
Connor, H., Burton, R., Pearson, R., Pollard, E. & Regan, J. (1999). Making
25
the Right Choice: How Students Choose Universities and Colleges.
Institute for Employment Studies. [www] URL:
http://www.employmentstudies.co.uk/pubs/summary.php (Accessed
17th March 2012).
Gatfield, T., Barker, M. & Graham, P. (1999). Measuring communication
impact for university advertising materials. Corporate Communications:
An International Journal, 4 (2), 73–79.
Gray, B.J., Fam, K.S. & Llanes, V.A. (2003). Branding universities in Asian
markets. Journal of Product and Brand Management, 12 (2), 108-120.
Gutman, J. & Miaoulis, G. (2003). Communicating a quality position in service
delivery: an application in higher education. Managing Service Quality,
13 (2), 105-111.
Hammersley, M. (1998). Reading Ethnographic Research: A Critical Guide.
London: Longman.
Heding, T., Knudtzen, C.F. & Bjerr, M. (2009). Brand management: research,
theory and practice. Oxon: Routledge.
Helgesen, Ø. (2008). Marketing for Higher Education: A Relationship
Marketing Approach. Journal of Marketing for Higher Education, 18 (1),
50-78.
Hemsley-Brown, J. (2011). Market heal thyself: the challenges of a free
market in higher education. Journal of Marketing for Higher Education,
21 (2), 115-132.
Hemsley-Brown, J. & Oplatka, I. (2006). Universities in a competitive global
marketplace: A systematic review of the literature on higher education
marketing. International Journal of Public Sector Management, 19 (4),
26
316-338.
Huczynski, A. & Buchanan, D.A. (2007). Organizational Behaviour: An
introductory text. Harlow: Pearson Education Limited.
Ivy, J. (2001). Higher education institution image: a correspondence analysis
approach. The International Journal of Educational Management, 15 (6),
276-282.
Macdonald, C. & Stratta, E. (2001). From access to widening participation:
Responses to the changing population in higher education in the UK.
Journal of Further and Higher Education, 25, 250–8.
Moogan, Y.J., Baron, S. & Bainbridge, S. (2001).Timings and trade-offs in the
marketing of higher education courses: a conjoint approach. Marketing
Intelligence & Planning, 19 (3), 179-187.
Ng, I.C.L. & Forbes, J. (2009). Education as Service: The Understanding of
University Experience Through the Service Logic. Journal of Marketing
for Higher Education, 19 (1), 38-64.
Pampaloni, A.M. (2010). The influence of organizational image on college
selection: what students seek in institutions of higher education. Journal
of Marketing for Higher Education, 20 (1), 19-48.
Ravald, A. & Grönroos, C. (1996). The value concept and relationship
marketing. European Journal of Marketing, 30 (2), 19–30.
Syal, R. (2011). MPs fear rerun of Southern Cross care home scandal. The
Guardian, Tuesday 6 December 2011 [www] URL:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/2011/dec/06/mps-fear-rerun-southern-
cross-scandal (accessed 23rd January).
UKCISA (2012). International students in UK higher education: key statistics.
27
UK Council for International Student Affairs. [www] URL:
http://www.ukcisa.org.uk/about/statistics_he.php (accessed 17th March
2012).
28
Table 1 Comparison of FEC and HEI itemsThemes FECs
(N=9)HEIs (N=10)
Number of colleges
Frequency of items
Number of universities
Frequency of items
Reputation 28 43Historical 2 4 2 4Documented 8 15 6 10Claimed quality 6 9 6 11International reputation 0 0 3 11Research quality 0 0 5 7Local economic links 14 4Local links 2 4 2 2Local convenience 3 4 0 0Widening participation 2 2 2 2Financial 3 4 0 0Educational ethos 13 34Campus 5 10 4 9Academic experience 1 1 8 12Educational atmosphere 1 1 4 6Research benefits 0 0 2 2International students 1 1 4 5Student life 7 14Social experience 0 0 6 8Social atmosphere 2 2 1 1Local environment 3 5 4 5Teaching & Learning 34 32Curriculum 7 10 4 4Lecturing staff 4 7 6 9Facilities 6 7 7 11Support staff 7 10 6 8Graduate potential 22 27Postgraduate opportunities
6 11 6 11
Work placement 1 1 5 7Links to business 1 1 3 4Aspirations 7 9 4 5
29
Table 2 Comparison of new and old university itemsTheme New (N=5) Old (N=5)
Number of universities
Frequency of items
Number of universities
Frequency of items
Reputation 9 34Historical 0 0 2 4Documented 3 5 3 5Claimed quality 2 2 4 9International reputation 0 0 3 11Research quality 2 2 3 5Local economic links 3 1Local links 2 2 0 0Local convenience 0 0 0 0Widening participation 1 1 1 1Financial 0 0 0 0Educational ethos 17 17Campus 1 2 3 7Academic experience 5 9 3 3Educational atmosphere
3 5 1 1
Research benefits 0 0 2 2International students 1 1 3 4Student life 8 6Social experience 2 3 3 4Social atmosphere 1 1 1 1Local environment 3 4 1 1Teaching & Learning 14 18Curriculum 2 2 2 2Lecturing staff 3 4 3 5Facilities 3 4 4 7Support staff 4 4 2 4Graduate potential 21 6Postgraduate opportunities
4 7 2 4
Work placement 3 5 2 2Links to business 3 4 0 0Aspirations 4 5 0 0
30
reputa
tion
local i
nks
educa
tional e
thos
stude
nt life
teachi
ng & lea
rning
gradu
ate po
tential
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
FECHEINew univesitiesOld universities
%
Figure 1 Comparison of the proportion of themes by institution type
31