Journal of Higher Education Policy and Management Vol. 32, No.

5, November 2010, 429439

1469-9508 1360-080X CJHE Journal of Higher Education Policy and Management Management, Vol. 32, No. 5, Aug 2010: pp. 00

Sustaining student numbers in the competitive marketplace

South Australian Institute of Business and Technology, Adelaide, Australia The climate of competition for students in the higher education sector makes it imperative that institutions increase their marketing efforts, both domestically and internationally, to help sustain student numbers. In Australia, the Bradley Report and the government response, which will do away with quotas, allows for a much freer market than previously, including the entry of private providers into the undergraduate degree market. It will become more critical than ever before to improve student attraction. Added to this, the increasing pressure from European and US universities in the Asian market requires Australian universities to improve their marketing and student recruitment in the international space. This paper draws on the large volume of material related to marketing universities that exists. The literature has changed its scope over time, originally focusing on the publications universities produced, then the branding effort, and more recently, relationship marketing. This paper provides a meta-analysis of the literature in an attempt to suggest some possible improvements that institutions could implement to have an impact on student recruitment and help sustain, or even improve, student numbers. Keywords: marketing; student choice; student recruitment

Introduction This paper summarises the common themes from a number of studies related to why students make the higher education study choices that they do. The results of over 30 studies from Australia, Europe, UK and the US are included, but there have been many more from the US and UK which may provide further ideas and insights. The vast majority of studies focus only on the school leaver market and there is potential for further market reach, and indeed research, into other student cohorts. There are also untapped markets, such as retirees, for which many institutions have a potential new source of students (Rindfleish, 2003). Competition between institutions for student enrolments has grown intense over the first decade of the century and becomes more critical as availability of places shifts to exceed demand. This has resulted in the employment of a number of standard marketing practices in higher education institutions. University managers are increasingly focused on marketing techniques, such as targeting and communicating with market segments (Rindfleish, 2003, p. 148). It is clear from most of the research that field of study and possible futures are the dominant considerations for students in choosing both courses and universities. Students choose a field of study most often because of experience with the profession or field either through family, friends, work experience, or personal contact. However, the research is contradictory in its assessments of the level of influence of teachers, parents and friends. According to some studies, once a university satisfies the need for a specific field of study or course,
*Email: judy.szekeres@unisa.edu.au
ISSN 1360-080X print/ISSN 1469-9508 online 2010 Association for Tertiary Education Management and the L H Martin Institute for Higher Education Leadership and Management DOI: 10.1080/1360080X.2010.511116 http://www.informaworld.com

430

J. Szekeres

image and reputation are the next consideration, followed by personal fit, ease of access and campus life (Baldwin & James, 2000; Briggs, 2006; Hoyt & Brown, 1999; James, Baldwin, & McInnis, 1999; Martin, 1996; Mortimer, 1997; Soutar & Turner, 2002). Other studies suggest geography and ease of entry are the most important secondary considerations (Binney & Martin, 1997; Chapman, 1981; James et al., 1999; Moogan, Baron, & Bainbridge, 2001). One study suggests there are barriers to entry such as prerequisites and lack of understanding about the benefits of higher education (Hayden & Carpenter, 1990, p. 193). A number of studies suggest that documents like the Admissions Guides are the most important sources of information students use and communications need to be clearer about possible career and job outcomes (Hemsley-Brown & Oplatka, 2006; Klassen, 2002; Moogan, Baron, & Harris, 1999; Mortimer, 1997). A few studies found that the most common reason for students changing their choice near the end of the cycle was that they did not achieve the required grade (Hossler & Stage, 1992; James et al., 1999; Moogan et al., 1999; Moogan et al., 2001). Some recent studies see a shift from brochure-ware to relationship marketing with many institutions already in this transition. While the settings in various countries differ widely, for example, students in Australia are much less mobile than in the US or Europe and therefore make more limited decisions, it is still likely that elements of all these studies are relevant in all settings. A number of them have excellent ideas such as: developing a checklist for prospective students, engaging in more one-to-one counselling for targeted equity groups and academic staff being involved with teachers and students from lower years to encourage interest in their subject area. Most studies suggest institutions need to provide more accessible and simple information which makes clear what the possible career options are for students and marketers need to segment the market more carefully (Rindfleish, 2003). These findings and suggestions are expanded below. Why students choose particular universities There is a remarkable congruence in the findings of various studies into motivating factors for students choice of particular courses and universities (Binney & Martin, 1997; Chapman, 1981; Hesketh & Knight, 1999; James et al., 1999; Krause, Hartley, James, & McInnis, 2005; Martin, 1996; Moogan et al., 1999; Moogan et al., 2001; Payne, 2003; Soutar & Turner, 2002). A persons preferred tertiary course. . . represents a complex aggregate of his or her personal field of study interests, the perceived characteristics of the relevant course in the intended university, and the wider qualities of that institution (James et al., 1999, p. 1). Choosing an institution and course is a complex business, made more so by the amount of available information (Briggs, 2006) and the fact that what education providers are selling is a service which cant be sampled and which students may be committed to for several years, so has a high element of risk for the consumer (Moogan et al., 1999). When services are being purchased, alternatives are often evaluated without the benefit of any direct experience of the product (Moogan et al., 1999, p. 213). It is assumed that rational consumers gather as much information as they can about the product and supplier and that prospective education purchasers fall into this mould (although a number of studies question this assumption). It should be remembered that when students make poor choices, this adds to the need to attract more students, so there is a real gain in ensuring that there is a quality fit between student and institution/course (Briggs, 2006, p.708). It is clear from most studies that the greatest motivator is the availability of a particular course of study and this is either for intrinsic interest or because the student wants readiness for a particular employment outcome. Secondary considerations are institutional

Journal of Higher Education Policy and Management

431

and course reputation, and ease of access, both physically and in terms of entry scores. However, international students have a somewhat different set of considerations, with institutional reputation being much more important. In one major Australian study, it was found that
first year students continue to rate both interest-related and job-related reasons as important in their decisions to enrol in university study. Reasons for enrolling have remained largely unchanged since 1994, though there has been an increase in the percentage of students acknowledging the role of family and parental expectations. (Krause et al., 2005, p. iv)

Studying something that interested them was important to 95 per cent of respondents and improving their job prospects was important to 83 per cent. There are clearly different drivers for students of different backgrounds, but some of the most telling statistics are those that show that 13 per cent of students are marking time at university while they decide their futures and one in five first-year students hope to change to a different course, one-third of the students did not feel prepared to choose a university course, and twothirds felt underprepared for university study (Krause et al., 2005), all of which suggests more needs to be done to increase students awareness of what to expect in higher education and that different messages are needed for different student groups. Similarly in a study conducted ten years earlier, the field of study preferences [were] clearly the dominant factor in prospective students decision-making (James et al., 1999, p. ix). Prospective students had broadly conceived ideas about course and institutional reputations which affected their decisions and entry scores served (and continue to serve) as a proxy for quality. Institutional characteristics beyond the specific qualities of particular courses were not strong influences on choice, but ease of access from home was frequently a factor. Students applying to research universities as their first preference were, in general, more strongly influenced by research reputation, institutional image and prestige and on-campus social and cultural life. Students self-select to a large degree based on perceptions of self and attainability and many eschewed the elite institutions because they thought it was too difficult to get in. Field of study was the dominant element in course choice, with specific career choice being less important. Most students view the course and institution as a single entity (James et al., 1999). While a number of attributes attract students to a particular institution, such as the attractiveness of the campus, recommendation of family, closeness to home, campus atmosphere and academic reputation, students appeared to be prepared to accept almost any level of the other attributes as long as they entered a course that they really wanted (Soutar & Turner, 2002, p. 41). The most important selection factor for international students is the recognition of the qualification by future employers followed by the institutions reputation, its willingness to recognise previous qualifications and the reputation of staff. There is no obvious segmentation of the market according to the influencing factors. If a university does not rate well on important attributes, it has little to gain by trying to promote itself on less important attributes (Soutar & Turner, 2002, p. 45) . Students entering high ranking research institutions are attracted by academic reputation and location. In these institutions, competition for places is an influencing factor, although for newer institutions, ease of entry is a stronger influencing factor (Briggs, 2006). In general, there needs to be a fit between the institution and the student (Martin, 1996). However, prospective students really know very little about the specific characteristics of courses and universities. There are numerous differences between segments including: particular disciplines science applicants are influenced by the research reputation and opportunities for higher degree study, while commerce applicants are influenced

432

J. Szekeres

more by the ability to achieve high graduate salaries and institutional prestige; rural students coming from more than 30km away consider the Universitys social life, parents preference and friends (Binney & Martin, 1997); mature age students who work may be interested in evening classes; gifted students may want honours courses; and athletes may be interested in sporting facilities and programs. These peculiarities strongly suggest a need to segment markets more keenly (James et al., 1999). Payne (2003) found that, while course availability and distance from home were often cited as reasons for choice, students subjective response to the institution was also important did they find the institution approachable, were the staff friendly and what were the buildings like? Overall, nine factors seem to influence choice: availability of course, job outcomes, academic reputation, location, quality of instruction, quality of faculty, costs, course reputation, and financial considerations (Hoyt & Brown, 1999). All of these elements, as well as personal fit, need to be taken into account when helping students decide on a particular course and institution. When students decide Over 40 per cent of school leavers appear to decide on their chosen field of study several years prior to Year 12. This is borne out by a number of studies (Briggs, 2006; Cabrera & Nasa, 2000; Hossler & Stage, 1992; James et al., 1999; Moogan et al., 1999; Payne, 2003; Robertson, 2000). An interest in a particular discipline often develops over the ages of 1015, with the greatest influencing factor appearing to be an involvement of a parent in that discipline (Robertson, 2000). This early decision to engage in higher education steers students involvement in high school. However, the great majority decide on the specific course and university in Year 12 (Payne, 2003; Moogan et al., 1999) and many say if they did not get into their chosen course at university, they would pursue study in the same field at other providers rather than choose another university course (only 20 per cent saying they would look for another course at their chosen institution) (James et al., 1999). Many students apparently leave their final choice until they see their exam results and the required grade is the most frequent reason for changing choice (Moogan et al., 1999). Influences on students There are a large number of influences on students through the choice process and in looking at the relative importance of influences, there is little agreement in the studies. In some studies it is most often the influence of teachers which convinces the students to seek entry to university, but parents and own motivation follow closely (Cook & Zallocco 1983; Moogan et al. 1999). However, numerous other studies contradict this. An American study which is a meta-analysis of a large number of previous studies (Hoyt & Brown, 1999) lists a number of influences, including: significant others, direct contact with the university, admissions staff visiting schools, students visiting campus, school guidance counsellors, prospectuses and brochures, advertising, early registration programs, alumni networks and the web. Other research suggests that in certain circumstances, parents can exert considerable effect on the decision of which institution to go to (Moogan et al., 2001). Variously, careers advisors, campus visits, tertiary information days, admissions guides and parents and friends appear to all exert some level of influence on student choice, however in two studies, the school counsellor, university staff visits, university open days and advertising all rated very low as having much influence on decision making (Binney & Martin, 1997; Robertson, 2000).

Journal of Higher Education Policy and Management Rationality of choice

433

On the whole, students do not actually fit the model of the rational consumer. They do not collect published information on many courses and deliberately weigh up the advantages and disadvantages of each. Rather they have in mind a particular course and just choose between one or two variations of this. As it is difficult to find direct evidence for the payoffs of undertaking a particular course, students use the universitys reputation as a proxy, and often they use the entrance mark as a proxy for the universitys reputation (Moogan et al., 1999). There is little evidence that students use publicly available comparative data (such as the Good Universities Guide) to help in their decision making. Rationality is not quite that which is assumed in conventional thinking about the provision of information and student choice (Hesketh & Knight, 1999, p. 157). For example, decisions about postgraduate study can be influenced by the level of real-world focus, access to placements or live projects, student satisfaction and the range of electives. It is possible that the pursuit of happiness [is] a key and neglected factor in the choice process (Hesketh & Knight, 1999, p. 161). Caring for students, manifested in things like library opening hours, catering provision, student support services and computing facilities, may be the best basis on which to market postgraduate courses (Hesketh & Knight, 1999). So, just how rational are students in making their choices? While some studies have shown that students have a reasonable economic awareness of the value of higher education, there is little evidence to suggest that rationality extends to the choice of institution (Baldwin & James, 2000, p. 141). One study from Greece, where demand outstrips supply, set out to determine the nature of the decision making process and the extent to which prospective students engage in information searching which is a proxy for rationality (Menon, Saiti, & Socratous, 2007). The findings suggest that students did not gather much information to help in making their decision, with 25 per cent spending less than a week on the selection process and the majority of respondents applying to universities they had never visited. Hence the authors conclude that there is support only for a weak version of the rational choice model. Developing a conceptual model of institutional choice might provide all universities with the market intelligence to improve their portfolios and reputations, and facilitate strategic benchmarking between institutions (Briggs, 2006, p. 707), and provide a basis for more rational choice by students. As students become better informed and more able to make judgements about the range of potential suppliers, the suggestion is that those judgements will be increasingly focused on the added value a university can offer (Briggs, 2006). So newer universities which cannot rely on long-standing reputations might succeed by focusing on the extra services they can provide to students university experience.

Characteristics of prospective students Various studies focus on the characteristics of students who go from school to higher education or on the predisposition for study at higher education (Cabrera & Nasar, 2000; Farr, 2003; Hayden & Carpenter, 1990; Hossler & Stage, 1992; Litten, 1982). All of these studies, in one way or another, suggest that certain characteristics of individuals and their circumstances combine to make it more likely that a student will attend university. Certain characteristics have a strongly correlated positive effect: high performance at high school, having parents who attended university themselves or at least encourage attendance at university, and studying maths and science. To increase participation, institutions need to

434

J. Szekeres

reduce prerequisites which are seen as a barrier, and to ensure that parents and teachers understand the benefits of higher education (Hayden & Carpenter, 1990). Prospective students can be grouped by demography, geography, psychography (attitudes and lifestyle) and behaviour (knowledge and attitude) and could therefore be segmented into clear market groups (Hoyt & Brown, 1999). To understand a students choice of institution, the students background and characteristics (aspirations and performance at school), family situation (socioeconomic status) and the characteristics of the institution (location, scholarships, availability of courses) all need to be taken into account (Chapman, 1981). Although students give practical, logical criteria for their choice of institution, it was found by one study that the choice process could not be separated from family background, culture and life history (Payne, 2003). Even in the US, where students are apparently so mobile, it was found that over 50 per cent attend a college within 50 minutes of their home and a similar number say that location is a major factor in their choice, particularly for urban students. Low socioeconomic, low ability students tend to be the least mobile. At an early stage, some students appear more predisposed to consider higher education than others (Hossler & Stage, 1992). Apart from the elements listed above, there are a number of other family background and high school experience factors which influence predisposition, including: ethnicity, gender, high school quality, high school curriculum track and student involvement in high school activities. A number of studies suggest that socioeconomic status has less influence on students predisposition than parents educational background. In most income brackets, students whose parents had a college education were more than twice as likely to apply for college (Hossler & Stage, 1992, p. 431). There is also a question whether socioeconomic status has as much influence as the students academic ability. As ability and achievement rise, students are more likely to aspire to study further and to follow through with those plans. These findings suggest that attempts to influence the post-secondary aspirations of high school students must begin early and be targeted at parents as well as students (Hossler & Stage, 1992, p. 446). Policymakers focused on increasing participation need to concentrate their efforts on families whose parents have less exposure to education. Supporting this view, another study suggests that institutional choice is a three-stage process which begins in seventh grade developing a predisposition in the form of occupational aspirations which require post-secondary education, searching for general information through the accumulation and assimilation of information related to courses and institutions, and then making a choice (Cabrera & Nasa, 2000). It was found that low socio-economic students rely heavily on school counsellors as the single most likely source of information about college (Cabrera & Nasa, 2000, p. 10), and the decision to attend college was highly sensitive to fees and levels of financial aid. In marketing to the less predisposed group, Litten (1982) suggests that segmentation provides the greatest return, although the costs of segmentation and differentiated effort has to be weighed against the expected benefit. The recruitment effort for high ability students needs to take account of the fact that they tend to consider more institutions than others and move earlier in the process, while students from families with little experience of higher education clearly require a different approach, possibly with materials directed at parents and including parents in the process. Direct mail might be more appropriate to students from schools with higher educational attainment while a relationship management approach is more important in schools with lower educational attainment, although Litten (1982) warns that in any segmented approach, one has to be careful of stereotyping.

Journal of Higher Education Policy and Management

435

In countries with an oversupply of higher education places there is strong competition to recruit students who would formerly have attended polytechnics and colleges. Everywhere, there is also a push to increase the participation rates of students from less privileged backgrounds. One method to combat the biases in higher education participation across different socioeconomic groups, is to have intensive schools programs, using university staff to work on awareness-raising within schools and reserving a number of places for students who are likely to underachieve in matriculation or from families where university was not considered a viable option (Farr, 2003). Some programs exist where students are able to replace good matriculation results with a program of seminars, student-shadowing and an on-campus summer school. The key dynamic of these types of schemes is that they have been marketed locally (Farr, 2003, p. 324). In this way the universities provide support for the disadvantaged much earlier than at the point of entering higher education. Discipline choice How do students actually choose their favoured discipline? Positive perceptions of the particular industries are often gleaned from personal experience (either as a customer, worker or knowing others who worked in the industry) and media reports (OMahony, McWilliams & Whitelaw, 2001). In some cases, students choose the particular industry, followed by the choice to pursue a university qualification (OMahony et al., 2001, p. 96) and then choose the course from among the available options. Some of this may be driven by the students entrance score so if they did not achieve the score which got them into their chosen university course, they may choose to continue to pursue the career path, either through different courses, vocational courses or experience. Using Computer Science as an example, where there has been a 60 per cent reduction in students undertaking this major (Carter, 2006), it was found that students in high school had very little direct experience of computing and that the main reason that male students chose it was a love of computer games, while female students wanted to use it in another field. Most students experience was self taught rather than through formal learning. In the study, more than 80 per cent of respondents had no understanding of what Computer Science entailed. The top three negative influences were an aversion to sitting in front of a computer all day, the fact that they are already sold on another major, and that they would like a more people-oriented major or occupation (Carter, 2006, p. 30). In other disciplines which experience a decline in demand, similar research needs to be undertaken, followed by experiential redress. Marketing tactics and collateral Universities employ a fairly standard range of ways in which to attract and inform prospective students guides, prospectuses, brochures, open days, school visits, media advertising and increasingly smart and interactive websites. Most of the studies about media and method are pre-Web 2, so can only provide a partial picture of what works in the 2010s and beyond. Some of the outcomes of these studies are contradictory. If universities can predict where applicants will come from, resources can be focused on marketing in areas that will give the highest return. In Australia, the most important sources of information at the end of the 20th century were (in order of importance): the admissions guide, advice from their high school, other university students or friends, university open day and school counsellor (although the latter was far down the list in comparison to the

436

J. Szekeres

admissions guide) (Baldwin & James, 2000; Binney & Martin, 1997; Martin, 1996). In terms of source of information, students were influenced mostly by (in order) materials distributed by careers teachers, TAC (Tertiary Admissions Centre) guides, university open days, school visits to universities, commercial guides, university websites, newspaper articles, and newspaper advertisements (James et al., 1999). While applicants suggest they are influenced by matters such as career opportunities, approaches to teaching and learning, graduate satisfaction and the quality of teaching, the reality is that they appear to know very little about these matters (James et al., 1999) and consumer guides which cover these issues appear to have little influence (Baldwin & James, 2000). In looking at marketing communications, the studies based on choice factors for students agree that there are gaps in the information provided to students, with insufficient information about: academic and practical aspects of the course, good teaching, and timetables (Hemsley-Brown & Oplatka, 2006). The information supplied by the universities is seen as complex and inadequate and there is likely to be a disconnect between hard-sell marketing materials and the information students require to help make their decision. In many cases, institutions are so intent on managing their image, that this conflicts with the students needs for extensive and reliable information to inform their choice (Hesketh & Knight, 1999). At the least, it is clear that perceptions are more important than actual league tables. It is also suggested that, while the position of location as an influencing factor is very high, students will travel and incur costs to access reputation (Briggs, 2006). In some studies, students identified difficulties in making their choice due to the large variety of courses, the amount of information to sift through, particularly on similar courses, lack of experience in making choices and lack of assistance. Attendance at open days was found to be a valuable source in the final evaluation stage. The days organisation, structure and personnel create the biggest impression and being shown poor facilities and treated with arrogance were the biggest turn offs. In terms of information wanted, students looked for course structure, duration and career options (Moogan et al., 1999). It seems the more difficult information is to access, the more likely the institution will be rejected, or worse, disregarded or ignored. The question is raised by a number of studies as to whether international students require different materials to domestic students (Gatfield, Barker & Graham, 1999; Mortimer, 1997). In considering how well international guides meet students needs, four areas have been identified: academic instruction, recognition of qualification, campus life and guidance (Gatfield et al., 1999). At the time of this study, the issue of recognition of the qualification was seldom reflected in any of the guides (Gatfield et al., 1999, p. 78). There was a substantial communication gap between student perceptions of what is important, to what the universities thought should be in their international student guides, however in the intervening years, this is likely to have improved. While the most important factors when selecting a UK institution were academic reputation, content of the course and entry requirements, when heading for the US, course fees and availability of accommodation influenced students (Mortimer, 1997). Academic reputation is more important to students studying at older universities, so it may be that newer institutions need to focus on other areas of influence. In general, there is an urgent need for young people to receive more specific information about the nature of the fields they are considering the kinds of careers they lead to and the career prospects in those fields (Baldwin & James, 2000). In an increasingly diverse market, institutions should talk about the particular approach they take to learning and teaching is it more theoretical or practical in approach and is it geared towards

Journal of Higher Education Policy and Management

437

criticism or training of professionals. Universities current marketing strategies are generally strong on rhetoric and weak on tangible detail (Baldwin & James, 2000, p. 146). There is a danger that students currently would get overwhelmed by information and the suggestion is that a framework of issues should be used by students before they make a choice. Given that prospective students knowledge of academic reputations are largely based on very flimsy hearsay evidence (Baldwin & James, 2000, p. 147), maybe there should be a much stronger market differentiation between institutions. There is confusion in the market related to differences between the many courses. There are substantial structural variations between courses on the same topic, particularly in terms of contact hours, course length, assessment requirements and fees, all of which is hard to explain or understand. While many electives seem to be on offer, in reality they are never all available in the one year which can be confusing for students and verges on being untruthful marketing. If students are really to be rational consumers, then the uneven course information needs to be improved. Much of the marketing material available is decidedly deficient and of very little use in helping students to make informed decisions (Baldwin & James, 2000, p. 160) with students stating that the prospectus rarely met their needs and they often disbelieved what they were told in it. The current shift from brochure-ware towards relationship marketing (Briggs, 2006) should improve this situation. Finally, the few studies which consider the web as a marketing tool for universities clearly recognise its strength in providing a window for the world into the institution. However, universities need to do more relationship building through the website and provide interactive capabilities (Hemsley-Brown & Oplatka, 2006). The internet can be seen as a great equaliser, allowing service organisations to promote their products and services in a more-or-less equal manner. As a marketing tool, the web is unsurpassed offering a relatively inexpensive means of stimulating demand for information (Klassen, 2002, p. 81). But in reality, this technology has not levelled the playing field in the marketing of higher education institutions. On some websites, students can apply for admission online, take a virtual campus tour and see available syllabi and assignments. The studies that exist identify what students want from the websites including information on costs, admissions, available majors, people to contact, and some sense of the physical environment of the university. The studies also provide practical ideas for how a university website might be used to increase enrolment. Websites can be used to gather information on both students and prospective students and help to recruit students from all corners of the globe, but universities are currently failing to use them effectively to meet consumer requests and respond to consumer complaints (Klassen, 2002, p. 82). Relationship building should begin at the home page which should be welcoming and encouraging prospective students to dig further and apply for enrolment. The websites which achieve the best outcomes in this area allow students to complete an online application and check the status of their application online. Information provided on staff, class schedules and curriculum matters were considered at the highest level when they offered online syllabi and assignments as well as listing the faculty and what they taught and providing their contact details. When physical visits to campus are not possible, then web virtual tours can suffice by providing a map with photo images of the campus. It is true that web marketing is more cost effective than either television or radio marketing, but this does not mean it can be done on the cheap, with $10,000 a month being suggested to maintain an active website. Also, while every university has a website, few are committed to making it an essential and effective tool for marketing (Klassen, 2002, p. 84). By now, the website is the most influential source of information for applicants (Briggs, 2006), followed by campus visits. The least influential are advertisements which are only really

438

J. Szekeres

useful for promoting a general public image rather than influencing potential students to select a particular institution or course. Conclusion In the area of image and reputation marketing, it is interesting to note that reputation in the business world is built on almost opposite outcomes to higher education high sales compared to restricted sales making the use of business marketing frameworks questionable for higher education (Hemsley-Brown & Oplatka, 2006). However, the increase in competition for students has resulted in the use of marketing theories and concepts by a number of institutions (Oplatka, 2009). If the business model of marketing is inappropriate, it may need to be replaced with an approach based on not-for-profit organisational marketing. In this case, the academic sector is viewed as a public service rather than a business, and rather than seeing each other as competitors, the approach should be one of trying to match educational resources to student needs (Oplatka, 2009). In support of this argument, if one considers traditional strategic marketing practice which identifies high participation groups and targets them, in higher education we seem to do the opposite attempting to get low participation groups to increase their interaction. Despite these disconnects, there already exist a large number of studies which consider the issues around the marketing of higher education using traditional frameworks. The university market is characterised as having three main segments international, mature age and school leavers, each considering different factors when making choices. Marketing tactics need to take account of these segments. However, there are some clear synergies and similarities between them that can be built upon, in particular the need to meet students requirement for particular courses and the need to explicate future careers and prospects for graduates. We now need to start using what these studies tell us to market ourselves better and provide more of what students really want to help them in their search for the right university and course. I would suggest that the university which takes note of the large number of suggestions evident in this paper as a result of all these studies would go some way to sustaining student numbers in an increasingly competitive market. References
Baldwin, G. & James, R. (2000). The market in Australian higher education and the concept of student as informed consumer. Journal of Higher Education Policy and Management, 22 (2), 139148. Binney, W. & Martin, C. (1997). How do rural students choose their higher education institutions? Two regional Australian cases. Journal of Institutional Research in Australasia, 6(2), 7480. Briggs, S. (2006). An exploratory study of the factors influencing undergraduate student choice: The case of higher education in Scotland. Studies in Higher Education, 31(6), 705722. Cabrera, A. & Nasa, S. (2000). Understanding the college-choice process. New Directions for Institutional Research, 107(Fall), 522. Carter, L. (2006). Why students with an apparent aptitude for computer science dont choose to major in computer science. Special Interest Group on Computer Science Education, 15 March, 2731. Chapman, D.W. (1981). A model of student college choice. The Journal of Higher Education, 52(5), 490505. Cook, R.W., & Zallocco, R. L. (1983). Predicting university preference and attendance: applied marketing in higher education administration. Research in Higher Education, 19(2), 197211. Farr, M. (2003). Extending participation in higher education Implications for marketing, Journal of Targeting, Measurement and Analysis for Marketing, 11(4), 314325. Gatfield, T., Barker, M., & Graham, P. (1999). Measuring communication impact for university advertising materials. Corporate Communications: An International Journal, 4(2), 7379.

Journal of Higher Education Policy and Management

439

Hayden, M. & Carpenter, P. (1990). From school to higher education in Australia. Higher Education, 20(2), 175196. 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), 316338. Hesketh, A. J. & Knight, P. T. (1999). Postgraduates choice of programme: Helping universities to market and postgraduates to choose. Studies in Higher Education, 24(2), 151163. Hossler, D. & Stage, F. K. (1992). Family and high school experience. Influences on the postsecondary educational plans of ninth-grade students. American Educational Research Journal, 29(2), 425451. Hoyt, J. E., & Brown, A. B. (1999). Marketing UVSC: How prospective students view the College. Retrieved August 30, 2009, from, http://www.uvu.edu/iri/pdfs/research/marketinguvscspring2003/ collegechoice5.pdf Klassen, M. L. (2002). Relationship marketing on the Internet: the case of top-and lower-ranked US universities and colleges. Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services, 9(2), 8185. Krause, K., Hartley, R., James, R., & McInnis, C. (2005). The first year experience in Australian universities: Findings from a decade of national studies. Canberra: DEST. James, R., Baldwin, G., & McInnis, C. (1999). Which university? The factors influencing the choices of prospective undergraduate. Canberra: DETYA. Litten, L. H. (1982). Different strokes in the applicant pool: Some refinements in a model of student college choice. The Journal of Higher Education, 53(4), 383402. Martin, C. (1996). Institutional research and student recruitment or how do institutions of higher education know what attracts students to their doors? Journal of Institutional Research in Australasia, 5(2), 4554. Menon, M. E., Saiti, A., Socratous, M. (2007). Rationality, information search and choice in higher education: Evidence from Greece. Higher Education, 54(5), 705721. Moogan, Y., Baron, S., & Harris, K. (1999). Decision-making behaviour of potential higher education students. Higher Education Quarterly, 53(3), 211228. Moogan, Y., Baron, S., & Bainbridge, S. (2001). Timings and trade-offs in the marketing of higher education courses: A conjoint approach. Marketing Intelligence & Planning, 19(3), 179187. Mortimer, K. (1997). Recruiting overseas undergraduate students: Are their information requirements being satisfied? Higher Education Quarterly, 51(3), 225238. OMahony, G. B., McWilliams, A., Whitelaw, P. A. (2001). Why students choose a hospitalitydegree program. Cornell Hotel and Restaurant Administration Quarterly, 42(February), 9296. Oplatka, I. (2009). Marketing the university: The subjective perceptions of Israeli academics of their role in attracting new students to their institution. Journal of Higher Education Policy and Management, 31(3), 207217. Payne, J. (2003). Choice at the end of compulsory schooling: A research review (Research Report RR414). Nottingham,UK: Department for Education and Skills. Rindfleish, J. M. (2003). Segment profiling: Reducing strategic risk in higher education management. Journal of Higher Education Policy and Management, 25(2), 147159. Robertson, I. (2000). Influences on choice of course made by university Year 1 bioscience students A case study. International Journal of Science Education, 22(11), 12011218. Soutar, G. N. & Turner, J. P. (2002). Students preferences for university: A conjoint analysis. The International Journal of Educational Management, 16(1), 4045.

Copyright of Journal of Higher Education Policy & Management is the property of Routledge and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use.