Traditional advertising continues to seek out ways to circumvent consumer fatigue and resistance to its messages.

A common approach, particularly since the 90s, involves leveraging the consumer’s resistance to consumer culture, and then redirecting that resistance into supports of the vendor’s brand. If, in other words, the consumer is cynical, define the brand as a reflection of that cynicism.

Two Examples of Redirecting Consumer Resistance

Dove (personal grooming), for example, has conducted several campaigns that reflect consumer fatigue and resistance to traditional definitions of beauty promoted by the beauty industry, of which Dove is, of course, a key player.

This tactic offers consumers an alternative vision (in this case, of beauty), and exposes the logic behind the mainstream messaging of the vendor’s competitors. The “Real Beauty” campaign deconstructs what’s behind the strategies of its competitors and consequently manages to position Dove in alignment with the consumer.

Like the Dove campaign, a  campaign by Kotex attempts to draw the consumer’s attention to the marketing tactics of its competitors. The premise of the message is that other vendors in this market are speaking down to its audience. (Best line in the ad: “You can relate to me because I’m racially ambiguous.”)

In both the Dove and Kotex campaigns, the advertiser attempts to offer the audience an opportunity to belong to a group of people that are socially sophisticated enough to recognise that other advertisers are untruthful, even manipulative. But like the vast majority of appeals made by multinational corporations that employ this strategy, all consumers can belong to this “exclusive” club.

 

Resistance in Higher Ed Marketing

Although this advertising tactic is widespread, you likely haven’t seen it being used in higher education.

Few organisations in higher education veer far from the safe and predictable in their marketing efforts. Advertising in higher education regularly focusses on the promise of the institution to transform the student; to open up new possibilities for their lives and careers.

I was surprised, then, to come across marketing from Straighterline (SL) that deviated from the norm. Like the examples of Dove and Kotex, described above, SL is critical of the practices of its own industry (i.e. higher education).

Straighterline is a Baltimore-based company that offers online general ed courses at significantly reduced prices. The credits earned from SL courses can then be used at various colleges with whom SL has an alliance, or at school that accepts ACE-evaluated credits. SL is one of the few business models that has successfully addressed the problem of tuition increases in higher ed. This factor alone places SL in a select category.

In 2010, Straighterline released a white paper of sorts that positions SL not only as an alternative to traditional higher education but in opposition to its practices.

“8 Secrets Colleges Don’t Want You to Know”

Yes, American colleges face hard times. But they aren’t talking to reporters or mentioning these problems on their websites. Why? In order to generate income, colleges need students – lots of them – which they won’t attract if they hang out their dirty laundry for prospective students and their parents to see.
Just the opposite … many colleges want to distract would-be students from noticing what’s really happen- ing on their campuses. They have unpleasant secrets they don’t want you to know.

The eight secrets provided are . . .

1. Financial Aid Is Not What It Seems
2. Courses and Professors Listed in the Catalog Might Not Be Available
3. You Could Be Required to Take Courses Elsewhere
4. Students Get Pushed Out of Classrooms and Into Computer Labs
5. Your College Might Want You to Drop Out
6. State and Public Colleges are Losing Their Bargain Status
7. Colleges are Doing Weird Things to Achieve Higher Rankings
8. Colleges Favor Income-Producing Applicants

The SL campaign emerges at a time when criticism in higher education is especially heated. As Peter Sacks notes:

College bashing is very much in vogue. A batch of new and recent books portray the campus culture in dark tones: College is an expensive fraud, pandering to its entitled student customers with soft courses and inflated grades; college is for dummies, it’s bad for your brain, and it’s even worse for your pocketbook, your children’s, and the financial well- being of generations to come.

There’s much to admire about the Straighterline campaign. It’s certainly more honest than most. And to the extent that it might help create a more informed customer, it’s useful. Lack of understanding about the costs and value of higher education is a theme that runs through many of the current debates in higher education (c.f. For-profit higher ed and gainful employment).

Tactically, though, this campaign is more difficult to understand; here’s why. In one respect, Straighterline is positioned as an alternative to higher education, in so far as students can take the SL courses independently of an accredited institution. Here, adopting a contrary stance in relation to higher education makes good marketing sense.

But the SL business model is also dependent on institutions within higher education to serve as its partners. In many cases, the students will take their credits obtained through SL to the partnering institutions and apply them towards an academic program. The value that SL offers in these instances is highly dependent on a securing a wide range of partnering institutions. Could SL – by adopting this stance in relation to higher education – act to discourage traditional colleges from partnering with the company, and thus reducing its value proposition? I don’t know. But it certainly can’t help.

Further Reading

If you’re interested in the ways in which alternatives to higher education position themselves in relation to the traditional higher education sector, you may wish to check out these two sites:

PersonalMBA. “You wasted $150,000 on an education you coulda got for a buck fifty in late charges at the public library.” This online collective of learners uses widely available readings and peer-to-peer learning to mimic an educational experience that typically costs tens of thousands of dollars, and two years of lost wages. The significance of the PMBA is, first, that it targets a well-known and often profitable university franchise. Second, the tone and language used in the PMBA community often reflects a willful rejection of traditional ideas about what constitutes legitimate learning.

UofPeople. “Join the Education Revolution.” This is the online initiative started by Shai Reshef. U of People offers learners not merely a chance to learn, but to be part of a “revolution” that challenges the ways that higher education traditionally operates.

2 Comments

  1. I think a very valid point is raised here–the necessity to partner with more “established” institutions of higher education. For example, an online-MBA at Duke Fuqua and the University of Phoenix are going to be viewed very differently. Not to say there is not value in an MBA from the University of Phoenix–there certainly is. However, it reaffirms the idea that perception/reputation are very important in higher education.

    A start-up that I think is pretty neat is 2tor Inc. (www.2tor.com), because they seek to provide and facilitate this “legitimacy” that alternative options for higher education seek.

    But again there is the caveat that you bring up: how does it benefit the partnering institution? Aside from revenues, not much, but it could hurt the “brand” of the school.

    Nonetheless, the trend is going towards making alternative higher education more mainstream* and is something that would be interested to be part of (particularly for a recent grad interested in higher ed).

    *This also had to do with perhaps a shift in the goal of higher ed–classical education or pre-professional. I think that the future leaders of politics/business will always have a strong liberal arts background. For other folks, more practical degrees make sense.

    Like

  2. Thanks for this, Will. Yes, 2Tor is an interesting model. They may, indeed, be the beneficiaries of the growing legitimacy of alternative forms of higher ed – although I believe Embanet has done quite well among selective schools, as well.

    Like

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s