Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
This article was downloaded by: [University of Chicago Library]On: 11 October 2014, At: 07:21Publisher: RoutledgeInforma Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registered office: Mortimer House,37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK
Journal of Marketing for Higher EducationPublication details, including instructions for authors and subscription information:http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/wmhe20
Institutional Advertising in Higher EducationBart Kittle PhD aa Department of Marketing , Williamson College of Business Administration, YoungstownState UniversityPublished online: 22 Oct 2008.
To cite this article: Bart Kittle PhD (2000) Institutional Advertising in Higher Education, Journal of Marketing for HigherEducation, 9:4, 37-52, DOI: 10.1300/J050v09n04_03
To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1300/J050v09n04_03
PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE
Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information (the “Content”) containedin the publications on our platform. However, Taylor & Francis, our agents, and our licensors make norepresentations or warranties whatsoever as to the accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose of theContent. Any opinions and views expressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors, andare not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of the Content should not be relied upon andshould be independently verified with primary sources of information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable forany losses, actions, claims, proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilities whatsoeveror howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with, in relation to or arising out of the use ofthe Content.
This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Any substantial or systematicreproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing, systematic supply, or distribution in anyform to anyone is expressly forbidden. Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions
Institutional Advertisingin Higher Education
Bart Kittle
ABSTRACT. Based on an apparent lack of published research, anexploratory study was conducted to discover and describe current ad-vertising practices in higher education. Results from fifty-nine collegesand universities who advertise in local, regional, and national media arereported regarding media usage, importance of communication objec-tives for institutional messages, and the importance of audiences tar-geted for advertising. All major media were used by most institutionssampled. Few colleges and universities reported using just one advertis-ing medium. Traditional target audiences were noted. Communicationobjectives mentioned most often were general image enhancement andawareness of the institution. [Article copies available for a fee from TheHaworth Document Delivery Service: 1-800-342-9678. E-mail address:<[email protected]> Website: <http://www.HaworthPress.com>]
KEYWORDS. Colleges and universities, advertising, image advertis-ing, advertising media
INTRODUCTION
Many American colleges and universities are responding to declinesin enrollments and cuts in funding by launching comprehensive andaggressive marketing programs (Jugenheimer 1995, Morrow-Andersonand McBrearty 1995, Parameswaran and Glowacka 1995, and Taylorand Reed 1995). Advertising is frequently a major component of aninstitution’s integrated marketing plan (Goldgehn 1991 and Parame-swaran and Glowacka 1995). One large midwestern university citedbudget cuts, competition for private funding, calls for accountability,and media scrutiny as challenges that underlie a three-month, multime-
Bart Kittle, PhD, is affiliated with the Department of Marketing, WilliamsonCollege of Business Administration, Youngstown State University.
Journal of Marketing for Higher Education, Vol. 9(4) 2000E 2000 by The Haworth Press, Inc. All rights reserved. 37
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Uni
vers
ity o
f C
hica
go L
ibra
ry]
at 0
7:21
11
Oct
ober
201
4
JOURNAL OF MARKETING FOR HIGHER EDUCATION38
dia advertising campaign aimed at elevating its profile (MarketingNews 1997). Shrinking budgets combined with increasing overheadcosts mandate careful message and media choices with an eye to maxi-mizing advertising effectiveness. Questions about whether or not to useinstitutional advertising for overall recruitment image management re-quire resolution based on sharp insight. Given that institutional adver-tising will be used, which media are best? What communication objec-tives should be attained? Which audiences should be targeted? Thesequestions and others must be answered in order to effectively plan andexecute an institution’s integrated marketing communications plan. Toassist academic administrators in planning their advertising efforts, thisstudy investigates the institutional advertising practices of a small butsignificant sample of American colleges and universities.
PURPOSE AND OBJECTIVES
This research sought to discover and describe recent practices in thearea of college and university institutional advertising. An extensiveliterature search produced no detailed research studies on the subject.Several articles focused on general marketing and promotion practicesin higher education: Cerny (1992), Hanson and Henry (1993), John-son and Sallee (1994), Neustadt (1994), and Williford (1987). Gold-gehn (1991), Jugenheimer (1995), and Noble (1986) concentrated ongeneral advertising in higher education. Taylor and Reed (1995) ex-plored situational marketing in higher education but without specifi-cally investigating advertising. The Council for the Advancement andSupport of Education (CASE) which is the premier publisher anddisseminator of information on college and university public relationsissues and programs had no published materials on institutional adver-tising practices in higher education. Searches of the business andeducation literature revealed no published studies on the narrow topicof advertising practices in higher education. Therefore, the resultspresented here reflect an initial inquiry into the subject.
Specific objectives were to detail the practices of a select group ofcolleges and universities regarding their use of institutional messages,media usage, communication objectives, and importance of target au-diences. The major issues addressed are the frequency of media usedto convey messages, the nature of message content, and objectives asreflected by the relative importance of various constituencies reached.The conceptual scheme of the study was straightforward: describe
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Uni
vers
ity o
f C
hica
go L
ibra
ry]
at 0
7:21
11
Oct
ober
201
4
Bart Kittle 39
recent advertising practices and aggregate data for the response group.The results presented here should provide direction for evaluatinguniversity institutional advertising programs. Research hypotheseswere not formulated because of the exploratory nature of the inquiry.
METHODOLOGY
Sample
Colleges and universities who compete in intercollegiate sportswere specifically selected because they frequently place institutionalmessages in commercial advertising media and were expected to haveorganizational units administering their advertising programs. Schoolsrepresenting all geographic regions, nine NCAA Division I-A footballathletic conferences, and major independents were the subjects of thisinvestigation. It was hypothesized that schools using regional andnational television advertising on year-to-year basis would have estab-lished organizational units to administer advertising programs andpolicies. Institutions who compete in televised athletic events have theopportunity to promote their school at a reduced cost. For example,television agreements with colleges and universities for athletic eventcoverage typically include a provision for free air time for the institu-tion’s advertising message as part of an overall compensation contract.
Questionnaire
A six-page questionnaire was designed to query the subject institu-tion’s administrators. Many questions included definitions of poten-tially unfamiliar terms as a way to eliminate or reduce confusion.Goldgehn (1991), Jugenheimer (1995), and Noble (1986) reportedthat confusion regarding marketing and advertising terms existsamong higher education administrators. Jugenheimer (1995) attributesmarketing term confusion to the nonbusiness backgrounds of signifi-cant numbers of college and university administrators. This contentionwas partially supported here as discussed in the Confusion RegardingInstitutional Advertising Terms section.
Major sections of the questionnaire with results reported here weregeneral media used, specific media used, communication objectives foradvertising messages, target audiences, and classification information.
Response categories were short sets of choices but always included
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Uni
vers
ity o
f C
hica
go L
ibra
ry]
at 0
7:21
11
Oct
ober
201
4
JOURNAL OF MARKETING FOR HIGHER EDUCATION40
an ‘‘other’’ category in order to capture all relevant data not providedin the pretested response sets. Likert-type scales were used to investi-gate importance items. Coding procedures consisted of assigning nu-merical values representing categorical responses and recording five-point, Likert-type scale values. No other types of data were collected.The questionnaire was pretested on university faculty and administra-tors knowledgeable about advertising in higher education. Minor textediting resulted from the pretest.
Sample Selection
Questionnaires were mailed to 102 American colleges and universi-ties. Cover letters describing the study were personally addressed toindividuals heading various college and university relations, commu-nications, or advancement organizational units. The Council for theAdvancement and Support of Education (CASE) directory was usedas the source for names and mailing addresses. Follow-up letters ask-ing for responses were mailed approximately one month after theinitial mailing. Follow-up telephone calls were placed approximatelytwo months after the initial mailing.
RESULTS
Response Rate
A summary of the response rates is shown in Table 1. Seventyquestionnaires were returned representing a 68.6% response rate. Col-leges and universities who reported using some type of institutionaladvertising numbered 59 or 84.3 percent of those completing ques-tionnaires. Goldgehn (1991) found that 76.9 percent of a sample of791 higher education registrars and admissions officers reported useof advertising. The higher figure for advertising usage in the presentstudy was expected because of sampling differences. The institutionssampled here have opportunities to advertise during athletic eventtelecasts. As a result, they may take advantage of placements in suchtelecasts that are not available to other institutions. A detailed responserate summary is presented in Table 2 and discussed in the Use ofInstitutional Advertising section.
Confusion Regarding Institutional Advertising Terms
College and university administrators were first asked if during thepast three academic years their institution had placed any institutional
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Uni
vers
ity o
f C
hica
go L
ibra
ry]
at 0
7:21
11
Oct
ober
201
4
Bart Kittle 41
TABLE 1. Response Summary
Response Categories N Percent
Questionnaires Mailed 102 100.0%
Questionnaires Returned 70 68.6%
Schools Reporting Use of Institutional Advertising 59 84.3%
advertising messages in either institutional or commercial media. ‘‘In-stitutional messages’’ were defined as ‘‘communications whose pur-pose is to establish, alter, or maintain the identity of the university’’(Topor 1986). Also, ‘‘institutional messages’’ were further equatedwith ‘‘institutional advertising messages’’ because they appear intraditional advertising media. These definitions were given to clearlyexplain the terms used; yet there was some misunderstanding becauseat least one university reported no institutional activity even thoughtelevision advertisements were observed and recorded on videotape bythe author.
Although detailed definitions were supplied in the research instru-ment and cover letter, there was confusion about just which activitiesconstitute institutional advertising. As a result, there were errors ofomission and categorization in the data. For instance, a few institutionsreported placing advertisements in commercial advertising vehicles butdid not consider this practice as advertising because there was no directfee charged for placement. The research instrument clearly drew adistinction between institutional and commercial media and explicitlyinformed respondents about the traditional practice of ‘‘free air time’’for institutional messages during athletic event telecasts.
Use of Institutional Advertising
Table 2 is a frequency distribution of the sample by football athleticconference. The sample represents a diverse group of institutionsvarying greatly in size, location, and academic standing. The Indepen-dent category in Table 2 consists of schools who are not members ofNCAA Division I-A athletic conferences but compete against memberinstitutions in football. The conference members and independents allparticipate in televised football games. Note that the Big Twelve Con-ference here was formed in the fall of 1995 and comprises prior BigEight Conference members plus four prior members of the SouthwestConference which ceased operation in 1995. One former member of
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Uni
vers
ity o
f C
hica
go L
ibra
ry]
at 0
7:21
11
Oct
ober
201
4
JOURNAL OF MARKETING FOR HIGHER EDUCATION42
TABLE 2. Response Rate Summary by Football Athletic Conference
Football Question- Question- Percent Who Percent Number Percent Percent ofAthletic naires naires Responded of Total Who Who Sample Who
Conference Mailed Returned Sample Advertise Advertise Advertise
Atlantic Coast 9 5 55.6% 7.1% 4 80.0% 6.8%
Big East 8 4 50.0% 5.7% 3 75.0% 5.1%Big Ten 11 8 72.7% 11.4% 8 100.0% 13.6%
Big Twelve 12 11 91.7% 15.7% 11 100.0% 18.6%
Independent 11 11 100.0% 15.7% 8 72.7% 13.6%Ivy 8 2 25.0% 2.9% 0 0.0% 0.0%
Mid-American 9 5 55.6% 7.1% 5 100.0% 8.5%Pacific Ten 10 8 80.0% 11.4% 6 75.0% 10.2%
Southeastern 12 8 58.3% 11.4% 6 75.0% 10.2%Western 12 8 66.7% 11.4% 8 100.0% 13.6%
Totals 102 70 68.6% 99.8% 59 84.3% 100.2%
the Southwest Conference not moving to the Big Twelve Conferenceis classified as Independent while the remaining three moved to theWestern Athletic Conference. The Western Athletic Conference ex-panded in the fall of 1996 to sixteen members. Four universities nowin the Western Athletic Conference were not surveyed. Therefore,questionnaires mailed show twelve rather than sixteen.
The data reported in Table 2 reveal that 84.3 percent of colleges anduniversities whose football teams appear on television accurately re-port institutional advertising activities. The traditional practice ofcommercial television networks is to provide up to one minute of airtime to each institution during football telecasts as part of an overallcompensation plan. The ‘‘free’’ air time is typically used to promotethe college or university via an institutional advertising message. Theauthor has observed, however, that not all football telecasts containinstitutional advertising messages from both schools.
The range of response rates by conference fell between 25.0 percentfor the Ivy League and 100.0 percent for the independents. Overall,68.6 percent of the sample returned questionnaires. A wider range ofinstitutions who advertise is noted. Neither of the two Ivy Leagueinstitutions who returned questionnaires reported using advertising.This is contrasted with the responding schools in the Big Ten, BigTwelve, Mid-American, and Western athletic conferences who all re-ported using advertising. In total, 84.3 percent of all the colleges anduniversities who returned questionnaires reported using institutionaladvertising within the past three academic years.
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Uni
vers
ity o
f C
hica
go L
ibra
ry]
at 0
7:21
11
Oct
ober
201
4
Bart Kittle 43
Institutional Media Usage
The frequency distribution for reported institutional media usage isgiven in Table 3. ‘‘Institutional media’’ were defined as ‘‘media whichthe college or university controls.’’ Percentages in Table 3 are basedon the total sample group of fifty-nine schools who indicated that theyused advertising. Results are not totaled because of multiple responsesacross media categories.
In-house print media are the most popular vehicles for institutionalmessages in college or university media. Athletic event programs at81.4 percent, alumni organization magazines at 71.2 percent, andmailings to college or university donors at 64.4 percent lead the cate-gory. College or university television at 11.9 percent may have beenunder-reported because some institutions may not consider air time onlocal commercial cable systems as college or university controlled.Local market commercial cable television firms may provide coverageof college or university programming but are not ‘‘controlled’’ by theinstitution.
Ten schools (16.9 percent) reported using ‘‘other’’ institutional me-dia. The following media were noted in the ‘‘other’’ category: collegeor university magazines, parent newsletters, parent direct mail, athleticscoreboards, and admissions publications such as view books andbrochures. Overall, there is a broad array of institutional media used incollege or university promotion.
Again, there may have been some confusion in terms related toadvertising. Some administrators may have not considered direct mail-ings to donors as ‘‘advertising.’’ Similarly, some respondents mayhave considered feature stories in alumni magazines as ‘‘advertising.’’
TABLE 3. Institutional Media Usage for Institutional Messages
Institutional Media N Percent
Athletic Event Programs 48 81.4%
Alumni Organization Magazines 42 71.2%Mailings to Institution Donors 38 64.4%
College or University Newspaper 31 52.5%Alumni Organization Newsletters 28 47.5%
College or University Radio Station 18 30.5%
Intra-Institution Newsletters 14 23.7%Other 10 16.9%
College or University Television Station 7 11.9%
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Uni
vers
ity o
f C
hica
go L
ibra
ry]
at 0
7:21
11
Oct
ober
201
4
JOURNAL OF MARKETING FOR HIGHER EDUCATION44
Technically, feature stories would not be classified as advertising butas public relations vehicles.
Commercial Media Usage
As indicated in Table 4, the commercial media used by respondingcolleges and universities favors electronic media except for newspa-pers. As in Table 3, the percentages in Table 4 are based on the totalnumber of responding institutions.
Television is the most frequently used commercial advertisingmedium at 74.6 percent with newspapers at 67.8 percent, and radioat 66.1 percent. However, there is broad media usage observed inthe data. Just 6.8 percent of the responses indicated using ‘‘other’’commercial media. Those media included tourism brochures, the-aters, airport displays, sports arena displays, and special event pro-grams. Here, as with ‘‘other’’ category responses throughout thestudy, four responses means that four institutions noted one or more‘‘other’’ media. In Table 4, one school noted more than one ‘‘oth-er’’ medium.
There is most probably less confusion in what constitutes commer-cial media advertising than with institutional media advertising. Sup-port for this contention stems from the administrative procedures in-volved with placing commercial media advertisements and theabsence of college or university-controlled editorial material in com-mercial media. However, the direct mail medium may lend itself toinaccurate responses. If an institution produced and disseminatedmailings using an internal database, this would be classified as institu-tional media advertising because no outside intermediary was used. Ifa leased or purchased mailing list were used, then a more accurateclassification would be commercial media. Direct mail is considered
TABLE 4. Commercial Media Usage for Institutional Messages
Commercial Media N Percent
Television 44 74.6%
Newspaper 40 67.8%Radio 39 66.1%
Magazine 28 47.5%Direct Mail 15 25.4%
Outdoor 11 18.6%
Transit 8 13.6%Other 4 6.8%
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Uni
vers
ity o
f C
hica
go L
ibra
ry]
at 0
7:21
11
Oct
ober
201
4
Bart Kittle 45
an advertising medium because the Postal Service is used for deliveryand names may be supplied by independent mailing list providers.
As anticipated from casual observation, all major commercial me-dia are used in carrying institutional messages in higher education. Aswith institutional media, colleges and universities are constrained bythe commercial media available. For some schools, television place-ments are used. Other universities may have to rely on local newspa-pers to reach targeted audiences because television is too costly orunavailable. In large markets, mainstream magazines may be avail-able. Transit media of suitable quality for a particular institution maynot be available in many smaller markets.
Multiple Media Usage
A summary of the number of institutional and commercial mediaused by respondents is presented in Table 5. A wide distribution isnoted in each category. On average, responding schools reported usingapproximately four different institutional media and three differentcommercial media. However, a few schools employ twice as manydifferent media of both types. A vast majority of respondents indicatedusing more than one medium to carry their institution’s messages: 84.7percent for institutional media and 88.1 percent for commercial media.It is somewhat surprising that three (5.1 percent) schools report usingno institutional media and six (10.2 percent) note using just one insti-tutional advertising medium. Again, there may have been some confu-sion concerning definitions here. If there are errors in reporting mediausage, they are most likely errors of omission. Respondents may havemisunderstood the question or not recalled using various ‘‘free’’ place-ments.
Commercial Television Program Types
The types of commercial television programs carrying respondents’institutional messages during the past three academic years are shownin Table 6. National network, regional or state network, and localstation television media vehicles were listed in the questionnaire. Na-tional networks were defined as having many affiliates throughout thecountry. Regional or state networks were defined as having a muchmore limited coverage area than national networks and would com-prise several athletic conference affiliates. Local stations were definedas single stations.
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Uni
vers
ity o
f C
hica
go L
ibra
ry]
at 0
7:21
11
Oct
ober
201
4
JOURNAL OF MARKETING FOR HIGHER EDUCATION46
TABLE 5. Institutional and Commercial Multiple Media Usage for InstitutionalMessages
Number of Institutional Media Commercial MediaMedia Used
N Percent N Percent
None 3 5.1% 0 0.0%
One 6 10.2% 7 11.9%Two 4 6.8% 13 22.0%
Three 9 15.3% 14 23.7%
Four 12 20.3% 10 16.9%Five 12 20.3% 9 15.3%
Six 5 8.5% 4 6.8%Seven 6 10.2% 1 1.7%
Eight 1 1.7% 0 0.0%Nine 1 1.7% 0 0.0%
Totals 59 100.1% 59 98.3%
Means 4.034 3.237
TABLE 6. Commercial Television Program Types That Carried Recent Collegeor University Institutional Messages
Commercial Television Program Types National Regional LocalNetwork or State Station
Network
Regular season football game 67.8% 67.8% 39.0%
Regular season basketball game 42.4% 59.3% 35.6%Post season football game 44.1% 20.3% 13.6%
Post season basketball game 27.1% 25.4% 13.6%
Football coach’s program 6.8% 39.0% 28.8%Basketball coach’s program 5.1% 22.0% 16.9%
Non-football/basketball coach’s program 5.1% 11.9% 8.5%Non-athletic program 5.1% 11.9% 20.3%
For all three categories of vehicles, regular season football gamemessage placement leads at 67.8 percent each for national and region-al, and 39.0 percent for local. Regular season basketball game place-ments are also very popular with 42.4 percent national coverage, 59.3percent regional, and 35.6 percent local. There are obvious year-to-year differences found in national message placement opportunities inathletic contests. National coverage is highly dependent on the audi-ence attraction potential of the current year’s team in various sports.Such potential is derived from the success of the team prior to schedul-ing deadlines. In football, game-of-the-week coverage decisions maybe made just a few days prior to the event. When this occurs, an
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Uni
vers
ity o
f C
hica
go L
ibra
ry]
at 0
7:21
11
Oct
ober
201
4
Bart Kittle 47
attractive institutional message placement opportunity is created.Therefore, national message placement in athletic contests may behighly variable from season to season.
Post season message placement results in shown in Table 6 would bevariable in a similar manner because team success dictates whether ornot an opportunity will occur. As expected, fewer respondents indicatepost season message placement. In football, 44.1 percent post seasonnational placement with 20.3 percent for regional, and 13.6 percent forlocal. Post season basketball indicates a similar pattern: 27.1 percentnational, 25.4 percent regional, and also 13.6 percent local.
As with other issues addressed in this study, there is probably un-der-reporting of program types here. For example, many athleticcoaches’ programs feature institutional messages on a regular basis.Some of these institutional messages are in the form of campus spot-light stories, altruistic activity reports, or straight institutional advertis-ing messages which also appear in other media vehicles. In Table 6,however, less than half of the responding colleges and universitiesreport using football, basketball, other coach’s programs for carryinginstitutional messages on the national, regional/state, or local levels.The non-football/basketball coach’s programs included baseball, la-crosse, volleyball, and wrestling.
Although not as frequently used as athletics-related television ve-hicles, non-athletic programs were carriers of institutional messages.National non-athletic programs were reported by 5.1 percent of re-spondents with 11.9 percent regional and 20.3 percent local. The localcommercial television programs would imply that institutions pur-chased time on a market-by-market basis. One could not conclude,however, that local programs only are carried in the campus communi-ty. Local programming includes any single station in a given market.For example, a college or university could purchase commercial timeon several local stations in order to reach several large recruitingmarkets.
Importance of Communication Objectives
Measured on five-point Likert-type scales, respondents were askedto evaluate the importance of their school’s institutional messages. Asshown in Table 7, results are reported as means. The higher the value,the more important the communication objective. Five was defined as‘‘very important,’’ four as ‘‘somewhat important,’’ three as ‘‘neither
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Uni
vers
ity o
f C
hica
go L
ibra
ry]
at 0
7:21
11
Oct
ober
201
4
JOURNAL OF MARKETING FOR HIGHER EDUCATION48
important nor unimportant,’’ two as ‘‘somewhat unimportant,’’ andone as ‘‘very unimportant.’’ The ranks were determined by paired,two-tail t-test analysis. Pairs of communication objectives were evalu-ated in descending order determined by mean values. Only the last twovalues indicated a statistically non-significant difference. T-test resultswere arbitrarily evaluated at the .90 level of significance.
The more general communication objectives of creating favorableimpressions (4.8644) and increasing general awareness (4.4746) areranked first and second, respectively. Third in importance was increas-ing program donations (3.9661). Next in importance were informa-tional objectives regarding programs or activities (3.7966). Tied forthe fifth rank were informing audiences about achievements andawards (3.6271) and changing unfavorable perceptions of the univer-sity (3.6102).
The reported communication objectives’ importances representgeneral objectives aimed at multiple constituencies. However, all ofthe objectives listed may not apply to all colleges and universities.Some institutions may have no significant unfavorable perceptionsupon which to base specific institutional messages. Also, a school maynot have had recent, noteworthy achievements or awards to use ininstitutional messages. Unexpected, however, was the absence of anyresponses in the ‘‘other’’ category. No respondent noted additionalcommunication objectives. All issues researched in the questionnaireexcept importance of communication objectives contained ‘‘other’’category responses.
Importance of Audiences
Respondents were asked to evaluate the importance of various audi-ences for their school’s institutional messages. Data were gathered
TABLE 7. Importance of Communication Objectives of Institutional Messages
Institutional Message Communication Objectives Means Rank
Create favorable impressions of institution 4.8644 1
Increase general awareness of institution 4.4746 2Increase donations to institution’s programs 3.9661 3
Inform audiences about institution’s programs or activities 3.7966 4Inform audiences about institution’s achievements or awards 3.6271 5-Tie
Change unfavorable perceptions of institution 3.6102 5-Tie
Five-point, Likert-type scale. 5 = Very Important.T-test results: 5th p = .923
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Uni
vers
ity o
f C
hica
go L
ibra
ry]
at 0
7:21
11
Oct
ober
201
4
Bart Kittle 49
using a Likert-type, five-point scale. The scale was defined with thesame definitions as noted in Table 7. As shown in Table 8, twenty-onepossible audiences were described. The audiences were derived frominterviews with several university administrators and general publicrelations literature focusing on organizational publics (Wilcox, Ault,and Agee 1998), and Kotler and Fox (1985). Taylor and Reed (1995)confirmed that the audience descriptions were typical of most collegesand universities by listing sixteen publics with identical or similarnames. A refinement in the present study was to include subgroups foralumni, corporations, parents, and media representatives. An ‘‘other’’category was provided in the questionnaire in order to detect audi-ences not correctly defined or omitted in the categories supplied.However, just two responses from one questionnaire in the ‘‘other’’category were noted: higher education organizations and peer institu-tions. Also, three institutions did not respond to this question.
The means and associated ranks of the importance of audiences forinstitutional messages are indicated in Table 8. The ranks were deter-
TABLE 8. Importance of Audiences for Institutional Messages
Audiences for Institutional Messages Means Rank
Potential students in high schools 4.6140 1
Parents of potential students 4.5614 2School alumni who are alumni association members 4.4737 3
State and community political leaders 4.4386 4-TieParents of current students 4.4286 4-Tie
School alumni who are not alumni association members 4.3571 6
Potential transfer students in other colleges or universities 4.2807 7-TieIndividuals viewed as potential donors 4.2632 7-Tie
Corporations viewed as potential donors 4.1053 9General public (people not included in other categories) 4.0702 10
Non-school, local community citizens 4.0175 11
Current college or university students 3.9825 12Foundations viewed as potential donors 3.9474 13-Tie
College or university faculty 3.9298 13-TieNews media representatives 3.8596 15
College or university staff 3.7719 16College or university governing board 3.7368 17-Tie
Corporations viewed as potential employers 3.7368 17-Tie
College or university advisory boards 3.6429 19Sports media representatives 3.3929 20
College or university administrators 3.3509 21
Five-point, Likert-type scale. 5 = Very Important.T-test results: 4th: p = .908; 7th: p = .913; 13th: p = .920; 17th: p= 1.000
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Uni
vers
ity o
f C
hica
go L
ibra
ry]
at 0
7:21
11
Oct
ober
201
4
JOURNAL OF MARKETING FOR HIGHER EDUCATION50
mined by paired, two-tail t-test analysis. Pairs of audiences were eval-uated in descending order determined by mean values. Ties are re-ported based on an arbitrary .90 significance level. P-values arereported at the bottom of the table for ties.
The most important audiences for responding institutions’ mes-sages were potential students in high schools (4.6140), parents ofpotential students (4.5614), and alumni who are alumni associationmembers (4.4737), respectively. State and community political leaders(4.4386) and parents of current students (4.4286) tied for fourth inimportance. For publicly assisted universities, the relatively high rank-ing for politicians is not surprising because creating favorable impres-sions are considered important in maintaining ongoing relationshipswith funding decision makers.
A curious finding here is that the general public (4.0702) is rankedhigher than several other seemingly important audiences such as cur-rent students (3.9825), college or university governing board members(3.7368), and corporations viewed as potential employers of graduates(3.7368).
The range of responses from 4.6140 for potential students in highschools to 3.3509 for college or university administrators is signifi-cant. An importance value of 5 was noted as ‘‘very important’’ and avalue of 3 as ‘‘neither important nor unimportant.’’ Therefore, thelower rankings could be considered marginally important audiencesfor institutional messages. However, there were several respondentswho marked all the audiences listed with either a four or five. Thispattern could be interpreted to mean that everyone was importantregardless of their constituent group.
DISCUSSION
This study has contributed to understanding how colleges and uni-versities promote their institutions using advertising. There were,however, several significant limitations of the study which should benoted.
First, only a small number of American colleges and universitieswere sampled. Institutions who do not have continuing advertisingopportunities in commercial media associated with their athletic teamsmay have strikingly different response patterns than these data indi-cate. A larger and more diverse sample would provide additional
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Uni
vers
ity o
f C
hica
go L
ibra
ry]
at 0
7:21
11
Oct
ober
201
4
Bart Kittle 51
insight into institutional advertising in higher education and yieldmore generally useful results. By reporting the advertising practices ofother institutions, however, the issues investigated here do have rele-vance for any college or university that chooses to advertise.
Another limitation of the study is the problem of confusion inunderstanding advertising terminology. Even with the precaution ofproviding explicit definitions of advertising terms, respondents misre-ported advertising practices. More work is needed in this vital commu-nication area to assure more accurate results. One possible solutionwould be to include a primer on the subject of term confusion in thecover letter or first page of the questionnaire. This method along witha more rigorous pretest could reduce and possibly eliminate confusion.
An issue not addressed in this inquiry is the existence and availabil-ity of institutional and commercial media. Inclusion could have addedvaluable information regarding the use and mix of institutional andcommercial media. For instance, there may be colleges and universi-ties who would use their own television station to carry institutionalmessages if it were available. The same would hold for other institu-tional media including radio and various print media. Similarly, someschools may be constrained by the availability of local or regionalcommercial media.
SUMMARY AND FUTURE RESEARCH
The present exploratory study examined advertising media, impor-tance of communication objectives for institutional messages, andimportance of audiences targeted in higher education. A geographical-ly diverse sample of fifty-nine schools who advertise and participate inNCAA Division I-A football and other sports report that there issignificant message placement in institutional and commercial media.For institutional media, athletic event programs, alumni organizationmagazines, and mailing to donors are the three most popular. Televi-sion, newspapers, and radio were the top three ranks in usage forcommercial media. Multiple media usage was also reported.
Future research issues could include more detailed reports of mediausage, placement statistics, subcategories of media used, impressionsgenerated, and other promotional and public relations activities. Of partic-ular interest in future projects would be the use of World Wide Webpromotion. Sampling remains a key issue because a broader group of
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Uni
vers
ity o
f C
hica
go L
ibra
ry]
at 0
7:21
11
Oct
ober
201
4
JOURNAL OF MARKETING FOR HIGHER EDUCATION52
respondents would enhance the value of reported results. An additionalsubstantive issue is content and creativity in college and university adver-tising. The present study dealt only with media, communication objec-tives, and target audiences. Research on advertising creative strategiesand executional approaches to achieve communication objectives amongtargeted constituencies would complement the findings reported here.
REFERENCESCerny, Ed (1992), ‘‘Marketing Techniques Employed by Private Liberal Arts Col-
leges,’’ College and University, 67 (Spring), 215-21.Goldgehn, Leslie A. (1991), ‘‘Are U.S. Colleges and Universities Applying Market-
ing Techniques Properly and Within the Context of an Overall Marketing Plan?’’Journal of Marketing for Higher Education, 3 (2), 39-62.
Hanson, E. Mark and Walter Henry (1993), ‘‘Strategic Marketing for EducationalSystems: A Guide for Implementation,’’ NASSP Bulletin, 77 (November), 79-88.
Johnson, Jody and David Sallee (1994), ‘‘Marketing Your College as an IntangibleProduct,’’ Journal of College Admission, Summer, 16-20.
Jugenheimer, Donald W. (1995), ‘‘Advertising the University: A Professional Ap-proach to Promoting the College or University,’’ Journal of Marketing for HigherEducation 6 (1), 1-22.
Kotler, Philip and Karen F. A. Fox (1985), Strategic Marketing for EducationalInstitutions, Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall, Inc.
Neustadt, Mark S. (1994), ‘‘Is Marketing Good for Higher Education?’’ Journal ofCollege Admission, Winter, 17-22.
Noble, Michael (1986), ‘‘Marketing Programs at Colleges and Universities: A Prog-ress Report,’’ College and University, 61 (Summer), 318-26.
Marketing News (1997), ‘‘University Launches Image Campaign,’’ 31 (5), 36.Morrow-Anderson, Kathleen and Bruce McBrearty (1995), ‘‘Can Service Bureaus
Be a Part of the College Admissions Strategy?’’ Journal of Marketing for HigherEducation, 6 (1), 37-46.
Parameswaran, Ravi and Aleksandra E. Glowacka (1995), ‘‘University Image: AnInformation Processing Perspective,’’ Journal of Marketing for Higher Educa-tion, 6 (2), 41-56.
Taylor, Raymond E. and Rosetta R. Reed (1995), Situational Marketing: Applicationfor Higher Education Institutions, 6 (1), 23-36.
Topor, Robert S. (1986), Institutional Image: How to Define, Improve, Market It,Washington, DC: Council for the Advancement and Support of Education.
Wilcox, Dennis L, Phillip H. Ault, and Warren K. Agee (1998), Public RelationsStrategies and Tactics, Fourth Edition, New York, NY: Longman.
Williford, A. Michael (1987), ‘‘A Critical Analysis of Marketing Higher Education,’’College and University, 63 (Fall), 49-56.
Received: 05/20/97Revised: 07/28/99
Accepted: 08/12/99
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Uni
vers
ity o
f C
hica
go L
ibra
ry]
at 0
7:21
11
Oct
ober
201
4
