One of the things I find most shocking and disturbing about higher ed marketing is the lack of effective budget planning. Leadership demands for marketing outcomes are high, but campus marketers are often left to develop high-stakes plans without a clear understanding of how much funding they have to work with. Let me ask you: If the IT department had to function without a budget, how would decisions regarding equipment purchases or service contracts be made? If the Advancement office had no budget, how could they plan events for alumni and donors? The marketing function is continually undermined by the absence of strategic investment.
Many of the chief marketers I work with have muddy budgets, at best. It’s not clear from year to year how much money they will have to spend. Marketing initiatives are often paid for out of a special fund approved by the Board or President. Marketing activities that should be regular and ongoing are thought of as one-time investments and committed for a year but no longer. Marketing the institution and shaping its brand is a long-term proposition. Short-term and/or unpredictable funding cripples the marketing department’s ability to fulfill its purpose.
Most higher education marketers have responsibility for only a small fraction of institutional marketing. If there are 20 members of the professional staff in the central marketing department, there are 50 other “marketers” in various divisions around campus, often including student affairs, alumni relations, athletics, admissions, academic departments, colleges, and schools, and even IT and HR. Marketing investments are made across the institution independent of the professional staff and marketing leadership that is supposed to have the authority and responsibility for marketing. How does one operate effectively with only partial control of the function for which they are supposedly responsible?
It is very common for the expectations of the marketing function to be completely out of whack in relation to the investment of staff and funds. The vast majority of marketing budgets are allocated to staff salaries, leaving very little money to actually implement a marketing program. There is still a reticence in higher ed to invest in marketing. In other industries, it’s common to spend 7% to 12% or more of the operating budget on marketing. Even non-profits spend an average of about 3% of the operating budget on marketing. But, in higher ed, we are well below 2% of the operating budget at most schools. And, at many institutions, the total investment in marketing can’t even be calculated because it’s so decentralized. Then we wonder why the class didn’t come in, why our institution isn’t as well-known as it should be, why we can’t seem to raise the kind of money we should be able to, why we don’t have more partnerships with industry, or why no one outside the institution recognizes the strengths and differentiators that seem so obvious to those on the inside.
Higher ed marketing is evolving in positive ways to be sure. The creation of the cabinet-level vice president of marketing, or CMO, is the single most significant change to the higher education administration in the last 15 years. More than half of all colleges and universities have a senior-level marketer that serves on Cabinet. VPs and CMOs at institutions such as Northwestern, American, Butler, Bentley, UVA and many others are proving that effective leadership in marketing is a critical function that can have a significant impact on an institution’s strategic goals. Consistent, dedicated, and appropriate budgets are the next step in ensuring marketing success.
