Higher education marketing in the lenses of 4Cs : A case study

(1)

UNIVERSITY OF EASTERN FINLAND

Faculty of Social Sciences and Business Studies Business School

HIGHER EDUCATION MARKETING IN THE LENSES OF 4Cs: A CASE STUDY

Master’s Thesis

International Business and Sales Management

Mohammad Tareq Faiz (277244) 12.06.2018

(2)

Page 2 of 102

ABSTRACT

UNIVERSITY OF EASTERN FINLAND Faculty

Faculty of Social Sciences and Business Studies

Department

Business School

Author

Mohammad Tareq Faiz

Supervisor

Jonna Koponen

Name of the Thesis

Higher Education Marketing in The Lenses of 4Cs: A Case Study

Major

International Business and Sales Management

Description

Master’s thesis

Date

12.06.2018

Pages

102

This is a case study on International Master’s Degree Program in International Business and Sales Management (IBS) of University of Eastern Finland. The aim of the study is to find out appropriate marketing strategy to attract more international students to IBS program. The study has been a qualitative study and the data is collected through nine interviews among international students (non- EU & non-EEA) who are studying in MSc in IBS program of University of Eastern Finland. The interviews are conducted using both face-to-face and online platforms. Later, the data has been transcribed, coded and analyzed by using qualitative content analysis.

The result of this study shows that international students like to get wider options to select interesting courses according to their self-needs. The result also reveals that international students are not satisfied with the newly imposed tuition fees and the lack of accreditation of the program. The respondents of the study also think that deeper industrial collaboration with business companies, recruiting firms and foreign universities is needed to attract more international students and to improve the ranking of the program.

At the end of the study the author presents discussion where it is shown that 5Cs marketing mix can be more appropriate for IBS program marketers. The traditional 4Cs marketing mix has been elaborated by adding ‘Collaboration’ as the 5^th C based on the results and findings of this study.

Followed by the discussion this study also presents suggestions to the case company. However, the author expects that this study results and suggestions can be helpful for IBS program marketers though there are further study scope to explore the reliability of 5Cs in higher education marketing.

Key words

Higher Education Marketing, Marketing Mix, UEF, IBS

(3)

Page 3 of 102

1. INTRODUCTION

1.1 Background

International students usually go out of their home countries either to study in better education system or to experience new knowledge. In recent decades students’ numbers have been increasing who are choosing to study in overseas universities (Oxford University, 2015). According to trends report (Oxford University, 2015) the number of international students’ mobility jumped 1.30 million to 5 million by the time 1990 to 2014. The report on “International Trends in Higher Education 2015”, published by Oxford University, demonstrated that students’ mobility occurred significantly from east to west in last decade.

According to OECD prediction (ICEF, 2015) the number of international students’ mobility will reach around 8 million by 2025 which will be a major chance for western universities to attract these international students. ICEF monitor (2015) predicted that around 53% of total international students in the global higher education sector are from Asia. The report addresses that one of every six international students are jointly from China, India and South Korea where studying abroad is still a desire for many African students (ICEF, 2015).

International students choose higher study destinations considering two distinct scenario where primararily students consider own circumstances consisted of financial means, desired study program, advices from friends, family & agents and reputation of the insitution or country;

secondly, students consider country level policies consisted of tuition and living costs, post study work and immigration opportunities (ICEF, 2015).

However, the number of international higher education providing countries are increasing (British Council, 2016). According to the British Council report (2016), many countries are widening access to higher education, but Australia, Germany, UK, Malaysia and China are leading countries in encouraging student mobility for internationalization of higher education. The competition to recruit international students have been increasing while many governments are decreasing funds for universities (Chapleo & O’Sullivan, 2017; Johnston, 2010; Soutar & Turner, 2002). In turn, universities are encouraged to collect tuition fees from students (Altbach & Knight, 2007).

(6)

Page 6 of 102

Ramachandran (2010) argues that higher education institutions can’t increase tuition fees just to sustain a program and this kind of ‘increases of tuition-fees’ can negatively affect both existing and prospective students. However, global higher education industry has turned potential business opportunities for many universities world-wide by recruiting international students (Ramachandran, 2010; Johnston, 2010). Universities around the world are also spending vast amounts of money for branding, marketing and recruiting foreign students (Ramachandran, 2010).

This study has been proposed in such reality when the educational institutions of Finland have started collecting tuition fees from international students except citizens and permanent residents of EU and EEA countries (StudyinFinland, 2016). This increases the costs of education for international students (non-EU and non-EEA) since 1^st of August 2017 but higher education in Finland was free for everyone in the past (ICEF, 2016). However, the research (Altbach & Knight, 2007) shows that most of the global international students are from Asian and Latin American middle-income countries along with African developing countries. Thus, it must be crucial for IBS program to attract international students (non-EU and non-EEA) to the program in the competitive global higher education environment without appropriate marketing.

Hence, it becomes important for IBS program marketers to understand the market and customers deeply. The author has initiated this study to help IBS program to identify appropriate marketing strategy because IBS program has been looking for more international students in the upcoming days to make the program diverse, multicultural and truly international.

This case-study is based on international students’ perceptions who come from countries other than EU and EEA and who have been studying in International Master’s Degree Program in International Business and Sales Management (IBS) of University of Eastern Finland. The study aims to suggest appropriate marketing strategy to IBS program to attract more international students by overcoming the prospective impact of imposed tuition fees situation.

(7)

Page 7 of 102

1.2 Research gap and research problem

The most promising markets for Finnish education export include China, the Arab States of the Persian Gulf, South-East Asia and Latin America and Africa is also regarded as a growing market (CIMO, 2018). In 2014, the turnover of Finnish education export was about 260 million euros.

However, there is potential for much more. The Government Program has set a target to increase the turnover to 350 million euros by the end of 2018 (CIMO, 2018).

However, British council research report (2018), based on 56 global outbound students’ markets, predicts that outbound students’ mobility will be slowing down in the upcoming decade. The report explains that there will be 1.7% annual global decline of international students’ mobility for next ten years (British Council, 2018). The report has used data from UNESCO, Department of Economic and social affairs of UN and analysis from Oxford Economics (British Council, 2018).

Further, China and India are the top most target markets for the education marketers worldwide but one recent study (ICEF, 2018) highlights that Bangladesh, Pakistan and Nigeria will be the top most international student source countries in the following decade along with China and India.

Finnish universities must need to attract more international students to their distinct international programs to achieve the Finnish government program turnover target to export Finnish education and IBS program of UEF must define their target markets by adopting appropriate marketing strategy. However, it is almost rare to find research study based on Finnish Higher Education Marketing. Meanwhile, recent tuition fee collection decision for Non-EU students from Autumn semester of 2017 has raised the issue of market analysis and marketing of different educational programs for Finnish educational institutions. Based on present situation, it is expected that this study can pave the path for academic marketing researchers to think deeply about the current necessity of more research on Finnish Higher Education Marketing.

This study has been titled as “Higher Education Marketing in the lenses of 4Cs: A case study”.

The study topic has been chosen by considering the recent problem of imposition of tuition fee for International Master’s Degree Program in International Business and Sales Management (IBS) of University of Eastern Finland.

(8)

Page 8 of 102

1.3 Research objectives and questions

The government of Finland has recently imposed tuition fee for international non-EU and non- EEA students. So, the higher education providing institutions including University of Eastern Finland are going to collect tuition fee from prospective students of Non-EU countries from Autumn, 2017.

This research is aimed to suggest appropriate marketing strategy to IBS program to attract more international students based on existing non-EU & non-EEA students’ perceptions towards IBS program of University of Eastern Finland. Thus, the objectives of the study are as followings:

- To develop in-depth understanding of international students’ (non-EU and non-EEA) perceptions towards IBS program.

- To identify the strengths and weaknesses of IBS program.

- To identify best possible Marketing strategy to attract more international students.

By conducting this study, it is expected to develop in-depth understanding of market characteristics as well as to initiate the proper marketing initiatives regarding IBS program. Thus, this study is going to identify existing Non-EU Market(s) for IBS program and the key issues for marketing of IBS program to those markets by considering strengths and weakness of IBS program.

The following research questions have been developed based on the research problems and research objectives set in this study:

1. What kind of experiences do the international students (non-EU and non-EEA) have on International Master’s Degree Program in International Business and Sales Management (IBS) of University of Eastern Finland?

2. How to attract more Non-EU international students to International Master’s Degree Program in International Business and Sales Management (IBS) of University of Eastern Finland?

2.1 What type of improvement is needed for ‘IBS program’?

(9)

Page 9 of 102

2.2 How to overcome budget constraints of prospective students?

2.3 How and where do the customers’ want to purchase ‘IBS program’ offerings?

2.4 How to communicate ‘IBS program’ of UEF with prospective students?

1.4 Research structure

The first chapter is introduction. The aim of first chapter is to lead the readers to the research topic along with introducing research design. The chapter begins with briefly explaining the background of higher education marketing and the importance for higher education marketing for the case ‘IBS program’. In this first chapter, research problem and research gap sections are also included.

In the second chapter literature review introduces the previous research studies and their findings related to the research topic of this study. In this section, market, marketing, marketing of higher education and marketing strategies are highlighted under the light of previous literatures.

Chapter three presents methodology of this study. This chapter also presents research methods, data collections, data analysis and theme building processes. Following chapter three, chapter four presents empirical analysis of the case company and the respondents, chapter five presents results of the study. chapter six and chapter seven respectively presents discussion and suggestion for the case company how to implement the results of this study.

This study formally concludes with chapter eight which includes conclusion and limitation of the study. Chapter nine presents the references which are used in distinct parts of this study and chapter ten includes appendix.

(10)

Page 10 of 102

2. LITERATURE REVIEW AND THEORETICAL BACKGROUND

The more number of higher education providers are growing around the world, the options become wider to the prospective students to choose desired universities and programs (Ivy, 2008). In such competitive and crowded market place universities need to differentiate themselves from the competitors to attract prospective students (Ivy, 2008). Marketing can play significant role in this regard (Ivy, 2008). Thus, the relevance of higher education marketing is increasing in student recruitment (Ivy, 2008). In this context, this literature review section has been divided into three parts. The first part represents previous research studies on the topic of ‘higher education marketing’. The second part has named as ‘students as customers in higher education marketing’.

This part presents arguments both in favor and against to the notion of whether students are customers or not. The third part titled as ‘Marketing mix in higher education marketing’. The relevance of marketing mix in higher education marketing and the usage of marketing mix in prior studies are going to be presented in the third part. Overall, this literature review section aims at providing ample justification of the initiated study on ‘Higher Education Marketing in the Lenses of 4Cs: A Case Study’.

2.1 Higher education marketing

The role of higher education marketing has been growing significantly in recent years though it was previously non-existent in most universities (Soutar & Turner, 2002). According to Soutar &

Turner (2002), higher education marketing has become a growing research interest area as higher education has been transformed from a non-marketized entity to a highly marketized entity in a very competitive environment. Government fund reductions and higher tuition fees are the prime reasons for increasing competition to attract prospective students and stimulating higher education marketing (Soutar & Turner, 2002; Johnston, 2010). One of the key pieces of information that would assist a university’s marketing effort is an understanding of what determines a student’s university preference (Soutar & Turner, 2002, p. 40). Soutar & Turner (2002) tried to find out the major factors which influence students’ university preferences and the importance of those factors.

They (Soutar & Turner, 2002) undertook the study on Australian tertiary education to investigate

(11)

Page 11 of 102

the importance of several attributes which influence high-school leavers to choose university. The study followed conjoint analysis to find out the research results (Soutar & Turner, 2002). The study (Soutar & Turner, 2002) results show that course suitability, academic reputation, job prospects and teaching quality are the top considerations for students to choose a university or program and education marketers must identify and respond to these determinants to develop appropriate marketing strategies.

Johnston (2010) illustrates that higher education marketing is a big business as well as an academic field. Johnston’s study (2010) was based on survey data from both students and university employees and the study examined the phenomena regarding student choice of a university. The study (Johnston, 2010) discloses that universities face challenges to attract respectful students each year due to competition with other universities as well as the study exposes potential implications to communicate with prospective students.

According to Altbach & Knight (2007) most foreign higher education providers aim at earning profit by offering their study programs and courses. There are also some traditional nonprofit universities in the international higher education market which universities’ motivation are not financial, but they wish to enhance their research and knowledge capacity to increase cultural understanding (Altbach & Knight, 2007, p. 292). In such realities, many countries recruit international students to earn profits by charging higher amount of tuition fees (Altbach & Knight, 2007, p. 292).

Maringe (2006) explained that in expanded systems of diversed higher education markets there are huge diversity of higher education products and students have wider options to make the right decision by choosing appropriate study place. Higher education environments have been competitive and higher education institutions require to compete to recruit students in student recruitment markets (Maringe, 2006). The introduction of tuition fees intensifies the student recruitment competition among higher education institutions and it is hypothesized that potential applicants to higher education institutions will be characterized with consumeristic attitudes (Maringe, 2006). Maringe (2006) conducted the research study to find out the factors that students consider significant to make the decision of choosing university and courses to study. The study collected data through a survey questionnaire and there were 187 respondents and data were

(12)

Page 12 of 102

analyzed using descriptive statistics (Maringe, 2006). Maringe’s study (2006) identifies two remarkable results; firstly, students are adopting more consumerist approach in higher education decision making and factors related to employment and career prospects surpasses the factors of pursuing higher education and subject interests; secondly, students emphasize more on price related issues than other elements of universities’ marketing mix. The findings of Maringe (2006) urge universities’ for positioning themselves in diversified recruitment market and reconsidering marketing and recruiting strategy but there is no claim for generalizability of these findings.

Stimac & Simic (2012) studied the need for marketing orientation and competitiveness in higher education. The study (2012, p. 23) aimed at determining the relationships between students’

expectations during enrollment and the perceptions of services received from the educational institutions. Altogether 690 students from three business schools of Croatia, Hungary and Slovenia were participated in the data collection process (Stimac & Simic, 2012, p. 27). The authors collected sample data from the respondents by using structured questionnaires according to SERVQAK model (Stimac & Simic, 2012, p. 27). The study argues that higher education is a long- term profitable investment and for this reason international certifications and recognitions of higher education institutions are becoming crucial tool for higher education marketing (Stimac &

Simic, 2012, p. 24). The study highlights that European higher education went through a series of problems and at present higher education in Europe is guided by the Bologna process (Stimac &

Simic, 2012, p. 24). But marketing in higher education is essential and the role of higher education marketing is distinct than that of couple of decades ago (Stimac & Simic, 2012). The range of present higher education marketing associated with not only advertising, publicity, lobbying, fundraising but also with image creation, reputation creation, attracting new and alternative financial resources (Stimac & Simic, 2012, p. 25). The study (Stimac & Simic, 2012, p. 26) acknowledges students as customers and the major stakeholder. Further, the study advocates the educational institutions to focus the needs of students in their all activities (Stimac & Simic, 2012, p. 26). The author adds that marketing in higher education institutions are based on integrated marketing principles of business sector and in such context higher education can be seen as an exchange process where educational institutions offer distinct knowledges, skills, competencies and career preparation to the customers and in return customers offer tuition fees, donations, time and energy (Stimac & Simic, 2012, p. 26). The authors (Stimac & Simic, 2012, p. 33) think that it

(13)

Page 13 of 102

is essential to understand the value and importance of marketing concept in the field of higher education marketing to achieve successful market performance.

Ramachandran (2010) examined how marketing framework has been influencing distinct aspects of higher education in dealing student issues. His study (Ramachandran, 2010) shows that higher education sector is influenced by such an marketized approach which has enabled higher education institutions to increase their presences in international arena by recruiting international students in large scale. The study (Ramachandran, 2010) put critical view of customer metaphor for students in higher education sector. Ramachandran (2010) presented conceptual discussion and his study (Ramachandran, 2010) informs that higher education products are different than those of commercial products and students are different than that of commercial-product customers.

Ramachandran (2010) defines the products in higher education (HE) sectors as highly intangible.

According to Ramachandran (2010), A two-way interaction continues between higher education institution and students even after study period but in commercial transaction the operation becomes completed when the product is delivered to the end-user. Ramachandran (2010, p. 549) argues that “commercial houses offer attractive schemes to dispose of unsold stocks and outdated model, and also to exchange new models for old, whereas HEIs do not look for options to carry out amendments to attract students when seats fall vacant”. Products in higher education institutions are less complex than those of commercial enterprises though higher education institutions offer different short-term courses in addition to regular full-time or part-time study programs (Ramachandran, 2010). The study (Ramachandran, 2010) demonstrates that higher education institutions develop new products as well as modify existing products by considering feedback of students and academic staffs of the respective programs, marketing inputs as well as guidance from the industry. Pricing of higher education products is also distinct from commercial products because ability to pay for the products can’t ensure one to become a student or customer as well as sudden increase of price of a program may affect both existing and prospective students (Ramachandran, 2010). Ramachandran (2010, p. 552) argues that higher education markets are still lagging than that of commercial markets and still students and parents have limited information about higher education sector. Ramachandran (2010) also argues that marketisation has opened opportunities to higher education sector for building strong relationship with students and communities. However, it is understood from Ramachandran’s study (2010) that the

(14)

Page 14 of 102

increasing competition among universities and colleges to offer similar programs raise the need to develop appropriate marketing strategies for higher education institutions’(HEIs).

Meanwhile, the research study of Dao & Thorpe (2015) explored a range of factors which influence Vietnamese students’ choice of University. A quantitative survey over 1,123 students was carried for the study (Dao & Thorpe, 2015). Dao & Thorpe (2015) used marketing approaches for the exploration and understanding the research topic. The study (Dao & Thorpe, 2015) discloses nine distinct factors which play influential roles for students to make the decision of choosing appropriate university and course. The results of the study (Dao & Thorpe, 2015) show that facilities and services, program, price, offline information, opinions, online information, ways of communication, program additions and advertising are nine key factors which can influence prospective students. Based on the results, Dao & Thorpe (2015) urge to focus on facilities and services, providing details & accurate program information, information related to pricing &

scholarships and information related to flexibility of payments time & payments approach to improve marketing of higher education. Though the study (Dao & Thorpe, 2015) is based on Vietnamese students’ context, the study still contributes to develop a greater understanding of higher education marketing practices and increased competition among competitors in higher education institutions (Maringe, 2006; Ramachandran, 2010; Dao & Thorpe, 2015).

Decker & Sokurienko (2000) describes in their research study how classical marketing principles are used in an institution to do market segmentation and target marketing in higher education marketing. The study (Decker & Sokurienko, 2000) presented a case on LIMTU of Russia which provides professional development programs in both technical and scientific fields. The institute was struggling but successfully revived itself in several student markets by adopting basic marketing principles (Decker & Sokurienko, 2000). Thus, the study argues that an institution can be viable even in a competitive and changed environment by the help of appropriate marketing plans (Decker & Sokurienko, 2000). The rational marketing plan for a program or university begins with the understanding of structure and composition of the respective market and a program or university is marketable if it can be properly packaged (Decker & Sokurienko, 2000). According to Decker & Sokurienko’s (2000, p. 58) research findings, the higher education market has been changed and in such a market it is the essential prerequisite to develop a new base of tuition-paying students. This study (Decker & Sokurienko, 2000) provides understanding that it is needed to

(15)

Page 15 of 102

divide potential markets into respective segments, success of market segments depends upon identifying the respective segments’ offerings and there must be adequate differentiations of institution’s offerings with the competitors’ offerings.

There is disconnection and apparent conflict between the literature on marketization and marketing of higher education (Nedbalová, et al., 2014). Most of the academics (Johnston, 2010; Dao &

Thorpe, 2015; Maringe, 2006; Ramachandran, 2010) from marketing-management usually focus on application of marketing theories to higher education for understanding students’ decision- making process without considering the broader higher education marketing context. The study (Nedbalová, et al., 2014) demonstrates how market forces influence higher ecucation institutions and how higher education institutions shape the environment via marketing practice. The study also demonstrates that universities are using markeitng techniques for promoting their offers (Nedbalová, et al., 2014).

By focusing relationship marketing, Helgesen (2008) published an international exploratory case study based on a Norwegian university college. The paper (Helgesen, 2008) analyzed relationships between student satisfaction, students’ perceptions towards educational institution and student loyalty. Helgesen’s study (2008) claims that retaining students is very crucial strategy for higher education institutions because global competition of recruiting students among higher education institutions has been increased. Thus, relationship marketing can be most effective for higher education marketing (Helgesen, 2008). This is because traditional marketing focuses on acquisition of students and in this very competitive higher education sector higher education marketers must also focus on retaining of students (Helgesen, 2008). The study (Helgesen, 2008) also recommends to carry out student surveys to create value and to offer appropriate value proposition to students as a part of effective relationship marketing. In addition, Helgesen (2008) suggests higher education marketers to throughly overlook students’ value creation processes and activities in order to adopt appropriate marketing campaign.

Although there are similarities between higher education and other services in somewhat, service marketing methods don’t fit in all higher education markets (Canterbury, 2000). Higher education services are intangible, perishable, heterogenous and inseparable though higher education possess most of the characteristics like other service industries (Canterbury, 2000). The research of

(16)

Page 16 of 102

Canterbury (2000) illustrates that it is a great challenge to determine distinction of different higher education markets and to adjust higher education marketing methods for those markets; when higher education markets increasingly evolved internationally over the last two decades (Martens

& Starke, 2008). Various elements are fostering higher education markets’ development (Martens

& Starke, 2008). Students’ willingness, ease of transportation and modern communication technology play influential roles for both students and universities to be active player in rapidly evolving higher education market (Martens & Starke, 2008). Martens & Starke (2008) published a paper on internationalization of education services where New Zealand was the example as a case study. The study (Martens & Starke, 2008) argues that the recent move of higher education trends and markets turn ‘higher education’ as an international export good.

But there are limited number of literatures on export marketing orientation of higher education and most of the existing literatures focus on general marketing themes for marketization of international higher education (Asaad, et al., 2015). As the importance of export markets and export marketing strategies is increasing for international students’ recruitment, Asaad, et al.

(2015) examined export marketing orientation of British universities for recruiting international students. The study (Asaad, et al., 2015) followed quantitative research design and data was collected by using both survey questionnaire and semi-structured interviews among 130 international office heads of respective universities in Britain. The study (Asaad, et al., 2015) discloses that some universities are successful to recruit international students by using export marketing efforts in higher education marketing while some other universities struggle to recruit considerable number of international students caused by lack of export marketing efforts. This study (Asaad, et al., 2015) simultaneously generates theoretical contributions to higher education marketing literature and export marketing literature though the findings are limited to British universities. In addition, this study (Asaad, et al., 2015) draws only managerial perspectives where students’ perspectives are ignored.

Ivy (2001, p. 277) investigated how universities and technikons of UK and South Africa use marketing to differentiate their images in higher education market. The study (Ivy, 2001) collected data from marketing, public relations and admissions offices of both UK and South Africa by using anonymous postal questionnaires. Three sets of questionnaires were sent to 81 old and 50 new universities of UK along with 25 universities and 18 technikons of South Africa though only 71

(17)

Page 17 of 102

institutes of UK and 20 institutes of South Africa responded and included to final sample data (Ivy, 2001). The study (Ivy, 2001) argues that competition for attracting students have been increased as well as government funds have been decreased. The study reveals that higher education institutions are becoming more aggressive in their marketing activities to make the competitive environment more favorable (Ivy, 2001). The study (Ivy, 2001) suggests that higher education marketers need to pay more concern on creating and maintaining institutions’ distinctive image and positioning to convey institutional images to public, prospective students, employers and fund providers. Ivy’s study (2001) also discloses few marketing tools and positionings created and used by both UK and South African universities for successful higher education marketing. The old UK universities seemed to be product oriented and these universities focused quality teaching, research output, range of courses offered, staff reputations for creating their image for student recruitment activities (Ivy, 2001, p. 280). But the new UK universities marketing activities were associated with promotional activity to school careers counsellors, direct mail, open days on campus, recruiter visiting schools, international exchange programs and marketing communications through the World Wide Web (Ivy, 2001, p. 280). On the other hand, South African universities and technikons were more tuition-fee conscious and their common marketing activities emphasized in lower fees, press advertising, lecture facilities and sports facilities (Ivy, 2001, p. 280). The results of this study (Ivy, 2001) can provide marketing tools and techniques to higher education marketers and institutional planners in higher education to visualize their competitive advantages, disadvantages as well as higher education institution’s type strengths and weaknesses for marketing higher education programs and services.

Read, et al. (2005) examined the potentiality of the wider use of geographic information system (GIS) in education marketing. The study (Read, et al., 2005) conducted five case studies to identify the required GIS capabilities for educational institution. The study (Read, et al., 2005) found that geographic information system could provide numerous benefits to education marketing and recruitment campaigns as well as to design courses according to customer segments. The findings depict that GIS is capable to provide widening access to market, student profiling, local area profiling for recruiting and retaining of students in competitive and crowded marketplace (Read, et al., 2005). But there are concerns about the accuracy of data sets and more follow-up qualitative studies can explain the relevance of GIS in higher education marketing (Read, et al., 2005).

(18)

Page 18 of 102

By the time, the networking practice in higher education marketing has also been studied by Kotlyarevskaya, et al. (2018). The authors argued that research on network entities in higher education marketing are rare (Kotlyarevskaya, et al., 2018). The aim of the study was to develop a marketing approach for evaluation and analysis of network cooperation between and within Russian higher educational institutions (Kotlyarevskaya, et al., 2018, p. 10). The study analyzed the club of ten network which was created by Russian ten federal universities (Kotlyarevskaya, et al., 2018). The analysis has shown significant deviation of expected results (Kotlyarevskaya, et al., 2018). The results demonstrate that there is lack of marketing analysis, lack of understanding of target audience and lack of transparent vision existed in the networks of the 10 federal universities of Russia (Kotlyarevskaya, et al., 2018, p. 8). Besides, the authors (Kotlyarevskaya, et al., 2018, p. 8) develop a classification of network partnerships to empower polycentric partnership of universities for deeper collaboration.

Halla & Witek (2016) explored contemporary higher education marketing issues but their article represented marketing perspectives of Polish universities. This study (Halla & Witek, 2016) focused on determinants of fuctioning of Universities, marketing activities, market actors and prospectives of market development. The study was a qualitative study and there were 14 in-depth- interviews from 14 Polish universities’ representatives (Halla & Witek, 2016). The interview questions included current univerisities instruments for marketing operations, marketing operations trends and reasons for changes of trends, marketing perspective of higher education etc (Halla & Witek, 2016, p. 210). In addition, Halla & Witek (2016, p. 207) also used seconday sources of data ranged from publications of Polish ministry of science and higher education, central statistical office, acts and developments programs, Polish and foreign book publications, press releases and websites related to higher education marketing. The study reveals that universities are concentrating more on students’ expectations and needs as marketing orientation has been evolving among universities (Halla & Witek, 2016). Halla & Witek (2016) thinks development of information technologies penetrate higher education marketing evolution among universities globally. According to Halla & Witek (2016, p. 208), the academic committees of Polish universities acted as barriers against higher education marketing activities in the initial phase but falling demand of higher education and increased competition among universities turned higher education marketing as a controversial subject of interest among academics as well as theorists.

(19)

Page 19 of 102

Halla & Witek (2016, p. 208) illustrates that university authorities can fail to understand and adapt marketing to higher education when they fail to understand the essence of marketing, market tools and mechanisms. The authors (Halla & Witek, 2016) expect that this study can become a useful source for those who are interested in marketing management and modern marketing concepts for students and higher education institutions but the students’ perspectives have not been investigated in this study.

Chapleo & O’Sullivan (2017) also revised several literatures on contemporary issues in higher education marketing to explore current and future relevance of these issues in higher education sector. Chapleo & O’Sullivan (2017) thinks that students are continuously developing a strong voice in higher education sector as government funds for universities are shrinking and universities are more dependent on students. The issues related to students’ experiences on learning and teaching are become more concerned issues for universities to adopt the concept of marketization of higher education (Chapleo & O’Sullivan, 2017). The issues and challenges of higher education in this very twenty-first century are very significant where universities are operating in an increasingly uncertain environment (Chapleo & O’Sullivan, 2017). Universities are facing cost pressure across all areas of activity as well as universities are facing fundamental challenges with identities of students in the sector (Chapleo & O’Sullivan, 2017, pp. 159-160). In such situation, marketing of higher education and debates on marketing of higher education become significant in literatures and it becomes necessary to identify and evaluate latest theory as well as best practice (Chapleo & O’Sullivan, 2017). This paper argues that traditional marketing theory and approaches no longer have sufficient capacity to explain the behavior and decisions of students (Chapleo &

O’Sullivan, 2017, p. 159). Chapleo & O’Sullivan (2017) believe that the key contemporary issues of higher education marketing and marketization will be able to offer insights to other researchers to understand challenges of modern higher education marketing.

The literature review shows that higher education sector is evolving rapidly and competition for recruiting students is also increasing among universities and educational institutions (Chapleo &

O’Sullivan, 2017, Asaad, et al., 2015, Helgesen, 2008). As a result, the appeal of higher education marketing is increasing globally (Chapleo & O’Sullivan, 2017, Asaad, et al., 2015). By the time researchers and academicians have also started focusing on higher education marketing (Soutar &

Turner, 2002, Johnston, 2010, Chapleo & O’Sullivan, 2017). Previous studies show that

(20)

Page 20 of 102

international students’ recruitment market has been competitive as government funding for universities are decreasing around the world and universities are more dependent on students to collect tuition fees (Altbach & Knight, 2007, Chapleo & O’Sullivan, 2017, Soutar & Turner, 2002). For instance, to some educational institutions ‘student-tuition-fees’ are not only the alternative source of generating funds but also a significant source of profit (Altbach & Knight, 2007).

The literature review reveals that several marketing concepts are used for higher education marketing research where marketing mix, traditional marketing, service marketing and export marketing are noteworthy (Binsardi & Ekwulugo, 2003; Nedbalová, et al., 2014; Helgesen, 2008;

Decker & Sokurienko, 2000; Canterbury, 2000).

Decker & Sokurienko (2000) describe how classical marketing principles are used in an institution for market segmentation and target marketing of higher education but Helgesen (2008) argues that traditional marketing focuses on acquisition of students rather retaining of students. Helgesen (2008) study adds that relationship marketing can be most effective for higher education marketing instead of classical marketing. In addition, Canterbury’s (2000) study illustrates that higher education services are intangible, perishable, heterogenous and inseparable and possess most of the characteristics of other service industries but service marketing method doesn’t fit in all higher education markets.

The studies of Asaad, et al. (2015) and Martens & Starke (2008) both agree that higher education exposes export marketing attitudes. Martens & Starke (2008) advocates that the recent move of higher education trends and markets turn higher-education as an international export good.

Meanwhile, Asaad, et al. (2015) has examined export marketing orientation of British universities for recruiting international students and discloses that the importance of export marketing strategies is expanding in international students’ recruitment.

Literatures show that several methodologies are used in higher education marketing researches where qualitative studies are based on interviews, but quantitative studies focus in measurement and evaluation (Chapleo & O’Sullivan, 2017). The higher education marketing literature review discloses that it is almost rare to find qualitative studies on students’ perspective and most of the

(21)

Page 21 of 102

papers in higher education marketing are based on UK, USA, Spain, Portugal, Russia, Croatia, Hungary, Slovenia, Estonia, Poland, China, India, Korea, Vietnam, Australia and New Zealand but literatures on higher education marketing on the perspective of Finland or Universities’ of Finland are hardly found (Chapleo & O’Sullivan, 2017; Ivy, 2001; Ramachandran, 2010; Decker

& Sokurienko, 2000; Maringe, 2006; Halla & Witek, 2016; Helgesen, 2008; Canterbury, 2000;

Read, et al., 2005; Martens & Starke, 2008; Dao & Thorpe, 2015; Stimac & Simic, 2012; Koris, et al., 2015). In short, higher education doesn’t only educate or develop students but it has responsibility to engage current students, faculty members, staffs and to connect with alumni, community members and trustees (Clark, et al., 2017, p. 40).

(22)

Page 22 of 102

2.2 Students as customers in higher education marketing

There are controversial debates about customer in higher education marketing (Guilbault, 2016).

While a group of researcher and academician considers ‘student’ as customer in higher education, another group is still opposing this (Guilbault, 2016). Guilbault (2016) argues that anyone of students, future employers, government, society can be customer in higher education sector, but it is essential to identify core customer for marketing of any product or service. However, Ostrom, et al. (2011) acclaims that students are the core customers in higher education because higher education institutions most directly serve students.

Williams (2013) argues that modern higher education (HE) sector has been changed and the perceptions towards students has also been changed. Williams (2013) also advocates that consumeristic orientation has been growing among students and students consider higher education as investment-for-future. In such situation, students can be identified as customers because of their consumeristic orientation (Williams, 2013). The findings of the study of Vuori (2015) also advocate that students can be considered as customers in higher education marketing communication. Acevedo (2011), Naidoo & Jamieson (2005) and Molesworth, et al (2009) also address prospective-students as customers in their respective studies.

Some studies argue students are raw materials and graduates are the products for university (Ivy, 2008, p. 289). In those studies, employers are considered as the customers though employers hardly pay tuition fees for graduates (Ivy, 2008, p. 289). In higher education sector, students pay tuition fees to universities to obtain desired degrees (Ivy, 2008, p. 289). Thus, Ivy (2008, p. 289) advocates that students must be the customers and the programs or services offered to students must be considered as the products.

The study of Helgesen (2008, p. 51) affirms that it is very difficult to define the customer concept in the context of higher education institutions (HEIs), because students, employers, families or society can be categorized as customers. But Helgesen (2008, p. 51) considered sutdents as the main customers of educational institutions for his research study.

Lomas (2007) examined whether student can be a customer in a university. Lomas’s (2007) study was based on the perception of academic staff. The study discloses that higher education sector

(23)

Page 23 of 102

has been changed and differences between higher education sector and other organization have also been reduced (Lomas, 2007). The study (Lomas, 2007) argues that students have become customers in higher education services. Lomas (2007) also adds that universities and academic staffs still can’t widely accept the notion of students as customers. However, the study used in- depth-interview method among academic staffs for collecting data and finding out the answer of the research question (Lomas, 2007).

Marzo‐Navarro, et al. (2005) argue in their study that it is not an easy task to define customer in higher education sector. The study illustrates that different stakeholders including students, employers, families and society can become customers in higher education sector. But, Marzo‐

Navarro, et al. (2005) considered students as main customers in the study.

Wali & Andy-Wali (2018) investigated the integration of social media marketing platform and customer relationship management capabilities in higher education marketing services of Nigerian public universities. The author (Wali & Andy-Wali, 2018) used qualitative research design where the data was collected through face-to-face group and e-mail interviews. The study (Wali & Andy- Wali, 2018) focused undergraduate students’ perceptions of three different public universities in Nigeria. The data was analyzed under four themes- market reach, academic coordination, post- academic services feedback and students & staffs collaboration (Wali & Andy-Wali, 2018).

Overall, the study (Wali & Andy-Wali, 2018) considered students as customers throughout the analysis process.

Nadiri (2006) studied the strategic issues of higher education marketing. The study of Nadiri (2006, p. 136) advocates that customers in higher education sector may include a wide range of groups who are interested in university to meet respective needs. In the study Nadiri (2006, p. 136) considered students as the customer of the university. Nadiri (2006, p. 125) also thinks that it is very important for universities to consider students as customers to identify and to meet the expectations of students for attracting more and for retaining existing students.

Hemsley-Brown (2011) argued that the dominant marketized higher education environment has influenced the students’ identity. In the changed marketized environment of higher education, students adopt more consumeristic characteristics. Thus, the study acknowledges students as

(24)

Page 24 of 102

customers of higher education. In the study, the author discusses distinct aspects of consumerism and students’ role within the consumer framework (Hemsley-Brown, 2011, p. 1296).

Pitman (2016) studied the evolution of the student as a customer in Australian higher education.

The author (Pitman, 2016, p. 345) conducted the study in such a context when Australian Federal government deregulated higher education tuition fees by allowing Australian universities to set their own tuition fees. The study (Pitman, 2016, p. 345) showed that there were public debates whether students should be considered as customers in higher education or not. Pitman (2016, p.

356) demonstrated that the students were hardly explained as customers in the past, but students could be treated as customers by considering the present higher education reformation context.

The study (Pitman, 2016) also acknowledges a few advantages for all stakeholders which are associated with considering students as customers of higher education.

But there are arguments to consider students as customers. Mark (2013) argues that students don’t have enough knowledge to make successful purchase decision. This is the main difference between students and commercial customers (Mark, 2013). The study of Mark (2013) also shows that students usually don’t pay full amount of cost of education, but students pay the rest of the amount after universities get subsidizing either from government or from donors.

Svensson & Wood (2007) also opposes the idea that universities should view students as their customers. The study (Svensson & Wood, 2007) claims that customer metaphor is not appropriate to describe students-universities relationships. Thus, the article of Svensson & Wood (2007) raise questions about the appropriateness of student-university relationships in the context of students as customers. In an empirical study Obermiller, et al. (2005) find that faculty prefers students as products but students prefer to be recognized as customers.

While most of the researchers are divided among themselves with the issue regarding students are customers or not, Saunders (2015) has conducted a survey study on students to get their opinions.

Saunders (2015) argues that students don’t consider themselves as customers. The study was conducted on first-year students of a reputed public university in USA (Saunders, 2015). The exploratory factor analysis shows that only 28.9% respondents agree on the notion of customer

(25)

Page 25 of 102

orientation of students while the rest of respondents disagrees that students are the customers in higher education (Saunders, 2015).

Koris, et al. (2015) also conducted a survey study on students to explore student-customer phenomenon more deeply. The authors (Koris, et al., 2015, p. 35) collected data by themselves from four higher education instittutions in Estonia. The data was collected from 405 respondents on 11 different categories to draw students’ educational experiences on student-customer orientation (Koris, et al., 2015, p. 35). Those 11 categories are respectively institutional level student feedback, classroom studies, graduation, curriculum design, communication with service staff, rigor, classroom level grading, classroom behavious, invidual studies, course design and teaching methods (Koris, et al., 2015). The results show that students are agreed to be considered as customers in some of these 11 categories but they are reluctant to be considered as customers in all categories (Koris, et al., 2015, pp. 36-40). While the survey students unanimously agreed towards customer orientation on student feedback and classroom studies, they unanimously disagreed towards customer orientation on graduation (Koris, et al., 2015).

Overall, the previous studies and research works has revealed a wide range of group names who, students, employers, families or society, can be considered as customers in higher education, but the students are the main customers group (Marzo‐Navarro, et al., 2005; Helgesen, 2008; Williams, 2013; Guilbault, 2016). Though there are debates whether students should be considered as customers and universities are commercial business entity, the most important marketing principle is to focus customers’ needs (Harvey, 2002; Binsardi & Ekwulugo, 2003; Lomas, 2007; Chapleo

& O’Sullivan, 2017). It means all marketing activities should reflect students’ expectations and preferences though neither students nor their parents are asking to call students as customers (Binsardi & Ekwulugo, 2003; Lomas, 2007; Ramachandran, 2010).

(26)

Page 26 of 102

2.3 Marketing mix in higher education marketing

There are very few research studies on the usage of marketing mix in higher education marketing and most of the researchers use marketing mix just to examine the factors that influence on students’ choices of higher education institutions or programs (Lukić & Lukić, 2016, p. 185). But marketing mix is one the major concepts in marketing and 4Ps marketing mix (product, price, place and promotion) are one of the most important marketing mixes found in scientific marketing literatures (Lukić & Lukić, 2016, p. 184). In addition, most of the times, to use marketing mix in services, it is needed to reconsider the application and appropriateness of the classical marketing mix (Lukić & Lukić, 2016, p. 184). In such an reality, Lukić & Lukić (2016) reviewed distinct theory of marketing approaches for higher education institutions. The research paper of Lukić &

Lukić (2016, p. 184) propositioned with optimization of marketing mix instruments to attract more students. However, the study (Lukić & Lukić, 2016, p. 183) tried to find out the most effective marketing mix in the context of students’ decision making to enroll a university program. There were around 783 students participated to a non-standardized survey questionnaire in this study and the data has been analyzed by using quantitative indices (Lukić & Lukić, 2016, p. 183 & 189). The results have revealed that 7 marketing factors are relevant to choose of education destination where people, physical evidence, promotion, image, resources and extra services and price are the respective 7 factors (Lukić & Lukić, 2016, p. 183). Among these 7 factors, 5 factors (price, place, promotion, people and physical evidence) are associated with the 7Ps service marketing mix (Lukić & Lukić, 2016, p. 196). But the study (Lukić & Lukić, 2016, p. 196) justified that promotion doesn’t incorporate electronic media in the present context of higher education marketing. Thus, the study advocates that it is necessary to review the classic marketing mix concepts in the context of higher education (Lukić & Lukić, 2016, pp. 196-197). Higher education institutions can recognize most appropriate marketing mix instruments by conducting regular surveys into students’ opinions regarding factors influences for enrollment to distinct faculty or program (Lukić

& Lukić, 2016, pp. 196-197).

Ivy (2008, p. 289) defines marketing mix as a set of controllable marketing tools and argues that educational institutions use marketing mix to get responses from various target markets.

Traditionally, tangible products use 4Ps marketing mix and service sectors use 7Ps marketing mix to satisfy the needs of customers (Ivy, 2008, p. 289). Product, price, place and promotion are the

(27)

Page 27 of 102

elements of 4Ps marketing mix and 7Ps service marketing mix consists of product, price, place, promotion, people, physical facilities and processes (Ivy, 2008). In higher education marketing, product represents the degree or program, price represents tuition fees, place represents the distribution method of providing tuition, promotion represents providing market information on universities’ offerings, people represents all the staffs who interact with the students and prospective students, phycical facilities represents teaching materials, builldings and lecture facilities at the university and process represents all the administrative and bureaucratic functions of a university (Ivy, 2008, pp. 290-291). Thus, Ivy (2008, pp. 288-291) investigated whether traditional services marketing mix influence students when they select MBA program and the purpose of the study was to present a new marketing-mix based on students’ attitudes and opinions towards South African business schools marketing initiatives. This was a quantitative study and 5-point Likert scales was used to develop the self-completion questionnaires (Ivy, 2008). The questionnaires were sent to around 1,450 students to 12 state-subsidized business schools in South Africa, but the data was collected from 500 MBA students (Ivy, 2008). The study used a data- reduction-technique ‘factor analysis’ for reducing the substantial number of variables and the factor analysis proposed a ‘7Ps business school marketing mix’ (Ivy, 2008, p. 292). The 7Ps business school marketing mix consists of people, promotion, price, program, prominence, prospects and premiums in which people, promotion and price are common to traditional service marketing mix (Ivy, 2008). The study (Ivy, 2008) illustrates that prominence includes academic staff reputations, league table and online information, prospects include hard copy of the prospectus direct mail and premiums include accommodation, modules, exchange programs, computer facilities, residential requirements and class size. Ivy (2008, p. 297) argues that the traditional marketing mix 4Ps, traditional service marketing mix 7Ps may not be appropriate approach for marketing MBA programs in South Africa but the ‘7Ps business school marketing mix’ can serve better in higher education marketing.

On the other hand, researchers have also used the concept of 4Ps marketing mix for higher education marketing studies (Decker & Sokurienko, 2000; Binsardi & Ekwulugo, 2003;

Nedbalová, et al., 2014). Nedbalová, et al. (2014, p. 178) uses 4Ps marketing mix along with economic market mechanisms to review UK higher education marketing and to explore the relationship between market and marketing. The study (Nedbalová, et al., 2014, p. 178) contrasted

(28)

Page 28 of 102

product, price, place and promotion with autonomy, competition, price and information to demonstrate market forces’ influences in higher education institutions and how higher education institutions respond to those through marketing practices. Nedbalová, et al. (2014) elaborates a number of results regarding the elements of 4Ps marketing mix; universities needs to confrom education policies of regularatory bodies and governments though universities want to develop programs according to students’ needs, price of education is considered as prestigious issue for universities, universities may use agents and organize marketing campaings both nationally and internationally for recruiting students, leaflets, brochures, open days, websites, direct mail and advertising are the most popular promotional tools used by universities to recruit students. Further, Nedbalová, et al. (2014, p. 180) criticizes that ‘service marketing 7Ps’ and Ivy’s alternative ‘7Ps business School’s marketing mix’ none are significantly different than that of the basic 4Ps marketing mix.

The study of Decker & Sokurienko (2000) explains that different marketing approaches can play different roles in understanding target markets and students characteristics. The study describes the usage of different elements of 4Ps to convince students in higher education marketing (Decker

& Sokurienko, 2000). The study illustrates that price and promotion are most significant elements of the 4P marketing mix to generate a student base for universities and to differentiate the university offerings from the competitors (Decker & Sokurienko, 2000). The study also reveals that students are aware of product configuration and employment opportunities which means program and place must play significant role to convince prospective students (Decker &

Sokurienko, 2000).

Binsardi & Ekwulugo (2003, p. 320) sought information on international students’ perceptions of UK education by using 4Ps marketing mix. The author (Binsardi & Ekwulugo, 2003) identifies 4Ps (product, price, place, promotion) as controllable variables for marketing planners. The study (Binsardi & Ekwulugo, 2003) investigated British higher education penetration abroad by using 4Ps marketing mix. Binsardi & Ekwulugo (2003) used both primary and secondary data for this study where primary data was collected in two ways; firstly, data was collected by using survey questionnaire from 62 international students and secondly, in-depth-interviews was organized among those students. The secondary data was collected from higher education statistics agency, British council and government offices of UK, USA and Australia (Binsardi & Ekwulugo, 2003).

(29)

Page 29 of 102

The study (Binsardi & Ekwulugo, 2003) used both qualitative and quantitative methodology to analyze the collected data. The research (Binsardi & Ekwulugo, 2003) indicates that UK universities lost their market shares abroad while the competitors were achieving market penetration abroad. The study (Binsardi & Ekwulugo, 2003, p. 322) argues that product and price variables are most influential and important in attracting international students. In addition, most international students’ needs and expectations are consisted with academic recognition, follow-up services, tuition fees and scholarships (Binsardi & Ekwulugo, 2003, p. 322). The results of the study of Binsardi & Ekwulugo (2003) is very similar to the information found in the study of Decker & Sokurienko (2000). However, Sickler (2006, p. 23) argues that technology and consumerism have shifted the focus of marketing toward customers. Sickler’s paper (2006, p. 24) acclaims that higher education output is co-created by faculty members, staffs and students. Thus, universities should focus on the needs and expectations of students for their marketing initiatives (Sickler, 2006). But the 4Ps marketing mix are no longer fit with the customer orientated marketing (Sickler, 2006).

Newman & Jahdi (2009) adds that neither the most popular and widely accepted McCarthy’s (1964) 4Ps (product, place, price and promotion) marketing mix nor the 7Ps (product, place, price and promotion, people, process and physical evidence) marketing mix (Booms & Bitner, 1981) can fit better in higher education marketing because both of these marketing mix(s) represent seller’s view. Newman & Jahdi (2009, p. 4) further advocates that Lauterborn (1990) 4Cs (consumer wants and needs, cost, communication and convenience) marketing mix is more comprephensive and relevant to higher education marketing as 4Cs marketing mix is more customer oriented. Though Newman & Jahdi (2009, pp. 4-7) advocated 4Cs marketing mix as most appropriate for higher education marketing, their study suggested a 7Cs marketing mix by adding calibre, capabilities and collateral to the 4Cs marketing mix. The literatures of Solis (2011)

& French, et al. (2015) show that there is another 7Cs (corporation, commodity, cost, communication, channel, consumer and circumstances) marketing mix which is known as Shimizu’s (1989) 7Cs Compass Model.

In 4Cs marketing mix customer wants and needs represents the bundle of service and satisfactions wanted by customers, costs represents the real costs of customers including the transportation costs to obtain a product or service, convenience represents location and ease of access to products or