This audio is auto-generated. Please let us know if you have feedback.
Dive Brief:
Minnesota’s public colleges could institute substantial tuition spikes in the next academic year, after state officials have so far failed to meet funding requests.
College officials’ latest projections estimate students could see price increases ranging from 4% to 9.9% to offset budget gaps, according to a presentation at a Minnesota State system board of trustees meeting this week.Most colleges and universities are modeling an increase of 8%.
Those proposed increases come as analysis from the Minneapolis Federal Reserve showed enrollment in public Minnesota colleges increased substantially in the 2024-25 academic year — up 12% at two-year institutions and 4% at four-year institutions.
Dive Insight:
Leaders at public institutions in Minnesota are having to grapple with state funding that will likely remain flat while inflation continues lifting costs for college operations.
Minnesota State Board of Trustees, which oversees 33 institutions, requested $465 million in new funding in the state budget covering fiscal 2026 and 2027.
But so far, state executive and House budget proposals include no funding increases for the system, said Bill Maki, vice chancellor of finance and facilities for the Minnesota State system, during Tuesday’s presentation.He noted that the state Senate offered additional funding but only a fraction of what was asked for — $100 million.
The muted proposals from the state — which is facing its own fiscal shortfalls —would leave colleges on their own in filling budget gaps created by increasing costs and financial needs, such as maintenance backlogs.
Modest tuition increases would still leave substantial structural deficits, Maki noted. A system-wide tuition increase of 3.5% would still leave a $65.1 million budget shortfall in fiscal 2026. Even a 9% tuition hike would mean a $23.8 million gap.
“Regardless of what level of tuition increase may be approved by the board, every one of our colleges and universities is going to have to implement budget reallocations and reductions in order to cover inflationary costs,” Maki said.
Complicating things, as the chancellor pointed out, is that institutions have to set tuition rates before they fully know their costs for the year.
To date, the Minnesota State system has remained relatively strong financially. The system’s operating revenues increased in fiscal years 2024 and 2023, according to its latest financial statement. It ended fiscal 2024 with total revenues of $2.3 billion and a surplus of $108.9 million.
Helping the system’s finances is the support it has received from the state. In 2024-25, tuition accounted for about 30% of the Minnesota State system’s revenue, compared to 42% made up by state appropriations.
Minnesota’s enrollment growth brought the state just short of its pre-pandemic levels in 2019, according to the Minneapolis Fed’s analysis.
The state’s enrollment upticks in 2024 and 2023 also break a decade of decline in Minnesota and many of its neighboring states.
In explaining the state’s enrollment growth, the Fed’s analysis pointed in part to Minnesota’s recently implemented North Star Promise. The program offers free tuition to students whose families make under $80,000 — a boon to enrollment and educational access but not necessarily to colleges’ coffers.
This audio is auto-generated. Please let us know if you have feedback.
A federal judge Wednesday temporarily blocked the U.S. Department of Energy from implementing a 15% cap on grant funding for indirect costs. The ruling came just days after a dozen higher education associations and colleges sued the department, calling the new policy an overstep of authority and a threat to U.S. research and advancement.
In the ruling Wednesday, U.S. District Judge Allison Burroughs said the plaintiffs — including higher ed groups like the American Council on Education and threatened colleges like the University of Michigan and Brown University — had successfully demonstrated that they would “sustain immediate and irreparable injury” if the policy were allowed to proceed in tandem with the lawsuit.
Burroughs’ temporary restraining order bars the Energy Department — until further court order — from terminating grants, either under the challenged policy or “based on a grantee’s refusal to accept an indirect cost rate less than their negotiated rate.” The judge is also requiring the department to submit biweekly reports confirming that the federal funds are being distributed during the pause.
When announcing the funding cap last Friday, the Energy Department said the move would save $405 million annually and reduce what it called inefficient spending. Indirect research costs typically include overhead expenses such as facilities and administrative support staff.
The department said the change would affect over 300 colleges and that it would terminate grants to any institutions that failed to comply.
But the plaintiffs said the policy’s rapid implementation would give institutions no choice but to scale back funding and lay off staff.
Their lawsuit, filed in U.S. District Court in Massachusetts, called the Energy Department’s policy “a virtual carbon copy” of one announced in February by the National Institutes of Health. A federal judge permanently blocked NIH’s planto cap indirect cost funding at 15% earlier this month, a decision the agency quickly appealed. The NIH plan would cost research universities billions in annual funding.
“DOE’s action is unlawful for most of the same reasons and, indeed, it is especially egregious because DOE has not even attempted to address many of the flaws the district court found with NIH’s unlawful policy,” the plaintiff’s lawsuit said.
The next hearing in the case is set for April 28 before the same court.
Incoming Office for Students chair Edward Peck would have expected that many of the questions he would face at his pre-appointment Education Committee hearing would concern the precarious financial situations that are the reality at many higher education institutions.
His answer to this line of inquiry was instructive. As a part of an urgent briefing with the current chief executive he would want to know:
the extent to which those universities have done all the things you do as an organisation when you face financial pressures. There are five or six things that you routinely do. To what extent have they been done by those organisations? To what extent is the financial pressure they are facing particularly acute because they have not yet got through all the cost reduction measures that would have enabled them to balance income with expenditure?
To many with an interest in universities – as places to study, as employers, as local anchor institutions – this idea of “five or six things” would have been confusing and opaque. Is there really a commonly understood playbook for institutions facing financial peril? If there is, why would there be any doubt as to whether senior leaders were following these well-worn tracks to safety? If there genuinely is a pre-packaged solution to universities running out of money, why do so many find themselves in precarious financial situations?
It would help to take each of these “five or six things” (I’m going to go with five) in turn.
1. Size and shape
If your university is smaller than expected in terms of students or income this year, the chances are it has been this size before.
The sector has grown enormously over the last few years, and the way that funding incentives currently work (both in terms of boom and bust in international recruitment, and the demise – in England – of the old HEFCE tolerance band) has meant that the expansion needed to teach more students, run more estate, or conduct more research has had to happen quickly – taking action when the money and need is there, rather than as a part of a long term plan.
Piecemeal expansion suffers when compared against strategic growth in that the kinds of efficiencies that a more considered approach offers are simply not available. Planned growth allows you to build capacity in a strategic way, in ways that take into account the wider pressures the institution is facing, the direction it wants to head, or plans for long term sustainability.
Often senior leaders look back to the resources needed in previous years for a similar cohort or workload in determining costs at a subject area or service level of granularity. If we could teach x undergraduates with y academic staff and z additional resources in 2015–16, why do we need more now? – that’s the question.
It’s a fair question – but it is a starting point, not a fully formed strategic plan for change. You may need more resources because there is more or different work to do – perhaps your current crop of academics are bringing in research contracts that need specialist support, perhaps the module choices available to undergraduates are more expansive, perhaps the students you are currently recruiting have different support needs. There’s any number of reasons why 2024-25 is not a repeat of 2015-16, and the act of comparison is the start of the conversation that might help unpack some of these a bit.
2. Pausing and reprofiling
Imagine that at your university the last few rounds of the national student survey have seen students increasingly bring up the issue of a lack of library capacity as a problem. In response, the initial plan was to increase this capacity – an extension to the existing building paid for with borrowing, refurbishment and update of the rest of the building, and more money for digital resources.
A sound plan, but three years of lower than expected recruitment, declining income elsewhere, and an increased cost of doing business (construction costs are way up, for example) mean that the idea of putting the plan into action is keeping the director of finance up at night. It may be a necessary improvement, but it is no longer affordable.
In other words some or all of this valuable work isn’t going to happen this year, as things stand. One decision might be to redesign the project – perhaps covering some of the refurbishment and the content subscriptions but not the new build (and thus not the new borrowing). Even these elements would still have a cost, and with no new finance this would be coming out of recurrent funds. And there’s not as much available as there used to be.
So the other end of this point is reprofiling existing debt. For even a moderately leveraged university the repayment of capital and interest (under 6 per cent is pretty decent for new borrowing these days) takes up a fair chunk of available recurrent funding each year. If you are able to renegotiate your repayments – extending the loan term perhaps, or offering additional covenants, or both – this frees up recurrent funding to meet other needs.
Both of these solutions are temporary ones – one day that library will need sorting out, and paying less of your loan back now inevitably means paying more back later. But sometimes suboptimal solutions are all that are available.
3. Bringing things together
There may well be cases where the same thing is being done in multiple ways, by multiple teams, across a single institution. There might be benefits in every faculty having an admissions team and a research manager, but in a time of financial constraint you have to ask whether a central team might be more efficient – and whether this efficiency is more important than the benefits being realised from the current configuration.
Again – the calculus here differs from institution to institution. Where faculty autonomy is the norm, it may be that benefits are being realised that the centre doesn’t know exist, much less understand. As I am sure is becoming increasingly clear, questions like these are the start of a conversation – not the end. Even if in bald resource terms centralisation is a saving, you may not be taking all of the variables into account.
Conversely, where there are clear savings and no meaningful reduction in benefits you are still entering into a course of action that could prove hugely disruptive to individual staff members. For some, your plan may represent a long hoped for chance for progression or role redesign – for others it may be the push that means that their years of experience are lost to the university as they retire or move to another role. With campus redundancies in the news each week, staff are rightly suspicious of change – bringing people along with new structures requires a huge investment of time and effort in communication, consultation, and flexibility.
4. Focus
There are many, many more effective ways to run a surplus than being a university. The converse of this is that people who run universities probably have non-financial reasons to want to run universities rather than running something else. In some of the wilder us-versus-them framings of campus industrial relations we can lose sight of the fact that pretty much everyone involved wants a university to keep on being a university, despite the benefits that would come alongside a sudden pivot into, say, rare earth metal extraction or marketing generative AI.
That’s an admittedly flippant expression of something that is often forgotten in university strategising. We all have our reasons to be there. Expressing these is often the start of understanding which are the things a particular university does that are non-negotiably essential, and which are the things we do that are either generating income to subsidise these, or facilitating these things being done.
If there is something that a university is doing that is non-essential, is not helping essential activity to get done, and it is not generating income to subsidise the things that are essential, why is it being done at all?
Of course, this presupposes that everyone agrees on what activity fits into each category. Even posing the question can be painful. Once again, we are at the very beginning of a journey that probably took up a large part of governance and management meetings over the past few years.
5. Addressing underperformance
A couple of years ago, my party trick at conferences involving senior university staff was to show them my “fake subject TEF”. Confronted with a by subject analysis of student progression and satisfaction at their own provider, many of the staff I talked to would give me a similar answer – and it started “ah, I know why that is…”
The problems our universities face are already known to those who work there. External datapoints only confirm things that are pretty well understood, and usually confirm an instinct to act on them sooner rather than later – a reason why OfS investigations have tended to find the smoking guns already put beyond use by the time they get on campus.
If the problems within your institution are less obvious, a well-judged comparison with a competitor could help make things clear. A lot of the data you might want to play with is closely guarded, but there are ways in which you might use HESA’s public data to make a start (my tips – Student table 37, Staff table 11, Finance table 8). Otherwise, your staff will have a rich experience of working at other universities – what are the key differences. What is special about the way your place does things – and are there ways you can learn from the way things are done elsewhere.
Bring to the boil and mix well
If you are a university governor hoping for the mythical playbook, I can only apologise. If there was an easy way to make university books balance, we wouldn’t be where we are now.
What is on offer is the hard choices and difficult conversations that will very often lead to arguments, mistrust, and conspiracy theories. At boards and councils up and down the UK, variations on the above conversations are at the root of everything you feel is going wrong on campus.
You’ll be learning just how good your senior executive and governors actually are at running large, complex, beautiful organisations like universities. Parts of the university you may never have given a second thought to – the planning team, the finance department, the data analysis directorate, internal audit, procurement – will be coming up with ever more ingenious ways to make savings while preserving the university as a whole.
What’s the biggest problem facing college students today? Cost is a big concern, of course, for good reason. But many would point to something equally troubling—misperceptions about the value of college degrees. That’s no surprise when reasonable questions are raised about whether graduates are job-ready—and if too many jobs unnecessarily require diplomas.
There has long been a paper ceiling that penalizes applicants who lack degrees. And more companies are now taking a closer look at so-called STARs—people Skilled Through Alternative Routes.
The group Tear the Paper Ceiling says that 61 percent of Black workers, 55 percent of Hispanic workers, 66 percent of rural workers and 62 percent of veterans are considered STARs. They have learned valuable work skills through military service, certificate programs, on-the-job training and boot camps. But too often, they’ve been shut out unfairly.
I applaud the work of this national group and their partners. The equity barriers to jobs are real. Only half of working-age people have a quality degree or other credential beyond high school, even as millions of jobs go unfilled in part because applicants lack the required background or credentials. It only makes sense to make sure we’re not leaving behind talented but uncredentialed neighbors.
But to take a deeper look is to understand this isn’t only about expanding opportunity and filling today’s open jobs, but the jobs that an increasingly tech-driven, interconnected world will demand in coming years. Skills-based hiring is a good idea, but it won’t on its own come close to solving the nation’s human talent crisis. Increasing higher educational attainment by making sure many more people get better credentials—credentials of value—is the key.
Foundation of Growth
Higher education has always been about producing graduates who are ready to start careers, not just jobs. This matters because a person who is a good applicant for a position now could face challenges moving to better and higher-paying positions because they lack the foundation for career growth fostered in postsecondary programs.
The American Association of Colleges and Universities has surveyed executives and hiring managers eight times since 2006. The most recent survey, from 2023, found that 80 percent of employers strongly or somewhat agree that college prepares people for success in the workforce. Getting a degree is certainly worth the time and money, respondents suggested, as the survey “found a strong correlation between the outcomes of a liberal education and the knowledge and skills employers view as essential for success in entry-level jobs and for advancement in their companies.”
There will always be conflicting data points in times of change. For example, the push for skills-based hiring, including at the federal level, is opening doors to a broader array of good jobs that historically required a college degree. However, research by Harvard Business School and the Burning Glass Institute shows that college graduates still have an advantage when it comes to getting jobs with higher salaries and better benefits.
It turns out that employers aren’t committing to skills-based hiring at the level that recent headlines might suggest. The Harvard–Burning Glass report tracked more than 11,000 jobs where a bachelor’s degree was no longer required in the job description. It found only a 3.5-percentage-point increase in the share of non-degree-holders hired into those roles—a decidedly underwhelming number suggesting the buzz about skills-based hiring may be more hype than trend.
The Lifelong Payoff
This and other signs reinforce the enduring value of degrees: A recent report from Georgetown University’s Center on Education and the Workforce found that 72 percent of jobs in the United States will require post–high school education or training by the year 2031. The center also found:
People with bachelor’s degrees earn, on average, $1.2 million more over their lifetime than those with only a high school education.
Of the 18.5 million annual job openings we expect in the coming years, more than two-thirds will require at least some college education.
Earnings for people without degrees have been growing over the past decade, but so has pay for degree holders. Even as people without degrees earn more, they are still not catching up with those with diplomas.
Durable Skills Matter
Employers often say they’re looking for “durable” skills, such as critical thinking, communication and problem-solving.
Someone looking to hire an entry-level software developer might consider a candidate with skills in Python or other programming languages developed through informal learning. Many gifted techies are self-taught or developed skills through coding boot camps or working at start-ups, for example.
But a college graduate with similar skills might stand out because of their experience working in groups to complete projects, their communication and presentation skills, analytical thinking, and other traits fostered in college classes.
The catch: Across the board, we need better definitions of what our credentials mean. What defines a credential of value, exactly, and how do we make sure that the people obtaining credentials can do the work of the future?
Certainly, our fast-moving, tech-driven economy increasingly rewards nimble problem-solvers. According to the World Economic Forum’s 2023 Future of Jobs report, employers estimate that 44 percent of workers’ skills will be disrupted in the next five years.
“Cognitive skills are reported to be growing in importance most quickly, reflecting the increasing importance of complex problem-solving in the workplace,” the report said. “Surveyed businesses report creative thinking to be growing in importance slightly more rapidly than analytical thinking.”
There are many implications to this change. Embedded in the education pay premium is a fairness issue when it comes to who goes to college and how we support them. The Georgetown center has long reported on the value of a college degree and the persistent opportunity gaps for women and people of color.
The Change-Ready Nation
Whatever the impact of skills-based hiring on the nation’s labor shortage, we shouldn’t stop there. Addressing the long-standing inequities in higher education and the workforce means ensuring that these skills-based pathways include opportunities for all workers, especially when it comes to pursuing further education and training even after they enter the workforce.
Skills-based hiring and the push for increasing attainment aren’t countervailing forces. They’re aimed at ensuring that the nation grows and applies the talent it needs to be prepared for the human work of the 21st century, and to achieve the civic and economic benefits that people with good-paying jobs bring to their communities.
In the end, this is about more than the job readiness of our students. We’re talking about the change readiness of our entire nation in a rapidly evolving economy. It makes sense to revamp job requirements to meet workforce demands, but there’s no denying we’ll need the best-educated country we can build if we’re going to deliver opportunity and economic prosperity fairly for everyone.
In today’s digital-first world, higher education institutions are increasingly turning to digital marketing to educate, engage, enroll, and retain students. However, one of the key challenges that the campus decision-makers face is understanding the potential costs associated with digital marketing and how to effectively budget for growth.
As someone deeply immersed in the world of digital strategy, I often find myself having the same conversation with campus leaders: how do we set realistic expectations about what it really costs to do effective digital marketing? And more importantly, how do we directly link those costs with your institution’s growth objectives? In this blog, I will highlight the key data-driven strategies for assessing ROI and how these strategies inform a strategic budget plan that strengthens your institution’s overall portfolio and drives sustainable growth.
The importance of setting realistic expectations
Success in higher education landscape, particularly when managing a large portfolio, is driven by a disciplined, metrics-oriented approach. From my experience, the institutions that excel are those that rely on crisp numbers, rigorously evaluate their plans ahead of time, and understand the value of projections and estimations. By leveraging detailed forecasts and aligning resources accordingly, we can navigate the complexities of enrollment growth with precision and confidence, always mindful that incremental progress, evaluated at every stage, is key to achieving long-term goals.
Setting expectations means recognizing that significant results take time and careful planning. This translates to setting realistic growth expectations based on an understanding that reaching your enrollment goals will take multiple academic terms. When I am collaborating with our partners, we adopt a structured five year growth trajectory where Year 1 serves as the “foundational” phase, establishing the core infrastructure and strategic alignment. Year 2 is focused on “scaling,” optimizing initial investments to drive measurable growth. Years 3 and beyond are dedicated to “sustained value creation,” with a continuous focus on refining processes and maximizing returns through ongoing optimization and strategic enhancements. This phased approach allows for calculated risk-taking and ensures a clear path to long-term, scalable success.
Once we’ve set realistic expectations for our digital strategy, it’s crucial to ensure that every tactic -whether paid digital marketing, SEO, or creative content, all work together seamlessly to achieve your goals. These elements don’t function in isolation; rather, they complement each other to drive greater visibility, engagement, and, ultimately, enrollments. A well-rounded strategy that integrates SEO to boost discoverability, paid digital marketing for targeted reach, and compelling content to engage prospective students will create a strong foundation for success. By understanding how these components interrelate, you’ll be better equipped to assess their effectiveness and make data-driven adjustments as needed.
From here, let’s dive into how digital strategy translates into budget planning and ROI. Understanding the interconnectedness of these key elements will help you allocate resources more efficiently and set a clear path for measuring the success of your investments.
Connecting strategy to ROI and crafting a strategic budget plan for growth
The connection between strategy and ROI is grounded in the ability to align your digital marketing efforts with measurable outcomes, and it all starts with the establishment of clear and precise enrollment goals. Prioritizing top programs ensures that marketing resources are directed toward the areas with the highest demand or growth potential, improving overall program performance. The right channel mix is crucial to reaching the right audience, maximizing visibility, and efficiently converting interest into applications. Monitoring data and optimizing it in real-time ensures that marketing efforts are continuously adjusted for maximum effectiveness, enhancing the likelihood of meeting targets and improving ROI. Finally, effective allocation based on application timing, seasonality projections, and market revisions allows for strategic adjustments in campaigns to account for fluctuating demands, ensuring marketing spend is optimized throughout the enrollment cycle. Collectively, these elements create a robust framework for maximizing ROI, ensuring that marketing investments lead to increased applications, conversions, and, ultimately, student enrollment.
How do you craft a budget that supports your growth goals? Whether you are the decision-making authority or a decision influencer, here are the essential steps to craft a budget plan that aligns with your institution’s growth objectives and maximizes your enrollments:
1. Define your enrollment goals in detail
When you think of marketing costs, what comes to mind first? How much will it cost to meet your enrollment goals, right? So, your first step in planning a budget is to have your overall Enrollment goal (and, for graduate or online programs, a goal for every program) in front of you. With the goal (or program-level goals) in hand, determine what that means in terms of percentage growth from the current state. You may also have subsidiary goals like enhancing brand awareness, building more brand equity, or engaging alumni. If these are going to be part of your plan, they should also have tangible goals for what you are trying to do. Defining your enrollment goals helps you allocate your budget accordingly and measure ROI effectively.
STRATEGY TIP
Develop a “Goal Mapping” Scenario or you can say a Reverse Funnel (for each program). After you set enrollment goals (for the year or the term) you then need to understand the lead to enroll ratio. This will help you work backwards to determine how many accepted apps/admits will be needed, how many completed apps, how many submitted apps, and finally how many qualified leads will be needed. Based on the program category, dig deeper into what the Cost per Leads (CPL’s) are, based on industry benchmarks. That will help you calculate the estimated ad spend needed to generate those qualified leads.
A note on program-level goals: If you don’t have program-level enrollment goals for your online and graduate programs, finalize those as soon as possible. Until then, focus marketing on building brand awareness. It is likely that people in your own backyard could be less familiar with your program than you may think they are. Brand advertising will ensure that awareness rises so that when you have your program goals, you can build your campaigns on a higher level of familiarity with your institution. However, given that Google reports that 75 percent of graduate and online program searches don’t include an institution name, remember that branding alone will not be enough to fill your classes.
Institutional example: When we began work with one of our partners nearly two years ago, they had not established program-level goals. So, in year one, we focused the largest portion of the budget on institutional awareness, with mini-campaigns focused on specific programs of importance to the institution. By the beginning of the second year, the institution had set program-level goals based on a greater understanding of market conditions. At that point, we began transitioning our campaigns to focus (ultimately 80 percent of the budget) on the programs with the “mini campaign” focused on continuing the brand equity efforts.
2. Prioritize your programs
It is highly unlikely that most institutions can spend marketing dollars on every program they offer. This means that in order to maximize the ROI of your marketing budget, you must prioritize your programs. But how? Take a data-driven approach, prioritizing programs for which you a) know there is market demand both among students and employers, and b) understand the competitor environment. These are the “cash cows” that will demonstrate the best ROI on your marketing spend and support the programs that, while not demonstrating significant market demand, are critical to the institutional mission.
STRATEGY TIP
Spreading a $100K marketing budget across 15 -20 programs will only dilute the ad spend, by spreading it too thin. Instead, identify the top 5-7 programs that have the greatest market demand and focus on them. Note that sometimes, the programs that seem most in need of a “marketing boost”, really aren’t. They are struggling because their market demand situation is not what it once was.
Institutional example: A partner institution recently commissioned RNL to conduct a Program Prioritization and Positioning study focused on their current program mix. The goal was to take a data-driven deep dive into 12 programs vying for marketing dollars, with a focus on understanding student demand and employer needs in the region. The results indicated that while one of the programs they had planned to prioritize came out on top, two others that they hadn’t been planning to focus on also demonstrated strong demand, and one of the programs that they had questioned was confirmed as having weak local market demand.
3. Determine your channel strategy
Once you have prioritized your programs for marketing ROI, setting your channel strategy is pivotal. Personas (at the graduate and online levels developed for each program) dictate the channels on which you should focus. You don’t want (or need) to be present on every single channel just for the sake of “eyeballs.” Be mindful of the budget and how best to use it in order to maximize return, which can only be accomplished if you apply the personas that will inform you where your target student spend their “digital time.” So, for example, not every program may benefit from marketing on LinkedIn. Since it is expensive with a $10 minimum ad spend, a persona-based approach may indicate that other platforms are a much better match. But you can only do this if you know the characteristics of your audience, and that comes from the program personas.
STRATEGY TIP
The critical element in increasing marketing ROI is to engage the right students at the right time on the right channel, without spreading your budget too thin. In contrast, being too invested in any single channel exclusively or too long is also almost always the wrong strategy. There is always a point of diminishing returns as students cycle to different platforms, and you want to be sure to know where to go next before you approach that point by being able to tap into the next new thing.
Institutional example: One of our prestigious campus partners was struggling with recent market shifts that resulted in an overall decline in applications. We dug into market and performance data to help them prioritize programs that had the highest lead-to-enroll ratios, lowest cost per acquisition, and good search volume with an eye to increasing marketing ROI and overall success. This approach not only helped regain their momentum at the top of the funnel but also generated strong conversion volume that exceeded goals and sustainably reduced cost per conversion. These changes benefited not only the marketing operation but were also felt by the call center, and further down the funnel where we saw an increase in applications.
Talk with our digital and enrollment experts
We’re to help you find the right digital marketing and recruitment strategies. Let’s set up a time to talk.
4. Analyze data regularly and optimize with agility
If (quality) content is king, data is queen! Sustained growth can only occur when data and insights are continuously incorporated into strategy. Analyzing performance data is crucial to understanding which programs and channels are yielding the largest numbers of applications and enrollments and, hence, generating the best return on ad spend (ROAS). This type of analysis allows for a data-driven approach to strategic pivots on how the marketing budget is allocated to ensure the highest ROI (or ROAS) across channels and the program portfolio. As the cost of marketing has risen, so has the need for marketers to make an effective case to senior leadership for additional marketing dollars. You can only do this if you can demonstrate that you are the best possible stewards of current resources.
STRATEGY TIP
As you continue to increase your campaign efficiency and success with the focus on ROI, your cost per lead will gradually start to go down – on average by 5 – 10 percent in year 2 and beyond. So, campaigns can generate more qualified leads efficiently over the years (for the same cost), thereby maximizing the return on your ad spend (ROAS). This helps you not just grow but also helps in building forecasts and projections for growth compounded over several years – and it also provides a strong ROI-driven basis for any requests you may need to make for additional funds elsewhere.
A note on analytics platforms: The fact that resources have become increasingly scarce at the same time as marketing costs have skyrocketed has resulted, out of necessity, in more sophisticated tracking of ROI. If your internal systems are set up in the correct manner (or if you are working with a strategic partner like RNL) every lead can be tracked to its source, thereby allowing for the assessment of just how effectively each marketing dollar has been used.
Institutional example: A prestigious campus partner was having challenges with converting leads to applications and enrollments. We reviewed their full-funnel data (compete with attribution percentages) and realized something wasn’t working. The top of the funnel was healthy, with good lead volume. However, down the funnel we saw that a disproportionate number of leads were not converting to apps and enrollments. As a result of the review and data analysis, we made a bold strategic pivot to shift significant budget allocations to the channel (Google search) that we could see was producing the greatest numbers of applications and enrollments. Without the data, solving the challenge would have been impossible. With the data, it was easy. Since we made this change, applications, and enrollments have consistently increased each academic period.
Making sure that the top of the funnel strategy is guided by down funnel numbers is the KEY! Effective strategy must evolve through ongoing optimizations with thoughtful placements across diverse media platforms that are informed by performance data. Remember that the path to enrollment is rarely linear and an integrated media strategy allows you to provide a personalized message in the right place at the right time.
5. Understand and account for seasonality/application timings/expansion
Another aspect of the dynamic nature of the marketing process relates to the seasonality of lead flow – and subsequent enrollment. This requires flexibility to adjust your strategies based on real-time performance data collected throughout the year. For any program or institution, there are times of the year during which more or fewer leads are generated. Fully understanding these trends takes time; you can make preliminary judgments on when the lead volume is highest and lowest within one year, but multiple years will allow for greater certainty. As you build your capacity to track lead generation – and conversion throughout the funnel – by program and source – you can create visualizations that map these factors by month. They can be used to build monthly budget allocations like those presented below.
Institutional example: For one campus partner we used the annual performance data in an innovative way. Our data insights indicated that there was more market share to capture, by having the program leverage low cost per conversion at the top of the funnel at certain points in the year, and low cost per acquisition at the bottom at other points of the year. There was time to scale up both applications and enrollments. We developed a forecast plan to address the potential areas of opportunity, calculated the cost, and pitched it to the partner. Once approved, we moved with agility, and implemented additional ad spend on the top champion programs and frontloaded the budgets for the academic periods yielding the highest number of applicants and enrollments. With this, we were not only able to meet the qualified lead goal but also exceeded the enrollments by 19% for the following academic period.
The lifetime value of the student
As you budget for growth, it’s crucial to consider the lifetime value (LTV) of a student. LTV refers to the total revenue a student generates throughout their academic journey and beyond. This value encompasses tuition fees, ancillary revenues (like housing and meal plans), alumni donations, and increasingly in our era lifelong learning opportunities.
Talk with our digital and enrollment experts
We’re to help you find the right digital marketing and recruitment strategies. Let’s set up a time to talk.
