This guest blog has been kindly written by Professor Diana Beech, Director of the new public policy institute – the Finsbury Institute – and Assistant Vice-President of Policy and Government Affairs at City St George’s, University of London. Diana is one of the two authors of the latest HEPI debate paper (Debate Paper 40) and she writes here about the piece came about…
Explaining the challenges facing UK universities today is not easy. The pace of change is rapid, the policy pressures are competing and the landscape is shaped by complex interplays between funding, regulation, mounting costs and increasing expectations.
This makes the job of university governors particularly taxing. Many governors come from other sectors and industries, bringing valuable external experience, but often without a deep knowledge of higher education per se. As an independent governor myself – at the University of Worcester where I am also Vice-Chair of the Board – but with a background and experience in higher education policy, I’ve long felt a responsibility to help my fellow governors across the sector make sense of it all. That’s why I created a visual tool I call the ‘HE Box’.
The original ‘HE Box’
At first, the ‘HE Box’ was simple. It was a two-dimensional model created to depict a sector squeezed on all sides. It illustrated the four immediate pressures that were boxing universities in. These comprise:
The resource wall: Domestic per-student funding has been declining in real terms across the UK, meaning the money received no longer covers the basic costs of delivery.
The cost wall: Institutions are facing rising and often hidden operational costs – some a result of government policy changes, others responding to changing student expectations – but the net result is pressure on already constrained resource.
The regulatory floor: Instead of supportive foundations, universities face growing, disproportionate, disjointed – and sometimes even politicised – regulatory demands.
The international lid: Changes to visa and immigration terms and post-study work entitlements are threatening the continued flow of overseas students into UK universities.
Although basic, this 2D box helped me to explain to university governors on my ‘board roadshow’ the main tension that has been growing in the sector of late – namely universities being forced to do more with less, with little relief or flexibility from any direction.
The moving box
Over the past year, the ‘HE Box’ has shifted in response to various policy changes. In England, for example, the one-off domestic fee increase granted by the Education Secretary should be offering some financial breathing room for providers from September 2025. Yet, any relief from the announcement was short-lived, with the hike in employers’ National Insurance contributions in April 2025 more than offsetting the gains in the scheduled domestic undergraduate fee rises.
Similarly, the regulatory floor in England should have also seen some easing last year with the promise to ‘reset’ the Office for Students’ approach to regulation following the House of Lords’ report and Independent Public Bodies Review. Yet this, too, has been recently undercut by the UK Government’s Immigration White Paper, which pledged to reduce the post-study work rights of international graduates from UK universities from two years to 18 months. Gains on one side of the box have therefore been quickly reversed by pressures from another.
Expanding the box
Short-term pressures are, however, not the whole picture of the challenges facing UK universities. After presenting my original 2D model to the Council of City St George’s, University of London, shortly before joining in April 2025, Professor André Spicer helped evolve it into a more comprehensive 3D box – adding two more sides of long-term challenges to the ‘HE Box’ based on his own thinking on the sector’s predicament. These two new sides focus on:
Demographic shifts: The UK’s domestic 18-year-old population is projected to shrink over the next decade. Meanwhile, key overseas markets like China and India are experiencing major population changes of their own, as a result of declining birth rates or societal shifts related to the education of women.
Alternative pathways: From apprenticeships to online micro-credentials, viable alternatives to traditional university degrees are growing fast. In an age of scepticism about value for money and returns on investment, universities must work harder than ever to prove their worth for individuals and for wider society.
Why the ‘HE Box’ matters
The six sides of the ‘HE Box’ capture the full range of pressures currently squeezing the sector, both immediate and existential. Our latest report outlines these pressures in more detail and suggests how university governors, senior leadership teams and policymakers, together, can help universities break free from this dire ‘boxed-in’ situation.
Of course, the sides of the ‘HE Box’ will shift again as policies evolve. But the 3D model as it stands today offers a practical framework to:
help new governors quickly grasp the policy landscape;
support better decision-making under pressure; and
push for a stronger, more strategic relationship between universities and governments right across the UK.
The challenges for the UK’s higher education sector are real, but their outcomes are not inevitable. With clearer thinking and a shared understanding of the constraints, it is my sincere hope that we can start to find our way out of the ‘HE Box’ together.
The first major report of Universities UK’s transformation and efficiency taskforce – Towards a new era of collaboration – is a milestone in the ongoing national debate about unlocking maximum value from state investment in the higher education system.
Though “transformation and efficiency” is the headline, the focus of the group has largely been on collaboration – ways in which universities and other providers can work together, and ways in which government and regulators can make it easier for this to happen.
The drive for transformation came slowly at first and then all at once. The financial pressures on the sector – arising from Covid recovery, uneven patterns of student recruitment, rising pensions costs and erosion of the unit of resource for undergraduate tuition – are long standing (remember then chief of staff Sue Gray’s “shitlist” for the new government which featured the financial collapse of a large university?)
Why and how
The election of a new Labour government prompted the publication of the Universities UK Blueprint which hoped for a shift in relations between government and the sector based on effort on both sides to address the structural challenges facing higher education, of which a taskforce on transformation was one recommendation.
Even at the point of the formation of the taskforce, led by former University of the Arts London vice chancellor Nigel Carrington, there was a degree of scepticism about how feasible the promised “new era of collaboration” might be. Wonkhe and Mills & Reeve’s Only Connect report on the opportunities for cooperation in the English sector found an appetite in principle among university leadership for new models for collaboration, along with a sense that the cultural and regulatory barriers were so significant as to make meaningful exploration of those opportunities unlikely.
The taskforce, through a series of in-depth interviews with stakeholders, and detailed work with sector organisations, professional bodies and external experts, has therefore made an enormous stride forward in setting out the potential for system-wide change.
The case for change
There is a genre of departmental spending review submission called the “bleeding stumps” report, wherein civil servants offer up apocalyptic and or foolish ways in which spending constraints can be overcome – ex-DfE adviser Sam Freedman loves to tell the story of a pre-spending review report that suggested that pupils could attend school either in the morning or the afternoon.
What Universities UK has produced is pretty much the diametric opposite of this approach. While recognising the dwindling availability of cash, the impact of these circumstances is set out via the results of a survey conducted in May of this year. While this is pretty bleak reading – 55 per cent of universities are consolidating courses (94 per cent would consider in the next three years), 25 per cent have seen compulsory staff redundancies already (up 14 percentage points on last year) and 36 per cent are cutting student support services (77 per cent would consider) – it comes across neither as sensationalist nor overblown to reflect the way the sector is having to change.
The “would consider in next three years” column will be of most concern to the government, even beyond DfE: 79 per cent would consider cutting academic research activity, 71 per cent would be looking at cutting civic and local growth activity. To be clear this is based on a survey completed by 57 providers, so while it does show a concerning direction of travel you couldn’t expect a precise picture of what is happening on the ground everywhere.
One interesting nugget within this section is a call for sector stewardship – with OfS focusing on teaching through a market-based regulatory lens, and Research England acting as a research council UUK argues that no single body has an eye on the health of the sector as a whole with the ability to intervene where action is needed. The declining value of tuition fee income and other state support is part of the issue, but a rise in the number of providers and what is described as “an increasingly competitive environment” has played a part in many of the pressures universities are facing. As consultees told the taskforce:
the focus had shifted too far to the individual student or institution, even where that created conflict with wider national interests, including disadvantaging activity that could benefit economic objectives and wider society but may not translate into student demand, such as the provision of highly specialised skills to meet the needs of certain industries or the protection of universities playing important civic roles in parts of the country with higher levels of disadvantage.
Opportunities and actions
The taskforce’s findings are neatly split across seven “opportunities”, each with associated actions for university leaders, Universities UK itself, other organisations, and government:
Pursuing innovative collaborative structures
Sharing more services and infrastructure
Leveraging sector buying power
Supporting digital transformation
Adopting a common approach to assessing efficiency and benchmarking costs
Developing leadership skills in those mandated to deliver change and further improving governance
Developing the current regulatory environment and supportive structures to help collaboration and transformation to go further, faster
Each is also supported by case studies (drawing primarily on existing work in the UK higher education sector, though the net is occasionally cast further afield) and indications of appetite from consultation respondees.
Collaboration and sharing
The case for university collaboration in the UK has been made with increasing frequency as the financial squeeze starts to make itself felt in profound ways. That said, there has been little tangible activity – the report points to longstanding structures such as the University of London federation, existing networks of research collaborations, and strategic working with local stakeholders. The taskforce adds the multi-academy trust-esque group structures employed by the (HE and FE) University of the Highlands and (cross sector) London South Bank to the list., and there is a nod to the world of sharing expensive research infrastructure too.
A third strand covers the sharing of infrastructure and services – major examples here include UCAS and the Jisc Janet network, alongside more specialist activity like Uniac on auditing services (further examples are worth digging into via the recent Jisc/KPMG report).
Though the big newsworthy two-become-one moments exemplified by ARU Writtle may be few and far between, what comes across powerfully is just how much of this stuff is going one, and the potential that exists to do more. One of the big gaps is expertise and understanding – tackling the legal, technical, and process aspects of joint working is not for the faint of heart and if this is the direction of travel both specialist staff and institutional leaders need to be clear and up to date on how this works. There’s scope for detailed advice and guidance (that the taskforce itself will produce) alongside an ongoing support function at Universities UK – we need regulatory tweaks to allow for innovation in organisational forms too.
The bigger asks are for a transformation fund, and specific advice from the Competition and Markets Authority (CMA) on what would constitute a breach of competition law in this space. The latter appears to be in progress – there was an encouraging blog post from CMA at the end of last week. The cost of transformation (ie investing in the infrastructure and systems that can enable efficiency) could, the taskforce suggests, arrive in a straightforward way by allowing universities to access a “small portion” of the existing £3.25bn Transformation Fund available to the public sector.
Spending and benchmarking
Taken as a whole, the higher education sector spends £20.1bn on operating expenses each year – much of the non-pay end of this happens via procurement processes at individual institutions. The cumulative impact of all this spending can often enable the sector to get a better deal, but this needs to be coordinated across multiple providers for the benefits to kick in. Initiatives like the UK University Purchasing Consortia and Jisc’s procurement on behalf of the sector are unlocking big, existing, savings – the report suggests savings of £116m via UKUPC, and £138m for the Jisc activity – taking maximum advantage of these proven schemes could drive further savings.
But there is potential to unlock even more – the work of the taskforce indicates that there is both scope and appetite for this kind of collaborative spending in information technology (ask your IT department, the cost of software licenses and cloud-based solutions are spiralling) and estates (bear in mind the maintenance backlog that the precarious financial environment has led to).
Another angle is making it easier to understand when your university is spending over the odds. Finance teams are very keen on benchmarking spending with comparable institutions – why should it cost more to do fundamental stuff than at the university down the road? – but it is difficult to access reliable and comparable data. There’s a suggestion that an Association of the Heads of University Administration (AHUA) organisational efficiency maturity model (basically best practice on understanding and reporting spending) could help get the sector on the same page, and that UUK could drive a more collaborative approach to sharing and using this data to drive savings.
Digital transformation
There’s any number of promises that the latest and greatest software can save your university time and money, but your IT director will tell you that such promises take substantial time and money to realise. The rise of large language model generative tools has unlocked another round of wild claims, and both institutional leaders and IT and administrative specialists are being asked to evaluate spending even more to make these efficiencies a reality. There’s so many questions – not least around whether your shiny new system will work with the systems and processes you already use.
The trouble is, understanding and implementing this stuff takes time and expertise at both specialist and leadership levels – and both are at a premium in higher education. Jisc is already supporting 24 providers in understanding and benchmarking their digital transformation maturity – helping, in essence, to understand where further help may be needed. There’s also a need to actively and meaningfully involve senior leaders, and to understand the digital competencies of staff and students. The taskforce calls for a wider roll-out of this maturity model, and for Jisc and UCISA to promote shared standards around software and processes.
Regulation and leadership
The need for an advancement in leadership skills runs throughout the taskforce report. Transformations like the ones advocated require competencies and knowledge that go far beyond business as usual, and correspondingly more is being asked of senior staff and governors – all of which comes alongside a more onerous (and fast-moving) regulatory regime that requires its own expanding set of skills.
The report is supportive of the current Committee of University Chairs (CUC) initiative to review university governance (via updating its current code for governors), and Universities UK proposes to facilitate ongoing and sector-led improvement activity.
There’s immediate stuff that can be done on cost pressures – there’s a specific ask of government on relaxing the rules that require some universities to enroll all staff onto the increasingly expensive teacher’s pension scheme (TPS), and a more general suggestions that the government avoid putting additional costs on the sector such as introducing new and unfunded expectations, or inventing new levies.
There is clearly scope to address the regulatory burden placed on the sector – one easy win would be to address the barriers to collaboration. Recent regulatory activity (particularly in England) has focused on individual providers – the recent shift in the OfS remit to consider the wider health of the sector offers scope to reestablish the idea of a “custodian” of the sector that could deliver on the long-term goals set all levels of government and by wider civic society.
What’s next?
This report marks the end of the first phase of Universities UK work on transformation and efficiency. Phase two will create an oversight group to keep an eye on the various asks from sector agencies and monitor both progress and impact. This is not in any sense a political report – though it is clearly politically useful – and it is clear that both UUK and the sector are in this for the long haul.
More broadly the report stands as another signal to government that the sector is prepared to go further and faster on transformation and collaboration that has previously been the case – but there is a clear desire for a reciprocal “vision” or plan from government around which the sector can do, ideally backed up with some investment in that vision.
The rather dour communications that have so far issued from DfE on HE reform and funding suggest that the government is not yet prepared to give the sector a full-throated endorsement, but there is scope for that to change following next week’s spending review and the publication of the post 16 education and skills and HE reform white paper this summer.
Economic circumstances notwithstanding the policy agenda in the next few months will set a course for HE for the rest of this parliament and beyond – it would be a real own-goal not to seize the opportunity to work with the sector to get things onto a firmer footing.
In a world obsessed with TikTok trends and digital ad spends, it’s easy to overlook the humble email. Yet, email marketing for universities and other higher educational institutions isn’t just surviving, it’s thriving.
While newer platforms grab headlines, email continues to deliver results where it matters most: student recruitment. In fact, email engagement has surged by a staggering 78% in recent years. That’s a clear signal: email is not just relevant, it’s essential.
Email remains one of the most powerful channels in higher education marketing, and for good reason. By the end of 2025, global email users are projected to reach 4.6 billion, with over 376 billion emails sent daily.
Our targeted email marketing services can help you attract and enroll more students.
Discover how we can enhance your recruitment strategy today!
The ROI speaks for itself: email marketing returns around $36 for every $1 spent, outshining many other channels. Here’s the surprising part. Students want your emails. In a recent survey, more than 68% of students prefer to receive content via email from higher-ed institutions.
But many schools are still doing it wrong. They send the same message to every contact, ignore personalization, and fail to align emails with the student journey. The result? Missed opportunities and low conversions.
This guide will walk you through how to craft student-first, high-converting email campaigns, from audience research to measuring real impact. Ready to turn your inbox into an enrollment engine? Let’s dive in.
Why Email? Why Now?
Let’s start from the very beginning. What is educational marketing? Educational marketing refers to the strategies and tactics used by schools, colleges, and universities to attract, engage, and enroll students. It includes campaigns across digital channels like email, social media, SEO, and paid ads to promote programs and build institutional brand awareness.
From there, we move on to the big question: Is email still relevant in 2025? Absolutely. In fact, 69% of education marketers say email provides a good to excellent ROI, outperforming heavy hitters like social media (55%), display ads (19%), and even SEO (46%).
Why is that?
Because email does three things exceptionally well. It provides a direct line to decision-makers, allows for scalable personalization, and supports long-term engagement without burning through your budget.
But, and this is key, many schools still aren’t tapping into its full potential. Too often, the same message is sent to everyone, without clearly defined audience profiles to guide the way. That’s where opportunity lives, for those willing to do it right.
Know Your Audience: Meet Sophie
Let’s talk about what separates forgettable campaigns from unforgettable ones.
It starts with understanding your audience, not just broadly, but deeply. This is where student personas come into play.
Meet Sophie.
She’s a 30-something international career professional with 3–7 years of experience. Sophie is exploring MBA programs and micro-credentials, driven by career advancement and global networking opportunities. She’s ROI-conscious, skeptical about short courses, and likely found your school via Instagram or Google.
See the difference?
When you write with Sophie in mind, you’re not just blasting content, you’re building trust. She wants to know your credentials are legit. She’s inspired by student success stories. She’s curious about cultural experiences.
So instead of saying, “Join our business program,” try, “Boost your global career with accredited micro-credentials and a community that spans five continents.” Now that’s an email that connects. Now that we’ve seen what a well-developed persona looks like, let’s explore how to apply this kind of insight through segmentation.
Example: McMaster University’s Continuing Education division’s persona-based email drip campaigns for lead nurturing show how each email is tailored to a persona (e.g. career changers in Project Management or Applied Clinical Research) with personalized greetings (“Hi {{FirstName}}”) and program-specific content.
Different students have different interests and needs, so your university email campaign should too.
Segmentation
By dividing your email list into meaningful groups (or “segments”), you can send each group content that truly matters to them. The result? Dramatically better performance.
How to segment effectively? Think about the factors that distinguish your prospective students. Common segmentation angles in higher ed include:
Stage in enrollment journey: Are they brand-new inquiries, applicants, or admitted students? (More on this later.)
Academic interests: What program or major are they interested in? Emails tailored by program (e.g. Engineering vs. Liberal Arts prospects) will highlight different selling points.
Demographics/Location: Is the student international or domestic? High school senior or adult learner? Local or out-of-state? Each group may respond to different messaging.
Behavioural engagement: How have they interacted with your school so far? (Attended a webinar, downloaded a brochure, etc.) Those actions can trigger targeted follow-ups.
Segmenting your list by criteria like these ensures each student gets content that speaks to their specific situation. As a result, your emails feel more relevant, and relevance drives results.
Example: The Cut Design Academy launched a promotional recruitment email targeting prospective students for its January 2025 Makeup Artistry Certificate intake. The campaign focused on driving immediate applications from students close to the decision stage, offering a limited-time tuition discount to accelerate conversions. Framed around an exclusive offer, the email used urgency, clear benefits, and student-focused messaging to stand out. The campaign leveraged personalization through tone (“Dear creative mind”) and clear calls to action, guiding prospects from interest to enrollment with stage-aligned messaging.
Segmented emails consistently outperform generic blasts, leading to stronger engagement, greater relevance, and improved results across the board. Marketers find that tailoring messages to specific audience groups makes campaigns more effective and impactful. The bottom line? When you embrace the diversity of your audience and tailor your messaging accordingly, they’ll reward you with higher engagement.
Let’s say you have a student interested in your Executive MBA. They’ve clicked on emails but haven’t registered for an event. You wouldn’t send them the same message as a high school student in Colombia interested in ESL.
Personalization
Now add personalization on top. If segmentation is about who you’re writing to, personalization is about what and how you communicate to each person. Today’s prospective students expect a personalized touch, and they respond when they get it.
Here’s why: Research shows that emails with personalized content have a 29% higher open rate and a 41% higher click-through rate than non-personalized emails. Simply put, personalization grabs attention. It signals to the student that “this is about you,” cutting through the clutter of impersonal mass communications.
Personalization can be as simple as using the student’s first name in the greeting or subject line – emails with a personalized subject are 29% more likely to be opened, according to Experian. But it goes much deeper than that. Effective enrollment emails often incorporate personal details like the student’s intended major, specific interests, or past interactions.
Let’s Look At Two Examples:
If a prospect has shown interest in your business program, your follow-up emails should reflect that. Highlight business-specific content such as alumni success stories, internship opportunities, and upcoming events related to the program. This reinforces relevance and keeps the student engaged with information they care about.
If a student clicks on a link about financial aid, your next email could focus on scholarships, bursaries, or affordability tips. This kind of targeted follow-up shows that you’re paying attention to their concerns. And students notice this effort.
An EAB survey in 2024 found that 93% of students said receiving a personalized message from a college would encourage them to explore that school further.
That’s an overwhelming majority who are more likely to engage simply because your email spoke directly to their interests or concerns. 71% of students expect personalized interactions from brands (including universities), and 76% get frustrated when they don’t get them. The message is clear: personalization isn’t just a nice touch; it’s expected.
Example: This email from London Business School (LBS), addressed personally to the recipient (“Conor, come and meet some of the people that make LBS unique”), exemplifies effective personalization (using the student’s name and regional relevance) and event-based drip sequencing, reinforcing LBS’s presence and availability as the student prepares to make a decision.
So, how can you infuse personalization into your campaigns? Here are a few proven tactics (think of these as the “little things” that yield big results):
Use dynamic fields: Most email platforms allow you to insert the recipient’s name or other attributes automatically. A subject like “John, here’s info on the Computer Science program you liked” is far more engaging than a generic “Learn about our programs.”
Tailor content to personas: If you’ve segmented by persona or interest, craft the email copy and images to match each segment. A student athlete might get an email highlighting campus sports facilities and team success, whereas a fine arts prospect might see content about your art studios or student exhibits.
Leverage behavioural data: Personalization can also be triggered by what a student does. For instance, “We noticed you started an application – here are the next steps,” or “Thanks for downloading our Nursing Program guide – would you like to attend a nursing info session?” These timely, relevant messages show that you’re paying attention and ready to help.
In a nutshell, how do you develop a marketing strategy for a university? Start by defining clear goals (e.g., increase applications or improve yield), identify target audiences using personas, choose the right channels (email, social, SEO), create tailored content for each stage of the student journey, and measure results regularly to optimize performance.
Align With the Student Journey
A student’s path from curiosity to commitment isn’t linear. Your email marketing strategy shouldn’t be either.
Awareness
This is your digital handshake. Send welcome emails that reflect your institution’s voice: professional, warm, and resourceful. Keep it brief and include CTAs to helpful blog posts, reports, or program videos. The goal here? Spark interest and build trust.
Example: Algonquin College initiated a welcome email campaign targeting newly inquiring students, aimed at supporting the awareness stage of the enrollment funnel. This automated email is sent immediately after a student checks out a program or completes an inquiry form, making it a textbook example of an early-stage drip campaign designed to keep the college top-of-mind and help prospects begin their research journey.
Now that they’re paying attention, it’s time to educate. Share program benefits, tuition details, and testimonials. Even better, offer personalized interaction, like a Q&A session with advisors. Emails at this stage become your student’s research partner.
Example: Miami Ad School implemented a direct and informative follow-up email targeting prospective students who had expressed prior interest in one of its portfolio programs. The message used light personalization and concise formatting to clearly lay out the next steps for engagement. This email served as an early-stage consideration touchpoint designed to convert inquiry-stage leads into applicants.
Here’s where the magic happens, or it doesn’t. Use emails to overcome last-minute doubts, emphasize application deadlines, and make it ridiculously easy to act. Offer a call with an advisor. Include direct application links. This is where you close the loop.
Enrollment
Don’t stop now. Once students say “yes,” keep the momentum going. Celebrate with a warm welcome, then guide them through the next steps: registration links, orientation videos, and community invites. Make them feel like part of something exciting.
The Anatomy of a Winning Email
So what does a high-converting email actually look like?
1. Craft Irresistible Subject Lines
Include first names or program names
Add urgency (“Last Chance!”) or exclusivity (“Just for You”)
Steer clear of spammy ALL CAPS and excessive punctuation
Example: [Alex], Your Journey to an International Career Starts Here
Mobile-first design is a must; 55% of emails are opened on phones
Responsive layouts = higher clicks and happier readers
Stay Out of Spam and In Their Good Books
Even the best content won’t help if it lands in the junk folder. Avoid spam triggers (like “FREE!!!”). Keep your database clean, and follow laws like CAN-SPAM (US), CASL (Canada), and PECR (UK). And yes, always include that unsubscribe link; it builds trust.
Fun fact: The average inbox placement rate is 83%, so there’s room to optimize.
Build Relationships With Drip Campaigns
Think of a drip campaign as a well-timed sequence of nudges. It starts with a thank-you or auto-response after form submission.
Then, over days or weeks, you send emails that deepen interest, event invites, alumni success stories, or a reminder to complete an application. Every email has a purpose. Every message moves the needle.
Track What Really Matters
If you’re only looking at open rates, you’re missing the bigger picture.
Here’s a smarter approach:
Use open rates to gauge subject line effectiveness (aim for 46–50%)
Analyze click-through rates to measure engagement, event invites can hit 15–25%
Most importantly, track conversion rates: Are students applying, booking meetings, or showing up?
The data doesn’t lie. HEM’s insights show that most student bookings happen only after a lead is nurtured, sometimes weeks after their first touchpoint.
Final Thoughts: Your Enrollment Power Tool
We’ve covered a lot of ground, and you might be thinking, “How do I implement all of this?” The key is to view these strategies not as isolated tactics, but as complementary pieces of a holistic email marketing plan.
Segmentation gives you the framework (who gets what), personalization adds the special sauce (making content relevant to each individual), drip campaigns provide the delivery engine (timing and automation), mobile optimization ensures your efforts actually get seen on students’ preferred devices, and enrollment-stage alignment keeps your messaging strategy coherent from start to finish.
Each strategy is powerful on its own, but together they truly transform your email marketing from a simple broadcast tool into an engaging, research-backed recruitment machine.
You’ll be speaking to the right student with the right message at the right time – and that’s a recipe for higher open rates, click-throughs, and conversion to applications and enrollments. Just ask the institutions we discussed: they’ve seen application surges, increased yield, and record enrollments by putting these principles into practice.
To recap, how can colleges increase enrollment? Colleges can boost enrollment by improving lead nurturing (e.g., drip email campaigns), enhancing website conversion, offering personalized communication, streamlining the application process, and using data to better target and engage prospective students.
Done right, email isn’t just part of your marketing mix. It’s the glue that holds your enrollment strategy together.
Our targeted email marketing services can help you attract and enroll more students.
Discover how we can enhance your recruitment strategy today!
Frequently Asked Questions
Question: What is educational marketing?
Answer: Educational marketing refers to the strategies and tactics used by schools, colleges, and universities to attract, engage, and enroll students. It includes campaigns across digital channels like email, social media, SEO, and paid ads to promote programs and build institutional brand awareness.
Question: How do you develop a marketing strategy for a university?
Answer: Start by defining clear goals (e.g., increase applications or improve yield), identify target audiences using personas, choose the right channels (email, social, SEO), create tailored content for each stage of the student journey, and measure results regularly to optimize performance.
Question: How can colleges increase enrollment?
Answer: Colleges can boost enrollment by improving lead nurturing (e.g., drip email campaigns), enhancing website conversion, offering personalized communication, streamlining the application process, and using data to better target and engage prospective students.
Secondary schools, particularly those in regions with a high density of higher education providers, are inundated with offers of university outreach initiatives.
Meanwhile university widening participation and schools liaison teams, acting (in England) on the principles of their respective access and participation plans (APPs), channel their efforts towards regions, schools, and demographics currently underrepresented in their institution.
The result is a substantial duplication of effort and resources from institutions competing within the HE marketplace.
Variety pack
The typical set of university partnerships for many schools appears to be a local Russell Group university, a local post-92 university, and the designated Oxford and/or Cambridge link college for their region.
Encounters with local universities may be facilitated by a Uni Connect partnership, although a recent evaluation revealed inconsistencies in the extent to which partnerships offered a ‘joined up’ approach to locally targeted outreach. Local universities are undoubtedly convenient. Campus visits require minimal travel time and costs, and widening participation teams may have a strong knowledge of local issues and individual schools.
However, relying on the convenience of local institutions both reinforces the tendencies amongst applicants in many regions to stay close to home for university without considering other options, and risks perpetuating undermatch amongst when local universities do not provide a suitable academic match. For example, the Uni Connect East Anglia partnership, neaco, includes the University of Cambridge, Anglia Ruskin University, the University of East Anglia, and several others.
There exists a large gap between the ABB entry requirements for Engineering at UEA compared to the A*A*A asked for at Cambridge. Students with predicted grades within this gap have a substantial risk of undermatching if they narrow their options in line with the Uni Connect parameters.
Three at the point of use
The three-tiered university outreach provision, sometimes partially supported by Uni Connect, goes some way towards achieving Gatsby Benchmark 7:
encounters with further and higher education appropriate to the needs of each pupil
Yet it seems unlikely that three universities could represent the diverse spectrum of HE offerings across the country, nor truly provide a good match for every pupil.
There are two issues to address here: firstly, that locally-targeted outreach should not be solely conducted by local universities; and secondly, that universities must balance their widening participation and recruitment priorities to avoid duplication of resources and overwhelming target schools.
A university, admittedly with the resources to do so, can offer informed and meaningful regionally-targeted outreach despite not being located in the immediate vicinity of target schools. I am a long-standing proponent of the Oxbridge Link Area scheme, which provides schools with a point of contact at each university, and encourages WP practitioners to develop knowledge about and relationships with stakeholders in specific UK regions.
Most recently, I teamed up with the charity Aspire Liverpool for the latest iteration of the Magdalene College Liverpool Event – a day of super-curricular exploration for 700 Year 10 pupils led by academics and Student Ambassadors, held in Liverpool’s St George’s Hall.
From Cambridge to Merseyside
One of the comments I receive most from pupils when I visit schools in Merseyside and North Wales is that they are surprised, but pleased, that a representative from Cambridge showed up for them. In the case of the Liverpool event, my team arrived determined to show the pupils that a coachload of busy academics took the time to travel to Liverpool, because we think these pupils are worth investing time and resources in, and have the potential to apply to competitive universities should they choose to. With a recruitment hat on, I’m keen to continue to develop the institutional memory amongst our target schools of being the college and university who can be relied upon to deliver high-quality locally-targeted outreach provision.
Working with Aspire Liverpool helps us to target those schools which haven’t historically engaged with our outreach programmes, and helps to address the second issue I put forward, regarding the risk of duplication of outreach offerings from multiple universities. Attempting to collaborate with universities targeting similar groups of students can result in competition for recruitment. Whilst I have rarely delivered activities in partnership with, for example, the University of Liverpool or the University of Oxford, I liaise with their respective WP teams to develop an understanding of what activities students may be receiving from other providers, and to avoid clashes between the dates of our flagship events.
Universities are often more comfortable collaborating with third-sector organisations such as The Brilliant Club, if they can demonstrate quality and value, as promised by successful applicants to the recent Equality in Higher Education Fund. Such organisations can help to scale up activities which are challenging for a single university WP team to provide, such as the attainment-raising initiatives promised in many Access and Participation Plans.
So, where do we go from here?
How can students be presented with a sufficiently wide range of HE options to increase their likelihood of finding a suitable academic match, whilst avoiding the duplication of effort and resources by each individual HE provider? The UCAS Outreach Connection Service, launched to UCAS advisers in 2024, may go some way towards highlighting the range of opportunities available, and allowing teachers to point students in the right direction towards potentially suitable universities and courses.
And potential reforms to Uni Connect may establish a more defined strategic purpose for the partnerships, and perhaps space in the calendar to deliver campus visits or residentials for other partnerships’ target schools. Without overwhelming students by the sheer number of HE options available, it is doing them a disservice by not making them aware of the range of choices both in their home region and beyond.
It remains crucial to understand the local contexts in which students are making their university choices, and is the responsibility of WP teams to set aside their recruitment angle to some extent, to provide opportunities for students to engage with multiple universities in their search for the perfect match.
Rayhan Abdullah Zakaria, Senior Fellow of the Higher Education Academy (HEA).
It was a rainy Monday morning, the kind where the grey skies press low and the air smells like old books and wet leaves. I was huddled in our university’s coffee house, steam rising from a chipped mug, when a colleague leaned over and said something that’s stuck with me ever since:
Universities are the last bastion of free thinking, the engines of progress. How can anyone try to silence that?
He wasn’t being dramatic. We weren’t swapping dystopian movie ideas. What we were discussing was very real, and it’s happening now.
Imagine a government freezing research funding, restricting international student recruitment, stripping universities of their tax exemptions, and tightening the grip through a maze of bureaucratic controls. It sounds like fiction, but for many institutions around the world, it’s a lived reality. Even here in the UK, where we pride ourselves on academic excellence, universities are feeling the squeeze,
As I walked back from that coffee house with my thoughts churning like the storm outside, I realised that beneath the surface of daily lectures, research deadlines, and student support, two major fault lines threaten to destabilise the sector: governance and funding. These are not abstract issues—they shape how we teach, how we research, and how we serve society. Allow me to explain:
I. The Financial Fault Line
Higher education institutions in the UK are operating under increasing financial strain. According to recent analysis by Nick Hillman, universities are facing unsustainable deficits, largely due to a combination of frozen domestic tuition fees and rising operational costs.
Frozen Tuition Fees
Domestic tuition fees have remained capped at £9,250 since 2012. In real terms, inflation has steadily eroded their value. Universities UK (2024) estimates that this cap now equates to just £6,000 in 2012 money, leading to reduced investment in teaching quality, infrastructure, and student services.
Over-Reliance on International Students
Many institutions have sought to bridge the funding gap by increasing their intake of international students. While this has provided a temporary financial cushion, it is a fragile strategy. International enrolments are highly sensitive to visa policies, geopolitical tensions, and global economic shifts. The UK Home Office’s recent tightening of post-study work rights has already triggered concern across the sector.
Rising Operational Costs
Operational expenses—including staffing, estate maintenance, and digital infrastructure—continue to rise. Inflation and energy prices compound these challenges, placing institutions in a double bind: cut services or stretch resources even thinner.
What Could Help?
We need to lobby for a sustainable fee review mechanism that accounts for inflation and rising costs.
We must diversify income streams beyond tuition: think industry partnerships, micro-credentials, alumni ventures, and lifelong learning platforms.
We also need to invest in shared services and cost-efficient digital infrastructure that reduces overhead without compromising quality.
II. The Governance Conundrum
The falling rain speeds up crushing against the single pane of my office window. I see a poor wood pigeon being blown off course by the rain and the wind, just like our university a small dingy lost in the chaotic ocean of governance. I do think alongside financial challenges, governance structures across many universities are in urgent need of reform. My first semester leadership postgrads know that effective governance is critical for institutional resilience, but UK universities current governance models often fall short.
1. Overcentralisation of Power
In some institutions, decision-making is concentrated in the hands of a powerful executive team. While strong leadership is essential, University governance HEPI (2024) should not drift toward corporate-style management that sidelines academic voices. This can lead to decisions that prioritise brand and market over mission and integrity.
2. Ineffective Councils and Boards
I think governing bodies should act as strategic stewards of the institution, ensuring transparency and long-term sustainability. Yet many lack the sectoral expertise or training to navigate complex challenges. The Committee of University Chairs has long advocated for better induction and development programmes, but uptake is uneven.
3. Overregulation and Bureaucracy
While regulation is necessary, the current landscape—especially under the Office for Students —has created a burden of compliance that can stifle innovation and demoralise staff. As HEPI and others have argued, we need a shift towards smarter regulation: outcome-focused, proportionate, and enabling.
What Could Help?
We need to rebalance executive and academic leadership to support shared governance.
We should work towards enhancing the capacity and diversity of governing councils.
We must move toward more meaningful regulation that supports innovation rather than obstructs it.
A Call for Sector-Wide Renewal
As I left my office and stepped back into the drizzle of a typical term-time Monday, I recognised that the challenges ahead are not insurmountable – but they do demand courage and collective action.
You see – reform must not be imposed from above but built through authentic dialogue across the sector. I do think that staff, students, alumni, employers, and policymakers all have a role to play. We must centre our vision not just on institutional survival, but on societal value. At the end of the day, universities are not corporations. They are civic institutions with a public mission.
As I step into my class, I am greeted by my 3rd-semester post grads
“Hey, how was the weekend?”
I acknowledge, smile, nod, and make my way to the front to connect my laptop to the overhead projector. The last thought in my head is that if we are to sustain our university mission, we need to rethink how we fund, govern, and ultimately value higher education. Not tomorrow. Now.
Aston Education, a Hong Kong-based international education consultancy, has long supported students in securing places at universities in the UK and Australia. However, Hong Kong’s outbound market is changing.
According to the Hong Kong Education Bureau’s data for the 2023/24 academic year, the growth rate of local students studying abroad stands at just 2%, significantly lower than global market averages. Factors behind this include Hong Kong’s stable job market and rising tuition and living costs overseas—both encouraging families to reconsider traditional study-abroad pathways.
At the same time, migration incentives such as the UK’s BNO visa scheme have encouraged significant numbers of Hong Kong residents to settle abroad. This movement has contributed to local talent gaps. To help fill these, the Hong Kong government introduced the Top Talent Pass Scheme (TTPS) in late 2022. By September 2024, over 100,000 applications had been received, with more than 95% of successful applicants coming from mainland China. The result is a rapidly changing demographic profile and increasing integration between Hong Kong and the mainland.
These shifts are mirrored in student priorities. Families—particularly those newly settled in Hong Kong from mainland China—are placing greater emphasis on employment outcomes when considering overseas study. Choice of destination, university, and programme is increasingly shaped by how international qualifications align with career trajectories back in Hong Kong or across the region.
Against this backdrop, Aston Education has evolved its strategy. The demand from mainland China, especially the GBA, is growing rapidly. In 2022, around 661,200 Chinese students pursued study abroad, a sharp increase from earlier years. And the GBA continues to emerge as an integrated educational and economic region. Several Hong Kong universities have established campuses in Shenzhen, Guangzhou, and Dongguan, further strengthening cross-border academic links.
For education providers, the GBA presents a unique environment. Language, policy, and cultural familiarity create a landscape where nuanced, locally embedded strategies are vital. With deep roots in Hong Kong and a working understanding of both Cantonese and Mandarin, Aston Education is well positioned to navigate this space. Our approach differs from traditional mainland recruitment: we focus on a culturally blended student population, many of whom see Hong Kong as a stepping stone for international education and regional employment.
This shift is not just geographical—it’s philosophical. Understanding why students choose to study abroad, and what they hope to gain, is key to engaging the next generation. By working closely with institutions in the UK and Australia, we aim to provide tailored recruitment support in markets that are evolving beyond traditional patterns.
As the GBA continues to gain momentum, opportunities abound for international universities ready to think regionally and act locally. Aston Education looks forward to contributing to this conversation—and to building more agile, informed partnerships that reflect the changing realities of the Asian education landscape.
About the author:
Boyi Huang is the managing director of Aston Education with over 15 years of experience in international education planning. She holds a postgraduate diploma in international education from the University of Bath She has guided students to top universities across the UK (Oxbridge and G5), the US (Ivy League & Top 20), and Australia (Go8). With strong experience in cross-border admissions and institutional partnerships, Boyi specialises in helping students from Greater China and Southeast Asia access world-class higher education through personalised strategies.
At a recent roundtable discussion of university leaders convened by HEPI with Elsevier, the focus was the concept of the Fourth Generation University. If first-generation universities focused on teaching, second-generation universities on research, third-generation universities on knowledge exchange, then fourth-generation universities combine all those things for the express purpose of addressing real-world challenges. Rather than universities beavering away and occasionally ‘throwing something out there,’ commented one roundtable guest, the idea is to link university delivery to specific goals in partnerships with other agencies.
‘It is tempting in a time of financial crisis in the UK university sector to withdraw into core activities’ continued the discussion contributor, ‘when in fact the opposite is needed – bold steps into more explicit civic engagement.’ One former head of a medical school said that he had never been asked what society needed of his institution. Fourth Generation Universities, conversely, link their work to health priorities and any number of other pressing public concerns. They respond head-on to the UK Secretary of State for Education, Bridget Philipson’s Five Priorities for Universities outlined in her letter to vice-chancellors in autumn 2024, especially number two about economic growth and number three about civic roles. In addition, the Government has stated that it will be publishing a document this summer setting out some plans for higher education reform.
Elsevier is at the heart of developments, establishing a Fourth Generation University global community and a basket of metrics to analyse progress. Eindhoven University of Technology is a trailblazer in the field, and early adopters in the UK include the Universities of Newcastle, Swansea, Aston and Strathclyde, among others. Robert Jan-Smits, recently retired president of the executive board of Eindhoven University of Technology (TUE), and also former Director General of Research and Innovation at the European Commission, offers his reflections on the initiative which, he states, might not suit every institution.
One HEPI and Elsevier roundtable participant who has analysed and encouraged university civic engagement across the UK explained that the three components for success were strong leadership, strong relationships and a strong sense of intentionality. He cautioned that the country is divided in terms of public engagement: swaths of the country never or seldom set foot on a university campus, nor have knowledge of higher education’s work and impact. A chorus of university leaders at the discussion acknowledged their need to do more in terms of better serving and communicating with such groups. University-speak and the dreaded sector acronyms should be banned!
There are plenty of success stories of universities acting as anchor institutions in their regions. Many boast start-up business support, science and innovation parks and strategic collaboration with regional authorities. Others address skills shortages, health inequalities, local transport deficits and low university participation rates. They are all important employers and many serve local, national and global communities simultaneously. Cybersecurity and defence projects which bring together industry and academia, often from multiple institutions, are in ever-increasing demand. One discussion participant reminded the group that some higher education institutions, such as Coventry University, had been set up with civic goals in mind, while another said that resource and planning were needed to develop the right ecosystems and infrastructure in which Fourth Generation Universities can thrive.
While there could be pockets of resistance, most academics can be persuaded that if their students’ job prospects are improved and their own research sharpened, the aims of Fourth Generation Universities are worthwhile. Fully integrating the student voice was key, with a special mention for Arts and Humanities graduates whose storytelling capabilities should be deployed to showcase the positive impact of Fourth Generation initiatives.
One roundtable contributor advised that the UK should take note of what is happening in American universities in terms of heated anti-intellectual rhetoric and huge funding cuts since the start of Donald Trump’s second administration. People need to see the ‘tangible impact’ of universities and understand the connections between their lives and the Academy as a bulwark against aggression.
Attention around the table turned to the recent UK local elections in which a relative political newcomer, Reform, made huge strides. Those universities working in partnership with councils now controlled by Reform reported positive early engagement and an understanding among new councillors of the importance of the success of their local universities. Meanwhile, when it comes to national politics, higher education policy is not seen as a vote-winner.
Perhaps if universities could make their impact on the economy better known, the sector could garner more strategic attention from the government, not least to support the growth agenda. One guest suggested posing a counterfactual: ‘What if there were no, or far fewer, universities? What would the impact be on the economy?’ Another speaker referenced the trend in Australia of universities reporting outcomes like how much growth and employment they had delivered. UK funding systems such as Higher Education Innovation Funding (HEIF) and the Research Excellence Framework (REF) could be developed to better incentivise Fourth-Generation initiatives. The gathered group also remembered that developing more rigorous and consistent methods to measure both the private and public benefits of universities, including social and civic outcomes, was a key priority in Universities UK 2024Opportunity, Growth and Partnership: a blueprint for change. The metric frameworks being developed by the Fourth Generation University global community could provide a basis on which to start.
From publican to professor, fishmonger to founder, cabbie to the cabinet, Fourth Generation Universities need to make sense, deliver outcomes and foster a sense of shared endeavour in a turbulent world.
Today on the HEPI blog, we explore the discussions at a recent HEPI roundtable with Elsevier on the topic of the Fourth Generation University – which combines teaching, research and knowledge exchange.
You can read a full write-up of the roundtable, by HEPI’s own Director of Partnerships, Lucy Haire, at this link – or read on for a discussion of relational infrastructure by Sarah Chaytor.
Sarah Chaytor is Director of Strategy & Policy and Joint Chief of Staff to the UCL Vice-Provost, Research, Innovation & Global Engagement.
At a recent HEPI roundtable dinner with Elsevier to discuss how universities could strengthen their regional and civic contributions, there was a rather sobering discussion of the ‘low stock’ of universities amongst both government and the public.
This was in the context of an ongoing, international discussion about the concept of ‘fourth generation’ universities. These are defined as ‘global universities that are fully integrated in their local innovation ecosystem with the aim of tackling worldwide societal challenges and driving regional economic growth.’
We are well-versed in our sector on the economic benefits of universities and well-practiced in trumpeting these to ourselves and to government. Yet at the same time, there is a growing evidence base on the disconnect between the British public and universities. Reports from UPP/HEPI and from Public First suggest a significant lack of awareness amongst many citizens of how universities positively affect their daily lives or contribute to the places they live. As someone working in university research, I am particularly concerned by public attitudes to research and development (R&D) – important work done by CaSE on public perceptions of R&D has found that a significant majority of people think that that ‘R&D doesn’t benefit people like them’ or feel neutral or unsure about R&D’s impacts.
I’m not sure that, as a sector, we have fully grasped how serious this is. It cannot be a state of affairs that we simply shrug our shoulders at. As CaSE has observed: ‘This is a precarious position for a sector that receives substantial public investment.’ We risk undermining the ‘social compact’ that exists between universities and the public – that is, the basis on which we receive public funding (especially for R&D) is our ability to make a broader contribution.
I conclude from this that the focus over the past 20 years or so on universities’ economic contribution doesn’t cut through to those citizens who feel that the economy simply doesn’t work for them. Making universities part of an abstract and disconnected concept of economic growth is of no interest to people worried about access to housing, cost of living or the state of their local high street. It also overlooks the multifaceted ways in which universities are contributing to places across the UK, from providing jobs to sports facilities to cultural institutions to working with community groups to undertaking the research that can save lives or tackle pressing challenges.
I think we need to focus more on how universities can make human connections and articulate their research benefit in human terms. To draw from Peter Kyle’s framing of innovation, we need to show how universities are putting their considerable assets and resources to use for the public good. From a research perspective, this requires us to think about the purpose of knowledge and how we connect knowledge to communities across the country. In particular, we need to work much better to build trusted relationships that enable us to understand the needs of communities and citizens around the country and ensure that we are demonstrably meeting these.
For me, that starts with taking much more seriously the need to invest in the ‘relational infrastructure’ that can support those connections. Put simply, relational infrastructure is the people, structures and processes that support universities to connect with other parts of society. At its core are people – people who build and maintain relationships, who manage processes and structures for engagement, who keep connections going between specific projects and funding periods.
In my own world of academic-policy engagement, this relational infrastructure is the crucial ‘glue’ which underpins a whole host of interactions, projects, and exchange of ideas. It supports ways of working with policymakers that are about long-term partnership and collaboration rather than one-off transactions. (More on this in the final report from the Capabilities in Academic Policy Engagement project.)
We know that universities can tell a powerful story about their civic contribution – as the Civic University Commission noted, universities are ‘hugely important to the economic, social, cultural and environmental wellbeing of the places in which they are located’. This concept is echoed in the idea of the ‘fourth generation’ university. But perhaps we have focused too much on shiny projects and initiatives, and not enough on the simple relational approaches which underpin successful and long-term engagement and meaningful partnerships.
Relational infrastructure is all too easy to overlook or to take for granted. It rarely appears in business cases or exciting new project proposals. But it is one of our most precious assets and should be actively cultivated. This requires institutions to acknowledge the need for long-term investment and to recognise that, whilst it will deliver dividends for universities, these will not necessarily arise a short time-frame or via our ‘usual’ metrics. What relational infrastructure will deliver is deep and meaningful connections with other parts of society, which enable universities to put their research (and other) assets to public good use.
It’s time to take our responsibility to develop and maintain relational infrastructure seriously – it is the route to rebuilding our relationship with wider society.
The University of Tasmania’s (UTAS) move to cut its Indonesian language program amid plummeting enrolments has been described as “shortsighted” and “strategically incoherent” by a long-running provider of study tours to the Southeast Asian country.
Please login below to view content or subscribe now.
