A competitive offa: How and who should track the effectiveness of outreach activities?

There is a growing debate within the Higher Education sector about the effectiveness of outreach activities in widening participation and whether this should be monitored at a national level. Just last week the 1994 Group called for the Government to start tracking university interventions through the National Pupil Database.

It’s a question we have been asking at Birmingham City University since last term when, for the first time, we had comprehensive data on full ‘lifecyle’ conversion from enquiry to enrolment. Having installed a professional enquiry management system in 2011, like many other universities we are now able to track the effectiveness of the full range of our recruitment activities – from telephone and email contact to master classes, taster days, UCAS fairs and Open Days.

BCU’s decision to hold an additional open day on Saturday February 23 appears to have paid off. So far, we have had over 1,500 prospective students register to attend, two-thirds of whom are intending to study this September. Many will just turn up on the day of course.

In terms of reach, Open Days are by far the biggest of our outreach activities – almost 6,000 prospective students visited us via that route in 2011/12. We also know that since the announcement of higher fees back in 2011, there has been a phenomenal increase in Open Day attendance. In the four-year period up to 2010, YouthSight research showed that over half all students attended no open days before handing in their UCAS form and a fifth would attend one open day. Yet by October 2011, the Guardian was already reporting a significant shift in behaviour with some universities reporting Open Day attendance up by 75% and many students visiting all five of their UCAS choices (http://www.guardian.co.uk/education/2011/oct/31/university-open-days-soar).

Open Days are critical when it comes to educating prospective students about the benefits of Higher Education, albeit at a particular institution, and converting interest to application. The YouthSight 2012/13 Fact File found that a good first impression from universities’ open days was a major factor influencing university choice for over half of applicants. BCU’s research shows that 42% of those who attend an Open Day will go on to apply and around a quarter will eventually study with us.

As well as Open Day conversion rates, we know that roughly 20% of students who attended subject master classes in previous years went on to enrol at BCU and I can tell you the Faculty of Technology, Engineering and the Environment enjoys a 57% conversion rate from its Applicant Visit Days – the highest of our six Faculties. It sounds fairly impressive, but is it? What I don’t know is whether this level of conversion is competitive or even effective when compared to other similar universities.

There is very little shared information when it comes to benchmarking the success of not just Open Days, but the full range of outreach activities. Universities like BCU have been committed to widening participation since the outset and all institutions charging higher fees now have to outline their commitment to access to the Office for Fair Access (OFFA). To me, OFFA would seem to be a logical choice to take more of an active role in tracking success and publishing benchmarks, which will hopefully be the outcome of the shared strategy for widening access to HE currently under review. But their remit will be limited, likely only to cover the activities included within institutional Access Agreements. For a broader assessment of the full range of recruitment activities, maybe a professional body like CASE or the mission groups themselves need to step in on behalf of the marketing professionals. 

Given the huge investment that is being ploughed into outreach activities at an institutional level, coupled with the desire at a national level to increase participation rates in Higher Education, there is surely a need to monitor such activities more effectively. To me, it doesn’t matter who takes on the challenge…as long as someone does. It’s in everyone’s interest to make sure we are getting it right.

 

Bursaries and scholarships - an incentive or not?

At Birmingham City University, we are mid-way through our regular student number planning sessions to review recruitment targets for the coming cycle and to forecast the pattern in 2014/15 and beyond. In terms of the undergraduate market, as you would expect, we are considering the impact of fees, the emerging trends at subject level and the expansion to ABB of the Government’s core and margin policy. The question that is repeatedly coming up, however, is whether financial incentives have made any difference to our current offer or have the potential to do so.
 
It’s an interesting debate – and I don’t for one minute pretend to have the answers. It’s also one that requires a little clarity.

As a firm believer in the virtues of and rights to access Higher Education, I – like many – am of the view that there should always be financial support that is essentially needs-based and intended to ensure those who require additional financial support are not deterred from University on this basis alone. The National Scholarship Programme has a merit of its own that should not necessarily be linked to recruitment targets or bottom line.

The financial support I am questioning is that which is primarily recruitment driven – to win over particular cohorts to select a specific institution or discipline over and above other HEIs.

It’s a perfectly valid marketing tactic and one that pervades everyday life (‘BOGOF’ still amuses me). Back in November, the Telegraph reported a range of universities offering up to £10,000 to secure ABBs, including some on my patch (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/education/educationnews/9670355/Universities-paying-10000-to-sign-up-bright-students.html).

A review of BCU’s financial support for 2012/13 against that of competitors found ours to be fairly modest. We did not go down the route of offering large chunks of cash to secure higher performing students or win back numbers in Clearing. That said, we did not lose out on our AAB students (though numbers are fairly small) and our recruitment performance, as per the UCAS figures released earlier this month, was very good by comparison with many others. Our accepted applicant figures – according to UCAS – were up 1.8% on 2011/12 (the reality is that our enrolments after people withdrew or did not turn up were slightly down, but not by much).

Marketing logic tells me that we should be offering financial support packages that are at least on a par with our competitors. Yet I have to wonder that since we did not do this and, as it transpires, did not need to in 2012, would it really make commercial sense to increase the money we give out in future, if it’s potentially to students that would come to us anyway?

A survey of our own enquirers for 12/13 revealed that 60% said bursaries and scholarships were quite or very important, but 69% said they would not affect the students’ decision to apply. Market research released by dh insight this month based on a small sample of Year 13 students predicted As and Bs found little awareness of financial incentives and that it was essentially considered “a nice add on” rather than being a critical part of the decision-making process. Similarly, the Institute of Fiscal Studies reported last November that the uncertainty of the whole process which means that students often do not know what bursaries and scholarships they would be eventually awarded prior to making their application (and often after enrolment) meant that it made little or no difference to their decision.

The issue I have is that much of this research that exists is based purely on student opinions. Unfortunately, we know that what people say and what they do aren’t always the same. Not many students said they would pay fees of up to £9,000, but over 400,000 did and many more intend to do so; UCAS applications for 2013 are up about 3% to date.

I would like to see some robust market research that analyses the support offered at particular HEIs against their actual recruitment, particularly those that did very well in securing AABs and the additional student numbers they were awarded.

So, the question remains…should universities be seeking to provide a competitive market offer when it comes to financial incentives or should they trust that the broader academic offer will be sufficient to recruit the numbers they desire? What's your view?

Rejecting the criticism of a 'calm down dear' attitude to Clearing

The articles and blogs on Clearing have gone into overdrive, as you’d expect at this time of year. However, I was more than a little rattled to read one Guardian Professional article which rather patronisingly told universities: “It is vitally important for university leaders to abandon the 'calm down dear' narrative on admissions and show a proper sensitivity to the pain and stress that will be experienced by many individuals who have missed AAB grades in the coming weeks.”

I think it’s fair to say that within the sector, we are all very aware of the chaos that we were facing due to the Government policies on AAB, the cap and higher fees. Most universities have a ban on leave for the staff who will be front line in the Clearing process – senior managers, admissions, academics and marketing staff. And, rest assured, there will be numerous universities who will be only too willing to take students who just miss out on AAB – many right on the doorstep of the universities they were originally considering. The reality is that no university is going to want to fall short on its student number targets – even Russell Group universities.

Having worked at four universities, I have witnessed numerous examples of the stress and panic that occurs in Clearing. Last year, BCU took 10,000 calls across the University on Results Day and in the first two hours of Clearing, we’d already taken over 1,000 calls to the Clearing hotline. I’ve seen students so desperate they ask for any course that will accept them with the points they have and parents who refuse to get off the line because there is no course we can offer their child.

The universities I have worked at go to great lengths to provide sensitive and often impartial advice and guidance to ensure prospective students make the right choice for them. Telling people to remain calm is a crucial part of the advice, yes, but there’s far more to it than that. Just take a look at BCU’s six Clearing video guides – http://www.bcu.ac.uk/student-info/clearing/what-is-clearing There’s no pressure to come to Birmingham City, it’s all about giving sensible, practical advice to help students make the right decision that will affect them for the rest of their lives.

It’s a well-known fact that students who come through Clearing to a university or course they have never previously considered are far more likely to request a transfer to another course, another university or, worse still, drop out. This is in nobody’s best interests, least of all, the students themselves.

Don’t be guided to make your decision based on a knee-jerk reaction, the first place you are offered or a cheap financial incentive. Stay true to your original intentions and think carefully about the career you hope to have, the courses that could lead to it and the type and location of the university you want to attend. Better still, try and visit any university you are considering afresh – most will be holding dedicated open days or will be prepared to give you a guided individual tour. And, yes, don’t panic.

Is the printed prospectus dead?

The subject of countless opinion pieces and conferences – rearing its head only yesterday at HEERA's Training Day – the debate about the future of the printed prospectus has been raging for well over a decade. And, given that over three-quarters of UK households now have internet access and with technological advances offering far cheaper, targeted and more sophisticated information solutions, I have for some time been championing the cause to move away from this expensive and inefficient medium (the printed content becomes out of date as soon as it hits the presses).

Back in 1999, while working at the University of Wolverhampton, I led the development – unique at that point – of a University Preview Guide and individual course leaflets, printing a full Course Handbook as a back-up for UCAS Fairs and school/college libraries. Designed to dramatically reduce print and postage costs and provide more tailored, in-depth course information, the Preview Guide and accompanying course leaflets were very well received...so much so that eager prospective students rang us back and asked us to send them the full prospectus.

Thankfully, with a Course Handbook already prepared and waiting in the wings, the only thing damaged was my pride and the Department’s budgets, which took a slightly bigger hit than we’d anticipated from the postage. The market was clearly not ready to give up on the traditional prospectus; I was convinced we were simply ahead of our time.

I watched as the digital revolution, which had gathered pace following the public launch of the world wide web in 1992, opened up a major new channel of communication, full of increasing opportunity for the Higher Education sector. In 2004, UCAS ditched its paper-based systems for online applications for 2006 entry. In 2005, the Internet population reached one billion (it would double by 2010). The same year UCAS launched its web-based ‘Track’service for applicants to find out whether following results their university place was confirmed or they were eligible for Clearing. Within the first hour 60,000 applicants had used the service and by midnight on August 18, 2005, there had been 271,821 logins.

In 2006, now working at the University of Northampton, conscious of the spiralling costs of producing 75,000 prospectuses and mailing out 25,000 with postage costs then of over£50K, I decided to investigate the possibility of producing a mini guide supported by a CD-Rom/DVD alongside the website. The statistics seemed to back up my long-held convictions. The 2006 Hobsons’ School Leaver Review confirmed what was becoming clear, namely that university websites were gaining importance and influence. Websites were jointly favoured with prospectuses by the 12,300 sample as the most frequently used information resource for school-leavers. The number of British adults aged 15 and over using the Internet at home had just broken the 25 million barrier for the first time with the total number of people using the Internet from any location reaching almost 28m or 59% of the adult population.

However, once bitten, twice shy. The idea was soon put on hold when we tested it with our own prospective students – two-thirds of which still wanted to receive a printed prospectus…and a CD-Rom.

Roll forward another four years, the world and I had moved on yet again. Universities had begun investing heavily in their websites. In November 2010, the Telegraph highlighted eight universities – Hertfordshire, Cranfield, Robert Gordon, London Business School, University of Wales, Imperial College London and Leeds – who had each spent between £100K and 280K on one-off redesigns. Birmingham City University had re-launched its own website in 2010 at similar costs and visits to the home page rose 42% between 2009 and 2010.

In 2009, Birmingham City University had launched an ‘Essential Guide’ of information about the University supported by a series of subject prospectuses. This was based on research with prospective students conducted in 2008 who had indicated a strong desire for more subject-based information with lack of course information being the main criticism of the traditional prospectus approach.

Though effective, the subject prospectuses were very expensive – printing costs alone were almost double that of the traditional approach, the postage and fulfilment costs were also significantly higher. Feedback about the Essential Guide was very positive – it was seen as“parent friendly”, “academic yet vibrant and confident”. Further research with prospective students suggested that 45% believed it was ‘very important’ to have access to a printed prospectus, but 48% said it wasn’t essential, many viewing a traditional prospectus as “a waste of paper”. I felt my time had come at last.

So, in early 2011, BCU took the bold decision to do away with prospectuses, making do with the Essential Guide and diverting funds to invest more heavily in our website, social media and electronic communications. A decision reaffirmed by the findings of the 2010/11 Higher Expectations Report, which confirmed that university websites had now overtaken prospectuses to become the most popular source used by prospective students to find out information (cited by 79% compared with 63% for prospectus),

The appointment of a dedicated Social Media Officer and Web Marketing Manager resulted in a massive increase in online engagement. Twitter followers doubled to over 2,000 (we now have 4,921), facebook membership grew from 1,723 to over 3,000 (we now have 7,383) and visitors to the BCU website increased year on year from 1.8m in 2009 to 3.3m in 2011.

The popularity of the University continued to grow – our applications peaked at 28,559 in 2011 (from 13,854 in 2008 and 14% higher than 2010). We maintained our full-time home undergraduate student numbers, while growing postgraduate slightly.

But as the year progressed we noticed a marked decline in the number of requests for the Essential Guide – down 17.5%. Conscious of the smaller pool of prospective undergraduate students and the increasing competition facing us in September 2012, we decided to investigate this further by surveying over 200 prospective and current students.

Feedback about the Essential Guide remained very positive – 81% of current students and 87% of prospective students rated it as good/very good. So too was feedback about web content – 92% of prospective students and 91% of current students rated it as good/very good. However, when asked directly about whether or not they supported the strategy of having course information online views were mixed. While 62% of prospective students were happy to view course information on the web, 38% were not. In fact, a fifth of prospective students stated they had not gone on to view course information on the web.

For me, it was game over. My paper-based nemesis had forced me to swallow my pride once again and reverse a literature strategy I have spearheaded for the last 13 years.

The traditional print prospectus hit the UCAS Fairs in April – as well as enhanced e-communications. A revamped courses website (complete with commerce-style 'save' course feature) will go ‘live’ next month. We launched our enquiry management CRM system in November 2011 and are now sending prospective students and applicants 18 monthly subject-specific e-newsletters.

Pickle Jar Communications once questioned whether the on-going demand for the printed prospectus is down to the fact they are considered “the norm and therefore remain the core item in the student marketing process”. This may well be true. I can only hope that I will live to see the day when I no longer have to produce a printed prospectus, but for the time being I think it would be a very brave – or stupid – Director of Marketing to ignore the wishes (perceived or genuine) of almost two-fifths of their potential paying customers. But do you agree?

On the right track?

“The pressure is on institutions to raise their game” - these were the opening remarks at the fifth annual conference on Enhancing the Student Experience in London this week.

Professor Michael Farthing, Chair of the 1994 Group and Vice-Chancellor of the University of Sussex, opened the conference by noting that with the changes in the sector over the last 12 months and the tripling of fees, “students now have the highest ever expectations and we are all going to have to work much harder to make the case for investing in higher education.”

As we approach the anniversary of the Government’s decision to support the rise in tuition fees, he pointed out that raising fees offered the only answer to the Government’s 80% cuts in university funding to enable universities to maintain let alone make improvements to the student experience, but reflected that the speed of the change was too much asking: “What else has tripled in price?”

Professor Farthing warned universities to avoid falling into the trap of reducing HE to “a set of transactions”, which he felt “grossly underestimates the value of HE”. He said that students were more than consumers purchasing a degree certificate and that “the student experience draws on every aspect of life and work and is long lasting” with “students immersing themselves in an academic environment, joining new social networks and gaining insights that will stay with them throughout their lives.”

I agreed with much of the sentiment of Professor Farthing’s address. What I took issue with were his comments that “research intensive universities offer the best teaching experience” where students are taught by the people who write the text books and have “access to a culture of innovation“. Given the institutions he represents, his perspective is to be expected, but I think that his own view underestimates the value of HE in the many other types of institution that are not research intensive. (And, yes, having spent a career working mostly in universities that are not research intensive, with a father who lectured in a former Polytechnic, my perspective is also to be expected).

Don’t get me wrong, research does have a critical role: it is a fundamental part of academia and greatly benefits our society and economy. When that research can inform and enhance teaching, students undoubtedly benefit - they have an opportunity to shape, learn from and experience new ideas. But research is not the only means of generating a good (or indeed the best student experience) or a culture of innovation: it can be achieved through other aspects in the broader learning and teaching experience - student partnership, engagement with industry/the professions, development of employability skills and so on. To suggest otherwise is somewhat of an injustice.

By far the majority of the conference chose to focus on student partnership as a means of improving the student experience. Liam Burns, President of the National Union of Students, said that there needed to be “a redistribution of power” and that engagement with students needed to be part of what drives the system. Student consultation does already exist in universities with student representation on most key committees, but I liked his idea of students taking an active role in agreeing the strategic direction and planning of universities with a voice in all key decisions and co-sign-off of strategic documents.

I was delighted when Sean Mackney, Deputy Chief Executive of the Higher Education Academy, pulled out BCU’s Student Partnership Scheme, which pairs up students with academics to improve the learning experience, as a best practice example of "continuous student engagement in an institution that's committed to continuous improvement in its learning and teaching". See http://www.heacademy.ac.uk/resources/detail/evidencenet/Creating_the_learning_community_through_student_academic_partners He’s not alone in his views - the scheme won the 2010 Times Higher Education Outstanding Support for Students Award.

Sean too acknowledged the need for a change in the power relationships between students and staff with a “sharing of power” that sees “students take responsibility for learning and universities involving them as a member of the learning community”. Describing this scenario as adding challenge and vibrancy to the relationship, he explained: “Students learn better when they are actively engaged with the curriculum, co-curricular activity and the University itself”.

Though we have world-leading and world-class research in Art and Design, Music, English, Social Work and Social Policy and Administration, Birmingham City University is not a research intensive university. However, we have an award-winning Student Academic Partnership scheme that is now being expanded as part of a Change Academy project. We recently employed our outgoing President of the Students’ Union to review student communications as part of enhancing the student experience. And the second objective of our new Corporate Plan is: “To be an exemplar for student engagement, working in partnership with students to create and deliver an excellent university experience and achieve high levels of student satisfaction and graduate employment.”

The pressure is on and, like many universities, we’ve got a long way to go. But I think we’re on the right track when it comes to developing and delivering the best student experience.

Don’t let fees put you off…

You can still afford to go to University. That was the resounding message from the panel of experts at Birmingham’s launch of National Student Finance Day today.

The local event, spearheaded and hosted by Birmingham City University, was attended by over 80 teachers, parents and pupils from seven of the region’s schools and colleges. Events are being held up and down the country as part of the first ever National Student Finance Day, which has been initiated by the Independent Taskforce on Student Finance.

Former NUS Presidents Aaron Porter and Wes Streeting joined Birmingham City University Vice-Chancellor Professor David Tidmarsh, Aston University Senior Pro-Vice-Chancellor Professor Helen Higson, University of Birmingham Guild President Mark Harrop and BCU’s Director of Student Services Pamela Bell-Ashe to share their views on the new system of student finance to be implemented in 2012.

Wes Streeting, Deputy Head of the Independent Taskforce on Student Finance, announced a raft of new information, including a mobile phone app ‘unifees2012‘, with helpful hints and plain-speaking guidance on student finances now available at www.unifees2012.com.

The main advice given to the audience was to ’do your homework’ when you are considering university - to find out as much information as possible from the universities themselves, from the many user review websites and sources like moneysavingexpert.com. Aaron Porter was quick to stress that “visiting universities is the best way to get a sense of whether going to university is the right decision for you”.

A quick straw poll of the audience by David Tidmarsh, whose daughter is in the process of applying to university, revealed that there are a number of individuals who feel uncertain about the new finance arrangements and as such are having second thoughts about university. David summed up the panel’s feelings when he said it would be a terrible shame if people were put off going to university because of the cost, not only for the individuals themselves, but also because of the serious impact it will have on the country’s economy and skills capabilities.

Aaron felt that the natural ‘complexity’ of the funding arrangements was to blame for the confusion and misunderstanding. Research conducted recently by the Independent Taskforce found that 59% of people in England have little or no understanding of the new fee arrangements. One college said that many of its students were now giving real consideration as to whether or not to go to university because of the rising cost.

Mark Harrop viewed this tendency towards greater consideration as one of the positives of the changes to the system. He said that individuals are more likely to spend more time researching their options to find the course and the university that is right for them, which can only be a good thing. Helen Higson felt that another positive would be the focus by universities in delivering better teaching and learning and providing more financial incentives to help those from poorer socio-economic backgrounds.

Speaking about the practicalities of the new student finance arrangements, Wes noted that “students under the new regime will actually pay less in monthly repayments than students currently do now”. He relayed some of the key facts of the new system - that students don't have to pay anything up front, they will only start repaying when they are earning above £21,000 and will then only pay 9% of anything over £21,000. He pointed out that the debt is written off after 30 years and that the monthly repayments are the same regardless of whether the tuition fee is £6,000 or £9,000.

One prospective student raised concerns about the size of debt that would be accrued. Wes acknowledged that if fees were higher and the debt was therefore larger, students would be paying it off over a longer period of time, but he re-iterated the fact that the debt is wiped out after 30 years. David added that this is where 'value for money' comes into the equasion; students should be looking at what they are getting for the different fees being charged.

Another concern from the audience related to portraying the value of Higher Education over a lifetime. One college tutor, who is a strong advocate of university education, shared his own experience of leaving school with two GCSEs and now being in his fifties with a son who, by comparison, has recently graduated and is now earning £30 per hour, which is more than he has ever earned. “I wish I’d known then what I know now” were his words of advice to the many prospective students in the room.

Answering the question of value, Aaron explained that the standard figures given are that graduates will on average earn around £100,000 more than their non-graduate counterparts over a career, but for some professions, such as doctors or lawyers, the sums are even greater. Wes added that while there has been much publicity about unemployment, it is important to remember that while there is 20% youth unemployment, the outlook for graduates is actually more positive with around 10% unemployment for those aged 21 and over. “There’s never been a better time to be in education or training,” he advised, though he did stress that this didn’t just mean a university education and that young people should consider other options, like college or apprenticeships.

There was concern raised about the fact that some universities are seeking to change their fees and how individuals would be able to find out which universities were doing this. Aaron said that he was working with the Office of Fair Access, which was currently considering how best to relay the information without providing an unfair advantage to those universities who will effectively be announcing their fees for a second time. Helen also pointed out that universities will not be able to disadvantage students when changing their fees.

One prospective student raised the issue of studying abroad with many universities in Europe offering substantially lower fees. Pamela said that those considering studying abroad should do their research in the same way they would if they were looking at a British university - to make sure the course is taught in English, to investigate the teaching and learning quality and so on. David added that if prospective students are looking at European universities they should be asking how many students usually complete their studies and the time it takes to complete study as this is often longer in Europe.

Understanding whether fee arrangements will change once a student begins studying was one parent’s primary concern. Pamela pointed out the fee regime under which student first enter higher education will remain throughout their studies. Other than inflationary rises, the cost will not increase substantially and the same financial regulations will apply throughout the duration of study.

And finally the point was made that universities are fairly good at targeting prospective students with information, but that it is parents and teachers who have a real influence over the end decision. One parent was worried that if parents or teachers don’t fully understand the implications of the new fee system, they could deter individuals from going to university because of the worry of debt. Helen said that in Birmingham four of the universities have teamed up to ensure that the work of Aimhigher continues which provides information and activities to schools and colleges. She added that most universities already work with schools and colleges and are increasingly providing tailored information for parents too. Parents were urged to visit the university websites; Birmingham City University offers a Parents’ Guide (see
http://www.bcu.ac.uk/_media/docs/Parents-Guide-2011-spr.pdf)

　

Universities: Collaboration not competition in the new fee regime?

Next Monday (November 14) sees the Birmingham launch of National Student Finance Day with the city’s three main universities - Birmingham City, Aston and Birmingham - working together to promote two common causes - the value of higher education and the true facts of student finance (http://www.bcu.ac.uk/student-info/finance-and-money-matters/studentfinanceday)

The day kicks off with a keynote address from Wes Streeting, Deputy Head of the Independent Taskforce on Student Finance, followed by a panel discussion with Wes, who is also Chief Executive of the Helena Kennedy Foundation, representatives from all three universities and Aaron Porter, former President of the National Union of Students. The launch culminates with online advice sessions hosted at each of the universities.

There is a strong track record of collaboration between Aston, Birmingham and Birmingham City, which started five years ago with a joint web initiative in partnership with Marketing Birmingham - Birmingham Live and Learn - to raise awareness of Birmingham as a student city. Content has since been amalgamated into the Visit Birmingham website.

University College Birmingham and Newman University College also joined the existing partnership, which went on to produce a Lonely Planet Guide and subsequent iphone app, short listed in the 2011 THE Leadership and Management Awards for Outstanding Marketing/Communications Team.

Most recently, four of the universities (Aston, Birmingham, Birmingham City and UCB) took a national lead in safeguarding access to university education, launching in October the Birmingham and Solihull Aimhigher regional partnership. Set up with support from over 50 schools, academies and colleges following the loss of Government funding for the national Aimhigher initiative, the partnership will continue to give young people from disadvantaged backgrounds access to a range of exciting activities to motivate them to realise their potential. Deputy Leader of the Liberal Democrats Simon Hughes, congratulating the partners at the launch, described it as having ’energy and imagination’.

As someone who has played a lead role in initiating the collaboration, in terms of the Lonely Planet Guide and Student Finance Day, I have been delighted with the results of our partnership to date and can see a continuing relationship - when we can pool resources on projects that benefit us all equally.

For me, there are a number of key reasons why this collaboration, possibly unique in the sector, has been possible.

Differentiation: The universities in Birmingham are all very confident of their individual positions in the marketplace and currently there is very little competitive overlap - particularly among the main three. We all recognise that prospective students need to attend the university that is right for them; it’s not in any of our interests to have students make a bad choice which leads to dissatisfaction, transfer or drop out. As undergraduate markets contract, as seems likely, only time will tell whether this differentiation remains so significant as to allow us to put differences aside to come together, but I am confident the track record will help facilitate that come what may.

Effectiveness and efficiency: Without a shadow of a doubt, projects like the dedicated student website and Lonely Planet Guide would not have been possible for one university to pursue alone - the costs would have been prohibitive. It made both common and business sense to pool our dwindling marketing budgets to achieve something greater together than we could ever do independently. We are currently working together to commission our own pocket guide to Birmingham - paying for the Lonely Planet brand was becoming too expensive.

Common ground: The strength of the partnership has been the underlying simplicity of the aims of the various initiatives. We have run with broad top level issues - promoting the city, encouraging access, raising awareness of student finances. These aspects are fundamental to the work we do in Higher Education - regardless of the particular market we target or the courses we offer. As long as we continue to identify and focus on common goals, there should always be the possibility of further partnership activity.

Mediation: The projects that have involved financial contributions have been greatly assisted by the involvement of an independent broker. In the case of the promotional projects, this at times difficult role fell to Marketing Birmingham. With any partnership there are always going to be a few problems along the way. As contributions varied according to the size of institution, there have been issues that related to the universities getting what they considered to be a ‘fair deal‘ for their money in comparison to others. Marketing Birmingham was able to provide objective advice and solutions - sometimes just reminding us politely of the end goal.

And finally. People who work in marketing tend to be a particular personality type. For the majority, we are natural optimists. We love what we do and feel passionately about the causes we market, which for Higher Education ultimately is about helping people achieve. When you feel so strongly about something that can have such a positive and long-lasting impact, you can usually see the bigger picture and leave the squabbling and rivalry at the door. Long may that continue.