Why We Care
Last week we wrote about a change in Facebook’s advertising policy, one not publicly posted on their news site but sent out to a handful of its largest performance-based advertisers. The change focused on what might be called demographic insertion, if it were really an option. It mirrors how advertisers use keywords in the Google world, they quite often choose to have that keyword appear in the ad text that the user reads. Facebook doesn’t have keywords per se, but it does offer a type of context that Google does not, demographics. If applied properly, demographic targeting and demographic insertion could turn a general run of network ad into one that felt targeted. And if you monitored ads on Facebook, you would have noticed many in the insurance, debt, and education space, seemingly calling you out as a user of a certain age and location. The customization in the ad generally extended to the landing page, and while they worked for the arbitrager, Facebook decided it didn’t work for the user and that such a practice violated its existing terms and conditions. Our piece on the subject included a handful of screenshots spanning different verticals. Those of the education space caused quite a bit of grief.
For better and worse, we do not try to break news stories, and when we talk about a marketing practice, we don’t look at it as a chance to roast anyone. That is why we hardly if ever mention any names. If it seems like sometimes we don’t want the industry to do well because we write stories about high profit, low profile tactics, such an assumption couldn’t be further from the truth. We want this industry to grow, and the only way that it grows is by investing in sustainable marketing practices. And, that means making sure those involved do not form improper ideas of what they can do simply because someone else does it. This applies everywhere, but certainly in a sector like education marketing. Not only do the FTC guidelines for advertising apply regardless what is promoted, but certain industries have an extra layer of scrutiny, and with education these extra layers of scrutiny involve another three letter agency, the Department of Education (DOE).
Education marketing comprises more than one billion dollars in online advertising spend yearly, but its role in the performance marketing space has been muted over the past few years, despite the fact that the largest generator of education lead generation just went public. Ringtones and flogvertising have dominated the mindshare and wallet share of many arbitragers. At more than one billion in spend, companies have obviously focused on education marketing, but most have been, for lack of a better term, vertical specialists overlapping little with the well-known CPA networks. That is starting to change as these companies look for growth outside their current channels and CPA networks turn to offers in the lead generation space while the free trial space works itself out. That they find each other again is almost to be expected. But now more than ever the stakes are high to do things right, not just because of the cloud that hangs slightly over the performance marketing channel but because of the juxtaposition of two words that don’t belong together – education marketing. It’s a concept that seems almost normal to any who run offers, but the idea that a school would buy leads is a very recent phenomenon, especially in the broader context of education.
The idea that its largest buyers are not only for-profit institutions but traded publicly on the stock market is not a concept that sits well with those in Washington who view education as a purist endeavor. Never mind that top-tier institutions have endowments in the billions of dollars all while enjoying tax free status or that coaches at top-tier programs make more than the president of the university. Once you make education ostensibly about making money, that’s when feathers get more than ruffled. So what do attitudes about education marketing in Washington have to do with those marketing for-profit companies? In other words, why should you care? Because, like so many other things, when you follow the money, you see the complete picture. Following the money here leads to the government. Who do you think pays for school? Students ultimately do, but for any who went to school and paid for it on their own, you know that paying for schools is primarily a federal activity. You take money out for school, and while the school might act as the dispenser, the money for the loans comes from the government. Schools are allowed to give out the money if they are accredited; if done the other way around, anyone could say they are going to school and get a low interest loan from the government. That’s why schools play a critical role. But, it doesn’t change who foots the bill when more loans get issued, the taxpayer.
Enter the for-profit education with campuses in more than one city and now virtually. A large state school can have 50,000 students. A large for-profit has magnitudes more than that, and they can add students in a much more fluid fashion than schools following a typical education calendar. Is it an ingenious business meeting a market demand or is it a series of companies using the taxpayer as their piggy bank? It depends on where you sit, and if you are in Washington with a traditional view of education, you lean much more towards the latter. That means you leverage your position to try and curtail the growth of the for-profits, which is exactly what is going on today. There is a battle in Washington that will determine the future of for-profit education, at least for the next three to seven years. All of which makes now a critical time for those marketing to understand the implications of what they say. Marketing education is playing on a whole new level of responsibility and implications. It won’t stop those who seek conversions at all costs from acting in a manner that schools won’t approve, but unlike some free trial offers, those receiving conversion won’t simply be thankful for more leads. They would gladly not have them than have ones generated by a method which could threaten their livelihood. Unlike some who pay lip service to such statements, this group really means it. Education marketing is big business, but as a business that must walk a fine line, it means we must too.
