Short term fix with long-term implications. We are no longer in a time where marketing is a luxury item. It is a strategic function. In this digital and more competitive era for education, what might the rationale be for such a move?
- Is it that marketers in place are not proving their value? If not, then they were either the wrong people or not doing the job. Marketers need to be pushing out the metrics ... communicating success or lack of it (which in turn helps identify solutions). CRM solutions can also automate this if the marketing person says "I don't have the time to do this."
- Are marketers not leading and evangelizing the science of marketing in the non-marketing environment of academia? Most colleges and universities I've visited do not see marketing as a science. Therefore, marketers cannot just throw their pretty pictures out there and say this is marketing ... folks, that's advertising. They need to educate others on the strategic and tactical process of marketing, as well as the science and financial side of it. A picture may be worth a thousand words, but return on investment says a whole lot more.
- They may pay more in outsourcing costs.
- They may leave the strategy and branding decisions to outside parties (which is sometimes better ... ask me about it sometime).
- They may fall into the creative and tactical trap of "getting things out there" as opposed to having strategic marketing leadership guide the way.
- The cost of a cutting two or three low paid marketers may be followed by lower revenues if the marketing doesn't get out there or the message or strategy isn't correct.
State colleges and universities should not be cutting these types of costs. The premier brands will suffer while the state and community colleges should benefit. Cost/value leaders should be investing now ... not cutting, especially their marketing.
