With all that’s going on with regards to compliance and schools taking more and more time to be selective in who they work with, will aggregators eventually give in to transparency? This topic is one of many heated discussions. I have been to multiple edu marketing panels with the who’s who of the major edu aggregators and it seems to be split. Some of them say that if forced to they will come around and identify all of their sources, others however refuse to and say they will never disclose every source for their leads. They believe their lead quality speaks for itself and don’t believe transparency is necessary. Well these firmare very protective of their sources and they do not want to be open for cannibalization, but if there is some type of vendor protection why can’t there be complete transparency. Some believe its because of the use of call center generated leads which continue to be tossed into the pile of Internet generated leads for many of the lead providers both at the top and bottom of the food chain. I think schools have the right to know where the leads are comming from PROVIDED they protect the lead sources from their vendors, non-circumvention, non-disclosure etc should help provide this protection. Many of the most astute schools will agree to this in order to get the transparency they want. What do you think?
Transparency
Tom Ferrara to moderate Education panel at BMO Marketing Conference
June 2, 2011
Join us for our 3rd annual conference showcasing leading companies in the Advertising & Marketing Services sector. The conference will focus on trends in technology and consumer behavior and their impact.
3rd annual advertising & marketing services conference Grand Hyatt • Park Avenue at Grand Central • New York City
Education Marketing Moderator: Tom Ferrara, Creator of ForProfitEDU.com & CEO of FF Ventures
Ad Venture Interactive, Mike McHugh, COO
Avenue100 Media Solutions, Brian Eberman, CEO
EducationDynamics, Steve Issac,Co-Founder & Senior Advisor
The CollegeBound Network, Greg O’Brien, CEO
Link to the Agenda: http://www.bmocm.com/conferences/showAgenda.aspx?id=325
Link to registration: https://www.meetmax.com/sched/event_9091/investor_reg_new.html?cmd=register&event_id=9091
BMO conferences are consistently some of the best events every year, usually standing room only with the industry’s top companies and executives, if you can be there, GO!
Only 30% of schools see lead scoring as valuable or a must
Over the last few years there have been tremendous amount of conversations over the need for and value of lead scoring. While companies such as targus have secured nice subscription based revenue models by charging for lead scoring service many don’t find them as necessary. In the beginning vendors dismissed the value and accuracy of lead scoring as clearly they dented the “valid lead” pile. Arguments ensued as to how you can say the lead is not valid when the data is accurate and the person initiated the action of requesting info from the schools. Others claimed it was the equivalent of profiling and thus prevented equal access.
With the gainful employment regulations pending many more schools looked into it as they felt compelled to target a higher level (financially) demographic for fear the other could not afford an education. Once again leave it to the Govt. to create rules that negatively effect those who need it the most… but I digress…
The results of the 2011 EDU survey showed that only 8.3% considered lead scoring extremely valuable and 22.6% found it valuable. Which means 70% don’t see much value or importance in it, especially for 2011. While I am sure that targus folk will differ and many may be in arms regarding this post, we are simply reporting what the schools and industry responded in the 2011 EDU advertising and marketing survey!
Barely 50% of schools looking to increase annual lead spending in 2011
Based on our survey of over 200 EDU Advertising and Marketing professionals it seems clear that only about half of the schools plan on increasing their lead budgets in 2011 over 2010 spends. While most blame lack of quality lead sources others blame decreasing lead quality partially due to the increased use of call center generated leads by third party lead providers. Regardless of the reason it marks the first year in many where less than 60% of the schools were actively looking to increase their lead buying.
EDMC selection of double positive as agency of record leave most industry veterans scratching their heads…
When it was announced that EDMC had selected the small firm double positive as it’s agency of record, many people seemed confused. At leadscon last week many of the industries largest marketers and agencies were wondering how that happened. Other however seemed to clearly understand. The theory isthat they were selected because of the advertising.com connection, in essence a senior exec of double positive was previously the point man for the apollo exclusive with advertising.com. Clearly EDMC as well as the online unit are being run by former UoP exec’s and thus they pushed the deal thru with doublepos. Interesting though we all know how the UoP deal with ad.com turned out….. hence their purchase shortly thereafter of aptimus. Could they be simply doing a try and buy with double positive…
CPC vs. CPL? Does that even make sense?
On page 83 of the recent proposed rulemaking from the department of Education you will find:
Several negotiators were concerned about the impact of the proposed language on an institution’s Internet-based activities. Negotiators asserted that the HEA permits advertising and marketing activities by a third party, as long as payment to the third party is based on those who “click” and is not based on the number of individuals who enroll. The Department agrees and does not believe that the proposed regulatory language would prohibit such click-through payments.
Please explain to me how CPC makes more sense than cpl, other than with non-internet (call center) leads. Anyone who can manage an efficient CPL program can just as easily manage a successful CPC program. Still don’t see why internet driven CPL is being called into question especially for the lead provider who have zero interaction with the prospect who sought out, then filled out the lead form for the school.
To access the complete 500+ page doc Click:
http://www.ed.gov/news/student-aid-rules-protect-borrowers-and-taxpayers
then click on the link in box on right: notice of proposed rulemaking.
“Sector Under Siege?”,
An article with that title was published on the website Inside Higher
Education. In their opinion the gainful employment rule is expected to be excluded from next
week’s education proposal. The article outlines that the Office of Management and Budget
included a note in the Federal Register concluding that the DOE’s proposed program integrity
rules could have a major economic impact, a designation that would require the DOE to
strengthen the evidence necessary to justify the need for the regulation. Furthermore, the article mentions
that the designation is believed to be a major reason why the DOE has (according to reports
from several sources Thursday, though unconfirmed by department officials directly) decided
to omit the gainful employment proposal from the proposed regulations expected to be
released next week. This if the outcome follows the assumption will bring smiles to many of the faces I saw at last
weeks CCA. Lets hope!
CCA starts tomorrow in Vegas
It will interesting to see & feel the atmosphere at the CCA this week with all of the regulatory overhang. With so much up in the air I am sure the conversations and opinions will be flowing. With lead generators, schools and service providers mingling and drinks flowing its sure to be entertaining.
e look forward to catching up with many of you.
ForProfitEDU is considering hosting an event at the CCA conference in June, Let us know if you will be there!
ForProfitEDU.com is considering hosting an event at the CCA this June in Vegas! Please let us know if you are going to the CCA and are interested in attending an event with us & other members.
If you are going to the CCA in June and are interested in attending an event with ForProfitEDU please email us to get on the list: info@forprofitedu.com
Please include your name, email address, position & firm.
Also, if you are with a company who is interested in participating with us at this event please inquire.
Schools & lead generators getting increasingly nervous about government action
Over the last few months both schools and lead generation firms have become increasingly nervous over pending regulation changes. More schools seem to believe that changes will come effecting cost per lead marketing, most vendors while increasingly stressed just don’t think it will happen. Arguments can be made against the proposed changes include:
- That lead generators don’t contact/interact with the student prospects
- The the entire process is driven by the prospective student choosing and requesting
- That non-profits buy data on people who aren’t aware and the directly market them
- That the vendors are not in any way involved in the enrollment process
- That the education directories provide a valuable free service for prospective students
- That the lead generators have created much more outreach promoting education
Schools seem to think that if lead gen CPL has to either go away or change that CPC cost per click will remain…that doesn’t make any sense to me as ultimately the value of a click can be identified by conversions just as the value of a lead. However, many mention that Google CPC is different as they set the price. Other schools feel that placement fees/clotting fee will become the new normal.
What do you think?