Journal of Marketing For Higher Education

This article was downloaded by: [Universitat Politècnica de València]
On: 17 October 2014, At: 04:12

Publisher: Routledge
Informa Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registered office: Mortimer House,
37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK
Journal of Marketing for Higher Education

Publication details, including instructions for authors and subscription information:
http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/wmhe20
Segmenting Markets in Urban Higher Education:

Community- Versus Campus-Centered Students
a a a
Thomas A. Klein , Patsy F. Scott & Joseph L. Clark
a
University of Toledo , Toledo, OH
Published online: 21 Oct 2008.
To cite this article: Thomas A. Klein , Patsy F. Scott & Joseph L. Clark (2001) Segmenting Markets in Urban Higher Education:
Community- Versus Campus-Centered Students, Journal of Marketing for Higher Education, 11:1, 39-61, DOI: 10.1300/
J050v11n01_03
To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1300/J050v11n01_03
PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE
Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information (the “Content”) contained
in the publications on our platform. However, Taylor & Francis, our agents, and our licensors make no
representations or warranties whatsoever as to the accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose of the
Content. Any opinions and views expressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors, and
are not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of the Content should not be relied upon and
should be independently verified with primary sources of information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for
any losses, actions, claims, proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilities whatsoever
or howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with, in relation to or arising out of the use of
the Content.
This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Any substantial or systematic
reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing, systematic supply, or distribution in any
form to anyone is expressly forbidden. Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at http://
www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions
Segmenting Markets in Urban Higher Education:
Community- Versus Campus-Centered Students
Thomas A. Klein
Patsy F. Scott
Downloaded by [Universitat Politècnica de València] at 04:12 17 October 2014
Joseph L. Clark
ABSTRACT. Market segmentation in urban higher education has gener-

ally divided potential students, primarily based on age, into Direct from
High School (DHS) or “Traditional” and adult or “Non-Traditional,” based
on differences in scheduling and program preferences and media ac-
cess. One large urban institution, confronted by new competition, expe-
rienced a significant decline in DHS enrollment based on policies
derived from this delineation. Enrollment analysis and a survey of cur-
rent students, grouped according to permanent residence, class enroll-
ment, and participation in campus activities, produces a modified
picture: local DHS students tend to be more like adult students than DHS
students with more distant permanent residence. Based on this analysis,
segmentation concepts of “campus-centered” and “community-cen-
tered” are proposed to replace “traditional” and “non-traditional.” Impli-
cations of this reconceptualization for programming and marketing
communications are developed. [Article copies available for a fee from The
Haworth Document Delivery Service: 1-800-342-9678. E-mail address:
<getinfo@haworthpressinc.com> Website: <http://www.HaworthPress.com>
© 2001 by The Haworth Press, Inc. All rights reserved.]
KEYWORDS. Market segments, urban higher education, commuter stu-

dents, student recruitment, student retention, student database, student
survey
Thomas A. Klein, PhD, is Emeritus Professor of Marketing, Patsy F. Scott, MSES,
is Director of Institutional Research, and Joseph L. Clark, MA, is Instructor of Com-
munications, all at The University of Toledo, Toledo, OH.
Address correspondence to: Thomas A. Klein, College of Business Administration,
The University of Toledo, Toledo, OH 43606-3390 (E-mail: taklein@glasscity.net).
This research was sponsored by The University of Toledo Office of the President.
Journal of Marketing for Higher Education, Vol. 11(1) 2001
 2001 by The Haworth Press, Inc. All rights reserved. 39
40 JOURNAL OF MARKETING FOR HIGHER EDUCATION
INTRODUCTION
Perhaps the significance of marketing in higher education is nowhere

greater than in urban settings. Multiple institutions with similar offer-
ings compete for the same finite pool of students. Retention and recruit-
ment are both viewed as marketing challenges.
Urban institutions that attempt to attract and retain students from out-
side their local area find themselves projecting a split personality. Here
they must also compete with a larger array of private and public residen-
tial universities and colleges–often located in settings viewed as more
attractive by students and their families and able to focus on the com-
paratively homogeneous needs and desires and similar demographic
and socio-economic characteristics of students able to and wanting to
attend college away from home.
This “split personality” develops as institutions cater to a mixed stu-
dent population of “non-traditional” adults and younger, “traditional”
or DHS (direct from high school) students. A focus on the needs and
preferences of one group tends to distract from meeting the needs and
preferences of the other. Particularly larger comprehensive schools can-
not afford to turn their back on any significant demand pool. Thus, insti-
tutions come to appreciate the need for a segmented approach to class
schedules, access to support services, which programs to offer or em-
phasize, what student services to support, and what themes to feature in
marketing communications efforts. Especially in the case of public in-
stitutions, a combination of complex mission, a need to maintain a large
enrollment base, and the desire to reinforce an academic reputation re-
quires attention to multiple segments.
However, it seems essential that such institutions get their under-
standings of relevant segmentation right. Mistaking the programming
and information needs of a substantial group of students is wasteful and,
where students have other educational opportunities from which to
choose, is guaranteed to send them to other campuses. In the case pre-
sented here, we came to suspect and, through the research reported, ulti-
mately found the conventional age-based approach to segmentation was
substantially in error. A major portion of the student body was misiden-
tified in terms of needs and preferences and, accordingly, programming
and marketing communications were “out of sync” with the structure of
market demand. Once the error is identified, institutional marketing ef-
forts can be targeted better, both more efficient and effective.
Klein, Scott, and Clark 41
PREVIOUS RESEARCH
Hollander and Germain (1995) pointed out that higher education

marketing in the U.S. dates at least to the post-Civil War period. Coedu-
cation, agricultural and technical programs, electives, and publicity ef-
forts all sought to differentiate newer, land grant institutions from their
liberal arts predecessors and to broaden their appeal to population seg-
ments previously not attracted to higher education. Nonetheless, “mar-

keting” was a concept without honor in the non-profit, higher education
community–and years of flush demand (resulting from increased partic-
ipation and the “baby boom”) following World War II undoubtedly
lulled higher education leaders into a “build it and they will come” men-
tality.
With a declining birth rate and a participation rate approaching ap-
parent limits, this complacency evaporated. In addition, growth in the
percentage of students interested in post-secondary studies and in-
creased job demands prompted public officials to build greater capacity
into the nation’s higher education system. Many two-year institutions
were established and urban institutions expanded their capacity. By
1990, all but an elite few colleges and universities found themselves in a
marketplace characterized by what some economists refer to as “hy-
per-competition,” unfamiliar ground for people accustomed only to se-
lecting a freshman class from among more applicants than could be
accommodated and devising programs and schedules based heavily on
the interests of a mobile faculty.
Faced with this situation, institutional officials have turned to “mar-
keting” to attract more students (e.g., Daubek and Feldman 1995). By
1980, there is evidence that schools had at least adopted the selling
component of marketing in connection with the admissions (Mackey
1995). The successes of Procter and Gamble and General Mills could
surely be replicated at “Hightower State.”
In operational terms, “marketing” has tended to imply a primary em-
phasis on marketing communications–brochures, print and broadcast
advertising, campus visit programs, college fairs, etc. (Hollander and
Germain 1995, Mackey 1995, Kelly 1999). Attention to programming
issues as a way to increase enrollment, historically important (Hollander
and Germain 1995), seems to have mostly been utilized by small liberal
arts colleges attempting to attract adult learners. More recently, how-
ever, a more encompassing adoption of the “marketing concept” is in
evidence.
• Sophisticated research methodologies have migrated from the business

to the non-profit sectors (Van Den Heuvel and Devasagayam 1999)
and are surely being used in higher education marketing studies.
• As tuition and costs to taxpayers have escalated, attention has been
turned to pricing–and the use of scholarships to make college more
affordable (Seebach 1998). Private schools’ concerns with price
competition have a long history as their enrollment was affected
by tax-supported public schools with low fees. However, pricing is

now a regular concern even in public institutions. Competition be-
tween 2- and 4-year institutions and efforts to attract honor stu-
dents away from prestige colleges have stimulated the increased
use of scholarships as a discounting vehicle. More generally, the
pricing variable has been recognized as a significant factor in col-
lege selection, varying in salience across socio-economic strata
and according to where a student (and his or her family) is in the
process of screening possible colleges down to the one selected
(Quigley et al. 1999).
• “Student satisfaction” is being recognized as a basis for program-
ming and marketing communications decisions in terms of reten-
tion as well as recruitment (Elliott and Shin 1999).
• Strategic approaches common in consumer goods markets, e.g.,
branding and positioning, have been adopted (McKnight and
Paugh 1999).
• Market orientation has apparently helped institutions to improve
their performance across a range of criteria of importance to uni-
versity officials in all functions and at all levels, not only with re-
spect to enrollment management or the central administration
(Caruana, Ramaseshan, and Ewing 1998).
The concepts of market segmentation and targeting were recognized

many years ago by urban institutions serving a substantial adult student
population (see, e.g., Hu 1985). Older students need evening access to
classes and services, are likely to pursue career-oriented academic pro-
grams, tend to follow a part-time schedule, and are unlikely to be interested
in campus activities designed for younger, full-time students (Commu-
nity Assessment Program 1995). Students attending public institutions
have different demographic characteristics and bring different needs
and expectations to selecting a school than those more oriented to pri-
vate higher education (Kappler 1998).
The conceptualization of “traditional” and “non-traditional” to distin-
guish between adult and DHS students is customary usage in schools
with a significant adult student population. The “non-traditional” concept

has also been applied to other groups that historically have had a low rate
of college participation (e.g., women, minorities, physically handi-
capped, etc.) that also tend to be older and to attend college in their home
communities. This conceptualization has led to differential targeting
strategies that include separate evening programs, evening office hours
for support services, distance-learning technologies for instruction, ca-
reer-oriented appeals in marketing communications, and, insofar as this

market opportunity is not accessible through efforts channeled through
high schools and guidance counselors, substantial media advertising.
These strategies have been especially embraced in the two-year, commu-
nity and technical college sector (Doucette 1997).
BACKGROUND
The University of Toledo is a large (20,000 students) multi-campus

state institution in a metropolitan area with a population of approxi-
mately 500,000. UT offers a wide range of academic programs at the
Associate, Baccalaureate, and graduate (including doctorates in many
fields) levels. Institutional growth and development occurred more or
less steadily from modest beginnings in the 1870s. Historically, UT
served as an “Opportunity U.” for local students without the means to
go away to college and for adults who either had gone directly from
high school into the labor force or who had dropped out of college be-
fore graduation. By the mid-Eighties, this enrollment pattern had begun
to change. In particular, the incoming freshman class contained a ma-
jority from outside the local area, including a sizable company of inter-
national students.
Toledo’s enrollment peaked in 1991: approximately 21,000 under-
graduates and total enrollment just short of 25,000. By Fall 1998, how-
ever, total enrollment had fallen slightly below 20,000 and the undergrad-
uate population was barely 16,000. Explanations of the enrollment decline
listed several contributing factors:
• Declining birthrates in the region meant fewer high school

graduates. In addition, the demographic mix of recent graduates
included a higher proportion of ethnic minorities less likely to at-
tend college.
• Economic growth attracted a higher percentage of high school
graduates directly into the job market. Meanwhile, improved
employment opportunities and overtime practices at local fac-

tories cut into a “traditional” source of evening and part-time
students.
• Past enrollment growth reflected disproportionate increases in
the number of women and international students on the campus.
These sources of new enrollment were reaching natural satura-
tion levels.
• For most of its history, UT was “the only game in town”; two neigh-
boring colleges catered to a residential population, one of which

had a strong religious affiliation unacceptable to most families.
This competitive picture changed dramatically during the Nineties.
Several area technical colleges converted to community college
status and were now offering pre-baccalaureate programs. Apart
from added convenience to students who lived nearby and reputa-
tions for job placement success based on their technical programs,
these schools charge tuition rates that are about half of that at UT.
In addition, the religious school began to program for the adult
market, offering evening classes and adding several pre-profes-
sional programs to its historic liberal arts base. Finally, the market
was invaded by several out-of-town schools; these local branches
featured adult-oriented degree completion programs, convenient
parking and scheduling, and advertised heavily.
• Several internal circumstances probably had a net negative im-
pact on enrollment. Several units increased admission and/or
graduation standards. A few widely reported crimes involving
students created an image of deficient campus safety. An aca-
demic calendar conversion from quarters to semesters had pro-
duced at least a short term drop in both headcount and FTEs.
Although this period arguably included considerable positive
news related to both physical and program improvements, these
“negative” factors arguably overwhelmed them with respect to
near term enrollment impact.
The campus response to declining enrollment for several years was

determinedly optimistic. Most of the negative factors were presumed to
have only short term impact. The economy had to level off. Community
college graduates would transfer to UT to finish their degrees. The cal-
endar conversion should work itself out. Other campuses had their
crime scares and memories would fade. Program quality from the new
competitors was measurably inferior; the word would eventually get
out. Meanwhile, UT increased its investments in campus and program im-
provements and in marketing communications. The fact that out-of-town

student enrollment continued to increase was evidence that UT was suc-
cessfully positioning itself within the changing market environment.
In time, however, major concerns emerged. Annual adjustments to de-
clining enrollment and its budget implications are painful. Complaints
about service cutbacks and canceled classes increased. Attrition among
students in good academic standing increased. The anticipated rise in
transfers failed to materialize; students that used to drop out in their

freshman or sophomore year at UT were now dropping out at the com-
munity colleges and, it was speculated, associate degree holders were
either not going into baccalaureate programs or were transferring to
other degree completion programs in the area.
More objectively, enrollment analysis established that increases in
the out-of-town student population were more than offset by declines in
the local DHS population. A growing opinion was that the strategy for
adapting to the changing market climate was not sufficient to maintain a
stable enrollment, let alone lead to the growth forecast in past planning.
Some officials began to question whether the strategy of primarily ap-
pealing to DHS students, with a more limited response to the adult mar-
ket, was working.
The diagnosis emerging from this analysis was initially based on
mostly anecdotal evidence. Local students reported taking full-time
jobs that interfered with their ability to take classes scheduled only in
the daytime–or to take “full loads” requiring campus presence through-
out the week. Scheduling problems were especially troublesome to stu-
dents approaching graduation; some required classes were canceled or
only offered when they had to be at work. They also complained about
access to advising and other support services. Complaints about traffic
and parking congestion increased. Female students with children re-
ported family obligations interfered with class attendance. Many stu-
dents, both local and from out-of-town, who had entered as “traditional”
freshmen, were marrying and having children or taking on substantial
employment obligations.
The tentative conclusion drawn from this evidence was that a sub-
stantial fraction of Toledo’s so-called “traditional” student body
had, except for age and the fact that they had entered college directly
from high school, most of the behaviors and needs generally ascribed
to “non-traditional,” i.e., adult students. The understanding of mar-
ket segmentation and its impact on marketing strategy needed to be
reconsidered.
In an academic environment, accustomed to discounting anecdotal ev-

idence differing from known data, namely that more out-of-town stu-
dents were coming to UT each year, particularly where key officials had a
vested interest in the current strategy, this understanding proved to be a “dif-
ficult sell.” What remained was the task of confirming or disconfirming
this new understanding–the project reported here.
At the outset, it should be understood that the specific research re-
ported here, together with the strategic implications that follow, grew
out of a marketing strategy and planning initiative authorized by UT’s
President in early 1998. While not exactly privy to his thinking at the
time, the President may have experienced pressure regarding continu-
ing enrollment declines, felt that a number of campus initiatives to in-
crease both new admissions and retention needed more discipline and
coordination, and sought a rationale for increasing expenditures in ad-
vertising and other student recruitment efforts. There was no apparent
recognition of the concern that the strategy of appealing to DHS stu-
dents, both local and out-of-town, by improving the quality and image
of academic programs, campus facilities and appearance, and student
life might be targeted incorrectly. Indeed, based on the disbelief ex-
pressed among most central academic and student affairs officials in re-
sponse to this concern, the central administration probably had a much
more limited vision for the research and planning effort than eventually
followed. Moreover, both those “pre-plan” initiatives and many of the
strategies and specific plans that did emerge from this research and
planning program support that prior understanding. The position of-
fered here is that an institution that depends heavily on a local DHS pop-
ulation needs to view its marketplace imperatives differently than
institutions that primarily serve either full-time campus residents or
adults. In the case of UT, which competes in both a local and a re-
gional-to-international market, the strategic implications of this re-
search complement but do not replace the kind of marketing efforts
needed to attract “traditional” students.
REVISED SEGMENTATION CONCEPTS:

COMMUNITY-CENTERED VERSUS CAMPUS-CENTERED
Once it was established that the strategy based on the “tradi-

tional”/“non-traditional” concepts was not working, apparently due to
mistargeting, the task of reconceptualizing relevant segmentation for
UT remained. Rather than drawing this conceptualization from survey
data, we chose to search for names based on what we knew–or thought

we knew–from our preliminary work. We wanted names that could, in
fact, be included in the survey, which would be transparent in meaning
to faculty and staff unfamiliar with the process which generated and
confirmed those names, which would cover the variety of circum-
stances that produced the differentiated needs and preferences, and, ul-
timately, that would provide guidance to targeted programming and
communications.
Principles followed in reconceptualization may be identified. “Tar-
get markets” are, of course, segments to receive marketing emphasis.
Segments should be delineated and named according to differing needs
or demographic factors known to correlate with variations in needs and
marketing access. Targeted segments include potential students most
likely to be attracted to a college, based on their needs relative to that
college’s comparative strengths and correctable weaknesses. Target
differentiation should also reflect the various factors affecting retention
or attrition among targets.
Useful segmentation of the higher education market is multidimen-
sional. No single criterion–age, full- versus part-time, permanent resi-
dence, etc.–adequately captures salient differences in student needs and
expectations. Analysis indicates UT served several distinct populations
warranting marketing attention because of their size and the institu-
tion’s mission. Despite some similarities, as discussed previously, these
population segments appeared to not correspond to the conventional
definitions. Many of UT’s “traditional” students have employment or
family obligations that translate into needs and behaviors comparable to
those of so-called “non-traditionals.” Finally, due to concern with re-
tention as well as recruitment, the significant migration occurring be-
tween segments during the college career cycle, i.e., the fact that many
DHS students marry and/or take full-time jobs before graduating and,
thus, take on “non-traditional” characteristics that must be reflected in a
successful retention program, needed to be recognized.
After much discussion, we segmented our markets according to
whether students are (or are likely to be) “campus-centered” or “com-
munity-centered.”
• Campus-centered students reside in University housing, in quar-

ters supervised or authorized by the University or in neighbor-
hoods near the campus, or, occasionally, in their family home.
While many are permanent residents of the local area, they are most
likely to be from another community. They tend to participate in tra-
ditional undergraduate activities such as student government, stu-

dent organizations, and campus-based social and recreational
activities. They take more classes/credit hours per term than oth-
ers. For targeting recruitment efforts, prospective campus-cen-
tered students should be further segmented according to their place
of permanent residence, i.e., the local area and those (generally
metropolitan) areas most likely to contain significant numbers of
prospective students.
• Community-centered students live with their families or in their
own homes. They are married, have children, and/or have (or seek)
full-time employment, and do not participate significantly in tradi-
tional undergraduate activities. They may carry a “full load” of
courses, but tend to take fewer courses/credit hours than cam-
pus-centered students; because of other commitments, they may
require an evening class schedule. This category includes most
adult students, but also many DHS students, including some origi-
nally from outside the local area. Prospective community-centered
students live in the local media market, but should be further seg-
mented as follows:
• DHS, high school seniors and recent high school graduates,
reached through college fairs and direct mail as well as mass
media
• Community-college transfers
• Adults, aged 24 or more, who can be reached through employ-
ers, community institutions, and targeted open house programs
as well as mass media.
METHODOLOGY
The segmentation component of this research and planning program

involved two principal steps:
• First, institutional research resources enabled a comprehensive

analysis of UT’s enrollment history in terms of part-time versus
full-time students, day versus evening students, major fields, and
various demographic characteristics of interest–age, sex, ethnic-
ity, and county of origin. Recent committee minutes, community
and student focus groups and sample surveys provided other rele-
vant information. Twenty in-depth interviews were conducted
with institutional officers having a range of responsibilities in en-

rollment management, student services, and academic affairs.
While the information developed from these sources covered a
range of marketing issues, questions related to market segments and
UT’s effectiveness in identifying and meeting the needs of various
groups of students and prospective students were prominent through-
out this effort.
• The second step, with a primary focus on testing the validity and
presumed implications of the segmentation structure developed
from the exploratory studies, was a telephone survey of a sample
of students enrolled at UT in Fall 1998. Survey details may be
identified:
• The sample was stratified in five different groups according
to UT’s student database:
1. Students who lived on campus, who participated in cer-
tain student activities determinate from the University’s
student database (e.g., band or intercollegiate athletics),
or who were enrolled for fifteen or more credit hours dur-
ing Fall 1998. This population was further stratified ac-
cording to whether their permanent residence was
a. In UT’s local county, or
b. Outside UT’s local county
2. Other students, further sorted by credit hours they were
registered for in Fall 1998:
a. 0-8,
b. 9-12, or
c. 13-14.
• To maximize the reliability of sample results from within each
stratum, given the number of total interviews that could be con-
ducted within the time and financial resources available, 160
interviews were conducted within each group, a total of 800
interviews. This yields results accurate within approximately
+/2 7 percent at the 5 percent level of significance for each
subgroup and, when weighted proportionally according to the
relative size of each, approximately +/2 3.5 percent overall.
These error rates are maxima, i.e., based on population propor-
tions of approximately fifty percent; error rates decline as per-
centages approach zero.
• The first draft survey instrument was reviewed internally for
completeness and relevance and pilot-tested.
• Interviews were conducted professionally during the three

week period prior to Thanksgiving 1998. Each sampled item
received a total of five callbacks at various times of day be-
fore replacement.
• Data were entered by a person experienced in this work.
Analysis was based on the stratification scheme outlined
above and included a Chi-square test for significant differ-
ences among strata. The statistical package used was “The

Survey System.”
KEY FINDINGS
The final questionnaire is appended. Survey findings reported here

satisfy a common test of significance (Chi-square) and are, of course,
subject to sampling error. Other findings reported are based on the pre-
liminary research activities.
1. Correspondence between the sampling strata and self-identifica-
tion was generally high. Between 56 (full-time) and 78 (part-time)
percent of students included in the community-centered strata identi-
fied themselves as community-centered. Between 38 (local residents)
and 68 (out-of-town) percent of students from the campus-centered
strata identified themselves as campus-centered. Slightly over six per-
cent of the respondents were unable to choose between the options of-
fered.
2. Campus-centered students comprise 40-50 percent of the current
UT student body. Based on the criteria established for sample stratifica-
tion, the student population is about evenly divided between “cam-
pus-centered” and “community-centered” students. Self-identification
yielded a larger portion of “community-centered” students.
3. The largest single segment of the current student body is cam-
pus-centered, out-of-town, approximately one third of the total. The
next largest segment, more than one fourth of the total, is commu-
nity-centered, full-time, i.e., enrolled for 12-14 credit hours of classes.
The local campus-centered students and community-centered, part-time,
components are each approximately fifteen percent of the total. The
community-centered, “other” group (9-12 credit hours) is just over ten
percent of the total.
4. Nearly three fourths of the local resident population was identified
in the student database as “community-centered.” Based on self-identi-
fication, this group approached eighty-five percent. The local resident

population accounts for approximately one half the total student body.
5. Campus-centered students are younger and, for the most part, un-
married. They are less likely to be employed, but are more likely to have
internship or co-op assignments. For the most part, they are graduates of
out-of-town high schools and have out-of-town permanent residences.
On average, campus-centered students take more credit hours per term
than community-centered students.

6. Campus-centered students base their selection/persistence deci-
sions on the availability of a preferred major program of study, location
(close to or away from home), cost, academic reputation (of the pre-
ferred program and overall), the campus and community environment,
and housing availability. Selection occurs over a year or more in which
various alternatives are considered and rejected prior to final choice.
7. Campus-centered students prefer classes on the main campus, are
comparatively indifferent to class schedules, are more likely to partici-
pate in student organizations or attend campus athletic and cultural
events and to frequent the student union or recreation center. They are
more likely to utilize and value such services and programs as counsel-
ing, international studies (e.g., “semester abroad”), and career develop-
ment and placement; they tend to read the campus newspaper and use
campus computer labs. They are more interested in campus beautifica-
tion efforts and improved campus housing and related services.
8. Community-centered students are far more likely to be employed,
married, and have children. African-American and Hispanic students are
more likely to be community-centered. Although this sampling picked up
comparatively few transfer students, two thirds of the transfers in the sam-
ple were in the community-centered strata.
9. Community-centered students base their selection/persistence de-
cisions on cost, the ability to pursue and complete a preferred program
of study at a time and location convenient to home or work, and on con-
venient access to support services.
10. Community-centered students are more likely to prefer and take
classes at a satellite location, tend to take most of their classes in the
evening or want a 2-day schedule that limits required campus presence,
are more willing to take a Saturday class, are more interested in acceler-
ated (e.g., a semester course delivered in 8 weeks) or compressed (1 meet-
ing per week) formats, and to depend on campus child care services.
They were no more interested in programs and activities targeted to
evening and part-time students than campus-centered students. Overall,
interest in “activities for commuters” was negligible.
11. In terms of class rank (freshman, sophomore, etc.), freshmen com-

prised nearly half of the campus-centered segment, compared to approxi-
mately one third of the community-centered segment. These data, in
addition to the chain analysis of class scheduling, confirms the proposi-
tion that there is significant migration from campus-centered to commu-
nity-centered during students’ college careers.
12. Community-centered students were no more likely to be female
than campus-centered students. Significant differences were not obtained

with respect to library usage or the importance of campus safety and
quality of instruction. Parking improvements were the number one in-
terest across all sampling strata, with the greatest percentage of students
identifying this issue occurring in the community-centered, full-time
segment.
13. Formal statistical analysis of program enrollment data (college
and major) proved to be inconclusive. This reflects, we believe, sam-
pling limitations and some idiosyncracies in UT’s academic organiza-
tion (perhaps present in many institutions). However, there is limited
evidence to support the proposition that community-centered students
are most likely to enroll in career-oriented (health care and social ser-
vices, accounting, and engineering technologies) as opposed to liberal
arts programs.
DISCUSSION
Although correspondence between sampling strata and self-identifi-

cation was high, misidentification was also significant. UT’s current
student database information alone is not as reliable for segmentation
purposes as was hoped. Such information as the employment and fam-
ily circumstances of students and, in the absence of time chains,
changes in enrollment patterns such as the number and times of classes
taken must be obtained via survey or else incorporated into student da-
tabases in a more accessible fashion.
Not surprisingly, the least correspondence was between the cam-
pus-centered local residents and community-centered full-time seg-
ments. More than half of the former group identified themselves as
community-centered, forty percent of the latter group identified them-
selves as campus-centered. Most significant with respect to overall
misidentification was the extent to which students identified as cam-
pus-centered on the basis of student database information identified
themselves as “community-centered,” and reported circumstances and
preferences in keeping with their self-identification. The understanding

at the outset of the research and planning effort was that a diminishing
minority of students were “community-centered.” Analysis of the stu-
dent database indicated a 50:50 split. The survey showed that a clear
majority of UT’s students are “community-centered.” These findings
have profound implications for both programming and marketing com-
munications planning.
STRATEGIC IMPLICATIONS
The “community-centered” segment/target was substantially larger

than originally thought; the vast majority of local students in the tradi-
tional age group identified themselves as community-centered and/or
expressed preferences and exhibited behaviors that, in terms of pro-
gramming and information needs, placed them in the ranks of commu-
nity-centered, not campus-centered segments.
In terms of recruiting, the implication is that information typically
targeted to DHS students through view books, videos, and visits–cam-
pus beauty, student activities, and program quality (identified through
alumni achievement and faculty distinction) is primarily relevant to
high school students from outside the local area. Local DHS students
with these priorities, for the most part, tend to gravitate to out-of-town
institutions unless there are compelling economic or personal reasons to
stay home. Accordingly, local DHS students, as well as adults, will be
most interested in cost, convenient class schedules and services, and the
ability to obtain a degree, most likely in a career-oriented field, in a pre-
dictable time period.
In terms of retention, these “student-friendly” attributes–cost, conve-
nience, and predictable outcomes–are even more compelling. Student
life and services are, of course, important to the “campus-centered”
population. However, the migration from “campus-centered” to “com-
munity-centered” segments that occurs because of changes in marriage,
children, and employment status means that more and more students
will be affected, retained or attracted to other area institutions where
these concerns are paramount, as their class rank advances.
A practical reality of program administration is that it is difficult to
schedule classes in a fashion that meets the needs and preferences of
both community- and campus-centered populations. It is inefficient to
offer the whole array of majors and courses, many of which serve com-
paratively limited demand, in both the evening and daytime. Limited
space and the desire to maintain reasonably high levels of classroom

and laboratory utilization force schedules to be spread out over the day
and week such that some measure of inconvenience, or even inaccessi-
bility, cannot be avoided. And faculty and staff customs and prefer-
ences must also be taken into consideration. The implication of these
circumstances in conjunction with the research findings, however, is
that some separation must be followed.
Some programs, particularly those that are career-oriented, appeal

mostly to community-centered students and should be offered, in their
entirety, in the evening. Some programs can reasonably be limited to
more traditional scheduling. Programs that serve large numbers of stu-
dents in both segments can be programmed for both day and evening
schedules.
Classes that are required to complete programs targeted to evening
students, including a reasonable selection of electives, must be offered
in the evening so that these students can look forward to graduation
within a predictable number of terms.
Institutions with a large community-centered population cannot suc-
cessfully serve–attract or retain–this population on a conventional 9-5,
Monday to Friday office schedule. They must provide a significant
level of access in the evening and on Saturdays. Moreover, the location
of such services should be convenient in terms of visibility and nearby
parking. More generally, our findings have organizational implications
in terms of both centralizing the enrollment management function and
bringing together program, enrollment management, and service func-
tions on the basis of the student population segments sought and served.
The high correlation between segmentation criteria derived from
UT’s student database and self-identification suggests that, at least fol-
lowing a series of items pertaining to relevant campus issues, employ-
ment, and family circumstances, self-identification is a valid basis for
assigning to students to community-centered and campus-centered seg-
ments. However, whether self-identification is either sufficient or more
reliable than multivariate database information remains a question.
ACTIONS TAKEN
Based on the survey data, UT recognized it was attempting to serve

two distinct populations, as well as a transitory segment, without ad-
dressing the basic academic and service requirements of the two dis-
creet groups. Given the enrollment decline and its fiscal consequences,
campus leaders determined that UT could no longer attempt to be “all

things to all people.” Indeed, it was recognized that no population was
well served under present practices.
For a brief time, the strategy followed was to concede the “commu-
nity-centered students” to area two-year colleges and degree comple-
tion programs and focus on campus-centered students. This had the
effect of extending the student decline.
UT is now in the process of adopting the bifocal marketing strategy

implied by the research in its programming and marketing communica-
tions. Goals have been set for optimal enrollment levels and retention
and graduation rates. Reorganization of some critical academic and stu-
dent services has occurred such that the two distinct populations are ad-
dressed through distinct units.
A traditional full-time student track is being formed where academic
program requirements are defined, coursework to meet those require-
ments is being scheduled, and appropriate student services are made
available. Students in this traditional track are now being guaranteed
that coursework will be available so that timely graduation can occur.
A distinct part-time, evening track is being created to meet the re-
quirements of that student population. Classes are being offered at two
sites with ample parking. Coursework for programs in this track are to
be offered in sequence so that a part-time student can graduate in six
years by attending classes exclusively in the evening. Support services
are available at these locations to serve these evening students.
Not all programs are to be offered in both tracks. Some programs will
be structured to serve only full-time day students, while others will be
designed to meet the needs of part-time, evening students.
Historically, UT has enrolled many students who had not chosen an
academic major; this large group was labeled “undecided.” UT has now
organized a special program for that student body, along with support
services necessary to assist students to choose an appropriate academic
career.
Finally, UT has made a major investment in a freshman scholarship
program to attract high quality students, particularly from the local area.
This has resulted in improved recruitment statistics. More time is re-
quired to learn if the reorganized efforts improve retention and gradua-
tion rates.
RESEARCH IMPLICATIONS
These findings and conclusions are based on the experience of one

large public institution located in a metropolitan area undergoing sig-
nificant changes in its competitive environment. While we believe UT’s
situation and diagnosis to be typical or representative of similar situa-
tions, replication in other settings is obviously desirable.
REFERENCES
Alexander, M. Wayne, and Alan MacDonald (1999), “Factors Influencing Elderly

Learners’ Participation in Educational Activities with Implications for Educational
Programs in Marketing,” Marketing Management Proceedings, edited by Dale
Varble, Robert Green, and Gene Wunder (Terre Haute, IN: Indiana State University)
69-74.
Caruana, Albert, B. Ramaseshan, and Michael T. Ewing (1998), “The Market Orienta-
tion-Performance Link: Some Evidence from the Public Sector and Universities,”
Journal of Nonprofit & Public Sector Marketing, 6:1:63-82.
Community Assessment Program (1995), Policy Recommendations for Educating
Adults (Princeton, NJ: The College Board Office of Adult Learning Services).
Daubek, Hugh G., and Lori S. Feldman (1995), “Applying the Marketing Concept to
the Marketing of Higher Education,” Marketing Foundations for a Changing World,
Proceedings of the Southern Marketing Association, edited by B.T. Engelland and
D.T. Smart (Evansville, IN: University of Evansville) 174-8.
Doucette, Don (1997), “The Community College Niche in a Competitive Higher Edu-
cation Market,” Leadership Abstracts, 10:2(February):1-4.
Elliott, Kevin, and Dooyoung Shin (1999), “Assessing Student Satisfaction: An Ap-
proach to Help in the Development of Marketing Strategy for a University,” Mar-
keting Management Proceedings, edited by Dale Varble, Robert Green, and Gene
Wunder (Terre Haute, IN: Indiana State University) 45-9.
Hollander, Stanley C., and Richard Germain (1995), “A Note on the History of the
Marketing of Higher Education, ” Journal of Nonprofit & Public Sector Marketing,
3:2:63-80.
Hu, Michael (1985), “Determining the Needs and Attitudes of Non-Traditional Stu-
dents,” College and University, 60:3(Spring):201-9.
Kappler, Steve (1998), “What Students Interested in Attending a Public Institution Say
About the College-Choice Process,” Working Smart: Successful Marketing and
Recruiting Strategies for Public Colleges and Universities, Cedar Rapids, IA:
Stamats Communications, Inc., Seminar presentation, Orlando, FL, February 1.
Kelly, John (1999), “Colleges Advertising on TV for Students, Marketing News,
33:1(Jan. 4):40.
Mackey, Maureen (1994), “The Selling of the Sheepskin,” Change, 26:3(May-June):51-2.
McKnight, Oscar, and Ronald Paugh (1999), “Advertising Slogans and University
Marketing: An Exploratory Study of Brand-Fit and Cognition in Higher Educa-
tion,” Marketing Management Proceedings, edited by Dale Varble, Robert Green,
and Gene Wunder (Terre Haute, IN: Indiana State University) 50-5.
Quigley, Charles, Jr., Frank Bingham, Jr., Keith Murray, and Elaine Notarantonio
(1999), “The Effect of Price in the College Selection Decision Process,” The Jour-
nal of Marketing Management, 9:3(Winter):36-47.
Seebach, Linda (1998), “Making Sense of College Costs,” Inside Denver (insidedenver.
com/seebach/1221seeba.html).
Van Den Heuvel, Dana A., and P. Raj Devasagayam (1999), “Multivariate Cluster
Analytic Model of Benefit-Based Market Segmentation: A Case Study from the
Recreation and Leisure Industry,” Marketing Management Proceedings, edited
by Dale Varble, Robert Green, and Gene Wunder (Terre Haute, IN: Indiana State Uni-
versity) 145-9.
Received: 10/15/00
Accepted: 10/30/00
APPENDIX I:
STUDENT SURVEY QUESTIONNAIRE
1. During the past year, including Fall 1997, in what on- or off-campus lo-
cations have you taken any classes?
2. Taking into account your need for support services, parking, and
nearness to home or work, where would you prefer to take your
classes?
3. During the past year, including Fall 1997, have you taken any
classes offered after 4:00 p.m.?
4a. Considering your other activities and obligations, would you pre-
fer to take classes in the evening or during the day?
4b. (If evening): Are you able to take classes that begin before 5 p.m.?
(If day): Do you prefer morning or afternoon classes?
5. I’m going to mention some different scheduling options that have
been discussed. Using a 5-point scale with 5 = Very interested
and 1 = Not at all interested, please tell how interested you would
be in taking classes under the following scheduling arrange-
ment:
a. Early morning class that starts at 7 a.m. and ends before 9?
b. Saturdays?
c. An 8-week class that either meets for a longer period or
more frequently; the student takes only one or two classes
during that period. Students can still take a full semester’s
credit through block or half-term scheduling, but they fo-
cus on fewer different subjects at one time. How interested

would you be in a semester course offered in an 8-week for-
mat?
d. Classes that meet only one time each week?
e. A structured evening degree program, with limited options,
leading to one of several degrees in a specified number of
terms?
6. Some students like to spread their class schedules out through
the week, while others prefer to concentrate class attendance into

one or two days. Given your preferences, as well as other activi-
ties and obligations, how many days per week would you like to at-
tend class?
7. Would you prefer it if Fall semester classes started after Labor Day
and ended just before Christmas or do you prefer the present ar-
rangement, starting in late August and ending in early December?
8. Are you an active member of any student organizations–clubs,
athletic teams, fraternity or sorority, music groups, and so forth?
9. Have you attended or participated in any other campus or student
activity since school started this Fall?
10. We want to assess student interest in several specific student ser-
vices and activities. I’m going to name some services or activities.
First, using a 5-point scale, with 5 = Very important and 1 = Not at
all important, I’d like to know how important each is to you. Then
I’d like to know if you have used this service since starting school
in August? Finally, if you have used this service, please rate your
experience, again using a 5-point scale, this time with 5 = Excel-
lent or Very satisfied and 1 = Poor or Very dissatisfied.
a. Varsity athletic events
b. A musical or dramatic performance or lecture
c. Student Union facilities/services
d. Student Recreation Center
e. Adult Student Assistance Center
f. University bus service
g. University Libraries
h. Career Services Center
i. Cooperative and Internship Programs Office
j. Child Care Center
k. Student Union photocopy service
l. Campus computer laboratories
m. Student newspaper–read it
n. Homecoming activities–participated in any
o. Campus election–voted
p. Campus safety–contact with campus police
11. Thinking about the various campus services you use, which would
you say is most important to you?
12a. We’re also interested in your experience with registration.
Thinking about registering for classes this current semester and
using, once again, a 5-point scale with 5 = Excellent and 1 = Poor,
how would you rate your experience with the following registration
activities?
(1) Advising
(2) Financial aid
(3) Student accounts, that is getting your bill paid
12b. With respect to course selection, did you use the telephone course
selection system or did you register in person?
12c. Again, using a 5-point scale, with 5 = Excellent and 1 = Poor, how
would you rate your experience with course selection?
13. Thinking about campus priorities in terms of your personal needs
and, again, using a 5-point scale, this time with 5 = Very high and 1 =
Very low, please indicate whether you think the following areas
merit a high or low priority in terms of investment or attention. If
you are neutral or just don’t care, indicate a 3. (Read/Rotate list)
a. More convenient parking
b. More on-campus activities and organizations
c. Improved advising for students
d. More convenient class scheduling
e. Improved quality of instruction for undergraduate students
f. More convenient registration
g. More helpful and friendly faculty and staff
h. More offices open in the evening and on Saturdays
i. Improved job placement service for students
j. More off-campus classes
k. Campus beautification
l. More scholarships
m. More activities for evening and part-time students
n. More space in the Student Union for student organizations
and activities
o. More services for handicapped students
p. More activities and services geared to commuter students
q. Improved services for students who live on campus
r. More housing on campus
14. What one change would you like to see on the campus that would
make your college experience more satisfying? (UNAIDED)
15. Where do you generally do your studying? At home, in the library,
or some other place?
16. Where do you live? That is, do you live on campus, in your family’s
home, in your own home or apartment, or in some other off-campus
residence?
17. On average, how many hours per week are you employed?
17a. (If 0): Are you seeking employment at this time? Part-time or
Full-time?
17b. (If employed):
Are you ...
(1) Employed on campus or have an internship or co-op

assignment?
Do you ...
(2) Have more than one job?
(3) Travel frequently?
(4) Have employment requirements that call for significantly
more hours of work per week during some times of the
year than others?
18. (If employed): Does your employer offer a tuition reimbursement
program for employees?
19. It would also be helpful to know about your family circumstances.
Are you currently married, separated, divorced, or have you never
married?
20a. Do you have responsibility for children under the age of 18 at
home?
20b. Could you please tell me how many children and their ages?
____ Under 2 years ____ 2-3 years
____ 4-5 years ____ 6-8 years
____ 9-11 years ____ 12-13 years
____ 14-15 years ____ 16-17 years
20c. Do these responsibilities affect your class scheduling?
21. In terms of everything that is going on in your life this term, would
you say that you are more oriented to the University campus or to
activities off campus–that is, family, work, or community activi-
ties?
APPENDIX II:
STUDENT DATABASE CODE
AGE SEX COUNTY OF ORIGIN

CLASS RANK COLLEGE MAJOR
ETHNIC STATUS
TRANSFER STATUS/FROM
TERM: DAYS: COURSES: CREDIT HOURS:

Fall 98
Spring 98
Fall 97

Journal of Marketing For Higher Education

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Journal of Marketing For Higher Education

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

This article was downloaded by: [Universitat Politècnica de València]

On: 17 October 2014, At: 04:12

Journal of Marketing for Higher Education

Segmenting Markets in Urban Higher Education:

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1300/J050v11n01_03

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

ABSTRACT. Market segmentation in urban higher education has gener-

KEYWORDS. Market segments, urban higher education, commuter stu-

Perhaps the significance of marketing in higher education is nowhere

Hollander and Germain (1995) pointed out that higher education

ments previously not attracted to higher education. Nonetheless, “mar-

• Sophisticated research methodologies have migrated from the business

by tax-supported public schools with low fees. However, pricing is

The concepts of market segmentation and targeting were recognized

with a significant adult student population. The “non-traditional” concept

reer-oriented appeals in marketing communications, and, insofar as this

The University of Toledo is a large (20,000 students) multi-campus

• Declining birthrates in the region meant fewer high school

employment opportunities and overtime practices at local fac-

boring colleges catered to a residential population, one of which

The campus response to declining enrollment for several years was

provements and in marketing communications. The fact that out-of-town

transfers failed to materialize; students that used to drop out in their

In an academic environment, accustomed to discounting anecdotal ev-

REVISED SEGMENTATION CONCEPTS:

Once it was established that the strategy based on the “tradi-

data, we chose to search for names based on what we knew–or thought

• Campus-centered students reside in University housing, in quar-

ditional undergraduate activities such as student government, stu-

The segmentation component of this research and planning program

• First, institutional research resources enabled a comprehensive

with institutional officers having a range of responsibilities in en-

• Interviews were conducted professionally during the three

ences among strata. The statistical package used was “The

The final questionnaire is appended. Survey findings reported here

fication, this group approached eighty-five percent. The local resident

than community-centered students.

11. In terms of class rank (freshman, sophomore, etc.), freshmen com-

than campus-centered students. Significant differences were not obtained

Although correspondence between sampling strata and self-identifi-

preferences in keeping with their self-identification. The understanding

The “community-centered” segment/target was substantially larger

space and the desire to maintain reasonably high levels of classroom

Some programs, particularly those that are career-oriented, appeal

Based on the survey data, UT recognized it was attempting to serve

campus leaders determined that UT could no longer attempt to be “all

UT is now in the process of adopting the bifocal marketing strategy

These findings and conclusions are based on the experience of one

Alexander, M. Wayne, and Alan MacDonald (1999), “Factors Influencing Elderly

cus on fewer different subjects at one time. How interested

the week, while others prefer to concentrate class attendance into

(1) Employed on campus or have an internship or co-op

AGE SEX COUNTY OF ORIGIN

TERM: DAYS: COURSES: CREDIT HOURS:

You might also like