Journal of Marketing Communications

ISSN: 1352-7266 (Print) 1466-4445 (Online) Journal homepage: http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/rjmc20

How to connect with your best student prospects:

Saying the right things, to the right students, in
the right media

Kendall Goodrich, Kunal Swani & James Munch

To cite this article: Kendall Goodrich, Kunal Swani & James Munch (2018): How to connect
with your best student prospects: Saying the right things, to the right students, in the right media,
Journal of Marketing Communications, DOI: 10.1080/13527266.2018.1514319

To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/13527266.2018.1514319

Published online: 05 Sep 2018.

Submit your article to this journal

Article views: 24

View Crossmark data

Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at

http://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=rjmc20
JOURNAL OF MARKETING COMMUNICATIONS
https://doi.org/10.1080/13527266.2018.1514319

How to connect with your best student prospects: Saying the

right things, to the right students, in the right media
Kendall Goodrich, Kunal Swani and James Munch
Department of Marketing, Raj Soin College of Business, Wright State University, Dayton, Ohio, USA

ABSTRACT ARTICLE HISTORY

Most market segmentation in prior academic research on higher Received 2 March 2018
education has been largely based on demographic variables, pro- Accepted 17 August 2018
viding a limited view of potential targeting opportunities. This KEYWORDS
research employs psychographic measures to differentiate seg- Student segmentation;
ments based on intangible characteristics such as attitudes, inter- student media usage;
ests, lifestyles, and values, delivering richer insights into student student targeting; higher
motivations. Results from a survey of over 1,000 students revealed education marketing;
six distinct student segments, each with identifiable differentiating student recruitment;
characteristics. The media and information preferences of each university branding
student segment are also evaluated, providing guidance for higher communications
education media planning. Psychographic segmentation enables
greater understanding of students, more precisely tailored media
mixes, and more effective marketing communications efforts.

Introduction
US colleges and universities accounted for $463 billion in revenues in 2017 (IBIS 2018),
larger than that of many consumer markets, but higher education is still lagging in the
use of sophisticated marketing analysis and strategy (Chapleo 2015). The field of market-
ing has evolved over time from mass marketing to demographic segmentation to more
sophisticated techniques measuring motivations, activities, interests, and opinions.
However, higher education has trailed behind most commercial industries in the use
of advanced marketing methods, perhaps due to the cost and complexity of a college
education, but also conceivably due to resistance in the academic community to market-
ing education like a product.
Prior academic research into higher education marketing has primarily focused on the
importance of different features and benefits to students and differences among demo-
graphic segments, rather than delving into more advanced psychographic segmentation
techniques and targeting opportunities (Hemsley-Brown and Oplatka, 2015). The current
research utilizes psychographic segmentation to derive a deeper analysis of the motiva-
tions of different student market segments and identifies preferred media of each
segment.
Few prior higher education research studies have examined psychographic segmen-
tation of potential student enrollees. Furthermore, no study, to the authors’ knowledge,

CONTACT Kendall Goodrich kendall.goodrich@wright.edu Department of Marketing, Raj Soin College of

Business, Wright State University, 254 Rike Hall 3640 Colonel Glenn Highway, Dayton, OH 45435
© 2018 Informa UK Limited, trading as Taylor & Francis Group
2 K. GOODRICH ET AL.

has evaluated specific media and communication mix preferences for better targeting
and communicating with particular student psychographic segments. Moreover, no
study to our knowledge has explored these issues by including students who attended
other universities, in addition to those of the focal university, allowing for more robust
and generalizable findings.
The utilization of psychographics provides an enriched set of potential student
segments that can facilitate more effective targeting of students and improved media
planning of university communications. This study advances the academic research
domain by being among the first to evaluate media preferences of psychographic
student segments, which can also be used by practitioners to more effectively reach
and communicate with target markets.
A review of the prior literature into higher education marketing and segmentation is
described next, followed by the current study’s method, results, and discussion/
recommendations.

Higher education marketing

Many academics, according to Sharrock (2000), still resist a marketing approach because
they fear change and consider marketing to be a challenge to intellectual integrity.
Some academics (e.g., Smith 1997) have even argued that the marketization of higher
education is a concerted attack on traditional educational values or resist the idea of
viewing students as consumers (e.g., Barrett 1996), which emphasizes a business orien-
tation. Granted, college education is very different from many typical products and
services. Universities are providing an intangible service with high costs – money,
time, potential income loss, future uncertainty, etc. – resulting in extremely high student
and/or parent involvement in decision-making. Thus, the marketing of higher education
is not a simple challenge, but the primary goal of marketing is to better match
consumers (students) with products (universities) to best fit their needs, so there is
arguably a higher societal purpose to effective targeting in higher education.
Furthermore, college enrollment continues to decline and many universities’ future is
at stake. In Fall 2017, overall US postsecondary enrollment declined 1% from the prior
year, consistent with decreases of 1–2% annually since Fall 2014 (National Student
Clearing House Research Center 2017). Student recruitment and retention have become
critical for university survival. Some (e.g., Maringe 2004) believe that academia should
consider marketing as a viable philosophy for developing higher education that meets
the needs of students, not as strictly as a business world concept. Others (Kotler and
Levy 1969) think that marketing can be a societal activity that goes considerably beyond
the selling of toothpaste, soap, and steel. Educational institutions can utilize target
marketing and the ‘4Ps’ (product, price, place, and promotion) in order to better achieve
their mission, especially in the face of increased competition.
Marketing fundamentals include efforts like product improvement, reasonable pri-
cing, convenient locations, and relevant communications for defined target markets, all
of which contribute to future success. Universities, for example, must update their
curricula and add new student services for an educational experience relevant to
students. If the university increases tuition, it will likely lose some students and might
need to put more students on scholarship. Universities could consider satellite campuses
 JOURNAL OF MARKETING COMMUNICATIONS 3

or online courses to better serve geographically dispersed students and could benefit by
accurately communicating their value for more effective recruitment and retention.
These are just some of the ‘marketing’ considerations that need to be front and center
for higher education.
Today, education has transformed into a global service within a complex and com-
petitive marketplace, highlighting the need for strong marketing strategy. Higher edu-
cation might once have been considered a public good, with a clear societal mission and
little exposure to market pressures. Thus, it is understandable that academia appears to
be lagging in marketing. Academic research into higher education marketing is still at a
relatively pioneering stage (Hemsley-Brown and Oplatka 2006), with a paucity of
research into segmentation (Bock, Poole, and Joseph 2014; Hemsley-Brown and
Oplatka 2015), branding (Hemsley-Brown et al. 2016; Melewar and Nguyen 2015;
Sujchaphong et al, 2015), and the marketing mix (Nedbalová, Greenacre, and Schulz
2014). More research into higher education marketing appears to be warranted.
However, as noted by Chapleo (2011), there could be resistance to marketing imple-
mentation because marketing can still be controversial for internal audiences.
Better marketing of higher education should help institutions attract and keep
students whose needs best fit a school’s offerings, enhancing both enrollment and
retention rates. Colleges can appeal to several different potential features in their
communications. Higher education recruitment research (Soutar and Turner 2002)
revealed four important features and benefits for recruiting high-schoolers to a college:
course suitability, academic reputation, job prospects, and teaching quality. Other
research (Schertzer and Schertzer 2004) focusing on retention found that congruence
of students’ values with those of the university was a significantly positive retention
factor. More specifically, Gibson (2010) found that predictors of student satisfaction
include quality of teaching, skills, knowledge acquired, and the curriculum itself,
although nonacademic factors such as ‘belonging’ and institutional responsiveness
also contributed significantly. Such studies are very useful in determining potential
needs of the higher education market, but segmentation and targeting were not
addressed. Moreover, little academic research has evaluated the attitudinal drivers of
student recruitment and enrollment.

Mass marketing and market segmentation

The theory of perfect competition in economics assumes homogeneity of both demand
and supply, but diversity and heterogeneity are the norm for most of today’s markets.
Segmentation, according to Smith (1956), represents a more precise adjustment of
product and marketing effort to consumer requirements by creating more customized
offerings and informing market segments of products that meet their needs. Similarly,
Chamberlin (1965) recognized that differences in buyer preferences result in a set of
different demand curves, the heterogeneity of which reflects not imperfect competition
but the need for marketers to adapt their products to the needs and tastes of different
buyers, theoretically increasing demand in that segment.
One practical business challenge is to determine the degree of segmentation that can
be implemented profitably, because production and marketing efficiencies are impacted
by increased segmentation. The extra effort and expense of targeting and segmentation
4 K. GOODRICH ET AL.

might well be worth it, since segmentation allows companies to focus on satisfying the
needs of a more specific market. Research has shown (Narver and Slater 1990) a
substantial positive effect of market orientation – which includes customer orientation,
the better understanding of targeted buyers to create superior value – on profitability.
The potential financial benefits of such a market focus have led to the growth of
targeted marketing in business.
A basic marketing principle is that segmentation allows for more efficient targeting of
marketing activities and thus provides greater return on effort. To date, according to
Zeithaml (2000), little empirical research has directly predicted the profitability of market-
ing efforts based on demographic and psychographic targeting. However, Nelson-Field
and Riebe (2011) found that marketing activities aimed at a general audience are typically
less likely to be effective than efforts that address the particular needs of targeted groups.
Indeed, prior business research (e.g., Peltier et al. 2002) indicates that psychographic
segments differ in terms of profitability, suggesting that a ‘one size fits all’ marketing
strategy does not necessarily maximize long-run profitability when compared to segment-
specific offerings. Thus, proper segmentation is important. Conversely, it is equally impor-
tant to ascertain when groups do not differ following segmentation analysis, since stan-
dardized recruiting efforts can be less costly than differentiated efforts.

Higher education segmentation and targeting

Classic market forces affecting universities parallel those of other nonacademic organi-
zations. On the one hand, operational and marketing cost efficiencies accrue when
providing a single, undifferentiated offering. However, according to Lewison and
Hawes (2007), when the market served is heterogeneous (which it usually is), higher
costs per student from a targeted offering can deliver greater student satisfaction and
market success. Thus, a university must select a marketing strategy that maintains an
appropriate balance between effectively meeting the needs of targeted students and its
ability to operate efficiently.
A targeted marketing approach offers considerable opportunity for success within the
higher education market, as noted by Klein, Scott, and Clark (2001). Paulsen (1990)
asserts that an institution needs to identify the competition, determine the needs of
various market segments, and develop a marketing plan for promoting its educational
services in order to establish its brand or market position. Nonetheless, Bock, Poole, and
Joseph (2014) found that there has been little academic attention to higher education
marketing segmentation, despite its managerial significance. Some academic studies
have addressed segmentation of the higher education market, but the criteria have
been limited. For example, Litten (1982) examined aspects of the college selection
process such as timing, number of options considered (colleges investigated, applied
to), types of information sought, college attributes considered, information media pre-
ferred, and influential persons, but segmentation variables were primarily demographic,
such as race, gender, ability level, parents’ educational level, and geographic location.
Most prior research appears to rely primarily on demographic variables. Hemsley-Brown
and Oplatka (2015), in their review of over 75 studies into higher education choice and
student consumer behavior, note a preoccupation with demographic and socioeco-
nomic factors.
 JOURNAL OF MARKETING COMMUNICATIONS 5

Student satisfaction and retention are very important to universities because of the
high initial expense of recruitment and loss of ongoing revenue to attrition, not to
mention potential damage to the brand from unfavorable word of mouth (WOM). In a
study of student market segmentation and satisfaction (Borden 1995), five main student
goals were identified: 1) academic, 2) career preparation, 3) career improvement, 4)
social and cultural participation, and 5) personal development and enrichment. Using
mostly demographic variables, the segmentation analysis (Borden 1995) revealed four
cluster groups. Two groups represented more traditional students who wanted campus
involvement and personal enrichment, whereas two older student clusters (e.g., working
students attending school part-time and out-of-work adults) were interested in finding a
new career.

Psychographics
Demographics have traditionally been popular for segmentation, but psychographics
can enhance targeting by considering intangible factors that affect decision-making.
Psychographics move beyond demographics to consider activities, interests, opinions,
needs, values, attitudes, and personality traits and provide incremental insights to
managers, according to Samuel (2016). These insights can have practical applications
in marketing. Tipton (1972) noted that psychographic segmentation enhances new
product development (finds ‘gap’ of unfulfilled needs), media selection (effective
media mix), and creative design (by understanding how consumers live and think).
Thus, psychographics appear to offer significant marketing benefits over demographics.
Using psychographics allows smarter targeting and engagement with people who
share interests and attitudes, even if they are from a different demographics. People
might identify more strongly with communities of interest rather than a geographic or
demographic community. According to Lin (2002), traditional demographic variables are
insufficient because consumers from the same demographic group can have very
different psychographic makeups. Besides being insightful and actionable, psycho-
graphics can also be statistically powerful. Wells (1975) notes that psychographic vari-
ables provide greater differentiating information than traditional demographic
segmentation, allowing better-informed brand positioning and greater predictive valid-
ity. Not only are psychographics insightful, but they are becoming more actionable with
increased accessibility of data from the internet. Thus, the timing appears to be right for
increased use of psychographics in academia.
Psychographic segmentation, however, still appears to be scarce in prior academic
research on college students. In one pilot study of community college students, Absher
and Crawford’s (1996) factor analysis yielded five student groups, with differing enroll-
ment factors: 1) practical-minded (58%, interested in quality education at a low cost), 2)
advice-seekers (17%, obtain advice from a variety of personal sources), 3) campus
magnets (10%, interested college-specific information), 4) goodtimers (8%, emphasis
on social and extracurricular activities), and 5) warm friendlies (7%, want small classes,
smaller school). Exploring attitudinal/behavioral factors using community college stu-
dents is a positive first step in making a deeper dive into the college choice process.
However, a larger sample frame and more comprehensive analysis appear to be needed.
6 K. GOODRICH ET AL.

Perhaps the most informative, but still relatively basic academic segmentation research
has been published in the last decade. One study (Ghosh, Javalgi, and Whipple 2008)
utilized college registration databases to identify five student segments such as tradi-
tional, nontraditional, international, graduating, and transferees, whereas another study
(Wright 2008) segmented students based on motivation and ability (high, medium, low),
but did not pursue testing the nine segments. A further study (Bock, Poole, and Joseph
2014) found three segments of students with different enrollment decision criteria: 1) all
university criteria are important (Deliberators), high importance on financial aspects
(Financially Focused), and moderately evaluates all university criteria (Satisfactory
Seekers). These studies provide strong initial work toward generating more insightful
and actionable student segments. However, the number and specificity of segments, as
well as the clarity of attitudinal and behavioral differences, could still be enhanced.
Although the use of psychographics in academic marketing research is limited,
educational marketing consultants have used psychographics to provide greater depth
in student segmentation. According to educational consultant Parthenon Group (Ladd,
Reynolds, and Selingo 2014), the traditional process of segmenting students by demo-
graphics is no longer sufficient to provide the required strategic understanding. Leaders
need a more nuanced interpretation of the drivers of student recruitment and retention,
especially as the price of college rises and students and parents increasingly question
the value of college. Institutions can differentiate themselves in a competitive market by
tailoring recruitment efforts to specific motivations of student segments, not just broad
mass markets or demographic segments.
The Parthenon Group surveyed 3,200 current and potential college students and found
six distinct segments based on motivations and mindsets: Aspiring Academics, Coming of
Age, Career Starter, Career Accelerator, Industry Switcher, and Academic Wanderer.
Although this was an excellent effort at psychographic segmentation, the study did not
address how to best reach these students through available media and other information
sources. Building on prior research, our current study examines both psychographic
student segments and the preferred communication media of those segments. Our
study also provides an additional test of psychographic student segmentation, the results
of which can be compared and contrasted to prior research (Ladd, Reynolds, and Selingo
2014). In the Future Research section at the end of this paper, we highlight notable
similarities as well as differences found between segments of each study.

Media and other information sources

Media and student information sources can be important factors affecting college
enrollment. In one study (Hoyt and Brown 2003) of enrollment influencer variables at
a Utah state college, friends, parents, teachers, and counselors had less influence on
matriculants’ college choice than did the ability to live at home, commute daily, work
while attending school, have a desired major, and afford tuition. Non-matriculants were
more interested in the quality of programs and faculty. The website was the most
influential source of information for prospective students, followed by a campus visit.
The least influential sources of information were advertisements with journals, news-
papers, radio, or television, which are perhaps more effective in developing a long-term
brand image than directly influencing students. Although this study (Hoyt and Brown
 JOURNAL OF MARKETING COMMUNICATIONS 7

2003) highlighted important media utilized by college students, a limited number of

demographic segmentation variables were used, yielding little in-depth information
about segment differences.

Method
A public university located in the Midwestern region of the US recruited a marketing
firm (Isobar Marketing Intelligence) to conduct market segmentation research on poten-
tial and existing undergraduate students. Two of the three authors were members of the
university steering committee for the research and provided input into the goals,
questions, and structure of the survey. Furthermore, the authors obtained the complete
data files after the initial study and created an original data analysis, which examined the
media usage and preferences for the various student segments.
The survey comprised demographic (e.g., age, gender, and income) and attitudinal
questions regarding satisfaction with academic, college, and personal life, as well as
different characteristics students desired at a school during their college planning stage.
Refer to Table 1 for the list of key questions. The participants were also asked to identify their
media habits, particularly from a list of 14 media channels (e.g., campus visit, TV commercial,
radio, billboards advertising, direct mail, online advertising, social media, university web-
sites, family/friends, high school counselors, high school teachers, US news/world report/
Princeton review, online reviews students/alumni, and third-party review websites), which
they might have used to learn about colleges and the programs they offer.
The sample pool comprised participants who were prospective undergraduate stu-
dents, accepted undergraduate students who did not enroll, and current undergraduate
students. The final dataset included 1091 cases (female = 62.23%; mean = 21.76 years).
All participants were residents of the state of Ohio, and 521 high school and 570
undergraduate students were surveyed. Over 84% of the responses were from students
with white/Caucasian background.
A proprietary segmentation process using K-means analysis was conducted by the
marketing research firm using attitudinal scales as well as demographic information to
identify the key segments, supporting later evaluation of segment media preferences.
According to Jain (2010), K-means is one of the most widely used algorithms for
clustering, with advantages including ease of implementation, efficiency, and empirical
success, and Punj and Stewart (1983) found empirical performance preferable to hier-
archical methods. Some think of K-means clustering as ‘ANOVA in reverse’ (StatSoft
2013) because K-means iteratively evaluates between-group variability against within-
group variability for the most significant ANOVA results.
The marketing research firm used a combination of statistical and managerial criteria,
guided by the university steering committee, to evaluate multiple solutions with different
numbers of clusters to identify the optimal number of segments. From a statistical perspec-
tive, plots of the within-clusters sum of squares (WSS) by the number of clusters were
evaluated to identify significantly different clusters. High priority was given to capturing
segments that are identifiable and have ‘face validity’ to them, which could cause an increase
or decrease in the number of clusters. For example, the number of clusters might be increased
when a segment appears to combine different types of people known to exist, or might
 8

Table 1. List of key questions for segment classification.

Neither
Strongly Somewhat Agree Nor Somewhat Strongly
Attitudinal questions regarding satisfaction with academic, college, and personal life Disagree Disagree Disagree Agree Agree
1. I enjoy being a student 1 2 3 4 5
2. I prefer to do things on my own, without relying on help from others 1 2 3 4 5
3. The only reason I am getting a college degree is so I can be more employable/ 1 2 3 4 5
K. GOODRICH ET AL.

attractive to employers
4. Setting a good example for my children or other family members was a key reason 1 2 3 4 5
I decided to go to college
5. My family strongly encouraged me to get a college degree 1 2 3 4 5
6. I can be the first generation in my family to get a college degree 1 2 3 4 5
Characteristics students desired at their desired school during their college planning Did Not Influenced Influenced Influenced Influenced
stage Influence at Just Somewhat Very Greatly
All Slightly Much
1. Is a highly ranked college/university 1 2 3 4 5
2. Offers small class sizes where students get to know professors one-on-one 1 2 3 4 5
3. Allows me to earn a degree while caring for family or fulfilling other commitments
4. Has a good track record for preparing students for top graduate schools 1 2 3 4 5
5. Has a large alumni network 1 2 3 4 5
6. Is a good value for the money 1 2 3 4 5
7. Makes it easy to get around campus 1 2 3 4 5
8. Offers classes when I need them 1 2 3 4 5
9. Has successful major sports programs, like football, basketball, baseball, etc. 1 2 3 4 5
10. Provides opportunities to be involved in student organizations or clubs of 1 2 3 4 5
interest to me
11. Offers high-quality housing/dormitory options 1 2 3 4 5
12. Is located in an exciting college town that caters to students 1 2 3 4 5
13. Is located in an area where there are many employers and potential jobs 1 2 3 4 5
Household Income Less than $25,000 to $50,000 to $75,000 to $100,000 to $200,000 Don’t know
$25,000 $49,999 $74,999 $99,999 $199,999 or more
1. When you applied to college, which of the following categories best represents 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
the total combined annual income, before taxes, of all of the members of your
household?
 JOURNAL OF MARKETING COMMUNICATIONS 9

decrease the number of clusters when two segments tend to differ on a small number of
unimportant attributes. Thus, there is a blend of art and science to the segmentation process.

Results
Six key segments were identified by the marketing research firm based on attitudes/
psychographics, demographics, college needs, and influencers. The six segments emer-
ging from the cluster analysis were labeled as 1) motivated post-traditionals, 2) focused
scholars, 3) unsupported trailblazers, 4) dependent wonderers, 5) privileged experien-
tials, and 6) prestigious collegians. The segmentation accuracy that represents the
percentage of people who were accurately identified to the correct segment was 79%
(range: 77%–84%).
Refer to Table 2 for a demographic summary of each segment and to Table 3 for key
benefits sought, potential ad execution topics, and messaging themes. Each segment is
discussed in more detail below.

Motivated post-traditionals
The motivated post-traditionals accounted for 245 participants in our sample, with an
average age of 26.26 years. The participants in this group are first-generation students
and need to be employed while earning their degree. They tend to have individuals
financially dependent upon them; thus working is priority. They are independent in the
sense that they prefer to do things themselves, such as paying for their college tuition.
Their basic college selecting factors include convenience to work, good value, lower cost
after scholarship/grants, class availability as needed, and convenience of campus location.
Motivated post-traditionals do not desire to participate in academic research projects, nor
do they seek campus life, which is fun and has a sense of community. A potential messaging
theme for motivated post-traditionals is ‘Quality and Convenience, with Money to Spare’.

Focused scholars
In sum, 237 participants were classified as focused scholars. Their average age was
19.92 years, with 66% comprising females. Individuals in this group enjoy being a

Table 2. Student segments: size (N) and demographic summary.

Motivated Post- Focused Unsupported Dependent Privileged Prestigious
Traditionals Scholars Trailblazers Wanderers Experientials Collegians
(N = 245) (N = 237) (N = 179) (N = 137) (N = 141) (N = 152)
Demographic • Age 26 (oldest) • Age 20 • Age 22 • Age 23 • Age 20 • Age 18
Summary (youngest)
• Most local • Most Female • More Females • Average • Skews Male • Fewest Local
(70%) (66%) (63%) Local (45%) (60%) (27%)
• Average ACT • Fewer Local • Most Black/ • Lower ACT • Highest HHI • Highest ACT
(30%) AA (21%) (36% < 20) ($136K) (41% > 30)
• Above Avg • Lowest HHI • Average ACT
ACT ($51K)
• Lowest ACT
(39% < 20)
 10

Table 3. Key benefits sought and suggested ad topics/messaging themes, by student segment.
Key Benefits Sought For Use in Ad Appeals
Motivated Post-Traditional Focused Scholar Unsupported Trailblazer Dependent Wanderer Privileged Experiential Prestigious Collegian
• Easy to work while getting degree • Academic support • Located in town that • Professors care • Is a fun place to go to school • Highly ranked
caters to students
K. GOODRICH ET AL.

• Good Value
• Low cost after scholarships/grants • Easy to get around campus
• Conveniently located
• Classes when needed
Suggested Topics for Ad Executions
• Need to work while earning
degree
• Prefer to do things on own
• Pay for own college
• Others depend to provide
financially
• 1st Generation
Messaging: ‘Quality and
Convenience, with Money to
Spare
• Professors care
• Small class sizes
• Help students get jobs
• Prep for grad school
• Clubs & organizations
• Enjoy being a student
• Success tied to hard work
• Involved in extracurricular
activities
Messaging: ‘Big Enough to
Deliver, Small Enough toCare’
‘Work Hard, Play Hard,
Succeed’
• Is a fun place to go to • Academic support • Located in town with lots of • Challenging academics
school jobs
• Has a large alumni • Good value • High-quality modern facilities • High-quality faculty
network
• Diverse & multicultural • Low cost after • Exciting college town
student body scholarships/grants
• Conveniently located • High-quality dorms
• Smaller class sizes • Help students get jobs
• Prep for grad school
• 1st Generation • Need to work while • Don’t enjoy being a student • Enjoy being a student
earning degree
• Family didn’t encourage • Look to others for • Only reason to go to college is • Consider myself to be
to go to college guidance to be more employable a leader
• Want to set example for • Feel going to college • Involved in
family is stressful extracurriculars
• Getting good grades is • Don’t finish what • Friends & socializing are • Friends & socializing
less of a priority started important are important
• Finish what was started • Not striving to
improve
• Pay for own college • Don’t enjoy being a
student
• 1st Generation
Messaging: ‘Show Them Messaging: Messaging: ‘Career Preparation Messaging: ‘Don’t
Success – We’ll Help’ ‘Supporting Your Made Fun’ Settle for Second
Success’ Best’
 JOURNAL OF MARKETING COMMUNICATIONS 11

student and strongly believe that working hard is the key to success. This student group
tends to participate in extracurricular activities.
They desire a college with good academic support for students’ success and profes-
sor/teachers who genuinely care about them. They desire small class sizes and prefer a
campus that is easy to navigate. They also prefer to actively participate in student clubs
and organizations. Their goal with an undergraduate college degree is to obtain a
reputable job in a promising career or to pursue graduate school education. A potential
messaging theme for focused scholars is ‘Big Enough to Deliver, Small Enough to Care’
or perhaps ‘Work Hard, Play Hard, Succeed’.

Unsupported trailblazers
This group comprised 179 participants with average age 21.70 years, with over 63%
being females. This group contains a high proportion of minority groups (31.28%) and
has the lowest household income of $51,000.
The students in this group are the first in their family to seek a college degree. Their
family tends not to encourage them to seek a college degree. The trailblazers are
motivated to set a good example for their family by pursuing a college degree. Thus,
their focus is on completion of the degree rather than on earning good grades. With
minimal support from their family, they tend to pay for their college degree.
The unsupported trailblazers seek colleges that are local and cater to local students like
themselves. They pursue colleges that have a strong alumni network and are a fun place to be
educated. They also desire colleges with a diverse and multicultural student body. A messa-
ging theme that might fit unsupported trailblazers is ‘Show Them Success – We’ll Help’.

Dependent wanderers
In sum, 137 students were classified as dependent wanderers (mean age = 22.92 years).
This group of students enrolls in college with little or no idea about their career plans.
They may have chosen to enroll in college simply because they believe that is ‘what
young people are supposed to do after high school’. They do not enjoy being students
and tend not to complete the task in hand. They find college academics to be stressful
and tend to seek guidance from others.
They prefer colleges where faculty show support and care for students and there is
academic support to complete the degree. Without this supportive environment, they
can be uninspired students who don’t strive to improve or don’t always finish what they
start. Small-size classes and convenient college location are desired. Furthermore, they
seek colleges that provide good value for their money. Indeed, the group prefers
colleges with low tuition cost after scholarships/grants. An appropriate messaging
theme for unsupported trailblazers might be ‘Supporting Your Success’.

Privileged experientials
This group comprised 141 student participants with average age 19.65 years. This group
contains a higher percentage of males (60%) with the highest household income,
reaching over $135,000. The students in this group want to make friends and socialize
12 K. GOODRICH ET AL.

with their peers and do not attend college to focus strictly on academics. Aside from the
social aspects, the main reason they seek a college degree is to be more employable.
Their desire in a college is to have an enjoyable, fun campus life with a beautiful
campus and high-quality modern facilities. They also prefer colleges located in towns
where there is a high quality of life and better employment opportunities. A messaging
theme geared toward privileged experientials might be ‘Career Preparation Made Fun’.

Prestigious collegians
Totally, 152 participants were classified as prestigious collegians. This group was the
youngest of all, with an average age 18.36 years. The prestigious collegians enjoy
academics, consider themselves to be leaders, and relish the college experience. They
intend to be involved in several extracurricular groups and activities at college and
believe that making friends and socializing on campus are important parts of college life.
They desire colleges with high academic rank rather than location and convenience.
They seek to actively participate in research projects under the supervision of their
professors, thus preferring colleges with high-quality faculty. Challenging academics is
important to prestigious collegians, to prepare them for the workforce or higher educa-
tion. They seek colleges that have a good reputation for student job placement after
graduation. Colleges that have a strong track record for preparing students for top
graduate schools are also an important factor. This group prefers colleges with high-
quality modern facilities. A messaging theme that might fit prestigious collegians is
‘Don’t Settle for Second Best’.
Of course, most universities will not be able to effectively serve all six student segments
with available resources. Instead, the university must understand its current strengths and
future goals and find the segments it can best serve in a competitive market. Once a
university has selected it target markets and features of emphasis, it can craft appropriate
messaging for communicating with its markets using the most appropriate media.

Media usage
We classify the list of 14 media channels into university-driven and non-university-driven
(WOM) media channels comprising traditional and online outlets. We performed propor-
tion z-tests (adjusted p-value–Bonferroni method) to test for significant differences in
media usage across student segments using SPSS software. We report the percentages
of participants who use particular media to learn about colleges and universities and the
programs they offer, summarized in Tables 4 and 5. Significant differences in percen-
tages (p < 0.05, using Bonferroni-adjusted p-values) between segments (row) by media
type (column) are identified by the same alphabetical superscript for a given media type.

University driven – traditional media

University-driven traditional media comprises channel outlets that the university uses to
target potential students. The traditional outlets include campus visits, TV commercials,
radio advertising, billboard advertising, and direct mail materials, such as brochures and
pamphlets. Refer to Table 4 for the percentage use of media outlets for each student
segment.
 JOURNAL OF MARKETING COMMUNICATIONS 13

Table 4. University-driven media sources used.

Traditional Media Online Media
Campus TV Billboards Direct Online Social University
Segment Visits Commercials Radio Advertising Mail Advertising Media Websites
Motivated Post- 59.20%aed 16.70% 9.00% 8.60% 51.00% 23.30% 18.80% 78.80%
Traditionals
Focused Scholars 84.40%abc 11.80% 5.10% 6.30% 62.90% 15.60% 18.60% 81.90%a
Unsupported 65.90%bf 16.20% 5.60% 9.50% 53.10% 25.70% 21.80% 66.50%a
Trailblazers
Dependent 67.20%cg 12.40% 10.90%a 8.80% 53.30% 19.70% 14.60% 72.30%
Wanderers
Privileged 75.20%d 10.60% 2.10%a 5.00% 53.20% 23.40% 16.30% 76.60%
Experientials
efg
Prestigious 85.50% 11.80% 3.90% 3.30% 63.20% 20.40% 25.00% 77.70%
Collegians
Total 72.50% 13.60% 6.20% 7.10% 56.20% 21.20% 19.20% 76.10%
Note: The percentages of participants for each segment using various media channels to learn about colleges and
universities are reported.
The significant column proportions at adjusted p-values using the Bonferroni method (p < 0.05) are denoted
by the same superscript.

Table 5. Non-university-driven media used.

Traditional Media Online Media
High US news World Third-Party
Family/ High School School Report Princeton Online Reviews Review
Segment Friends Counselors Teachers Review students/alumni Websites
Motivated Post- 71.00% 28.60%a 30.60%a 24.50%a 31.00% 19.60%d
Traditionals
Focused Scholars 75.50% 39.70% 42.20% 21.10%b 25.70%a 13.50%a
Unsupported 65.40% 44.10% 39.70% 16.80%c 27.40%b 15.60%
Trailblazers
Dependent 73.70% 53.90%a 40.90% 14.60%d 27.00% 7.30%bd
Wanderers
Privileged 78.70% 40.20% 42.60% 22.70%e 27.70% 13.50%c
Experientials
Prestigious 68.40% 41.10% 47.40%a 53.30%abcde 42.80%ab 27.60%abc
Collegians
Total 72.00% 40.20% 39.80% 25.00% 30.00% 16.40%
Note: The percentages of participants for each segment using various media channels to learn about colleges and
universities are reported.
The significant column proportions at adjusted p-values using the Bonferroni method (p < 0.05) are denoted
by the same superscript.

The results indicate that students utilize campus visits (72.5%) more than direct mail
materials (56.20%), followed by TV commercials (13.6%), billboard advertising (7.10%),
and radio advertisements (6.20%) when seeking information on colleges and their
academic programs. It is evident that students across all segments use campus visits
more often than any other university-driven traditional media.
The z-tests indicate significant differences across the six student segments for campus
visits and radio advertising. The usage of campus visits was significantly higher (p < 0.05)
among prestigious collegians (85.50%) than motivated post-traditionals (59.20%), unsup-
ported trailblazers (65.90%), and dependent wanderers (67.20%). Likewise, the usage of
campus visits was significantly higher (p < 0.05) among focused scholars (84.40%) than
motivated post-traditionals, unsupported trailblazers, and dependent wanderers.
14 K. GOODRICH ET AL.

Furthermore, results indicate that privileged experientials’ (75.20%) usage of campus

visits was significantly higher (p < 0.05) than motivated post-traditionals. The usage of
radio advertising was significantly higher (p < 0.05) among dependent wanderers
(10.90%) than privileged experientials (2.10%).

University driven – online media

We classified university-driven online advertisements, university-sponsored Facebook
pages, Twitter feeds, or other social media platforms and university websites as online
media channels. Refer to Table 4. The results indicate that students’ usage of university
websites is higher (76.1%) than online advertising (21.20%) and social media (19.20%). It
is evident that students across all segments use university websites more often than any
other university-driven online media.
The z-test for proportions indicates significant difference across the six student
segments for university websites. The usage of university websites was significantly
higher (p < 0.05) for focused scholars (81.90%) than unsupported trailblazers (66.50%).

Non-university driven – traditional media

Non-university-driven media sources are not in direct control of the university. Rather,
these are personal or nonpersonal WOM sources from which students collect informa-
tion on colleges and programs. Refer to Table 5 for the percentage use of media outlets
for each student segment.
The traditional WOM sources consist of family and friends, high school counselors,
and high school teachers. Results indicate that students use family and friends (72.00%)
more than high school counselors (40.20%), followed by high school teachers (39.80%).
It is evident that students across all segments use personal sources like friends and
family more often than any other traditional WOM sources.
The z-tests for proportions indicate significant differences across student segments
for high school counselors and high school teachers. The usage of high school counse-
lors was significantly higher (p < 0.05) for dependent wanderers (53.90%) than moti-
vated post-traditionals (28.60%) for learning about colleges and universities and the
programs they offer. The usage of high school teachers as a potential source to gather
information on colleges and academic programs was significantly higher (p < 0.05)
among prestigious collegians (47.40%) than motivated post-traditionals (30.60%).

Non-university driven – online media

We classified online US News & World Report or Princeton Review rankings and reviews,
online reviews by current students and alumni, and third-party review websites as non-
university-driven online media. These sources are online WOM channels that students
use to collect information on colleges. Refer to Table 5. Results indicate that students
use the online opinion of current students and alumni (30.00%) more than online
rankings (25.00%) and third-party website reviews (16.40%).
The z-tests for proportions indicate significant differences across segments for online
rankings, online reviews of students and alumni, and online reviews from other websites.
The usage of online college rankings was significantly higher (p < 0.05) for prestigious
collegians (53.30%) than dependent wanderers (14.60%), unsupported trailblazers
(16.80%), focused scholars (21.10%), privileged experientials (22.70%), and motivated
 JOURNAL OF MARKETING COMMUNICATIONS 15

post-traditionals (24.50%). Furthermore, the usage of online reviews of students and

alumni was significantly higher (p < 0.05) for prestigious collegians (42.80%) than
focused scholars (25.70%) and unsupported trailblazers (27.40%). Prestigious collegians
(27.60%) also used third-party review websites more often (p < 0.05) than the dependent
wanderers (7.30%), focused scholars (13.50%), and privileged experiential (13.50%). The
usage of third-party review websites was significantly higher (p < 0.05) for motivated
post-traditionals (19.60%) than dependent wanderers (7.30%). It is evident that presti-
gious collegians use online WOM sources the most among the six segments.
A summary of the top three student segments by selected type of promotional tool is
provided in Table 6.

Discussion
With over $450 billion in annual revenues, colleges and universities are a sizeable
market. Despite this lucrativeness, the market suffers from relatively unsophisticated
marketing for customer (student) acquisition and retention, compared to consumer
product companies. For example, market segmentation in prior academic research is
often based on demographic variables with limited evaluation of student attitudinal
drivers and psychographic segmentation. This study taps into a larger sample frame
than earlier studies and provides a more comprehensive analysis, utilizing multiple
attitudinal, behavioral, and demographic variables to identify different segments.

Table 6. Summary of top three student segments by type of promotional tool.

Promotional Tool Top 3 Target Segments as % of reported usage
Actual Experience
Campus Visit 1. Prestigious Collegian
2. Focused Scholar
3. Privileged Experiential
Traditional Media
Television 1. Dependent Wanderer
2. Motivated Post-Traditional
3. Unsupported Trailblazer
Radio 1. Dependent Wanderer
2. Motivated Post-Traditional
3. Unsupported Trailblazer
Billboard 1. Unsupported Trailblazer
2. Dependent Wanderer
3. Motivated Post-Traditional
Direct Mail 1. Prestigious Collegian
2. Focused Scholar
3. Tie: Dependent Wanderer
3. Privileged Experiential
Online Media
University Website 1. Focused Scholar
2. Motivated Post-Traditional
3. Prestigious Collegian
Social Media 1. Prestigious Collegian
2. Unsupported Trailblazer
3. Motivated Post-Traditional
Online Ads 1. Unsupported Trailblazer
2. Privileged Experiential
3. Motivated Post-Traditional
16 K. GOODRICH ET AL.

Furthermore, this research generates actionable results for institutions to specifically

target student segments with appropriate messaging in optimal media.

Management implications by student segment

If top-tier universities are looking to recruit prestigious collegians, then they should be
investing strongly in campus visits, direct mail, and social media, which are among their
best promotional tools. ‘Don’t Settle for Second Best’ messaging to prestigious colle-
gians should include evidence of high rankings, quality faculty, and the ability to get
good jobs or into a top graduate school. Potential ad executions could include demon-
stration of leadership opportunities or enjoyment of the college experience (extracurri-
culars, friends, socializing), since these features are also important to prestigious
collegians. Universities should focus on favorable third-party reviews (publications,
alumni/students, etc.) and a strong reputation among high school teachers, since
these are also important information sources for prestigious collegians. If universities
are lacking in these areas, they should focus on strengthening outreach to high school
teachers and influential third-party reviewers.
To recruit focused scholars, the college’s website is an excellent promotional tool,
along with campus visits and direct mail. ‘Big Enough to Deliver, Small Enough to
Care’ and
‘Work Hard, Play Hard, Succeed’ messaging should include benefits such as academic
support, caring professors, small class sizes, and clubs and organizations, as well as the
ability to land a job or continue on to graduate school. Since focused scholars enjoy
being a student and believe that success is tied to hard work and involvement in
university activities, these topics are recommended for ad execution.
To reach privileged experientials, universities should focus mostly on campus visits,
direct mail, and online ads. Privileged experientials are looking for a fun place to go to
school and for high-quality modern facilities, but want to good job after college. Since
they don’t enjoy being a student but enjoy friends and socializing, ad execution for the
‘Career Preparation Made Fun’ messaging should focus on the student social experience
and landing a good job after graduation.
Unsupported trailblazers are first-generation students who are looking for a diverse
and multicultural student body and a large alumni network. They want to set a good
example for the family, be the first to successfully graduate, and typically pay their way
through college. They don’t care as much about rankings in third-party publications,
since their primary goal is to be the first in their family to achieve a college degree.
Unsupported trailblazers can be best reached through billboards, TV, and radio, as well
as online ads and social media. Effective ad executions with ‘Show Them Success – We’ll
Help’ messaging could emphasize family leadership and scenes of pride from other
family members for the student’s accomplishments.
The motivated post-traditional tends to be best reached through online media such
as the university website, social media and online ads, as well as traditional media such
as TV, radio, and billboards. If the university is looking to recruit motivated post-
traditionals but not dependent wanderers (whose top media relative to the other
segments are TV and radio), it should focus on online media or clearly position its
benefits and ad executions toward the post-traditional segment. Emphasizing benefits
 JOURNAL OF MARKETING COMMUNICATIONS 17

such as convenient location, good value, and ease of working while attaining their
degrees would reinforce the ‘Quality and Convenience, with Money to Spare’ messaging
that should appeal to motivated post-traditionals.
Universities should decide if they want to focus on the dependent wanderer segment.
These students might be going to college because it seems like the right thing to do or
if their parents want them to go. For lack of a better term, students in this group can be
‘high-maintenance’, since they need professor and academic support and look to others
for guidance. Dependent wanderers tend to feel that going to college is stressful, don’t
finish what they start, and are not especially achievement-oriented. While some uni-
versities might have the resources to satisfy the needs of dependent wanderers, other
schools might not want to offer this type of special care. Dependent wanderers are most
easily reached through traditional media such as TV, radio, billboard, and direct mail, as
well as high school counselors. Appropriate ‘Supporting Your Success’ messaging would
focus on having a supportive, helpful environment provided by professor, advisors, and
other university personnel.
These are just a few examples of how the rich segmentation data from this study
can be used by universities to sharpen their targeting of students, clearly define their
institution’s benefits from a student’s perspective, and craft compelling ad executions
with scenarios that resonate among targeted student segments. Thus, this study’s
segmentation analysis provides guidance to universities to communicate more effi-
ciently and effectively to potential students. As mentioned earlier, few universities
are able to effectively target all student segments. However, every university should
understand its potential targeted student segments in relation to their current
resources and strategic focus. Psychographic segmentation can effectively support
this process.

Limitations and future research

This study’s sample was derived from students applying to a particular state-supported
school in the Midwestern region of the US. Students from other areas of the country
might hold somewhat different attitudes and behaviors, so research involving students
from other parts of the US is advisable to better understand regional differences.
Moreover, it would be interesting to sample students applying to different types of
schools, such as highly ranked prestigious schools, smaller liberal arts colleges, or state-
supported schools across the country, in order to better understand attitudinal differ-
ences of applicants. Furthermore, utilizing students from other parts of the world, due to
the growing importance of international recruitment, is recommended in order to better
understand the entire student market.
As mentioned, The Parthenon Group (Ladd, Reynolds, and Selingo 2014) surveyed
3,200 current and potential college students from across the US, representing multi-
ple US regions and types of universities (not fully specified in their methodology).
Parthenon found six distinct segments: Aspiring Academics, Coming of Age, Career
Starter, Career Accelerator, Industry Switcher, and Academic Wanderer. Interestingly,
our current research revealed some segments that were similar and some that were
different. For example, Parthenon’s ‘Career Accelerator’ and ‘Aspiring Academics’
matched closely with the characteristics of our ‘Motivated Post-Traditional’ and
18 K. GOODRICH ET AL.

‘Prestigious Collegian’, respectively. However, Parthenon’s segments of ‘Industry

Switchers’ (job change) and ‘Academic Wanderers’ (unemployed) had no comparable
segment in our sample, whereas our ‘Unsupported Trailblazer’ (first generation,
largely minority) was unique to our sample. Other segments showed some common-
alities but also some differences between the two samples. Thus, it is important for
each institution to conduct research using samples that represent its potential base
of student applicants.
This research provides a snapshot of students and their attitudes about the college
decision process. A longitudinal study, which tracks student attitudes over time in
different types of institutions, would potentially provide additional insight into the
optimal relationship between different student segments and various types of college
environments. Thus, longitudinal studies into the behaviors and attitudes of college
students would be a fruitful area for future research.

Acknowledgments
We would also like to acknowledge the data collection and analysis contributed by Isobar
Marketing Intelligence, a practice area of Isobar, a major global digital agency.

Disclosure statement
No potential conflict of interest was reported by the authors.

Notes on contributors
Kendall Goodrich, Ph.D. is chair and professor of marketing at Wright State University. Kendall has
worked in private sector marketing management positions for AT&T and NCR, participated in a
successful IPO with Citrix, and held executive marketing positions with multiple e-commerce firms.
Dr. Goodrich teaches in the areas of internet marketing, entrepreneurship, and marketing strategy.
His research explores areas of consumer behavior such as advertising effects, cognitive processing,
cultural differences, and internet commerce. His writing has appeared in publications such as the
Journal of Business Research, Journal of Advertising Research, Psychology & Marketing and Journal of
Marketing Communications.
Kunal Swani, Ph.D. is an associate professor of marketing at Wright State University. His research
interest includes B2B advertising, humor in advertising, and social media marketing communica-
tions. He has published his work in journals such as Journal of Advertising, Industrial Marketing
Management, Journal of Business Research, and Psychology & Marketing. He serves on the editorial
review boards of Industrial Marketing Management and Journal of Marketing Analytics.
James Munch, Ph.D. is currently Professor of Marketing at the Raj Soin College of Business, Wright
State University. Prior to joining Wright State, Dr. Munch was a tenured professor at several
universities including UT Arlington, Kent State, and University of Delaware. Prior to his career in
academia, Dr. Munch held sales and marketing positions with Carnation/Nestle, Inc. He has been a
marketing consultant and educator for a number of global corporations, including E.I DuPont,
Bank of America, Marathon Petroleum, and Marketing Management, Inc. Dr. Munch serves on
several editorial review boards, and his articles have appeared in Journal of Consumer Research,
The Journal of Advertising, Psychology & Marketing, and The Journal of Business Research.
 JOURNAL OF MARKETING COMMUNICATIONS 19

References
Absher, K., and G. Crawford. 1996. “Marketing the Community College Starts with Understanding
Students’ Perspectives.” Community College Review 23 (4): 59–68. doi:10.1177/
009155219602300406.
Barrett, L. R. 1996. “On Students as Customers – Some Warning from America.” Higher Education
Review 28 (3): 70–71.
Bock, D. E., S. M. Poole, and M. Joseph. 2014. “Does Branding Impact Student Recruitment: A
Critical Evaluation.” Journal of Marketing for Higher Education 24 (1): 11–21. doi:10.1080/
08841241.2014.908454.
Borden, V. M. 1995. “Segmenting Student Markets with a Student Satisfaction and Priorities
Survey.” Research in Higher Education 36 (1): 73–88. doi:10.1007/BF02207767.
Chamberlin, E. H. 1965. The Theory of Monopolistic Competition. Cambridge, MA: Harvard
University.
Chapleo, C. 2011. “Exploring Rationales for Branding a University: Should We Be Seeking to
Measure Branding in UK Universities?” Journal of Brand Management 18 (6): 411–422.
doi:10.1057/bm.2010.53.
Chapleo, C. 2015. “Brand ‘Infrastructure’ in Nonprofit Organizations: Challenges to Successful
Brand Building?” Journal of Marketing Communications 21 (3): 199–209. doi:10.1080/
13527266.2012.741609.
Ghosh, A. K., R. Javalgi, and T. W. Whipple. 2008. “Service Strategies for Higher Educational
Institutions Based on Student Segmentation.” Journal of Marketing for Higher Education 17 (2):
238–255. doi:10.1080/08841240801912641.
Gibson, A. 2010. “Measuring Business Student Satisfaction: A Review and Summary of the Major
Predictors.” Journal of Higher Education Policy and Management 32 (3): 251–259. doi:10.1080/
13600801003743349.
Hemsley-Brown, J., and I. Oplatka. 2015. “University Choice: What Do We Know, What Don’t We
Know and What Do We Still Need to Find Out?” International Journal of Educational
Management 29 (3): 254–274.
Hemsley-Brown, J., and I. Oplatka. 2006. “Universities in A Competitive Global Marketplace: A
Systematic Review of the Literature on Higher Education Marketing.” International Journal of
Public Sector Management 19 (4): 316–338. doi:10.1108/09513550610669176.
Hemsley-Brown, J., T. C. Melewar, B. Nguyen, and E. J. Wilson. 2016. “Exploring Brand Identity,
Meaning, Image, and Reputation (BIMIR) in Higher Education: A Special Section.” Journal of
Business Research 69 (8): 3019–3022. doi:10.1016/j.jbusres.2016.01.016.
Hoyt, J.F., and A.B. Brown. 2003. “Identifying College Choice Factors to Successfully Market Your
Institution.” College and University 78 (4): 3–5.
IBIS. 2018. “Colleges & Universities in the US: Market Research Report.” Accessed 1 March 2018
http://www.ibisworld.com/industry/default.aspx?indid=1970
Jain, A. K. 2010. “Data Clustering: 50 Years beyond K-Means.” Pattern Recognition Letters 31 (8):
651–666. doi:10.1016/j.patrec.2009.09.011.
Klein, T. A., P. F. Scott, and J. 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.
Kotler, P., and S. J. Levy. 1969. “Broadening the Concept of Marketing.” Journal of Marketing 33 (1):
10–15. doi:10.2307/1248740.
Ladd, H., S. Reynolds, and J. J. Selingo. 2014. The Differentiated University. Recognizing the Diverse
Needs of Today’s Students. Parthenon Group. May. https://www.luminafoundation.org/files/
resources/the-differentiated-university-wp-web-final.pdf
Lewison, D. M., and J. M. Hawes. 2007. “Student Target Marketing Strategies for Universities.”
Journal of College Admission 196: 14–19.
Lin, C. 2002. “Segmenting Customer Brand Preference: Demographic or Psychographic.” The
Journal of Product & Brand Management 11 (4/5): 249–268. doi:10.1108/
10610420210435443.
20 K. GOODRICH ET AL.

Litten, L. H. 1982. “Different Strokes in the Applicant Pool: Some Refinements in a Model of
Student College Choice.” The Journal of Higher Education 53 (4): 383–402.
Maringe, F. 2004. “Vice Chancellor’s Perceptions Of University Marketing: a View from Universities
in a Developing Country.” Higher Education Review 36 (2): 53–68.
Melewar, T. C., and B. Nguyen. 2015. “Five Areas to Advance Branding Theory and Practice.” Journal
of Brand Management 21 (9): 758–769. doi:10.1057/bm.2014.31.
Narver, J. C., and S. F. Slater. 1990. “The Effect of a Market Orientation on Business Profitability.”
Journal of Marketing 54 (4): 20–35. doi:10.2307/1251757.
National Student Clearing House Research Center 2017. “Current Term Enrollment Estimates.”
December 19. Accessed 10 May https://nscresearchcenter.org/current-term-enrollment-esti
mates-fall-2017/
Nedbalová, E., L. Greenacre, and J. Schulz. 2014. “UK Higher Education Viewed through the
Marketization and Marketing Lenses.” Journal of Marketing for Higher Education 24 (2): 178–
195. doi:10.1080/08841241.2014.973472.
Nelson-Field, K., and E. Riebe. 2011. “The Impact of Media Fragmentation on Audience Targeting:
An Empirical Generalisation Approach.” Journal of Marketing Communications 17 (1): 51–67.
doi:10.1080/13527266.2010.484573.
Paulsen, M. B. 1990. “College Choice: Understanding Student Enrollment Behavior.” ASHE-ERIC
Higher Education Report no. 6. doi:10.1099/00221287-136-2-327
Peltier, J. W., J. A. Schibrowsky, D. E. Schultz, and J. Davis. 2002. “Interactive Psychographics: Cross-
Selling in the Banking Industry.” Journal of Advertising Research 42 (2): 7–22. doi:10.2501/JAR-42-
2-7-22.
Punj, G., and D. Stewart. 1983. “Cluster Analysis in Marketing Research: Review and Suggestions for
Application.” Journal of Marketing Research 20 (2): 134–148. doi:10.2307/3151680.
Samuel, A. 2016. “Psychographics are Just as Important for Marketers as Demographics.” In
Harvard Business Review March, 11. https://hbr.org/2016/03/psychographics-are-just-as-impor
tant-for-marketers-as-demographics
Schertzer, C. B., and S. M. Schertzer. 2004. “Student Satisfaction and Retention: A Conceptual
Model.” Journal of Marketing for Higher Education 14 (1): 79–91. doi:10.1300/J050v14n01_05.
Sharrock, G. 2000. “Why Students are Not (Just) Customers (And Other Reflections on Life after
George).” Journal of Higher Education Policy and Management 22 (November): 149–164.
doi:10.1080/713678141.
Smith, P. 1997. Marketing Adult Education: An Ideological Dilemma? SCUTREA Conference
Proceedings 154–162.
Smith, W. R. 1956. “Product Differentiation and Market Segmentation as Alternative Marketing
Strategies.” Journal of Marketing 21 (1): 3–8. doi:10.2307/1247695.
Soutar, G. N., and J. P. Turner. 2002. “Students’ Preferences for University: A Conjoint Analysis.”
International Journal of Educational Management 16 (1): 40–45.
StatSoft Inc. 2013. STATISTICA (Data Analysis Software). StatSoft . https://www.bloomberg.com/
research/stocks/private/snapshot.asp?privcapId=4550316
Sujchaphong, N., B. Nguyen, and T. C. Melewar. 2015. “Internal Branding in Universities and the
Lessons Learnt from the Past: The Significance of Employee Brand Support and
Transformational Leadership.” Journal of Marketing for Higher Education 25 (2): 204–237.
doi:10.1080/08841241.2015.1040104.
Tipton, P. 1972. “Psychographics—How Can We Use Them?” Admap 8 (12): 394–397.
Wells, W. D. 1975. “Psychographics: A Critical Review.” Journal of Marketing Research 12 (2): 196–
213. doi:10.2307/3150443.
Wright, R. E. 2008. “Targeting, Segmenting and Positioning the Market for College Students to
Increase Customer Satisfaction and Overall Performance.” College Student Journal 42 (3): 891.
Zeithaml, V. A. 2000. “Service Quality, Profitability, and the Economic Worth of Customers: What
We Know and What We Need to Learn.” Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science 28 (1): 67.
doi:10.1177/0092070300281007.