The in-school marketing
controversy: Reaching
the teenage segment
Kathryn T. Cort
Assistant Professor of Marketing, Elon University,
Elon, North Carolina (kcort@elon.edu)
Judith H. Pairan
Adjunct Faculty, Chapman University, Sacramento,
California (educator@cwo.com)
John K. Ryans, Jr.
James R. Good Professor of Global Strategy, Bowling
Green State University, Bowling Green, Ohio
(jryans@cba.bgsu.edu)
Consumer marketers are
continually attracted to the
large, affluent teenage market.
But teens tend to be highly mobile
and difficult to reach through regular
media. This makes in-school promotions
especially attractive to companies. Yet
marketing to teens in high school is frowned
upon by many, even though such promotions
may offer badly needed funds and equipment to
schools. Examining both sides of the in-school
marketing controversy, this article presents the
results of survey research conducted among
school superintendents who offer their views on
the topic, and discusses the need for a marketing
code of conduct to address critics’ concerns.
Business Horizons 47/1 January-February 2004 (81-85)
M ore and more, corporations are seeing high
schools as the optimum venue for selling
their goods and services to the growing,
affluent teenage market—a market currently estimated at
$150 billion-plus. After all, during three-fourths of the
year most teens spend a good part of their day in this
controlled environment before scattering throughout the
city or countryside. Even with a wide variety of teen
media and gathering places available, none reach this crit-
ical purchasing segment as completely as do the public
and private schools.
Not surprisingly, then, many marketers are constantly
looking for ways to reach teenagers during the school day.
They are often greeted by schools and educational systems
enthusiastic about the opportunities to bring in outside
funding, and even about the nature of some of the pro-
motions themselves. Whether it is an agreement with a
cola company for exclusive beverage rights or a Pizza Hut
program that rewards students for reading books, the
funds provided by these companies augment an often tat-
tered budget. For many schools, in fact, they permit
extracurricular activities that otherwise would have to be
curtailed or drastically downsized. For others, the funds
provide much-needed new computers and other high-tech
equipment.
Such a marketing “invasion” of the secondary schools has
come in the face of some strong opposition. As Coca-
Cola, Nabisco, Nike, and so on have increasingly turned
their attention to the teen market and in-school promo-
tions, notes Farber (1999), a wave of critics has emerged
to attack the “commercialization of our nation’s class-
rooms.” These critics come from two or three different
camps, ranging from those who feel the schools should
be an oasis from commercial pressures on teens to those
who believe that corporations want to control the
schools, the curricula, and students’ minds.
Of course, some school administrators and secondary
educators see in-school marketing as an intrusion into an
already full schedule, or doubt that the benefits from the
81
 K.T. Cort et al. / The in-school marketing controversy: Reaching the teenage segment
added funds supplied by marketers can outweigh the neg-
atives. This has led some schools, school districts, county
systems, cities, and states to refuse to accept in-school
marketing, or even ban it altogether.
Beverage agreements represent
only the tip of the in-school
marketing iceberg. Like colleges,
many high schools have food
courts that bring “fast fooders”
on the run to vie for outlets. And
immediate product sales are only
one dimension of the marketing
activities that involve schools.
Here we will take a closer look at various sides of the in-
school marketing issue and attempt to sort out a few of
the ambiguities that exist. Moreover, we will present the
views of a three-state sample of county school superin-
tendents, who have the final say in many in-school mar-
keting decisions and are well aware of educator, parental,
and public views on the subject.
Marketers/marketing
practices
I
n-school marketing is not a twenty-first century phe-
nomenon. Many of us can recall from years ago local
companies advertising in our high school yearbooks,
automobile companies such as Ford providing the cars for
driver’s training, and beverage-sponsored football score-
boards. But although the companies undoubtedly hoped
to receive some benefit from such advertising—perhaps a
favorable attitude toward the brand or the business—
rarely did they have a carefully crafted marketing strategy
designed to achieve immediate sales objectives or longer-
term brand awareness goals.
An excellent illustration of the former is the “Cola Wars”
fought to win exclusive beverage rights in individual
schools or school systems. (An example of Coca-Cola’s
agreement with the Stow, Ohio school system is presented
in the sidebar.) US teenagers consume enormous amounts
of soft drinks, fruit juices, and bottled water daily, whether
82
in school, at home, or elsewhere. It should not be surpris-
ing, therefore, that Coca-Cola, Pepsi, and other beverage
companies find it highly advantageous to obtain an exclu-
sive agreement for the sale of their goods in a school sys-
tem. Not only does this bring in immediate sales, it also
provides an opportunity to build long-term brand loyalty.
In effect, the brand becomes “the only game in town”
during the school day. And the companies can reach
agreements with the local school or school system on the
number of beverage machines and their locations, as well
as the use of signs on the school property, which may
include anything from sponsoring an athletic field score-
board to posting signboards on buses. The schools, of
course, benefit from such arrangements, receiving not
only funds from the sale of the exclusive agreements but
also a share in the beverage sale proceeds.
Beverage agreements represent only the tip of the in-school
marketing iceberg. For example, many high schools, like
colleges, have food courts that bring “fast fooders” on the
run to vie for outlets. And immediate product sales are
only one dimension of their marketing activities there.
Pizza Hut has had a long-running program that rewards
students with pizza coupons for meeting certain book
reading goals. ZapMe! offers schools free high-speed com-
puters and a network of educational websites—sites that
carry advertising targeted toward students—in return for
the required use of its computers four hours a day. Many
other leading companies have school-related promotions,
including Nike, Nabisco, Wal-Mart, Domino’s, Apple, and
Hershey. In fact, Farber indicates that Cover Concepts Mar-
keting Services has given free textbook covers featuring
Nike, Calvin Klein, and the Quaker Oats Company to stu-
dents in 31,000 schools.
Perhaps the best known and most controversial in-school
marketing program is offered by Channel One. According
to its website, Channel One is an in-school television net-
work that broadcasts a 12-minute daily program with two
minutes of commercials. Shown in an estimated 12,000
The beverage contract
On September 23, 2002, the Stow-Monroe Falls School
District in Ohio entered into an exclusive 10-year bever-
age contract with Akron Coca-Cola Company for an esti-
mated $750,000. The agreement specified the number of
vending machines, their locations, and the array of bever-
ages to be provided. For exclusive promo-
tional rights and beverage availability rights,
Coca-Cola was to pay the school district
$350,000 over the next ten years. The school
would also get a percentage of the sales, as
well as a new scoreboard for its stadium.
Source: Schuck (2002)
Business Horizons 47/1 January-February 2004 (81-85)
K.T. Cort et al. / The in-school marketing controversy: Reaching the teenage segment

schools nationwide, the program carries a wide range of 18 percent were negative about the effect of marketing in
news and student interest shows. In return for permitting schools, whereas one-third were positive. Further, more
Channel One to operate in the school and letting the pro- than half of the principals indicated that exclusive vendor
gram be shown during class, the school gets TV sets and agreements were beneficial to extracurricular programs.
television receiving equipment. Naturally, educators vary
If one were to generalize, it appears that the view of a
in their reaction to the overall quality of Channel One
large portion of educators and parents tends to favor in-
programming; some find it very useful in terms of current
school marketing, as long as it remains at its current level.
events and teen-related programs, while others do not.
What they seem to see is a trade-off between a little com-
However, it is clearly original and designed specifically for
mercialization and some badly needed funding. A clearer
its teenage target audience.
From a marketing perspective, then, it is clear that a wide
range of US consumer goods corporations see high schools
as excellent locations to develop brand awareness, to dif-
ferentiate themselves from competitors, and even to build
The view of a large portion of
a long-term customer base. Thus, they will continue to try educators and parents seems to
to find creative ways to enter the classroom realm.
favor in-school marketing, as
long as it remains at its current
The opinions
level. What they likely see is a
A
s noted at the outset, many educators, education
groups, consumer activists (individuals and
groups), legislators, and parents and parent
trade-off between a little
groups actively oppose advertising in the schools. While commercialization and some
they are more adamantly against it in the lower grades
and middle schools, they are also strongly opposed to any badly needed funding.
advertising at the high school level. Henry Giroux (1999),
one of the more outspoken of these critics, states that
“schools have condoned a transformation to commercial
spheres.…Their students become subjects to the whims picture of educational attitudes toward in-school market-
and practices of marketers.” Alex Molnar (1996) notes ing is provided by the results of our three-state survey of
that the “exploitation of our schools by corporate huck- county superintendents.
sters willing to put their short-term profit ahead of the
Superintendents’ views
public’s long-term well-being makes the already difficult
task of school improvement harder.” A third nationally During 2002, we surveyed a sample of county superin-
recognized critic, Alfie Kohn (2002), speaking specifically tendents from Oregon, Iowa, and North Carolina. The
of Channel One, maintains that rationale for selecting three widely separated and diverg-
ing states was to obtain broader (and more representa-
the advertisers seem to be getting their money’s
tive) results. Some of the findings were as follows:
worth; researchers have found that Channel One
viewers, as contrasted with a comparable group of 1. Most believe that by careful screening of corporate in-
students, not only thought more highly of the school messages/programs, schools can reap the bene-
products advertised on the program but were more fits of added funds without exploiting students.
likely to agree with statements such as “A nice car is
2. Most believe that selling the “naming rights” for
more important than schools” and “I want what I
libraries, auditoriums, and other physical facilities to
see advertised.”
corporate sponsors is inappropriate and cheapens pub-
Despite such strident comments, much of the education lic education.
community sees in-school marketing as positive. Their
3. Roughly two-thirds believe it is difficult to keep up with
views tend to range from those who feel that high school
computer technology without corporate marketing or
students in particular have been accustomed to judging
similar external funds.
commercials virtually from birth and are able to distin-
guish them from the news, to others who believe the ben- 4. Most believe that parents are not opposed to corporate
efits of the external funding far outweigh any negatives. advertising at the secondary school level, but are op-
In fact, an extensive study by Feuerstein (2001) of high posed to it at the elementary level.
school principals in Pennsylvania found that only about

Business Horizons 47/1 January-February 2004 (81-85) 83

 K.T. Cort et al. / The in-school marketing controversy: Reaching the teenage segment

5. Marketers should be aware of a growing backlash to in- divided on the issue. However, marketers should be cau-
school marketing. tioned on two of the findings. First, roughly two-thirds of
the superintendents in each state believe that corporate
One surprise from the survey was the similarity in views
marketing research does not have important educational
among the superintendents across the three states. Consid-
value to students and should not be conducted in schools.
ering the geographic distances and different economies
Second, most believe there is a growing backlash against
and local cultures, we had expected much more variation
in-school marketing. This may be taken as a warning of
on the issues. Table 1 indicates that the only real disagree-
some resentment for having to depend heavily on market-
ment occurred over whether external funds were needed
ing resources to support ongoing programs. Moreover,
to keep up with technological advances. The North Car-
both of these responses suggest that companies should be
olina and Iowa county superintendents felt that such funds
careful in their promotions and must not try to exploit the
were needed, while the Oregon respondents were equally
current base of support for marketing in high schools.

Table 1
Superintendents’ views on several “in-school marketing” issues

Issue
1. Corporate marketing arrangements
State
N. Carolina
Agree (%)
88.0
Disagree (%)
12.0
D espite the growing number
of vocal critics, marketers
should expect to find con-
tinued opportunities to use certain
types of in-school marketing, at least
often provide public schools with badly Iowa 90.0 10.0 in the near term. This is especially
needed sources. Oregon 87.5 12.5 true given the limited tax funds avail-
Average 88.5 11.5 able to provide for the total academic
2. Schools need external funds to help N. Carolina 77.0 23.0 and extracurricular needs of second-
keep up with new technology for the Iowa 68.0 32.0 ary schools today. In particular, it is
classroom. Oregon 50.0 50.0 the extracurricular activities—every-
Average 65.0 35.0 thing from athletics to bands to
school plays—that have especially
3. Most parents are opposed to in-school N. Carolina 28.0 72.0
marketing at the high school level. Iowa 23.0 77.0 suffered, as school levy issues have
Oregon 25.0 75.0 mounted in recent years.
Average 25.3 74.7 Given the overall climate, however, it
4. Corporate naming rights for high N. Carolina 40.0 60.0 might be wise for the companies tar-
schools would not necessarily com- Iowa 36.0 64.0 geting teens to begin to build the sort
promise the schools’ academic integrity. Oregon 42.0 58.0 of goodwill that could maintain in-
Average 39.3 60.7 school marketing beyond periods of
5. School administrators are more apt N. Carolina 91.0 9.0 budget emergencies. Most high
to allow in-school marketing programs Iowa 93.0 7.0 school constituencies seem to have
in grades 9–12 than for lower grades. Oregon 96.0 4.0 accepted the exclusive beverage con-
Average 93.3 6.7 tracts and sports-related program-
6. School administrators should permit N. Carolina 35.0 65.0 ming. The major criticisms are di-
marketing research to be conducted in Iowa 28.0 72.0 rected toward companies that are
class to acquaint students with the process Oregon 29.0 71.0 providing book jackets and academic
(i.e., provide an educational experience). Average 30.7 69.3 content-related contests and promo-
tions. Farber describes one school
7. Marketers should be aware of a growing N. Carolina 88.0 12.0 that was forced to change textbooks
backlash against in-school marketing. Iowa 73.0 27.0 because the books were found to
Oregon 87.0 13.0
contain many product-specific exam-
Average 82.7 17.3
—————————
ples and illustrations. Moreover, mar-
keters should take note of critics’
Research note: During January–May 2002, the authors conducted a highly struc-
charges that companies want to alter
tured mail survey of a random sample of 100 county superintendents in each of
three states (North Carolina, Iowa, and Oregon). Responses were received from high school curricula to fit their own
123 participants (North Carolina 43, Iowa 55, and Oregon 23) for an overall 41 needs.
percent response rate. All the data are presented here by individual state, due to
the response rate differences. The Stapel Technique, a forced-choice instrument, To counter such charges, marketing
was employed for the survey; the scale ranged from –3 to –1 on the negative and advertising associations should
scale and 1 to 3 on the positive scale. perhaps voluntarily establish a code of
conduct for in-school marketing. With

84 Business Horizons 47/1 January-February 2004 (81-85)

K.T. Cort et al. / The in-school marketing controversy: Reaching the teenage segment
a number of groups seeking state and federal legislation
to ban this activity, such a code could be a very appropri-
ate response for businesses to take. It could establish
parameters for everything from Channel One-like adver-
tising to Pizza Hut contests to book jackets. In that way,
marketers would indicate to school officials and oppo-
nent groups alike that their concerns are recognized (and
shared) and that their in-school marketing practices
would be consistent with student and school interests and
needs. For example, by agreeing to limit marketing to stu-
dents in grades 9–12, companies would be responding to
the school administrators’ concerns noted in Number 5 in
Table 1.
Similarly, corporate and advertising representatives could
meet with a sample of school administrators and county
superintendents to determine why nearly three-fourths of
our respondents were opposed to having marketing
research conducted in schools and why there appears to
be a growing backlash against in-school marketing. Such
efforts could result in actions to ensure that the code of
conduct (or set of guidelines) would address the types or
forms of advertising that are felt to be appropriate and
inappropriate, as well as the degree of “hard sell” that
seems acceptable. The code could then be voluntarily
signed and adopted by the trade association(s) as well as
by individual corporations.
Business Horizons 47/1 January-February 2004 (81-85)
Finally, the development of such a code would be espe-
cially valuable to the many school administrators who
have long been proponents of in-school marketing. It
would signal to critics that the corporate world’s objec-
tives are not inconsistent with the secondary education
community. ❍
References and selected bibliography
Brand, Jeffrey E., and Bradley S. Greenberg. 1994. Commercials
in the classroom: The impact of Channel One advertising.
Journal of Advertising Research 34/1 (January-February): 18-27.
Farber, Peggy. 1999. Schools for sale. Advertising Age (25 Octo-
ber): 22ff.
Feuerstein, Abe. 2001. Selling our schools? Principals’ views on
schoolhouse commercialism and school-business instructions.
Educational Administration Quarterly 37/3 (August): 322-371.
Giroux, Henry A. 1999. Schools for sale: Public education, cor-
porate culture, and the citizen-consumer. The Educational
Forum 63/2 (Winter): 140-148.
Kohn, Alfie. 2002. The 500-pound gorilla. Phi Delta Kappan
(October):113-119.
Molnar, Alex. 1996. Giving kids the business. Boulder, CO: West-
view Press:.
Schuck, Andrew. 2002. Contract with Coke hikes school revenue.
Stow (Ohio) Sentry (27 October): 1.
85