Part III: Quality of Online Offerings: A Missed Marketing Opportunity?

CHLOE 9 REPORT RESPONSE (Part three of a four-part series)

By Kevin Phang

One point about online learning that doesn’t need a survey’s confirmation is that as it shifts from a nice bonus feature to a cost of entry, simply saying “we have online options” has limited (or zero) marketing value. What we found in the latest installment of the Changing Landscape of Online Education (CHLOE) report, CHLOE 9: Strategy Shift: Institutions Respond to Sustained Online Demand, is that many institutions may have missed the memo. In fact, the report observes that “… the low prioritization of quality, student support, and cutting-edge curricula in marketing efforts raises questions about how effective schools are in positioning themselves distinctly and competitively in the online marketplace.”

In last year’s CHLOE 8 study, respondents were asked how their institutions approached the notion of quality in their online offerings and how, if at all, they communicated those efforts as a selling point. “Institutional responses highlighted that many institutions showcased ‘quiet quality’ by practicing robust online quality assurance measures spanning student support, faculty development, and course design, but largely failing to market these efforts publicly.”

CHLOE 8 also reported that less than a third of institutions utilized program quality as a means of pursuing new online student audiences. Meanwhile, answers such as “Adding new online programs based on student demand” and “Creating new versions of our most popular on-ground degrees,” suggested a lingering reliance on the “if you build it, they will come” approach.

However, just a year later, the CHLOE 9 report shows that now 45% of respondents list “Promoting the quality of our online education” as a key Online Marketplace Focus and Differentiator. Since the question changed between the two surveys, this data should be considered directional only, BUT growing from less than a third to nearly half is noteworthy, even if only two of the top 10 responses in CHLOE 9 were related to marketing or promoting quality. The other answers remained focused on promoting the simple existence or growth of online programs as a marketing emphasis.

Let’s look at a few obstacles or reasons for hesitancy when it comes to promoting online programs in general.

• Online isn’t as “good” as in-person instruction – While research continues to show that asynchronous education opportunities actually work much better for some students and that optimal outcomes may be derived from letting students tailor their own mix of learning modalities, inertia is a reality that higher ed must overcome. Remote learning is here to stay, and rather than focusing on the perceived deficiencies of online vs. on-campus, schools that succeed will rather focus on exploring the opportunities that online learning represents to create new and more effective programs.
• Promoting online programs will tarnish the image of the institution – The image of remote learning likely suffered from being the modality of choice for many for-profit universities. This already suspect category was further sullied by predatory recruiting practices focused on inflated employment expectations and generally lower admissions requirements. Traditional universities with proud academic histories – and even prouder alumni – may fear that negative connotations associated with online learning will diminish their reputations and have a negative impact on already decreasing enrollments.
• A strong historical university brand and reputation will automatically carry over to online – While it is fair to expect that highly-regarded academic institutions offer online programs of commensurate quality, the reality is not as certain. One can argue that online program quality is more a result of the school’s commitment of funding and resources than to the quality of the in-person programs already in place. While one institution may have a greater reputation and history of student success than another, the latter can make up a lot of ground by executing a better-planned, more student-focused online program, effectively leveling the playing field on instruction while actually expanding its own enrollment prospects.

Assuming the discussion thus far has convinced the reader that marketing online programs is of value, how then should higher ed marketers proceed? Said another way, how do we define quality in the context of online education?

Many of the indicators of a quality in-person education overlap with those of online:

• Clear learning objectives
• Engaging content
• Appropriate assessments
• Regular evaluation and improvement
• Access to instructor support
• Institutional support
• Post-graduation success/employment

However, some measures of quality are either unique to the remote environment or differ enough from in-person options to be meaningful. These are areas of opportunity to define and communicate a given institution’s superior “quality” of online offerings:

• Focus on the special needs of online students – Offering a superior online experience means focusing on the unique needs of remote learners, not just content. This requires understanding why students choose online learning, what they need to succeed, and how to facilitate their learning effectively. Proof of performance in this area can include demonstrating a robust feedback process and positive testimonials.
• Effective course design – This should naturally flow from understanding online learners’ needs and includes a logical structure, easy access to related and supporting resources, poly-synchronous options, meaningful assignments and assessments, and exposure to real-world workplace scenarios. Success measures such as graduation and employment rates can validate performance in this area.
• Optimizing use of technology – The virtual realm represents a largely blank slate in terms of creating new ways to learn, but nailing the basics – reliable access, intuitive controls, availability of technical support – should be the first priority. As long as the base requirements are consistently met and verified, then institutions can promote unique virtual offerings that distinguish them from their competitors.
• Meaningful interaction – Just as today’s students have largely shifted their social interactions to the digital environment – texting vs. talking, online chats vs. meeting in person, giving and gathering “likes” – so too must educational interaction find a home online. A marketable online offering should facilitate interaction between students and instructors, as well as among students, through various communication tools and collaborative activities. Measurable utilization of both course-related and non-instructional interactive resources, as well as student testimonials, validate a program’s commitment to collaborative learning.
• Measurable student success – It all boils down to what students get from their education, and while this is not appreciably different from the performance metrics of in-person courses, simply demonstrating comparable or better results for online students is the most subjective performance measure an institution can market. Graduation rates, hiring success, employer endorsements and the like all go a long way toward confirming the effectiveness of online programs. Pairing this with quantitative and qualitative analyses that support a positive student experience creates an opportunity to communicate quality on multiple levels.

Bottom line, an institution’s online offerings must be competitively positioned in much the same way as the institution itself: by identifying unique value propositions (UVP) that appeal to the target audience and differentiate one institution from others. The challenge is understanding and promoting the different priorities of prospective online students versus their more traditional on-campus counterparts.

Another key component of a successful – and marketable – online learning program is the availability and quality of student support systems for both academic and personal challenges. We will explore how institutions are or are not meeting the unique needs of post-pandemic, online learners in our next feature.