By Kathryn Jones, Director of Marketing and Communications, Birmingham City University  

The second sentence I found particularly amusing as it stated that "Higher Education is a successful public-private partnership: Government funding and institutional autonomy". Unless I'm missing something, the Government funding seems to be reducing and, the last time I checked, autonomy means ‘self-government’, which is hardly the case when our full-time undergraduate numbers are strictly monitored and there is a Government-imposed limit on what we can charge for our services. The partnership, I’d suggest, is an increasingly uneasy one.

The foreword goes on to tell universities that we will be under competitive pressure "to provide better quality and lower cost". How exactly – with a magic wand? Where else does low cost mean better quality?

The Paper itself starts with an admission that “Higher Education has a fundamental value in itself” (I wholeheartedly agree) and that “the challenge [universities] face is putting the undergraduate experience at the heart of the system”. Again, true, but excuse me, I would suggest that most universities have been focusing on putting the student experience at the heart of what we do for some time now because if we don’t, we won’t have any students. I’m also not convinced that restricting student numbers, cutting funding and limiting university income potential are the really best ways to do this.

It points out that “the current system of controls limits student choice because institutions are prevented from expanding in response to demand from applicants”. This has been one of my biggest frustrations: UCAS applications to Birmingham City University rose 63% in a period where our numbers were capped. The Paper talks about creating “a more dynamic sector in which popular institutions can grow”, which sounds fantastic until you take a look at the criteria for releasing places. The Government is going to allow unconstrained recruitment of roughly 65,000 high-achieving students scoring the equivalent of AAB or above – okay, so that keeps the Russell Group happy. It’s also going to create a flexible margin of about 20,000 places to reward universities and colleges “who combine good quality with value for money and whose average tuition charge (after fee waivers) is at or below £7,500 per year.” But what exactly constitutes good quality and value for money and how much influence will the price have on the decision to award extra places? What if, as a result, your university doesn’t meet the eventual criteria but remains one of the most popular? It doesn’t sound like the “level playing field” the Government is keen to foster.

Where I think the Government has it right in terms of creating real market forces is the focus on transparency when it comes to our performance. I do support the plans to “radically improve and expand the information available to prospective students”. Universities should be proud of what they have to offer and unafraid of the indicators that benchmark them. And, in a university where we are leading the way in student engagement (on the back of our THE ‘Outstanding support for Students’ win last year), it’s not surprising that I support the move towards greater student feedback and consultation. Our services should be market-driven.

I do fundamentally agree – though I might not like the personal implications for my family – of having a system where the beneficiaries make a larger contribution to their costs on a “pay as you earn” basis. What I’m less comfortable with are plans to charge a levy on those who want to pay off their loans early. Consultation on the Early Repayment is taking place now and, following all the negative publicity about the fee rises, it’s particularly important we get this right.  To make sure your voice is heard, visit www.bis.gov/HEreform.

On the whole, for me, the White Paper raises more questions than it answers and is somewhat self-contradictory. I do sympathize with the “enormous deficit” and resulting “spending pressures” the Government has inherited, but I am particularly anxious about plans to reduce the core allocation of student numbers at universities every year, particularly if the focus on additional numbers remains cost-driven and on an assumption that better quality equates to lower cost.

By Kathryn Jones, Director of Marketing and Communications, Birmingham City University

Today sees the launch of the second national annual campaign to demonstrate the benefits of universities within UK society – Universities Week: What’s the Big Idea? With such widespread negative publicity about universities, this is our beacon of hope as we face “a massive communications challenge across the sector” (to quote Money Saving Expert Martin Lewis at this morning’s launch at the  Liberal Club in London).

The campaign is centrally coordinated by Universities UK with input from a range of other groups, including the Universities Marketing Forum, of which I’m proud to be a member. In 2010, its inaugural year, it was supported by 110 institutions, including my own. If there are any universities who have not yet signed up to join the 2012 campaign, I’d question why not? This is our chance to shine – our justification for pushing out the stories, events and activities which highlight the real and measurable impact universities have on business, society, health and well-being.

A visit to the official website at www.universitiesweek.org.uk/  will reveal a wealth of testimonials from individuals who, let’s face it, have far more clout (in terms of popularity and personal appeal to the masses) than most university academics or marketers. It is great to see support from the likes of Sir Patrick Stewart, Sheila Hancock, Dame Kelly Holmes, Steve Cram, Lawrence Dallaglio, Greg Dyke and Natasha Kaplinsky.

For me, one of the quotes that best sums up the value of university education comes from Justin King, CEO of J Sainsbury PLC, who states: “A university education helps young people to develop the ability to think, analyse and develop sound judgment. The diversity of challenges facing big businesses today – the economic climate, technology, globalisation and the increasingly sophisticated needs of consumers – demand these skills.” Hear, hear!

The pressure facing UK universities and their future sustainability is immense. We’re in a hybrid situation where we are no longer anywhere near fully public funded and – with the exception of initiatives like the New College of Humanities announced earlier this month – we’re not fully privatised either. Our income from UK recruitment is still limited and regulated by the Government cap on student numbers and tuition fees, as well as our obligations to fair access. Our potential future income from international recruitment is another story, which increasingly looks like it won’t have a happy ending. For universities like Birmingham City in particular, whose core business is teaching with only limited niche research, our hands are tied.

There is now a genuine and growing concern that the number of students who will choose to go to university in future in the higher fee environment will reduce. If pricing research (albeit notoriously unreliable) is to be believed, that drop could be anywhere between 10 and 70%. If that happens, we’ll all lose out: businesses like Sainsbury’s, the British economy, British society  and the universities who will inevitably become unsustainable, despite Government reassurances to the contrary.

Why on earth are we putting in jeopardy the British system of Higher Education that has previously been the envy of the world? Putting the national debt aside, surely there needs to be some kind of rethink before it’s too late. What exactly is the big idea here?

Kathryn Jones, Director of Marketing and Communications, Birmingham City University

As Birmingham City University launches its ‘Upgrade your future’ campaign to demonstrate how we deliver a student experience that gives students the skills employer want and combat the negative publicity around rising costs of HE, it will only be a matter of time before we receive the inevitable question – how much did it cost?

Whenever a University dares to re-brand, develop its website or launch a marketing campaign, the spotlight is immediately and often publicly drawn to the thousands of pounds being spent on these endeavours. The general criticism is that universities are spending “tax payers’ money” – but is this accurate any more and is it justified?

Public funding to universities has been decreasing at phenomenal rates over the last decade and increasingly universities are having to source income from elsewhere – not only additional tuition fees from students themselves, but also third stream income and, in many cases, voluntary giving. Over the last three years, funding to the University through the Funding Councils has fallen by nearly 25 per cent and now represents less than a third of the University’s total income.

What about our motivations for advertising? Are we wasting money that should be diverted instead to enhance the teaching experience – implied in the criticisms we receive – or is this a fundamental part of any business.

It’s not an exaggeration to say that every business, organisation and charity promotes itself in some way. From the adverts in Yellow Pages and local newspapers placed by smaller businesses to multi-million pound global advertising of companies like Nike and Microsoft and the direct mail and television campaigns of charities like the NSPCC and Marie Curie, advertising is a means to an end. People don’t come knocking on your door (or website as is increasingly the call to action) unless you first tell them who you are, what you do and give them a reason to want to find out more. Universities are no different.

There are now hundreds of universities and colleges in the UK and if we genuinely want students and businesses to find the university that’s right for them and their individual needs, we have to give them the information they need to make that decision and first point them in the right direction. Advertising remains the quickest way to do this, though we are all looking at the new channels provided by social media and remain reliant on some of the traditional channels of media coverage, school liaison and word-of-mouth.

The Chartered Institute of Marketing’s 2010 Marketing Trends Survey found the average marketing spend as a percentage of turnover (excluding marketing salaries) for all UK organisations to be 7.29%. For public sector/charity it is 6.55%, compared with 7.79% for the financial services sector. Having worked at four universities, I can tell you that my budgets have never been anywhere near these levels – I generally benchmark at about 2%.

The reason I’ll make do with my 2% is that I believe investment in the teaching, research and business experience should quite rightfully be the priority for universities, but in order to ensure that the right people access these services, there has to be marketing spend as well. Why not let individual universities decide the balance of that spend and respect the professional decisions being made? In what can only be described as a very difficult financial climate, no university is going to be taking financial decisions lightly. So, please give us a break. Why not focus on the messages of our advertising – and the value in what we deliver as educational establishments – rather than the cost?

Tell us your views? Do you agree with Kathryn or do you feel universities should not spend money this way?

Kathryn Jones joined Birmingham City University as Director of Marketing and Communications in 2008, having worked in journalism, PR and marketing for 20 years, specialising in HE Marketing since 1998. She has worked previously at the universities of Nottingham, Wolverhampton and Northampton, winning an array of marketing and PR awards.