A very interesting study was released by Noel-Levitz that shed light on what high school students are looking for when shopping online for a college or university. It is definitely a must EDU marketers to take a look at.

One thing to note is that 89% these high school students were looking for information on a state college or university and only 4.5% were looking for an online school. I am not sure if the expectations are much different when searching for these two types of schools, but it is notable. Another notable fact prior to reading the results of their survey is that many of the online schools these days simply don’t market to this demographic and typically are focused on prospects older then 25 years old. With that said however, I think there are some very valuable pieces of information in the study that will result, regardless of the users age.

The data from this report supports the assumptions that prospects want to see the list of programs at the school and want to know how much it costs. A steep drop off from those two facts are the program details and financial aid. It would seem that prospects first simply want to see if your school offers the programs they are interested in and if they can afford it. I would speculate that an older demographic would find financial aid information more important then soon-to-be high school graduates.

The one surprising tidbit, amongst a number of others, was that these high school students learned most popular way to learn about schools was via mail. 89% claimed to learn about schools via mail versus 65% who learned about a school via an online search. I am not sure if that is because their parents are handing over all the mail they receive or what, because I know I hardly looked through the mail for letters or advertisements from a school. Regardless, there is clearly some real value to a proper mail campaign.

As I just mentioned there are a number of great pieces of information in the study, so please take a look at here and let me know what you found interesting.

.

.

.

__________________________________________________________________________________

_______________________________________________________________________________________________

A few weeks ago we discussed what I believed to be a valid lead. Take a reread of the rant at the link you just passed by to catch yourself up on the topic.

I want to revisit this topic because some lead sellers are taking advantage of very small loophole, the email address. Lets get something clear. Lead Buyers expect a valid lead to be one that can be contacted by phone. In most cases they expect a person to actually pick up the phone and not simply ring and ring and ring and ring, leading to no answer and no voicemail. I have been involved with working leads for about 6 years now and never once would expect to only rely on the email address to contact a prospect. Aside from how important email is to nurturing and following up with a lead it is hardly a sufficient means for an initial contact and in many cases a follow up. In fact, I would put money down that if a lead has an invalid phone number it has almost has no chance of being contacted, much less converted, through email.

So why is that some lead sellers think they can charge for leads with an invalid phone number but a “valid email”?

Yes, I believe a valid email is someone that filled out the form and was able to be spoken too, but no I don’t believe a valid lead is one the only includes a valid email address. Simply typing in a random email or making up an email like “john@hotmail.com” will result in a positive email address. Does this mean it is a valid lead? Hardly.

So to those vendors out their trying to force buyers to pay for leads that have a “valid” emails, your simply ripping off your buyers, plain and simple.

Please correct me if you are having success with leads that have an invalid phone number and a valid email address. Maybe my experience is only relegated to only me.

.

.

.

__________________________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________

There is a lot of talk about educating the consumer and providing the proper content so that they can make informed decisions. In the finance space this content is completely missing from the lead generation process. In the EDU space there is content overload.

The finance space provides very little information about the companies the consumer is being matched with until after the consumer has committed to receiving phone calls from unknown companies. There are a few companies that are changing that process as we speak, but I can continue to make that general statement until it becomes the norm. What the finance space does do well is cap the amount of companies that will contact the consumer. While we all know there are companies that sell their leads more then they claim, we can assume that most legitimate companies are being ethical and responsible with their distribution model.

On the other hand you have the EDU space that provides a ton of content and allows the consumer to choose what schools they would like to receive information from. This is a nice idea and I think is the right thing to do. I believe the problem is when companies allow consumers to choose as many schools as they want. I have talked about this in a past article called the “The Branded Lie” , but what is possibly allowed to happen will tarnish even the best traffic.

For the long time LeadCritic readers you may remember me talking about selling leads multiple times and when the degradation of quality comes into play. I have always said that exclusive leads are never worth the additional cost. And long time lead buyers will be the first to tell you that NO lead is exclusive. It is simply not in our nature to make one choice when shopping for a product service. We always compare at least 2 options before we make a decision. Consumers looking for a mortgage quote or a University to continue their education at are going to do the same. The question is whether or not you can control the shopping process and do it properly and therefore providing the consumer with the right amount of choices that will satisfy their search, but not reduce the quality of the lead being sold. I believe that there is a specific number.

What do you think?

.

.

.

_____________________________________________________________________________________

_______________________________________________________________________________________________

Lets get the record straight.

Not everyone can be successful generating leads. As a matter of factual data, most are not successful at generating their own leads at a reasonable cost. Sure anyone can generate leads at a cost. Normally, however, its at a cost that is not sustainable or that is significantly more expensive then simply buying the leads from a lead gen company. I want to be clear though, it IS completely possible to generate your own leads and even do it well.

Now, obviously different marketing channels result in different marketing costs. Email is typically less expensive, but in most cases requires the ability to handle a large amount of leads from large geo target. Paid Search is the easiest to get up and running, but can be very costly. Display is a channel that can very very costly and requires high level of expertise to make work, especially for lead generation. So, why is it that lead generation companies are able to make it work? Because they have the expertise, scale, coverage and possibly multiple sales. It is really that simply.

Why am I bringing up these simple facts? Well, as soon as I feel like people are understanding lead generation and the value of lead companies I hear some random things that get me thinking it is not the case. After making that statement, I must tell people that while I am definitely on the sell side of the equation I spent a few years on the buy side of the equation too and understand the challenges all buyers go through. In fact, this blog grew out of the pains and frustrations of buying 100′s of leads per day in the mortgage industry.

The other day I came across an interesting discussion on the topic of lead gen and transparency. Yes, I know, “a well beaten horse” and frankly I am now in agreement with that statement.   It was a podcast put on by a couple of guys at the .eduMarketer Linkedin group and can be listened too here. There a few statements that raised my blood pressure a bit, but lets just discuss one.

The two hosts get on the topic of lead distribution and price at about the 10 minute mark. The topic of lead companies overselling leads has always been an issue and will continue to be as long as there are extremely low barriers of entry AND the cost of marketing is so high. In the example he says it may cost a generator $10 to create the lead. I have only had experience in one vertical where it cost $10 to generate a lead and  the EDU is definitely it. So, lets get that facts straight. It cost much more then $10 to create a quality EDU lead in today’s market. If that were the case, price points would be much less and companies would be generating their own leads.

With regards to multiple sales: There is no other vertical, other then EDU, that leads the consumer down a path that continues to urge the consumer to choose more and more options. I have tested just about every EDU lead form out there and most companies cross the line, in my opinion. My guess is they do this because it is extremely expensive to generate the majority of the leads they sell. I believe there should be a line drawn. Based on my experience I think the optimal amount of choices given to a consumer is 3. No more, no less. Any more they will become overwhelmed with the amount responses, even if the consumer willfully chooses too many options. Any less, they will continue to shop around because their needs were not satisfied with the few results. As a buyer, don’t fool yourself that exclusive leads are the best, they simply are not. First, no lead is ever exclusive and regardless of how much branded content you have on display, the consumer will likely continue to shop around. This doesn’t mean you get to bypass the placement of your content, it just simply means you shouldn’t assume that excessive content is going to result in quality leads.

So, this post is more a rant, then anything. Go figure, nothing new here. But I wanted to get it straight, of course in my opinion, it is challenging to generate leads that is why most companies outsource, most leads cost significantly more then $10 to generate, and there is a point where consumers can be overload with the wrong content just for the sake of showing them content.

Rant done.

.

.

.

_____________________________________________________________________________________

_______________________________________________________________________________________________

There are some interesting things shaping up in the booming for-profit edu space. If you are a regular reader of this blog you will know this is not the first time I have said the EDU space is facing troubled times. Even though this may be the case it doesn’t necessarily mean it doesn’t make sense for lead gen companies to continue their pursuits of market share. It does mean you should be diversified in the space and probably should be looking at partnering with traditional schools as well as for-profit establishments. Okay, aside from my opinions, I came across a great article by Anne Ryman at AZCentral.com that did a great job of encapsulating a number of the issues that the EDU space faces. If you want a quick read on what is going on with the space regarding student loan default rates, possible new marketing regulations and the high costs, the article is a must read.

The traditional schools should be looking at the online space and quickly figuring out how they can take away market share from these schools. It is quite possible for state schools to offer online classes and service more students at lower cost. It won’t be long until enter the market and begin building downward pressure on the enrollment costs of the higher priced for-profit schools.

Here is the article

Defaults on student loans rising

.

.

.

_____________________________________________________________________________________

_______________________________________________________________________________________________

The fellas at Sparkroom sponsored a benchmarking survey put together by forprofitedu.com, which I believe is run by the founder of CUNet, which just acquired Sparkroom. The report surveyed 102 marketing professionals in the for-profit EDU sector and asked a number general questions that reaffirmed the evident speculations most industry insiders have been making.

The survey found that almost 70% of the respondents plan on increasing their budgets. Not all too surprising being that EDU industry could easily be considered counter cyclical to the economy. People are looking to go about to school to increase their chances of earning more income in today job market. Once the economy begins to improve, not instantaneously, but soon after those same people will remove themselves from the continuing education market. It is also my speculation that many will begin to drop out or end their schooling prior to completing their degrees because of their secure job situations. They simply will not have the need and will find something better to do with their $1k+ per month. Regardless of this speculation, schools are doubling down on the current boom. No brainer there, but they should be cautious and have a close eye on key market indicators. On the same token, and I think I mentioned this before, but if Obama’s efforts continue on to completion and provide funding for citizens looking to go back to school through the state school system, which is making the same strides of bringing classes online, could bring a market turn quicker then expected. So it makes sense that schools are looking to spend more money on leads. They are currently raking in money hand over fist.

The survey also noted that schools using third party call centers were able to achieve the shortest lead to contact times compared to those schools not using call centers. You can also also assume that the schools using call centers are also seeing a higher conversion rate then their counterparts. Speed to contact time is the most important factor to successful lead management, in my opinion.

The survey also pointed out that most respondents from larger schools used in-house lead management systems. I am not too sure if “in-house” means proprietary systems or 3rd party software that is simply not provided by their agency. The underlying  issue here is that most of the LMS’s that schools use are horrible, especially proprietary systems. They are so strongly ingrained into the schools processes they becomes extremely difficult to break away from.

Surprisingly, 35% of the respondents, about 36 people, claimed that social media is an effective source of leads. I think that is surprisingly high and my guess these respondents were being a little optimistic about their current social media efforts. Do I think Social Media can be effective? YES, but in general I would have thought a far lower percentage would have agreed with me, let alone realized actual results. Frankly, I think a larger sample would have been more inline with my speculation.

With most schools spending a large percentage of their revenue on marketing, especially online lead generation, it makes sense that almost 90% believe their most significant concern is lead quality. Not knowing the choice of answers that were given for this question it would be nice if they were also concerned about the lead management process, something they have the most control over, rather then just lead quality.

You can check out the more specific finding of the survey here and form your own conclusions. Maybe if we are lucky they will reveal more data from the survey. I would like to thanks to both forprofitedu and Sparkroom for putting the survey together. It is always great to see numbers that back up all the industry speculation. I am sure the next survey will be even better and provide more data.

.

.

.

_____________________________________________________________________________________

_______________________________________________________________________________________________