news & articles

A seriously depressing article appeared in the Sunday Times last weekend (22nd July) on how a number of British universities are resorting to desperation tactics in order to attract the brightest students. This in a year when the number of student applicants is down to its lowest level in a decade.

No names, no pack drill, but apparently such is the level of their desperation that some universities are offering huge cash bribes, (aka posher-sounding scholarships) free airline tickets, free gym memberships and even football tickets in an attempt to persuade anyone with decent grades to go firm with them. Worse, the number of unconditional offers being made now exceeds 10% of UCAS applications, despite the evidence now readily available that students with unconditional offers take their foot of the gas and enter university with grades significantly lower than predicted.

This is not marketing. It is sales promotion of the cheapest and most demeaning kind. And it won’t work. Any student who is predicted AAB+ is going to focus on getting into the best university they can. ‘Best’ measured by overall reputation and history not just their most recent ranking. Students know when they are being bribed to go to an institution with a weaker reputation. They are some of the savviest consumers on the planet and prone to using social media to show their peer group how successful, fulfilled and happy they are. They will not be deflected into choosing a weaker university brand when they know that their decision will live with them for the rest of their lives.

Instead of coming up with cheap promotional offers typical of car dealers’ forecourts – offers which scream desperation – universities should focus on building their reputations. Notice the word ‘reputation’ not ‘ranking’. With over 130 universities in the UK, only a few will ever achieve high ranking, and they are not all Russell Group. Yet examine the websites, the mission statements and the claims, and you could be mistaken for thinking that there were at least a hundred research-intensive universities in Britain. Who do they think they are kidding? Maybe themselves but certainly not prospective students.

Take the universities which are portraying themselves as generic premium brands, when the truth is that most of their students are looking for a great vocational launchpad. No wonder such institutions are seeing declining enrolments – one institution has declined by over 35% in the past five years. These institutions are not being true to themselves.

A professional market-led organisation would first make an honest appraisal of their student intake. Understand what they want from their university. Understand their mindset, their abilities, their ambitions. Where they want to be when they leave. Armed with this understanding, the university would then tailor its offer accordingly, not to the whims of its academics. Better to be a brilliant vocational university than a mediocre ‘academic’ university which produces a meagre amount of 2* research. To thine own self be true.

Strong brands are invariably built on values, not facts. Think VW. Red Bull. Netflix. ASOS. Since we use the word reputation’ rather than brand in HE, decide what your values are – make sure they are relevant to your students – and develop a programme portfolio and student experience which brings them alive. And deliver this consistently over a decade or three. Brands – and reputations – take time to build in higher education.

Strong brands don’t need desperation tactics to win customers. Strong brands are distinctive and self-confident. The confidence that comes from knowing your customers and knowing that they are really happy with you.

David Miller is a Consulting Fellow for Halpin.

Are teaching excellence awards and badges just for the feel-good factor, or are they vital information for students to hone their consumer persona and ‘wise choice’ skills?

As we approach another glittering award ceremony, it gives me cause to pause and think about what ‘excellence’ means.

There are now so many different indicators of ‘excellence’ that a whirlwind of quality badge confusion can easily whip up gusts of cynicism, rather than leave recipients basking in the faint glow of praise.

From the Teaching Excellence Framework (TEF), league tables and sponsored award ceremonies (almost now industries themselves?) to the myriad of ‘Which University?’, ‘What Uni?’, and ‘Complete University’ websites, there is no shortage of information out there proclaiming and celebrating different types of ‘excellence’.

But what does it mean to the student?

Supposedly now put ‘at the heart of the system’, Government policy has created a ranking system in TEF for students to make wise choices about where their large indebted tuition fees will be spent. I know TEF is in its infancy, and we should all be quaking in our boots at the prospect of its subject-level TEF sibling joining the excellence badge party, but I am long-in-the-tooth and cynical enough to believe that this will have as much impact on student consciousness as Unistats (that last great hope for the informed student consumer).

Indeed, a Hot Courses whisperer confided to me that analytics of their webpages suggested that some of those Gold-medalled institutions were seeing a decline in page visits, and some of the Bronze-medalled ‘shamed’ institutions were seeing an uplift.

I did a quick kitchen cabinet poll this week (there are nearly always enough young people hanging around my house to make this a valid sample), and asked what kinds of information the gathered assembly had taken into account when reviewing their post-18 options. Recommendation from a friend was number one, followed by location and course facilities.

When probed, all of them concentrated most of their time on looking at course-level information, and only looked at institutional-level information as a final action (not even giving it the status of a final sway factor). Not one of them had consulted a league table and I had to physically point to the award proclamations and medalled images in various university website banner heads for them to realise there were such things.

The recommendation of a friend, teacher or family member is as old as the hills in terms of university choice – but whereas 30 years ago that was still a fairly elite group, the massification of higher education means that there are a lot more views and opinions out there.

Anyone who has worked closely with their admisisions team on data analytics will have experienced school cluster oddities that stand out in recruitment patterns – and not because of neat feeder chains and outreach activity, or travel to study patterns. These are clusters that often rest on a former student who has now entered the teaching or careers profession, who has sent their alma mater a steady stream of students ever since.

I recall my own comp in the West Midlands having a steady stream of students hitting the bright lights of the East Midlands in the form of Derby College of Higher Education (as was Derby University back in the day) mainly because Jimmy’s brother’s girlfriend’s sister’s best friend had a cracking time hanging out at the Assembly Rooms, got a 2:1 to boot and a job in the M&S management stream.

Yet recommendations are probably still one of the most reliable indicators of ‘excellence’ or ‘quality’ in adjusted contextual terms, given the subjective nature of both concepts. Your friends know what will ring your bells. Indeed, Amazon has built a whole quality assurance model around customer recommendations.

So does that mean that the badges and award ceremonies are something that we should sneer at and dismiss?

Not necessarily. I’ve paid the submission fees, sweated over the application process and entered teams and pieces of project work myself that we have been extraordinarily proud of and there is no doubt that recognition – from within or outside the sector – does give the staff (and sometimes students) involved that warm glow and renewed motivation we all crave from time to time.

But more than that, Universities have a wider audience than students to appeal to. These external badges, accolades, league tables and honours of distinction can and do serve to assure those other stakeholders we work with that we are truly excellent, high quality, Gold-standard service providers.

Selena Bolingbroke is a Consulting Fellow for Halpin.

If you are Head of a state school you won’t have much time to read this so here are the 7 things you need to know about fundraising….

1. If Independent schools can do it, so can you They often focus fundraising on capital projects and scholarships and bursaries. They make the case that funds are needed to go above and beyond what fee income can provide –for amazing new facilities or to enable kids whose families can’t afford the fees to benefit from the education they offer. On average they raise £667k per year, 25 schools raise £1m+ a year.

So why can’t state schools similarly make such a case and make it with more urgency? We all know our state schools are chronically underfunded and are cutting the very things that are urgently needed – like special needs provision and pastoral care. We know that capital funding for new science labs etc. is harder to come by. We know that good state schools are vital to our communities and the economy. We also surely know, whether we like it or not, that state funding is not going to increase substantially any time soon. The Institute for Fiscal Studies predicted an eight percent real-terms cut in school budgets by 2020. Some state schools are developing their fundraising, particularly state grammar schools who are raising on average £212k per year.

2. You will never sell enough cakes Whilst having a PTA or ‘Friends Of’ group who organise cake sales and quizzes may be great way to reach out to parents, encourage involvement and build bridges with the local community, this kind of fundraising won’t deliver transformational changes to the school. At best it will provide lots of things that you would love but can’t afford – bits of kit and help with school trips. I don’t mean to downplay the significant role that PTA fundraising plays in the life of a school; some raise thousands and create a buzzing atmosphere of family involvement. But with budgets as tight as they are for state schools this type of fundraising isn’t going to get the tough stuff done…

3. It’s not all about parents Independent schools raise significant sums from their alumni. Their pupils also benefit from their alumni in other ways – careers advice, work placements, mentoring, inspiration…. You will have alumni who have gone on to do fascinating things, have impact and make money. By building an alumni network you can not only raise funds but also boost your school’s results across the board and unleash an army of powerful, supportive advocates – we all need that in these challenging times. Check out Future First. Their mission is to “see every state school and college in the UK supported by a thriving and engaged alumni community.”

And beyond your alumni community there will be local individuals, trusts and companies who will want to see their local school thrive and who will be willing, and able, to provide funds.

4. It requires professionalism Most independent secondary schools have paid fundraisers working to raise money from parents and alumni, and there is an emerging trend in state schools to do likewise. Most Universities also went through this journey 20 years ago, and much of their experience is relevant to the situation schools find themselves in.

Like anything else in your school, professionalism pays and without dedicated staff it’s hard to move beyond the realms of PTA fundraising. Whether you hire a fundraiser or outsource it to a fundraising consultancy – both routes have their pros and cons – the reality is you need to invest to get good returns.

You will also have to be clear about who is fundraising and how you claim gift aid – you might wish to direct donations through a charity/foundation which is connected to the school or through the PTA which is a registered charity. Good governance, professional handling of gifts and appropriate stewardship all require a professional approach. There’s lots of good advice out there on how to do this the right way - see ‘State schools look to fundraisers and donors to fill budget gaps’ in the Financial Times April 14 2017. Don’t be put off though, it’s not that hard to get it right and you probably have someone in your school team who has the skills to put the right processes in place.

5. It takes time To build a strong fundraising programme takes time. You won’t see the returns on your balance sheets in the first year, and maybe not until year 3 or 4. But all the research shows that there is a clear correlation between the age of a ‘Development office’ and increased philanthropic income.

In reality with budgets under such tight pressure this might be the hardest aspect of all. How can a state school find funds to invest in fundraising when headteachers have almost no headroom to invest in anything new? This is where I would suggest that you make the case to your governing body and consider how you could creatively address this. Indeed, you might find a supporter willing to help you set up fundraising or persuade the PTA to focus their energies on raising money to invest in a fundraising office. The key is developing a clear plan for fundraising with the RoI mapped out over a 3-5 year period. If you never get started it will never happen.

This time horizon might be longer than you see yourself being the head of your school for, but don’t let that stop you. Imagine the satisfaction of knowing you created a lasting legacy for your school (indeed it might lead to the school receiving legacy gifts!). I got immense delight to see that an organisation I worked with nearly 5 years ago has just received a transformational £10m gift from a relationship that I helped to build 10 years ago. The journey has to start somewhere.

6. ‘Everyone’ won’t give £1 or £10 (and it damages relationships if you ask in that way) “If every family gave £x a month we’d raise £y”. We hear this approach often from those who haven’t undertaken fundraising on a large scale. The fact is every family won’t give. Some simply can’t afford to, and even if they can some will feel, perhaps on principle, that they don’t want to. And that’s ok – giving is a voluntary act. Indeed, in my opinion it can be damaging to the sense of community to expect everyone to give or suggest that everyone should. It puts people in a position where they feel they have to say no – or want to say no but feel guilty. Guilt is never a good way to get people giving in a sustainable and satisfying way.

A realistic target in terms of % of families who will give might be lower than you imagine. Whilst 61% of people in the UK give to charity in some way each year, most of this is ad hoc cash donations in response to things like Children in Need or a friend running a marathon. Far fewer people give monthly donations in a focused way to causes they have proactively chosen – 25% report giving in this way.

But the good news is that amongst those who give there will be some who are able and will want to give larger sums – after all everyones circumstances are different. One size doesn’t fit all and the key is to develop a gift table like this one used by a school whose aim was to raise £50,000 a year from parents.

7. It will need you As the leader of the school, you will need to give time to fundraising. You will need to ‘sell’ your vision, talk about your plans, and be comfortable talking about money. Successful fundraising schools report that their heads give 10% or more of their time to fundraising. If you are going to do it then you will have to make time. This is hard, really hard. You might also need coaching and support from experienced fundraisers, who can give you confidence. What I can promise is that winning support for your school and the kids in it can be one of the most rewarding things a head can do.

That’s it for starters….there’s more…of course. Halpin Partnership is here to help and there is support available through The Institute for Development Professionals in Education and the Council for Advancement and Support of Education.

Follow Susie Hills and Halpin Partnership on LinkedIn for more.

http://www.pta.co.uk/funding/faqs-gift-aid.aspx

[4]IDPESchools’ Alumni Relations and Fundraising Benchmarking Survey 2016

https://idpe.org.uk/uk/idpe/uploads/files/IDPE%20School%20Alumni%20Survey%202016(1).pdf

When I began my career in fundraising, the accepted mantra was that people would not give significant gifts to support salaries for professional staff. They would give to buildings, they would give to research programmes, they would support a professorship, but they would not be interested in the salaries of support staff. Still less would they invest in supporting the salary of a fundraiser.

The joyful thing about fundraising, as in so many other walks of life, is that accepted wisdom becomes wrong over time. Technology changes things, there are generational shifts in attitudes. As consultants, we work with many more organisations and donors who take a very long view of the impact excellent fundraising can have.

And some of them are becoming interested in funding the fundraisers. This is particularly true for those who come from a Private Equity background, where they are used to investing in capacity in order to get a better long-term outcome.

We worked with a donor in the Arts & Culture sector who not only invested in the salaries of the fundraising team, they also invested in us as consultants so that the team could hit the ground running. And of course, I am bound to say that is particularly enlightened!

Donors who want to fund the fundraisers are usually highly entrepreneurial; interested in ROI and impact; ready to be convinced by an excellent plan with measurable goals and clear stages. Sadly, they are also usually less interested in publicity, possibly for obvious reasons.

Of course, there is another way to make this happen too – by introducing a gift ‘tax’ – whereby donors pay a percentage of their gift to support the fundraising office. This happens in the USA, although certainly not everywhere and the amount of this ‘tax’ varies considerably[1].

This effectively happens in the charity sector as a matter of course, where the cost of administration (i.e. raising the gift) must come out of gifts. Gifts are, after all, the main source of income for most charities. That is easier when you rely on mass fundraising.

But if you are trying to increase your major gift work, might this gift ‘tax’ be a barrier? Universities have been working in major gifts very successfully for some time. One of the key arguments they use against introducing this idea is that, at present, major donors can be reassured that 100% of their gift will go to the project they are interested in.

Paying such a percentage could be voluntary, but that isn’t a reliable plan for the future.

I think that, as fundraisers, we need to start having more sophisticated conversations with donors on how to fund fundraising. This probably needs to start with the right type of donor, who could be excited by the idea of pump-priming a team that could then go on to raise much more money.

So how do you find such donors? Firstly, I can assure you that they are out there. The only way to find out if your donors might be interested in doing this is to ask them (at the heart of all good fundraising is excellent relationships, where honest conversations can be had).

By encouraging and educating donors to challenge the ‘accepted wisdom’ of how fundraising has traditionally been funded, a tremendous opportunity for change – and a new way of thinking – presents itself. And that is something we should all be excited by.

[1] See Strategic Fundraising, Universities UK, p 13

Shaun Horan