For the purpose of this entry, "marketing" is the activity aimed at creating and maintaining the organization's image and position, so customers will tend to get their products or services from the organization instead of from competitors. There are other useful aspects of marketing, such as adapting the organization to the needs of the customers, but we will deal with those aspects separately. Indulging in marketing is often conceived of as selfish. And it is in a way. For that reason, most people who work in the field of education see marketing as incompatible with their work. Education is not a commodity to be marketed and sold. True. However:
Every school has an image in the public. This image is influenced by messages and signals that find their way out of the school, either with or without explicit action by the school. The question is whether the school should consciously influence these messages and image. The word consciously is key here, because the school does of course influence these messages: By choosing the name of the school; by talking to individual parents; by talking to the PTA; by choosing the subject for the school play; by talking with the pupils, etc. The school’s image is influenced by the type of neighborhood in which It is located. Whether we like it or not, the school’s image is determined to a large extent by the mix of ethnicity and socioeconomic backgrounds represented by the pupils. Certainly the image is also affected by rumors - whether true or false - about problems in the teachers’ lounge, in the schoolyard, etc. Messages and signals that determine the school’s image don’t just leak, they spew all over the place. And they matter. In this case, it would be better to work on these messages consciously, and not allow chance and ill will determine the fate of the school.
None of this is new. In reality, principals are very aware that their choices convey messages that determine the image of the school. They usually choose their words carefully when talking to parents. They have a certain message in their mind - to the pupils and to the community - when they select a subject for the school-play. Except they usually don't call it "marketing." And maybe they are right. In business and politics, the activity of managing the organization's image and position is referred to as marketing or public-relations. We may use these terms, or select another term that may be a better match for education - both because of the way we want to see education as different than all these self-interest-ridden fields, and because of the real differences. By the way, being careful of the words being used instead of "marketing" to create and maintain the right image, definitely counts as a marketing concern.
A few words about these self-interest-ridden fields. In business, the goal of the organization, and therefore the goal of marketing is quite clear: To promote the business interests of the organization. Sometimes, there is a secondary goal of promoting the well-being of the employees, with the understanding that in the long term it will affect the business interest of the organization. This is indeed different than the goals of a school, which has a primary obligation to the pupils, the parents and to society. Note that very often businesses and politicians tell us how much they care for us, but the reader wouldn't be shocked at a claim that it’s just lip-service on the way to take care of their own interests. This must be different with schools, which are tools used by society to groom the pupils to be future members of the society.
This special relationship with the concept of “marketing” is not unique to schools or even education in general. It is also the case for any organization with strong non-business interests - an interest in society in general, or in a certain social agenda. Amnesty International needs to create a certain image in order to be effective. Médecins Sans Frontières, ICRC, etc - all encounter similar questions about how to market themselves, so they can perform their function within society and for society. The issue may be relevant to many volunteer-based organizations. Can’t be totally selfless, but shouldn't be very selfish.
Part of the issue around marketing is the question “Who is US, who is CUSTOMER, and who is COMPETITOR?” (We can leave out the less important question of “what is PRODUCT?”) In a business, “US” is the organization, with some statements about how “our employees are our most important asset,” and about our “partnership with our customers.” In a business, CUSTOMER is usually whoever signs the check. COMPETITOR of a business is whatever other business which is in a position to convince CUSTOMER to sign a check with the wrong payee name on it - COMPETITOR instead of US.
Who is US in education? In a social organization such as a school, the term is less clear: Does US refer to the ministry of education? To the principal? Do the teachers and other school staff count? The pupils? Parents? Society? If we suspend our cynicism for a while, one possible answer is YES. We are working together towards a common goal. It’s a partnership, where every partner can contribute to or damage the effort. Every partner has to continuously show that they are worthy contributors. Every partner should also make sure others know what this partner can contribute to them, so the other can benefit. These are the goals of marketing in this context.
What about the definition of education CUSTOMER? Nobody in particular. Everybody. Broadly speaking, without getting into the bedeviled details, each partner needs the cooperation of the other partners. For example: The teachers need the school organization; the school needs the pupils, so it needs the parents to send them to the school; the parents need the teachers to teach the pupils; society needs the graduated pupils, etc. It is a good idea for partners to treat each other a bit like customers - make them happy, but not at any cost.
And who is education COMPETITOR? In a way, schools are competitors to each other, competing over the pupils. In a way, pupils are competitors to each other, competing over positions in a good school and later - positions in society. But since they are also part of the same US, it would be good if they compete nicely. The term “coopetition” may give a way of thinking about it.
In this context, instead of using US, CUSTOMER, COMPETITOR etc., the term STAKEHOLDER gains usefulness. We are all stakeholders in the education system. School may be seen as an organization of stakeholders, with a common goal. Schools exist in an environment where other such organizations exist, looking for partners in the same pool of partners, using and generating resources in the same pool of resources, and largely sharing the same goal.
Maybe the word "marketing" can't cover social organizations in general, and education in particular. Here's a first whack at it: How about "Societing?"
No comments:
Post a Comment