23. Personnel, organization and finance for marketing

Producing a strategy requires management decisions on the deployment of people and resources. Cowell, (1984) has identified four features of a service sector organization that has developed a marketing orientation- the presence of an 'attitude of mind' that places the client at the centre of the organization's philosophy; the use of an array of techniques to analyze the market; the use of a range of promotional methods tailored to the market; and the existence of an organizational and operational structure that manages the marketing process. Two key components of this latter dimension are: 1) the structure of the marketing organization and: 2) the budget allocation method used to support marketing.

Gray (1991) has suggested that the marketing organization found in most schools focuses on roles and activities that existed prior to marketisation with the lead role falling to the headteacher. More recently, Foskett (1995) has identified four models of marketing organization within schools:

1)       The chief executive model, in which the headteacher takes decisions, provides the drive and the ideas and defines the modus operandi of marketing.

2)       The SMT model, in which the senior management team is the focus of decision-making, but with no individual taking responsibility for the whole marketing function.

3)       The marketing manager model, in which responsibility is delegated to a senior member of staff, usually a deputy headteacher, but sometimes to a middle manager in the school.

4)       The advisory committee model, in which the development of policy and practice is delegated to a working group that is broader than the SMT in constitution.

These organizational types are not discrete, and combined models often exist. However, the dominance of the first three structures in secondary schools, and of the chief executive model in primary schools, is clear, indicating that consultation and collaboration outside senior management in relation to marketing is not well developed. Marketing appears to be seen in schools as something that senior managers do.

In FE the rapid response of colleges has led to a wide range of organizational structures, resulting from what Smith et al. (1995) identify as two key tensions:

1)       'Advanced' marketing-focused superstructures at the corporate centre versus 'primitive' PR-orientated substructures at faculty, school and departmental level.

2)       An administrative approach to promotion, 'most prominently displayed by the established… sixth form college' (ibid., p. 110) versus a more competitive market-orientated approach.

It is clear that contrasts in individual institutions' markets drive different organizational solutions. In highly competitive contiguous markets, Pieda (1996) and Foskett and Hesketh (1996; 1997) both emphasize the relative success of structures where lead responsibility lies with a member of the SMT (usually a vice-principal), either with or without a senior marketing manager. For such organizations 'the implicit model is that of the commercial world' (Smith et al., 1995, p. 110). In less competitive parallel markets, a model of devolved marketing can be successful. Such a model is 'more limited … in reach and language. Its aim is to sustain historic advantage… its focus is on maintaining, and enhancing, reputation and esteem' (ibid.).The role of finance in linking marketing and strategy has traditionally been underplayed in the literature. Davies and Scribbins (1985) identified a number of approaches to funding marketing in FE, while Gray (1991) has emphasized the importance of marketing plans being fully costed. In the context of both schools and colleges, Foskett (1995) has identified five approaches to marketing budgeting:

1)       Remainder budgeting. Budget a fixed amount in the annual institutional budget, and then allocate this to marketing tasks on an ad hoc basis. The total budget is dictated by the demands of other budgetary areas, and is historically based.

2)       Opportunity budgeting. Allocate the funding on an ad hoc basis throughout the year without identifying a global sum in the budget, drawing funds from other budget headings.

3)       Planned budgeting. Budget a fixed sum linked to the prioritized needs of the institutional plan, or marketing plan.

4)       Competition budgeting. Allocate a budget determined by recognition of what competitor institutions appear to be spending.

5)       Per capita budgeting. Allocate a budget proportional to pupil/student numbers.

In the context of schools, the dominant approach is that of remainder budgeting, reflecting the comparatively low priority still accorded to marketing, although the growth of planned budgeting can be strongly identified (Foskett, 1995). In FE institutions, planned budgeting can is more commonly identified, with competition budgeting occurring in some colleges in the most active and aggressive markets. As with organizational structure, the choice of methodology is dependent on a range of factors unique to each school or college's internal and external environment. Just as the budgetary methodology varies, so the budget allocation itself varies. In 'for-profit' organizations the marketing budget typically lies in the range of 5-25 per cent of turnover, but values of 1-5 per cent are more typical of FE colleges and sums of less than 1 per sent are the norm for most schools. However, this reflects direct marketing budgests, and it may be contended that in an organization that is truly market orientated almost all the budget is marketing related.Linking strategy with marketing has became an important part of institutional planning for educational organizations, with a two-way link, in that marketing informs strategy and the resulting strategy in turn drives marketing and promotional practice. This process is explicit in some schools and colleges, but is implicit and undertaken without specific reference to the term marketing in others. The school and college system is characterized by great diversity in marketing practice and organization. The conclusions about marketing in FE by Smith et al. (1995, p.110) apply equally to schools:

Marketing is on the march, (but)… institutions are at different stages of development in marketing terms, marketing philosophies are often poorly articulated, marketing functions have yet to be adequately defined and the organization of marketing remains inchoate (and occasionally illogical).However, Smith et al. (1995) and Foskett and Hesketh (1997) warn against assumptions that there is a simple model of marketing organization, and emphasize the tight linkage between an institution's precise micro market conditions and its response. In particular, Smith et al. (1995) stresses three key ideas:

1)       Horses for courses. The structure and approach to marketing must build from the existing culture initially and has to 'go with the grain rather than against it'.

2)       Fitness for purpose. Institutions must develop an approach that is appropriate to their circumstances, and must not be driven by the bandwagon of marketing. What is appropriate for a small primary school is not appropriate for a large secondary or an FE college, and vice versa. Equally, this is not an excuse for lack of response.

3)       Marketing is not a political tool. Marketing is not a tool for driving through changes emanating from other organizational aims.

Recent attempts to identify 'good practice' in marketing in FE (Smith et al., 1995; Pieda, 1996; FEFC/NAO, 1997) have struggled to draw out broad principals without recourse to a narrow commercial model of marketing. While this is appropriate to some both in the school and FE sector, for many schools and for some colleges an approach based more firmly un the concepts of 'relationship marketing' may be more helpful. Since most educational institutions are small primary schools, the integration of a 'marketing orientation' will come with the recognition that sophisticated marketing research, large promotional programme

 and gimmicky marketing are unhelpful and unnecessary, and that well managed external relations building confidence in the community about the quality of the school and about the sophistication of relationships with pupils and parents are the essence of effective marketing