International marketing of British education

8/7/2019 International marketing of British education

1/17

International marketing of British education: research on the students perceptionand the UK market penetration

The Authors

A. Binsardi, Wrexham Business School North East Wales Institute of Higher Education, Wrexham, UK

F. Ekwulugo, Westminster Business School, University of Westminster, London, UK

Acknowledgements

The authors would like to thank Yasuhiro Noguchi for the research assistance. The usual disclaimer applies.

Abstract

The study functions as marketing intelligence inputs for the UK Government, the British Council as well asacademic marketing planners for constructing their marketing opportunities-threats audits, it investigatesinternational students perception about the UK education and it researches UK performance in the world

markets for international education. UK education has been known to be the best in the world. For many years,the UK universities have enjoyed a high reputation and have benefited in accelerating its market penetration

worldwide. Unfortunately, this superiority has begun to decline. Other countries are strongly emerging with theirquality education. The study shows that UK competitors achieved a remarkable growth of their internationalstudents enrolment while the UK achieves only a marginal growth with declining market penetration abroad.The findings confirmed the central importance of pricing, product and promotional variables in designing and

marketing UK education abroad.

Article Type:

Research paper

Keyword(s):

Marketing intelligence; Higher education; Consumer behaviour; United Kingdom; Students; Internationalmarketing.

Journal:

Marketing Intelligence & Planning

Volume:

21

Number:

5

Year:

2003

pp:


2/17

318-327

Copyright

MCB UP Ltd

ISSN:

0263-4503

1. Introduction

The UK is the second leading exporter of international education behind the USA. In 1999, 219,285international students were enrolled in UK universities and colleges, then increasing up to 224,660 students inthe year 2000. Australia is the third exporter of international education with 162,865 foreign students in 1999and 188,277 in 2000, while the USA is the market leader in the markets for international education. In 1999,there were 490,933 international students learning in the USA, increasing considerably to 547,867 foreign

students in the year 2000 (Figure 1).

Recently, the UK Government sponsored initiatives to attract more international students. These initiativesidentified several aims, such as achieving a higher education market share of 25 percent by 2005 or 50,000additional foreign students and being the worlds leading nation for international education. The Government

has also provided 3 million in 1998 for scholarship schemes in order to attract more international students[1].In 1999, Tony Blair announced an initiative to attract more foreign students by injecting an additional 5 million

to strengthen the UK marketing campaign and penetration in the world markets of international education.Since then, the British Council (BC) has made international education promotion as the main priority and has

increased grants throughout its network (British Council, 2002).

Our research (Figure 2) indicates however that the UK is lagging behind that of its rival competitors such as theUSA and Australia. In the year 2000, Australia achieved the highest growth of 15 percent, followed by the USA

with 12 percent, while the UK achieved only 2 percent growth[2] of its international students enrolment. TheUSA and Australia have been attracting more international students than the UK. This continuing strong growth

in overseas student numbers in the USA and Australia is due to the sustained pro-active and aggressivemarketing strategies of the USA and Australia in the international markets for education (Smith 2001; IDP 2002;

Mazzarol and Hosie, 1996; Michael, 1990) while the UK is behind in terms of its strategic marketing policies.The UK is facing rigorous changes in their macro-marketing environment; for example, through a decrease in

demand for traditional international education and an increase in the global challenges from its rivals from othercountries such as: the USA (among others, Stanford University, MIT, UCLA, Harvard Business School, etc.),Australia (University of Melbourne, University of Sydney, Australian National University, etc.), Japan (KyotoUniversity, Waseda University, Christian University, etc.) and other European Countries (Insead, Groningen

University, University of Amsterdam, Catholic University of Belgium, etc.).

The UK Government, the BC and the UK universities nowadays face fiercer competition in the world markets ofinternational education. It is imperative that the UK should equip themselves with the necessary marketing

intelligence and information that would enable the country to face the challenges. This is the main theme of thestudy. By examining international student perceptions and the trend of the UK market penetration, the study

functions as an input for academic marketing planners and the Government for formulating their strategicmarketing policies.

2. Literature analysis

A centrally important principle of marketing is that all marketing activities should be geared towards what thecustomers want. It implies a focus towards the customer or end consumer of the product or service. If customer

requirements are not satisfactorily fulfilled, or if customers do not obtain what they want and need, thenmarketing has failed both the customer and the organisation. In his Marketing Myopia, Levitt (1968) argued

against the product centred view adopted by firms while he instead supported a marketing-centred view,


3/17

suggesting that businesses must be viewed as customer satisfying processes. This view was alsoacknowledged by Kinnell (1985).

Marketing concept is a corporate orientation to business that starts with consumers and integrates marketinginto every other corporate function. The traditional view of marketing orientation is that the keys to achieving

organisational goals reside in determining the needs and wants of customers (Kotler and Anderson, 1987).In the past, the universities have determined what students want. Recently, however, the customers are beingmore vocal, thus indicating their dissatisfaction with the provision of the education sector. Market orientation ispresented as a convergence of marketing and strategic management thinking. Education establishments arecurrently converging marketing with their strategic management thinking. Most market orientation literature

focuses primarily on external stakeholders such as customers and competitors. In education, the nature of theproduct varies, and there has been a debate as to whether students are the real products. Kotler and Fox

(1985) argue that students are raw materials, graduates the product, and prospective employers the customer.Kotler and Fox (1985) have put forward a different view of marketing in education by bringing in the stakeholderconcept. This concept emphasizes the importance of government, parents, and students employers, etc., all of

whom have a stake in the education process.

Levitt (1980) in his earlier work sees the universities offerings as being made up of different products that canbe regarded as existing on three separate and distinct levels:

1. the core;2. tangible; and

3. augmented product.

If we consider core benefit, we see that the students are not buying degrees; they are buying the benefits that adegree can provide in terms of employment, status, lifestyle, etc. At the second level, tangible attributes might

include the physical layout of the campus, the library, laboratories and sporting facilities. Finally, the augmentedlevel is made up of intangible attributes such as library membership for graduates, student loans and finance,

an employment or placement service, etc. If these factors are not achieved, students will not be satisfied.International students requirements fit very well with Levitts work, and the work of Kinnell (1985).

For universities to succeed, they need to develop relationships between stakeholders and the institution.Relationship marketing is seen as relationship networks and interaction between an organisation and its

customers (Gummesson, 1994). Relationships require at least two parties who are in contact with each other;in service marketing this is the customer and the service provider. Networks emerge when these relationshipsbecome many and complex. The core interaction at the heart of relationship marketing is the exchange of

values and supporting activities. Halal (1996) proposed a stakeholder model of the corporation, which views thecorporation as a socio-economic system composed of various equally important constituencies:

y employees;

y customers;

y suppliers;

y the public and its government representatives; and

y investors.

Each stakeholder has an obligation to the corporation as well as rights.

The nature of educational products has made it difficult for long-term customer retention. The percentage ofstudents that remain loyal to an institution and stay on to pursue post-graduate courses is certainly too small to

be a focus of any institutions marketing strategy at the undergraduate level (Ivy, 2001). Hence, marketingefforts should not only be directed to students but to the entire range of stakeholders. According to this view,students should be regarded as consumers and not just customers. This fact was also recognised by others

such as Nicholls et al. (1995).

For years UK universities have been described as being product-oriented by virtue of their subject offerings inthe past. Recently, however, the universities have evolved by recognising the importance of marketing in this


4/17

sector. The education sector in the UK is facing rigorous changes in its operating environment. These changeswill affect several dimensions; first, through the supply of funding; second, through the increase or decrease indemand for their offerings and global challenges from other competitors. Students are tending increasingly to

be extremely critical and analytical when choosing their educational institutions. Universities must, therefore, bevery self-critical. For an organisation to thrive it has to balance internal capabilities and resources with the

opportunities offered externally while coping with the obvious threats of the environment. The nature of the UKeducational environment is unique. British education has for a long time been considered to be the best in the

world, enjoying the branding of made in the United Kingdom. For many years, large numbers of UKuniversities have enjoyed this status and have benefited in building their image worldwide. Recently though, the

trend has changed as a result of global competition. Many other countries are strongly emerging and comingup with quality education. Technological innovation and technological improvement have had a profound effectin all aspects of educational marketing. Computer technology, for instance, has revolutionised the way courses

are increasingly being offered; for example, some students are engaged in distance learning, and coursesbeing offered through the Internet. Against this background, UK universities need to expand globally in order to

maintain their existence. Consequently, a well co-ordinated marketing effort will be needed if the UK is tomaintain a competitive position in the provision of international education.

3. Research methodology

The study functions as marketing intelligence inputs for the UK Government, the BC as well as academic

marketing planners for constructing their marketing opportunities-threats audits; by seeking information oninternational students perceptions of UK education related to the 4Ps controllable variables, i.e. price, place,promotion and product, by undertaking marketing intelligence inputs based on respondents psycho-graphiccharacteristics and perspective towards British education and, by investigating the UK market penetration

abroad based on recent data.

The study employed both qualitative and quantitative methodology (Figure 3). First, the survey was undertakento investigate international students perceptions of the UK education system related to price, product, placeand promotion variables. Primary data via survey were obtained by interviewing foreign students using bothstructured and unstructured questionnaires and 62 international students were chosen by purposive random

sampling for participation in the survey. The questionnaires were then analyzed by using ranking independence analysis of Chi-square statistics. Second, the qualitative approach of in-depth interviews wasemployed to complement the Chi-square analysis for probing more detailed issues. Third, the secondary data(Offices of Higher Education Statistics Agency (HESA), BC, Department for Education (DfE), the USA and the

Australian Statistical Offices) were employed estimating a trend regression.

4. Empirical results

The study was conducted between October 2001 and February 2002. The sampling respondents were 62international students in which 45 percent of respondents came from developing countries and 54 percentcame from developed countries[3]. The respondents profile is described in Table I. Of the respondents, 68

percent are under 31 years old and 32 percent are 31 years old and above. Most of the respondents are post-graduates and doctoral degrees students (66 percent of the total) and the rest of the remaining 34 percent ofrespondents are pursuing undergraduate and non-degree courses, such as diplomas and intensive English

programs.

The survey students were asked to provide their perceptions related to particular aspects of provision of the UK

education of provision in terms of ranking and order of importance. Several statements related to the 4Psconcept were emphasized in the questionnaires as follows:

y Why did the respondents choose to study in the UK and what were the important factors to consider?

y Who are the UKs main competitors and where or in which country respondents would like to study ifnot in the UK?

y What is the best way to attract more international students to come to the UK and what are otheraspects to observe?


5/17

y What is the best promotional strategy to attract more international students into the UK in respondentshome countries and from where did the respondents learn about the UK education?

The results (see Appendix) indicate that students ranked four leading reasons in choosing a country to studyabroad and in considering the important factors. Of the respondents, 44 percent chose international recognition

as the first reason. The second reason was the ease of university entrance and immigration procedures (31percent of the respondents). The third reason was the ease of working during and after the course (16 percent),

and the fourth was the cost of living and other reasons (9 percent) such as the shorter degree duration of theUK education and other personal reasons[4].

The USA was listed by 44 percent of respondents as the UKs main competitor and as their first choice ofcountry to study, followed by Australia (23 percent), Canada (20 percent), and other countries (13 percent),such as European nations, Japan, etc. This finding is in line with the previous studies (BMRB, 1998). BMRBstudies indicate that 60 percent of respondents consider the USA as the first place to take into account when

making the decision to study abroad, followed by Australia (21 percent), Canada (16 percent), New Zealand (2percent) and other (18 percent) (see Figure 4).

This study strongly suggests that the best way to attract more international students is to concentrate on theprice variables such as lowering the UK tuition fee (37 percent of the respondents), followed by giving morescholarships to international students (31 percent). The third factor is to provide better care and services to

present students (21 percent), followed by other reasons (11 percent), such as giving more facilities, i.e.computer, library, alumni networks, etc. The results seem consistent with previous surveys that emphasize the

importance of product and pricing aspects of the marketing variables in international education.

In total, 52 percent of the sampling students state that the best promotional strategy in their countries is toinvolve alumni networks and contacts, as most respondents learn about the UK education via alumni, friends

and relatives. Then followed approaching local universities and colleges in the respondents home countries asthe next important media strategies (24 percent). The third element is to promote UK education via its channels

of distribution worldwide such as BCs offices, consulates and Web sites (17 percent of the respondents).Promoting UK education via newspaper, TV, and other media (7 percent) came fourth.

The survey found that student perception about the UK education could be considered under four mainheadings:

1. pricing variable;2. product variable;

3. place variable; and4. promotion variable.

The in-depth interviews strongly confirm that of these variables, product and price variables are the mostimportant in attracting international students. A Chi-square test of independence was undertaken to investigate

whether or not the ranking is independent of the respondents psychographic characteristics such asrespondents age, respondents gender and respondents country of origin. The results indicate that the rankingis independent (as shown in the Appendix), except in the case of promotional ranking related to respondentsgender. All other ranking indicates the null hypothesis of independence, as the Chi-square statistics are less

than the Chi-square value of 5.99.

In the case of the best promotional strategy, the ranking is dependent on the respondents gender (male orfemale). Male respondents consider local universities, colleges and Web sites to be important factors in the

promotion strategy of others; while female respondents believed the alumni and friends are the most importantfactors in the media strategy. Overall, male and female respondents agree on the best promotional ranking as

follows: 33 percent of respondents consider the most efficient media strategy is to promote via alumni, 31percent of respondents consider that it is desirable to co-operate with local universities and colleges; 29percent favour Web sites, BC; and 7 percent suggest other media such as TV, newspapers, government

contacts, etc.


6/17

The following stakeholders were ranked highly as promotional channels: alumni, friends, relative, localuniversities, colleges and governments. The implication of this is that HE institutions should pay great attentionto their stakeholders by building relationships that would generate positive impressions. They should also build

relationships with the host countrys education. Many writers acknowledge the concept of relationshipmarketing such as Gummesson (1994), Halal (1996) and Payne et al. (1995). Making the decision to studyabroad is a high involvement process, and is high risk. The decision-making process is sequential with highinformation search. The use of stakeholders could reduce the level of risk, hence creating confidence for the

prospective student through source credibility.

Compared with the previous studies (BMRB, 1998; British Council, 2002) the results are almost similar withregard to the importance of controllable variables. Although there are some differences of ranking, in terms ofthe order of importance and in terms of different-structured questionnaires (Figure 5), the study reaches the

same conclusion that price and product variables are the dominant factors for formulating UK marketpenetration strategies in the international markets. Overall, surveyed students reported a similar ranking andperception considering several statements related to the widely accepted 4Ps classification of the marketingmix that offer a useful frame for academic marketing policy makers. According to Levitt (1980) products havethree layers, core, tangible and augmented products. The research shows that most of the foreign students

needs are clustered around the core and the tangible characteristics of products such as academic recognition,quality, follow-up services, etc., and price such as fee, scholarships, students perception of value. etc.

Recent data (Table II) indicates that international students enrollment in the UK has been growing. This is inline with BCs reports (2002) that the overseas students enrollment in the UK has been increasing over time.

However, looking closely at the growth of the students enrollment (Figure 6), the growth was 0.8 percent in1996, increasing to 7.67 percent in 1997. But since 1997 the growth has been deteriorating to 2.82 percent in1998, then 2.45 percent in 2000. In fact, the UK market penetration rate was found to be declining or negative

of 0.00001 (dp/dt = tan)[5].

This negative penetration indicates a decline in the UK market penetration in the international marketscompared to its competitors, such as the USA, Australia. The number of international students in the UK hasbeen increasing but, growing at a decreasing rate, lower and lower each year since 1997. Is this an indication

of failure in the UK marketing strategies facing hyper-competition and e-learning competition in the worldmarkets of international education? This finding concerning international competitiveness is in line with

respondents perceptions about the UKs rivals. The USA was listed by 44 percent of respondents as the UKs

main competitor, followed by Australia (23 percent) and others.

In order to achieve optimal gains, the analysis of declining UK penetration rate should be converted into amarketing opportunities-threats audit for academic marketing planners as an early warning system of marketing

intelligence to evaluate threats. Marketing planners should assess each threat according to two dimensions:first, its potential severity as measured by the amount of energy the institution would lose if the threat

materialized and, second, its probability of occurrence. By using information from this marketing intelligencesystem, the UK marketing effectiveness[6], such as performing similar marketing activities better than rivals canbe evaluated (Porter, 2001). Constant improvement in marketing effectiveness is necessary to achieve superior

profitability and become a market leader. The USA and Australian institutions have become much moreaggressive in recruiting international students since 1980 (Smith, 2001; IDP, 2002). Based on our primary and

secondary data analysis, the threat of declining market penetration is the most serious threat with a severeimpact and high probability. The UK must monitor and be prepared to effectively respond to the challenges,

otherwise the competitors will consume a bigger portion of the UK market share in the world markets ofinternational education. Thus, by combining the international students perception in both structured andunstructured interviews with the analysis of the secondary data, the study will be useful for marketing planners

for constructing marketing opportunities/threats audits, i.e. where aggressive marketing attention could befocused for gaining back the UK market penetration.

5. Discussions and conclusion

In 1999, the Prime Minister broadcast a worldwide campaign to promote British education in order to attractmore international students to the UK. Since then, the BC has been undertaking a global marketing campaign


7/17

which brands British education as the first for quality and choice. Unfortunately, the UK is still behind itscompetitors, such as the USA and Australia. The USA and Australia achieved a remarkable growth rate of their

international students enrolment of 12 percent and 15 percent, respectively, in 2000, while the UK achievedmarginal growth rate of only 2 percent with a decline of the UK market penetration abroad. The findings are inline with respondents perceptions of the UK competitors who have been aggressively marketing their products

abroad. This is an indication of underperformance of the UK Strategies vis a` vis its competitors within theincreasingly hyper-competition of globalization and competition of e-learning.

The study indicates that surveyed respondents choose to study in the UK because of its educational standardand its recognised qualifications worldwide (first rank). Ease of university admissions and of immigration

procedures (second rank), ease of finding employment during and after the study (third rank) and costs of living,accommodation, safety and culture (fourth rank). The best way to attract more international students, according

to the respondents are, in order of ranking, lowering tuition fees, providing more scholarships, giving betterquality care and service, and others such as supplying more facilities, computers, alumni networks and

promotion. Respondents consider that the best promotional strategy to attract more international students intothe UK in respondents countries are, in order of ranking, via alumni, friends, relatives, local universities andcolleges, the UK Web sites, BC, consulates and others such as TV, newspaper, government contacts, etc.

Based on all respondents perceptions, the study found the importance of product and pricing variables informulating market penetration strategies to attract more international students into the UK. The study also

serves as a marketing intelligence system for the UK universities, the BC and other academic marketingplanners for constructing marketing opportunities-threats audits. The relatively small sample size (n = 62) usedin the Chi-square analysis could be seen as a limitation of the findings, but in order to overcome limitations, thestudy has employed both qualitative analysis (in-depth interviews) and statistical analysis of secondary data as

a background to formulate the UK marketing opportunities-threats audit facing the declining British marketpenetration.

Further research can be undertaken by increasing the sample sizes from several universities/colleges and byresearching international staff at the BC from various geographical locations in the world, HEFCE, DfE,

international education consulates, Home Office, international offices of the UK universities, which can beanalyzed by using the factor analysis in order to strengthen the outcomes in terms of statistical robustness.

Notes

1. There are several benefits of having international scholars studying in the UK. The benefits areeconomic and non-economic (Kotler and Fox, 1985). Beside the economic value of the UK

international education industry in terms of its contribution to the UK gross national product, there arealso significant non-economic benefits including the fostering of social and political tolerance, mutualrespects between UK and non-UK and establishing foundations for future cultural and international

business relationships.2. Growth (p) is defined as [(St-St1)/St1] 100 percent, where S stands for the number of international

students enrolment at t, and t for time.3. The terms developing and developed countries are classified according their GNP of IMF Classification

(IMF, 2002). Developing countries are among others: Uganda, Nigeria, Indonesia, Vietnam, China, etc.,while developed countries are the USA, France, Germany, Sweden, Canada, Australia, Japan, etc.

4. In the USA, students have to finish masters degrees for two years, while in the UK, students can finishin a year shorter and compact program. Also in the USA, students need to pass the GRE and GMAT

tests before enrolling in post-graduate studies; while in the UK, the admissions are more lenient.5. From the equation ofp = [(St St1)/St1] where S stands for the number of international studentsenrolment at t, and subscript t for time. The equation isp = 0.0349 0.00001 t, and the market

penetration rate is defined as dp/dt = tan which is equal to 0.00001.6. Marketing effectiveness is not only limited to efficiency but also to a number of UK marketing practices

that allow the UK to better utilize its inputs; for example, by penetrating the world markets ofinternational education faster than its rivals, by broadening the UK market share, etc. It is different frommarketing positioning, which means performing different marketing activities from rivals or performing

similar marketing activities in different ways.


8/17

Table IRespondents profiles

Table IINumber of international students in the UK, 1996-2000


9/17

Figure 1International students enrolment in Australia, Britain and USA universities, 1999-2000

Figure 2The growth of international students enrolments, comparison between Britain, the USA and Australia,1999-2000

Figure 3Research methodology


10/17

Figure 4The UKs main competitors in the internationalmarkets in 2002. Ranking according to number of

respondents perceptions, in percentages

Figure 5International students perception, comparative results


11/17

Figure 6Decliningmarket penetration rate of UK education in internationalmarkets

Figure A1


12/17

Figure A2


13/17

Figure A3


14/17

Figure A4

References

Australia Statistical Office (2002), http://aei.detya.gov.au/general/pubs, .

[Manual request] [Infotrieve]

Binsardi, A. (1998), "SWOT analysis in international education; a British perspective", Association of BritishAlumni., unpublished university paper, .


British Council (2002), www.britishcouncil.org/ecs/worldwide/index.htm, .


BMRB (1998), International Student Survey; Summary ofResults, BMRB for Hobson, Independent ResearchCompany., .


Gummesson, E. (1994), "Making relationship marketing operational", The International Journal of ServiceIndustry Management, Vol. 5 No.5, pp.5-20..



15/17

Halal (1996), The New Management: Democracy and Enterprise Are Transforming Organization, Bernett-Kochler, San Francisco, CA., .


IDP (2002), www.idp.edu.au/services/marketing/research., .


IMF (2002), International Financial Statistics; Country Analysis, International Monetary Fund, New York, NY., .


Ivy, J. (2001), "Higher education institution image; a correspondence analysis", The International Journal ofEducation Management,, Vol. 15 No.6, pp.276-82.


Kinnel, M. (1985), "International marketing in UK higher education: some issues in relation to marketingeducational programmes to overseas students", Marketing Higher Education, Vol. 85.


Kotler, P., Anderson, A. (1987), Strategic Marketing forNon-Profit Organisations, 3rd ed., Prentice-Hall,London., .


Kotler, P., Fox, K. (1985), Strategic Marketing for EducationalInstitutions, Prentice-Hall Englewood Cliffs, NJ., .


Levitt, T. (1980), "Marketing success through differentiation of anything", Harvard Business Review, pp.83-9..


Mazzarol, T., Hosie, P. (1996), "Exporting Australian higher education: future strategies in maturing market",Quality Assurance in Education, Vol. 4 No.4, pp.37-50.


Michael, S. (1990), "Marketing educational institutions: implication for administrators", The International Journalof Education Management, Vol. 4 No.5, pp.23, 30.


Nicholls, J., Harris, J., Morgan, E., Clarke, K., Sims, D. (1995), "Marketing higher education: the MBAexperience", The International Journal of Educational Management, Vol. 9 No.2, pp.42, 53.


Porter, M. (2001), "What is strategy?",Harvard Business Review, Vol. 74 No.6, pp.61-78.


16/17


Smith, G. (2001), "AEI student surveys: findings of AEIs surveys of students finishing 1999 and commencing in2000", AEI Industry Forum 2001, Session 5., .


USA Statistical Office (2002), www.ed.gov/pubs/stats.html, .


Further reading

Conway, T., Mackay, S., Yorke, D. (1994), "Strategic planning in higher education: who are thecustomers?",International Journal of Education Management, Vol. 8 No.6, pp.29-36.


Grnroos, C. (1990), Service Management and Marketing, Lexington Books, Lexington, MA., .


Litten, L. (1980), "Marketing higher education: benefits and risks for the American academic system", Journal ofHigher Education, Vol. 51 No.1, pp.40-59..


Lomas, L. (1996), "An evaluation of early development in higher education quality management", Journal ofFurther and Higher Education, Vol. 20 No.3, pp.60-9.


Moogan, Y, Baron, S, Bainbridge, S. (2001), "Timings and Trade-Offs in the Marketing of Higher EducationCourses; A Conjoint Approach", MarketingIntelligence & Planning, Vol. 19 No.3, pp.179-87.


Riggs, R., Lewis, L. (1980), "Applicability of marketing research to student recruitment", Journal of CollegeStudents Personnel, Vol. 21 pp.467-8..


Smith D., Scott, P., Lynch, J. (1996), "The role of marketing in the university and college sector", UCASApplications Digest, Centre for Policy Studies in Education, Supplement, pp.3.


Stanton, W. (1988), "Its time to restructure marketing in academia", Journal of Marketing Education, Vol. 19pp.2-7.


Appendix


17/17

Figure A1

Figure A2

Figure A3

Figure A4

International marketing of British education

Documents

Transcript of International marketing of British education