Why I Still Think Marketing Could Improve Education

 In my previous post Why I Think Marketers Could Improve Education
I laid out my reason why marketing could be a source for educational improvement. And I still believe it.

From an Education Next article titled “How Do We Transform Our Schools?” by Clayton M. Christensen and Michael B. Horn.

The authors theorize that education can and will be improved through disruptive innovations.
Educational software is one area ripe for Disruptive Innovation.

Text book publishers know that, “Integrated software solutions can both build large-scale offerings and customize for different learners. But this will not inexpensive, or accomplished without disruption.”  So they are loathe to produce it.

This opens up a market for software companies that can produce customized software solutions for a multitude of student learning styles, student learning problems, and personal tutoring, homeschooling, and afterschool programs.

This is where marketing will play a role. Just as marketers have brought the prescription drug marketing to television, print ads, and the Internet, changing a long held model of just marketing to doctors; so to educational software companies could market directly to those students and parents who are interested in a particular learning problem, learning need etc. So too, can they market to afterschool programs, private tutoring companies, and homeschoolers.

These consumers will be the biggest advocates of the best software and will push their local schools to adopt these programs. This in turn will bring highly customizable software to all students and meet more students’ individual needs.

So, just as marketing has changed the pharmaceutical industry by bypassing doctors and going straight to the end user, so too can marketing bypass the educational establishment and market customized software to the end user.

Comments

[John R]

As a both an instructor of marketing and educator, I think the marketing of education through use of technology will ultimately replace the institution of education, at least as we now know it, and far more quickly than we may wish to realize.

Direct response marketing seeks to fulfill needs and wants. On-line distributive education, both formal (i.e. home school programs) and informal (i.e. continuing education) is being widely promoted as meeting the needs and desires of many groups and professions. Many institutions and professional organizations see it as a revenue source and a way to expand market share. It's cost-effective to produce and deliver, its always available when the student (read customer) wants it, and the product/service is usually far less costly to the customer both in terms of time and resources.

It is a rational choice for the consumer and the provider.

However, as both a producer and consumer, I feel something vital may be missing in this model despite it being sold as "interactive." Call it experience, empathy, compassion, insight - I'm not sure. Maybe you can even describe the missing link as emotion or passion.

Regardless, there is a clear difference hearing a story and telling a story face-to-face, in contrast to reading it on a page or liquid crystal display. Something feels different, its certainly not the same transmission without human emotion or passion. It is then truly different.

Do we change the definition of education to conform to the "new model" or do we hold fast to recognizing a difference and calling the new paradigm something other than education. Possibly akin to edu-tainment or e-knowledge.

Do we actually learn - less or more? Or do we miss out when we type in answers on screen and wait for the correct response? Sounds as if were working to perform a task to gain a reward and not really learning.

I believe that fulfilling a need and want is great if it actually delivers what's promised. But in this instance I think marketing education (on-line, software, or other machine resource) may only be viewed as manufacturing needs and wants without delivering on the promise.

[Rob Jacobs]

John, your comments are excellent and hit on a point a I have always inwardly struggled with myself. While I advocate what I call the Open Model of Education, I am still very much a "student in the classroom" kind of learner. Even as I have considered a doctorate program, I knew that online programs would not work for me. I would miss the personal interaction, the story, the smile, the laugh, the spontaneity of learning with other people.

But, I wonder...
Is a that my personal learning style. I am a brick and mortar learner.

or

Is that because I am a "digital immigrant" and not "a digital native."

It will be interesting to see how the intersection of our ideas get played in the future. Thanks for contributing.

[John R]

Rob, thanks for the thread post, I think your on to something with the "bricks and mortar" learner v. the "digital immigrant."

Henry Ford nearly lost everything sticking to his Model T rule; mass producing identical cars. His competitors offered options for the increasingly affluent middle class. He lost market share because he wouldn't break his own rules. Look at Ford today, it appears no different.

In June 2008, ISTE released the next generation of NETS for Teachers, which focuses on "using technology to learn and teach." [ http://www.iste.org ]

Facilitate and Inspire Student Learning and Creativity
Design and Develop Digital-Age Learning Experiences and Assessment
Model Digital-Age Work and Learning
Promote and Model Digital Citizenship and Responsibility
Engage in Professional Growth and Leadership

"Teachers must become comfortable as co-learners with their students and with colleagues around the world. Today it is less about staying ahead and more about moving ahead as members of dynamic learning communities. The digital-age teaching professional must demonstrate a vision of technology infusion and develop the technology skills of others. These are the hallmarks of the new education leader."
—Don Knezek, ISTE CEO, 2008

One of the relevant standards is to "apply current research on teaching and learning with technology when planning learning environments and experiences."

I have been following a thread built on the thinking of Dr Ken Robinson, who is recognized as a leading force in the development of creativity and human resources. His claim to fame is grounded in research and leadership in creativity, education and training. He is also an inspirational speaker who effectively uses humour, passion and wit. (Applying both rational and emotional content - tools of the effective marketer.)

He speaks to audiences throughout the world on the changing needs of business, education and organizations in the new global economies. I discovered him at TED.

http://www.ted.com/index.php/talks/ken_robinson_says_schools_kill_creativity.html

He also recently spoke at an Apple Education Leadership Summit April 10, 2008. (The George Lucas Educational Foundation site - Edutopia.org.)

http://www.edutopia.org/sir-ken-robinson-creativity-video

Hmm, George Lucas ... a creative and influential entertainment-marketer who is seriously interested in education enough to start a foundation ... exploiting technology to do so. Sounds like a convergence, what do you think?

As a single solution, breaking rules is hard. However, to solve our seemingly impossible problems we may have to violate cherished rules. As we both know - "Education" as an institution, both K-12 and higher education, is replete with cherished rules. At a minimum, we must think differently.

For me, possibly you too, breaking rules is exhilarating. Its not going to be easy and we may feel like we're making a foolish mistake, but violating "common sense" may be the only way to solve the problem.