Do YOU make these 5 mistakes in advertising and admissions for your school? The answers YOU seek are in the process.

Understanding the sales process and what it takes to create a great sales team is the key to admissions success for schools. Advertising agencies claim that they know the key to admissions success. The agencies tell the schools the answer is quality leads and they attempt to prove it by tracking by starts. They are statistically illiterate. There are too many variables between leads and starts to prove anything (appointment setting, show rate, enrollment rate). I am here to disprove the myth of quality leads. There are only leads. Direct response advertising is the key.

Mistake 1: Quality leads are a myth (unless there is internet affiliate fraud)
How did this quality lead myth come about? There are a many advertising experts out in the field, some of which are on your staff. These experts were schooled in general advertising taught by newspapers and TV stations in the country. Rating points, penetration, and thousands are the buzzwords used to describe their target. General advertising is also more about brand and image. The stations and newspapers do not mention direct response advertising to their clients because it is not as well known or as profitable.

Direct response marketers know the best time, the best TV station, the best day, and the best creative to generate leads. It is the nature of direct response.

Mistake 2: Awards and General Advertising Agencies
A sure way to identify general advertising agencies is their ability to generate advertising awards. They commonly brag about the number of awards they win for their creativity. In my opinion, they are more interested in winning the award than insuring that their customer makes money. I admit, early in my career I was enamored by the thrill of winning awards. Then our agency entered an Addy competition. We won several Addys, but the commercials that won awards pulled leads miserably. That’s when I changed my views of award competitions.

True direct response ads don’t win awards. The ads are not considered pretty. Real direct response agencies know the only thing that matters is this: Did the phone ring? If they don’t sell, then the direct response marketer improves the ad. Improvement of the process is paramount to the direct marketer.

Tracking by trends and using databases to predict results is common in direct response advertising. It has been this way since the Sears Catalog was first published. We now know what our cost per lead is as it occurs. Even with this information, some advertisers have held onto their general advertising techniques and are still seeking awards. This could be hurting their business.

Brief history of the birth of Marketing Solutions
In 1979, I went to work for The Woods Brothers Agency in Little Rock (now Cranford Johnson Robinson and Woods). We specialized in the tourism industry attracting visitors to our wonderful state. Our biggest account was the State of Arkansas Tourism account. The governor was Bill Clinton.

At The Woods Brothers agency we measured success by counting the number of inquiries we generated for the state as well as our other tourism clients. We did split run tests in national magazines. We tested creative for responses. We were a direct response agency.

One day in 1986 my whole life changed. A school owner came to our company. He asked me to write a newspaper ad for his school. I did. The phone rang for him.

He asked, how I did it. I told him I was trained in direct response. I simply called out to the target. The headline was “Unemployed? Need a better job?” It wasn’t about the school; it was about what that potential student needed. I asked him if there were other schools like this. He said yes, and the rest is history.

I think the quality lead myth began in general advertising, because the general agencies couldn’t generate leads in a predictable amount. Is branding the answer? Most general agencies tell you that branding is the answer. Well, if you have a lot of money and about ten years, you can create a real brand.

But every major brand in the school industry is struggling for leads. They have strong brands. In direct response, making something happen is as important as the brand. We know a better way.

Mistake 3: Brand is more important than a lead
We believe that lead flow is a process. You buy an ad and a lead is either generated or not. It’s that simple. Improvement takes place as we increase lead flow. In order to improve there is one simple statement you must believe. A lead is a lead. Take a look at this chart from last spring.

Here is empirical proof that a lead is a lead. In this chart in almost every category, the percent leads and percent enrollments are almost the same except for Internet. The conclusion you can make from this chart is that there is an almost one to one relationship between percent leads and percent enrollments. The conclusion from this is, a lead is a lead. (The two categories for the Internet are the regular site for the school and the pay per lead campaign being run. But the combined percentage for Internet is 19% leads and 6% enrollments. This is typical for Internet leads. (In my opinion, some of these leads are probably not real due to affiliate lead fraud)

The only way a school can grow is through increased lead flow, not quality leads. Another simple statement, but very profound for improvement. We believe the only way a school can grow is through increased lead flow. (We understood this working in tourism in the early 80’s). Therefore schools must create ways to create leads both internally (referrals and PDLs) and externally (media driven).

Therefore, educational ad agencies should be measured on a cost per lead basis, not awards.

Another reason agencies tell clients that they should worry about the quality of the leads is because they do not have the creative ability or analytical ability to generate leads at an effective cost. I have seen this countless times.

Mistake 4: Why tracking by starts does not work (another myth)
Is tracking by starts effective? Tracking by starts and making predictions, is only possible if all the leads go to superior salespersons. If the leads go to a team, there will be different rates of results (all unpredictable) Here is a chart:

Here is the Marketing Solutions theory:
Statistically speaking, the sales can be tracked, but the differences in results are due to differences in sales people, not the source of the lead. (See the previous chart)

Here is a complete explanation of this chart. Since a lead is handled by a salesperson there is a “one on one” situation occurring in every instance of enrollment. (Just like in football sometimes a double team or zone, but mostly one on one). One to one marketing is the key to understanding this theory.

The key to more enrollments is the improvement of the sales team
Then we add even more leads. We have proven this in schools across the country. What would happen at your school if you could improve the sales teams ability to convert only 1% or 2% better in lead to enrollment. The difference in bottom line results would be incredible.

In order for significant improvement to occur, you must improve the 80% average. Each sales team has about 10% excellent, 80% average and 10% poor sales people on their staff. In order for improvement to occur, you must improve the 80% average.

A former pro football player and coach, once told me that if he could have a football team with 5 or 6 good to great players and 16 or 17 players that played with heart and passion, he could win the Super Bowl. The same thing occurs with a sales team.

If we could have a sales team that could play above their capability (with heart), in other words, they can sell at higher levels. We only need 2% more than what we are getting from the average members of the sales team. The two percent will come from adhering to your process that the your superior sales people have developed.

The characteristics of superior sales people revolve around three significant areas:

They have product knowledge that is believable.
They have a sales pitch or presentation that is rehearsed and believable.
They have a personality that can be trusted.

Its not black or white, fat or skinny, old or young. It is the above variables that we have to pay attention to for admissions representatives.

I once asked a superior admissions representative what they wanted; qualified leads or more leads. Of course, you know the answer. It’s more leads!

They are superior salespeople, not spectators in the stands. They want to play. Not talk about playing. By the way, this is the difference, they live to play, or be on the stage. They have a heart and passion for others.

But its not really more leads, is it? For management, its more appointments, isn’t it. The chance for a salesperson to do their thing. But then again, we will have a difference in show rate by rep and this skews the process.

So here is the fundamental Question: What is easier, more leads, or more appointments?
Before I answer the question, let’s define the members of the team. Look at the chart above.

The superior salesperson ranks high in both appointment setting and enrollments. He has a pitch that works. He is believable and trusted by his potential students. Top right on the chart.

The veteran sales person usually ranks high on enrollments, but low on appointment setting. They usually have preconceived jinxes or opinions about their leads that prevent them from higher appointment rates. They do not like to role play. They only want to talk to “serious leads”. They can tell if someone will enroll just by talking to them on the phone. They qualify on the phone before inviting the prospect to an appointment. They are very proud of their conversion percentage. This is because they do not appoint that many. When the pressure is put on this person, they can sell. They do not work very many leads. Top left on the chart.

We can improve enrollments slightly by asking the veterans to do more.

The new sales person wants to appoint as many as they can. They do not have their pitch or product knowledge as rehearsed as the veteran or superior sales person. In order for them to succeed, its’ all about cold calls. They burn leads that could be converted. They have more leads and appointments. But do not seem to get the sales. Bottom right on the chart.

We can improve enrollments slightly by asking the neophytes to do more.

Poor sales people must be moved to financial aid. HA HA. They are good people. They lack the necessary skills for the position. Bottom left on the chart.

Now look at the arrows on the side of the chart. Here is the conclusion of the chart and this is profound. The only way to get more sales is by having more leads. When you combine this chart with the empirical results of the previous chart the sales process becomes much simpler. You have removed all excuses from reps and opinions about advertising. Admissions becomes really easy to understand. Veteran salespeople do not require lots of leads. Neophytes require a lot of leads (even old ones).

So what’s easier, more leads or more quality.
More leads from your geographic area is the answer. A lead is a lead. Quality occurs at the enrolment stage, not the lead stage. You cannot determine quality until the enrollment. Therefore, there is no such thing as a quality lead, only leads.

The only way to create more sales is improvement of the 80% on your sales team. Look at the chart. If we track sales by lead source and do not take into account what member of the team you give the lead to, then you are mixing data, that should not be mixed. It is the difference in homogeneous data and heterogeneous data. If this is done, the wrong conclusions can be made.

Understanding this is incredibly important.
On the internet, tracking by affiliate source is the same as tracking by TV station or zip code. We shouldn’t track starts as much as we should track lead flow, then the rep’s conversion rates. Tracking starts by advertising source as if that is the answer, is a fundamentally flawed approach.

Mistake 5: The score at the end of the game is just the score
I’ll put it in football terms. The score at the end of the game tells nothing about the game (only the score). It tells nothing about statistics, who blocked who, percentage good blocks, tackles by players, passes completed or attempted, etc. Tracking by starts only tells you who sat in class, it tells nothing about how they got to the seat.

The score says nothing about improvement; only statistics that relate to play , (appointment setting, show rate, enrollment rate and start rate) gives us the answers we seek.

Bio
Dewitt Shotts is President and founder of Marketing Solutions Inc. in Little Rock AR. With more than 20 years experience in the proprietary school industry and almost thirty tears experience in direct response, Dewitt primarily directs the creative side of Marketing Solutions. In 1987, Marketing Solutions began as a television media buying service, but has expanded into a full service company with television studios, a full service direct mail and print facility, and the most recent addition of internet lead generation through 105 educational and general directories on the web. The company primarily focuses on the Proprietary school industry. Dewitt is a frequent speaker at state and national conventions. He has served on the board of The Career Colleges and Schools of Texas as an associate member.

Contact Information
Dewitt Shotts
Marketing Solutions Inc.
1601 Westpark Dr Ste 103
Little Rock, AR 72204
Email: dewitt@msileads.com
http://www.msileads.com