An analysis of the top 10 UK and top 10 US Business schools and their use of Web2.0 and Social Media

1. 1
Table of Contents
ABSTRACT ................................................................................................................ 8
CHAPTER ONE: INTRODUCTION .................................................................... 12
1.1. Rationale for the Research............................................................................... 12
1.2. Research Aim and Objectives ......................................................................... 13
1.3. Research Approach .......................................................................................... 15
1.4. Dissertation Structure ...................................................................................... 16
CHAPTER TWO: INDUSTRY OVERVIEW ...................................................... 19
2.1. Introduction ..................................................................................................... 19
2.2. The Web2.0 and Social Media Revolution ..................................................... 19
2.2.1. What is Web2.0/Social Media? ................................................................ 20
2.2.2. The Growth of Social Media .................................................................... 22
2.2.3. The Benefits of Using Web2.0 and Social Media .................................... 25
2.3. Industry Overview: Business Schools ............................................................. 27
2.3.1. Business Schools in the UK ...................................................................... 28
2.3.2. Business Schools in the USA.................................................................... 29
2.3.3. The Future for Business Schools .............................................................. 30
CHAPTER THREE: LITERATURE REVIEW ................................................... 33
3.1. Introduction ..................................................................................................... 33
3.2. Business School Marketing – The Traditional Approach ............................... 34
3.2.1. Building the Business School Brand ........................................................ 34
3.2.2. Traditional Business School Marketing Approaches................................ 36
3.3. Customer Empowerment ................................................................................. 39
3.3.1. The Power Shift to the Consumer ............................................................. 39
3.3.2. The Drivers of Customer Empowerment .................................................. 40
3.3.3. The Need for Business Schools to Become „Customer-Led‟? ................. 42
3.4. Marketing to the Net Generation ..................................................................... 43

2. 2
3.4.1. Characteristics of the Net Generation ....................................................... 45
3.4.2. Strategies for „Tapping the Groundswell‟ ............................................... 48
3.5. Business School Marketing – A New Marketing Mix .................................... 50
3.5.1. A New „Business School Marketing Mix‟ ................................................ 51
3.5.2. Marketing as a Ongoing Conversation ..................................................... 54
3.6 Chapter Conclusion and Research Gap ............................................................ 58
CHAPTER FOUR: METHODOLOGY ................................................................ 60
4.1. Introduction ..................................................................................................... 60
4.2. Research Methods ........................................................................................... 61
4.2.1. Secondary Research .................................................................................. 62
4.2.2. Primary Research ...................................................................................... 63
4.2.3. Qualitative vs. Quantitative Research ....................................................... 63
4.3. Choice of Research Strategy ........................................................................... 66
4.4. Phase One: Development of Framework ......................................................... 69
4.5. Phase One: Internal and External Web2.0 Analysis ........................................ 71
4.5.1. Sampling ................................................................................................... 73
4.5.2. Engagement Profiling ............................................................................... 76
4.5.3. Scoring System ......................................................................................... 77
4.5.3.1. Channel Presence Scoring for this Dissertation ..................................... 79
4.5.3.2. Engagement Scoring for this Dissertation ............................................. 79
4.5.3.3. Engagement Profiling ............................................................................ 82
4.6. Phase Two: Best Practice Case Examples ....................................................... 85
4.6.1. Sampling ................................................................................................... 85
4.6.2. Creation of the Case Examples ................................................................. 86
4.7. Phase Three: Interviews .................................................................................. 87
4.7.1. Sampling ................................................................................................... 88
4.7.2. Interview Methods .................................................................................... 89
4.7.3. Interview Content ..................................................................................... 90
4.8. Chapter Conclusion ......................................................................................... 90

3. 3
CHAPTER FIVE: PRESENTATION OF RESEARCH FINDINGS (Phase One:
Internal and External Analysis).............................................................................. 93
5.1. A Summary of the Research Findings (Phase One) ........................................ 94
5.2. Adoption of Web2.0 by Business Schools ...................................................... 97
5.2.1. Internal Evaluation: Use of Web2.0 applications on Business Schools‟
own website ...................................................................................................... 100
5.2.2. External Evaluation: Business Schools‟ presence on external Web2.0 sites
.......................................................................................................................... 103
5.3. Web2.0 Engagement ..................................................................................... 108
5.4. Chapter Conclusion ....................................................................................... 113
CHAPTER SIX: BEST PRACTICE CASE EXAMPLES (Phase Two) ........... 116
6.1. University of Pennsylvania: Wharton ........................................................... 116
6.1.1. The Wharton School: Internal................................................................. 117
6.1.2. The Wharton School: External ............................................................... 120
6.1.3. Return on Investment (ROI) and Impact of Wharton‟s Web2.0 Activities
.......................................................................................................................... 123
6.1.4. Summary ................................................................................................. 126
6.2. Harvard Business School............................................................................... 127
6.2.1. Internal .................................................................................................... 127
6.2.2. External ................................................................................................... 129
6.2.3. Summary ................................................................................................. 132
6.3. MIT Sloan School of Management ............................................................... 133
6.3.1. Internal .................................................................................................... 133
6.3.2. External ................................................................................................... 135
6.3.3. Summary ................................................................................................. 137
6.4 Chapter Conclusion ........................................................................................ 138
CHAPTER SEVEN: ISSUES AND CHALLENGES FACING „SELECTIVES‟
AND WALLFLOWERS‟ (Phase Three) ............................................................. 141
7.1. „Selectives‟ and „Wallflowers‟: Interview Analysis...................................... 141
7.1.1. Performance, Impact and Benefits of Using Web2.0 ............................. 142

4. 4
7.1.2. Drivers for Web2.0 Integration ............................................................... 144
7.1.3. Organisation of Web Marketing ............................................................. 147
7.1.4. Issues, Challenges and Barriers to Implementation ................................ 149
7.1.5. Future Plans ............................................................................................ 152
7.2 The Wharton School: Impact, Challenges and Future Plans .......................... 154
7.2.1. Performance, Impact and Benefits of Web2.0 ......... Error! Bookmark not
defined.
7.2.2. Process of implementation ........................ Error! Bookmark not defined.
7.2.3. Issues, Challenges and Barriers to Implementation Error! Bookmark not
defined.
7.2.4. Organisation of Web Marketing activities Error! Bookmark not defined.
7.2.5. Future Plans ............................................. Error! Bookmark not defined.
7.2.6. Summary of the Wharton Interview .......... Error! Bookmark not defined.
7.3. Chapter Conclusion ......................................... Error! Bookmark not defined.
CHAPTER EIGHT: CONCLUSION, RECOMMENDATIONS AND
LIMITATIONS ...................................................................................................... 157
8.1. Key Research Conclusions ............................................................................ 157
8.1.1. Phase One ............................................................................................... 157
8.1.2. Phase Two ............................................................................................... 160
8.1.3. Phase Three ............................................................................................. 162
8.2. Industry and Literature Conclusions ............................................................. 163
8.2.1. The Growing Importance of Social Media ............................................. 163
8.2.2. The Net Generation ................................................................................. 165
8.2.3. The Need for a New Mindset and Marketing Mix.................................. 167
8.2.4. Conclusion .............................................................................................. 169
8.3. Recommendations for Business Schools ....................................................... 170
8.3.1. Recommendation One: Implement a Degree of Organisational Change 171
8.3.2. Recommendation Two: Formulate a Winning Web2.0 Strategy ............ 172
8.3.3. Recommendation Three: Measure the Effects and Impact of Web2.0
Activities ........................................................................................................... 175
8.3.4. Recommendation Four: Embrace the New 8P Business School Marketing
Mix .................................................................................................................... 177

5. 5
8.3.5. Conclusion to Recommendations ........................................................... 178
8.4. Limitations..................................................................................................... 178
8.5. Areas for Further Research ............................................................................ 179
REFERENCES ....................................................................................................... 181
APPENDICES ........................................................................................................ 189
Appendix One: External Analysis ........................................................................ 189
Appendix Two: Internal Analysis ........................................................................ 190
Appendix Three: Channel Presence Scoring ........................................................ 191
Appendix Four: Standard Email ........................................................................... 191
Appendix Five: Interview Notes .......................................................................... 192
Appendix Six: Interview Structure ....................................................................... 193
Table of Figures
Figure 1.1 : Dissertation Objectives ................................................................... 14
Figure 1.2 : The Dissertation Process ................................................................. 16
Figure 2.1 : The Social Media Landscape .......................................................... 22
Figure 2.2 : Social Media Use Around the World .............................................. 23
Figure 2.3 : Global Web Traffic to Social Networking Sites ............................. 24
Figure 2.4 : The Conversation Prism .................................................................. 27
Figure 2.5 : Higher Education Course Enrolment 2007/2008 ............................ 29
Figure 3.1 : Literature Review Strands ............................................................... 33
Figure 3.2 : A Conceptual Model for Brand-building for Business Schools ...... 35
Figure 3.3 : Business School 7P Marketing Mix ................................................ 37
Figure 3.4 : Example of an „inside-out‟ Website Message ................................. 42
Figure 3.5 : Demographic Breakdown of U.S Population by Generation .......... 45
Figure 3.6 : The Eight “Norms” of the Net Generation ...................................... 47
Figure 3.7 : POST Method for Developing a Groundswell Strategy.................. 49
Figure 3.8 : The „8P Business School Marketing Mix‟ ...................................... 53
Figure 3.9 : The Meaning of „Engagement‟ ....................................................... 56

6. 6
Figure 3.10 : The 5 Groundswell Strategies in Relation to Business Schools.... 57
Figure 4.1 : Research Objectives ........................................................................ 61
Figure 4.2 : The Research Process ...................................................................... 67
Figure 4.3 : The Engagement Profiles ................................................................ 70
Figure 4.4 : Research Framework – Phase One .................................................. 71
Figure 4.5 : Business School Rankings from www.ft.com ................................. 75
Figure 4.6 : Engagement Profiles used in the Engagement DB Study ............... 76
Figure 4.7 : Channel Presence Yes/No Scoring System ..................................... 79
Figure 4.8 : Engagement Scoring ....................................................................... 80
Figure 4.9 : Key Performance Indicators for Web2.0 involvement.................... 81
Figure 4.10 : Web2.0 Categories ........................................................................ 81
Figure 4.11 : Engagement Score Calculation Example ...................................... 82
Figure 4.12 : Engagement Profile Scoring Requirements .................................. 84
Figure 4.13 : „Maven‟ Characteristics ................................................................ 85
Figure 4.14 : „Best Practice Case Example‟ Creation Process ........................... 86
Figure 4.15 : Interviewed Business Schools ranked in order of Engagement
Score ................................................................................................................... 88
Figure 4.16 : Interviewed Business Schools: Interviewee Details...................... 89
Figure 5.1 : Research Objectives.........................................................................93
Figure 5.2 : Engagement Profiling of the Business Schools .............................. 96
Figure 5.3 : Business School Channel Presence and Engagement Graph .......... 97
Figure 5.4 : Internal Channel Evaluation – Use of Web2.0 on Business Schools‟
own website ...................................................................................................... 101
Figure 5.5 : External Evaluation – Presence in external Web2.0 Channels ..... 104
Figure 5.6 : Results of the Engagement Profiling of 20 Business Schools ...... 110
Figure 5.7 : Business School Channel Presence and Engagement Graph ........ 112
Figure 6.1 : Wharton – Links to External Social Networking Presence ........... 117
Figure 6.2 : Knowledge at Wharton.................................................................. 118
Figure 6.3 : Wharton Tag Cloud and Student Diaries ...................................... 119
Figure 6.4 : Wharton – Discussion Forum ........................................................ 119
Figure 6.5 : Wharton – Relevant Discussion Forum Threads displayed
throughout website ............................................................................................ 120

7. 7
Figure 6.6 : Wharton – Facebook Content ........................................................ 121
Figure 6.7 : Wharton Flickr Photostream ......................................................... 122
Figure 6.8 : Wharton YouTube Channel .......................................................... 122
Figure 6.9 : Drivers of Future Business Performance ...................................... 123
Figure 6.10 : Wharton – Drivers of Future Business Performance .................. 125
Figure 6.11 : Harvard Business School – Stay Connected ............................... 128
Figure 6.12 : Harvard Business School News Twitter Account ....................... 130
Figure 6.13 : Harvard Business School MBA Program Facebook Page .......... 131
Figure 6.14 : Harvard Business School YouTube Channel .............................. 132
Figure 6.15 : MIT Sloan Video Blog Section ................................................... 134
Figure 6.16 : MIT Sloan - Links to External Social Networking Sites ............ 135
Figure 6.17 : MIT Sloan School of Management Facebook Interaction Example
.......................................................................................................................... 136
Figure 6.18 : MIT Sloan Student Blog Site ...................................................... 137
Figure 6.19 : Wharton Live Chat ...................................................................... 139
Figure 7.1 : Yale Facebook Website Link Example ......................................... 147
Figure 8.1: The Norms of the Net Generation .................................................. 166
Figure 8.2 : 8P Business School Marketing Mix .............................................. 168
Figure 8.3: Balanced Scorecard Strategy Map ................................................. 174
Figure 8.4: The Key Elements of the 8P Business School Marketing Mix ...... 177
Table 5.1: Internal Analysis Summary ............................................................... 94
Table 5.2: External Analysis Summary .............................................................. 94
Table 5.3: Business School Performance Summary in order of Engagement
Profile.................................................................................................................. 95
Table 5.4 : Business School Ranking in terms of Web2.0 Use (Channel
Presence) ............................................................................................................. 99
Table 5.5 : Internal Category Presence ............................................................. 100
Table 5.6 : External Category Presence ............................................................ 103
Table 5.7 : External Presence on Multimedia Sharing Sites............................. 105
Table 5.8 : Internal and External Channel Presence as a % of the number of
channels, ranked in order of internal channel presence % ................................ 107

8. 8
Table 5.9: Business School ranking in order of Total Engagement with Web2.0
technologies both internally and externally ...................................................... 109
Table 5.10 : Technology Adoption Level of Business Schools ........................ 111
Table 6.1 : Phase One Results for „Mavens‟ .................................................... 116
Table 7.1 : Performance Measurement and Benefits of Web2.0 Use ............... 142
Table 7.2 : Drivers for Web2.0 Integration ...................................................... 145
Table 7.3 : Organisation of Web Marketing Activities .................................... 147
Table 7.4 : Issues, Challenges and Barriers to the Implementation of Web2.0 150
Table 7.5 : Future Plans for Web2.0 Implementation....................................... 152
Table 7.6 : Chapter 7 Conclusions .................................................................... 155
ABSTRACT
Over the past few years, there have been three internet revolutions, Web1.0, Web2.0
and Web3.0, which is starting to develop now, in 2010. Web2.0, however, coined by
O‟Reilly Media in 2006, has revolutionised the web as we know it (O‟Reilly Media
Inc., 2006). Used interchangeably with „Social Media‟, the term Web2.0 refers to
Social and professional networking websites (Facebook, Bebo), Blogs, Wikis
(Wikipedia), Podcasts (Apple itunes), Multimedia Sharing Sites (Flickr, YouTube),
to name but a few.
Over the past few years, the growth of Social Media has been staggering, with over
100 million YouTube videos now on the internet, over 200 million blogs and 57% of
internet users having joined a social network by 2008 (Kagan, 2008). It‟s now
estimated that the average internet user in the USA spends over 6 hours on Social
Networking websites every month (The Nielson Company, 2010). So why has Social
Media become so popular?
The paradigm shift in power, from organisations to consumers, has led to the
increase in popularity of Social Media, with consumers wanting to use their human
traits of collaboration, interaction and communication, to share information with
each other, exert their opinions about companies and products, and communicate

9. 9
with one another in real-time. One industry which has felt the effects of customer
empowerment, is the Business School industry.
With students now being able to rate, compare (on ranking websites) and find out
large amounts of information about Business Schools, there is fierce competition in
the industry. With the Business School market reaching saturation, it has become
apparent that there is a need for change within the industry. With many factors
affecting the future position of Business Schools in the Higher Education arena, it is
vital that Business Schools differentiate themselves from the competition and focus
on attracting „quality students‟ (Hamill, 2009), who will remain part of the Business
School until their Alumni years.
The students currently working their way through the education system belong to the
„Net Generation‟ (Tapscott, 2009) and have grown up with the fast-changing pace of
technology. This generation are already communicating with each other in the Social
Networking arena and are using their new found power to influence organisations
and share information with each other on a global basis.
There is a need for Business Schools to differentiate themselves and become much
more „customer-led‟. The students, members of the Net Generation, expect one-to-
one relationships, interaction, collaboration and real-time information. Business
Schools can leverage the power of Social Media and differentiate themselves by
becoming „customer-led‟ organisations, who engage with their students and
stakeholders, developing lasting relationships with them throughout their educational
journey: from prospective student, to current students, to member of the Alumni. The
question which had to be asked was: are Business Schools aware of the power of
Social Media? Are they aware that there is a need for radical change within the
industry? Are they currently using Social Media in their marketing activities?
This researcher aimed to answer these questions by undertaking three Phases of
research;
 Phase One: A „first of its kind‟ framework was developed, using the a
combination of the methodologies from the leading Social Media study from 2009

10. 10
(the Engagement DB Study) and the framework created by Attard (2008) and Barrie
(2008) for the purpose of their Masters in Marketing theses.
 Phase One (part two): This framework was then used to analyse both the
Web2.0 and Social Media use and engagement of 20 of the top Business Schools in
the world: the top 10 UK and top 10 US Business Schools.
 Phase Two: From the results generated from phase one of the research, three
best practice case examples were created, presenting the top three Business Schools
in terms of Web2.0 use and engagement. These case examples should act as
benchmarks for other Business Schools aiming to become engaged with Social
Media.
 Phase Three: 7 of the top Business Schools in the world were interviewed, in
order to establish their awareness of Social Media, their current marketing activities,
any barriers or challenges faced in the implementation of Web2.0 and their future
marketing plans.
The results of the research showed that there is lack of adoption of Web2.0 and
Social Media and many issues within the Business Schools. There is a need for a
clear Web2.0 strategy to be created, the need for a new Business School marketing
mix (which was developed by the researcher), the need for a new organisational
culture and also the need for the monitoring of Social Media and marketing activities
within the Business Schools who are actively engaging with the technology.
Clear recommendations were made for Business Schools and with the presentation of
the three best practice case examples, there are clear paths which must be followed,
if the Business Schools want to differentiate themselves, engage with the mis-
understood „Net Generation‟ and survive the „hyper competition‟ (Starkey &
Tiratsoo, 2007) in the Business School industry. Business Schools can survive in the
higher education arena, but in order to so, several radical changes must be
introduced.

11. 11
CHAPTER ONE: INTRODUCTION

12. 12
CHAPTER ONE: INTRODUCTION
This chapter sets the background to the study and the purpose of the dissertation,
outlining the main aims and objectives of the project and describing the structure
used to achieve these objectives.
1.1. Rationale for the Research
The researcher has a passion for marketing and is very interested in internet
marketing in particular. Having been employed by one of Germany‟s leading internet
start-up companies, Hitflip Media Trading GmbH, the researcher developed a keen
interest in online marketing practices and was motivated to learn more. Whilst taking
a „Managing Customer Relationships‟ class at their Business School, the researcher
was drawn to the importance of the internet when creating and managing an
institutions relationship with its customers. The emergence and importance of
Web2.01 and Social Media was also brought to the researcher‟s attention and formed
the basis of the rationale for this dissertation. Having discovered the growing
importance of Web2.0 and Social Media in Business Schools, the researcher was
intrigued to establish whether the technologies were being used by the top Business
Schools in the UK and in the USA, where it was hypothesised that the technology
had been more widely adopted.
From studying the literature, the researcher discovered numerous authors writing
about Business Schools and their role within Universities and Higher Education in
general (Kilcourse, 1995; Parker & Guthrie, 2010). Despite the fact that the topic of
Web2.0 and Social Media Marketing is relatively fresh, there was sufficient
information available for the researcher to be able to make conclusions. The Higher
Education landscape is changing and Business Schools need to be responsive to the
marketing conditions in this era of hyper-competition and consumer empowerment.
1
The terms ‘Web2.0’ and ‘social media’ are interchangeable.

13. 13
Daniel (1996) believes that technology is the key to the rejuvenation of Higher
Education as a whole and so, along with the fact that Social Media is a revolutionary
approach to marketing, it was recognised that there is a need for Business Schools to
develop a whole new mindset towards marketing, strategy and brand-development.
Through the analysis of the research, a new Marketing Mix was created by the
researcher.
A research gap was found to exist, as it is not yet known whether or not this new
mindset is being adopted by Business Schools and if it is, whether or not it is proving
successful in developing their brand and achieving differentiation.
As a result of these findings and the presence of a research gap, the researcher
decided to investigate Daniel‟s (1996) claim further by studying the current use of
Web2.0 and Social Media in marketing activities, by the top Business Schools in the
UK and in the USA.
1.2. Research Aim and Objectives
Principally, the research aim is to establish the extent to which the top Business
Schools in the UK and in the USA are currently using Web2.0 and Social Media for
marketing purposes, by using the framework created by the researcher. This will then
provide the basis for further research into the field of Web2.0 and Education,
justifying the knowledge gap presented. This aim will be met by the fulfilment of the
following objectives (Figure 1.1);

14. 14
Figure 1.1 : Dissertation Objectives
Objective One: To conduct a thorough
review of the literature relating to the project
in order to better understand the topics and to
identify knowledge gaps.
Objective Two: To create a framework for
the measurement of Web2.0 and social media
utilisation and engagement using the
„Engagement DB Study 2009‟ and previous
theses by Attard (2008) and Barrie (2008).
Objective Three: To use the framework
created to analyse the extent to which
Web2.0 applications are currently being
utilised both internally and externally by the
top 10 UK and the top 10 US Business
Schools. An „engagement profile‟ will then
be allocated to each Business School, based
on the methodology of the Engagement DB
Study 2009.
Objective Four: To use the findings from
the analysis to present 3 „best practice‟ case
examples – the top three Web2.0 adopters.
Objective Five: To carry out interviews with
the top Business Schools to understand more
about their awareness about the impact and
benefits of their Web2.0 activities and the
barriers they have experienced in its
implementation.
Objective Six: To present the research
findings and the implications for Business
Schools as a result of those findings.
Objective Seven: To provide
recommendations for Business Schools based
on the research conducted and present how
Business Schools can improve their Web2.0
and Social Media engagement.

15. 15
1.3. Research Approach
As can be seen from Figure 1.2 below, secondary research formed a significant part
of the research process, with the aim of fulfilling objective one. A mixed method
approach was adopted to fulfil objectives two, three and four of the dissertation. A
new framework was first created for the evaluation of Web2.0 utilisation, fulfilling
objective two. This framework created by adapting the framework used in two
previous Masters Theses conducted under the supervision of Dr Hamill, to analyse
the Web2.0 use in the hospitality and football industries and combining this with the
methodology used in the Engagement DB Study 2009, a leading edge study of the
world‟s top 100 brands. Once the unique framework had been created, the
quantitative research could begin: an analysis of the Web2.0 adoption by the top 10
UK and top 10 US Business Schools, fulfilling objective three of the dissertation.
Based on the analysis of the findings from the primary research undertaken, 3 „best
practice case examples‟ were created, fulfilling objective four of the dissertation.
These case examples were based on the three Business Schools who demonstrated
the most engagement with Web2.0 and social media, the „Mavens‟. Qualitative
research methods were then used in fulfilment of objective five – interviews were
conducted with 7 of the top Business Schools, both in the UK and in the USA. The
interviews were conducted with key members of the marketing or communications
departments within the Business Schools of Wharton, Yale, Cass, Strathclyde, Said
(Oxford), Manchester and Columbia. The aim was to gain an understanding of the
marketing practices used in each School, the benefits of their Web2.0 and Social
Media use, problems faced in the implementation process and their future plans in
terms of Web2.0 and Social Media engagement. Objectives six and seven were
fulfilled in the fact that Chapter eight of this dissertation, presents the research
findings and the implications for Business Schools as a result. Recommendations are
then made, explaining Business Schools can improve their use and engagement with
Web2.0 and Social Media. Figure 1.2 provides an outline of the dissertation process.

16. 16
Figure 1.2 : The Dissertation Process
Business School Marketing – Customer Marketing to the Net Business School Marketing
A Traditional Approach Empowerment Generation – A New Marketing Mix
Literature Review
Phase One: Development of Frameworks for
evaluating internal and external Web 2.0 use
Phase One: Identification of the extent of use of
Web2.0 technologies by Business Schools
Presentation and Analysis of Research Findings
Phase Two: The creation of three best practice case
examples
Phase Three: Understanding Business Schools‟
awareness about Web 2.0 impact and adoption barriers
Recommendations for Business Schools made and
potential for further research highlighted
1.4. Dissertation Structure
An overview of the chapters of this dissertation is outlined below;
 Chapter One introduces the research topic, outlines the aims and objectives
of the dissertation and provides a clear overview of research process.
 Chapter Two provides a background to the Business School sector and the
Web2.0 and Social Media Revolution in order to set the context to the
project.

17. 17
 Chapter Three presents and discusses four strands of literature including,
Business School Marketing – A Traditional Approach, Customer
Empowerment, Marketing to the Net Generation and Business School
Marketing – A New Marketing Mix.
 Chapter Four describes and justifies the research methodology adopted and
provides a detailed description of the research process, as outlined in Figure
1.2 above.
 Chapter Five presents the findings of phase one of the research, the website
analysis. The results are analysed and discussed in relation to the objectives
of the research.
 Chapter Six presents three best-practice case examples (Phase two) which
have been created through the analysis and evaluation of the results of phases
one and two of the research.
 Chapter Seven presents the findings of phase three of the research, the
telephone interviews. The results are analysed and discussed in relation to the
objectives of the research and are related back to phase one, the website
analysis.
 Chapter Eight reiterates the key conclusions drawn from the research and
provides recommendations to Business Schools regarding their future use of
Web2.0 technologies. The research limitations are also discussed and the
potential for further research is highlighted.

18. 18
CHAPTER TWO: INDUSTRY OVERVIEW

19. 19
CHAPTER TWO: INDUSTRY OVERVIEW
2.1. Introduction
The main aim of this dissertation is to examine the extent to which Web2.0 and
social media are being utilised by the top Business Schools in the UK and in the
USA. This chapter will present a background to the dissertation, explaining the terms
„Web2.0‟ and „Social Media‟ and will provide an overview of the Business School
industry, including the role of the Business School within a University and the
challenges currently facing the industry.
2.2. The Web2.0 and Social Media Revolution
All marketing activities occur through three channels: distribution, transaction and
communication channels (Peterson, Balasubramanian & Bronnenberg, 1997).
Marketing activities can be carried out via the internet which acts as all three of these
channels.
 Distribution – the distribution of information
 Transaction – online retail
 Communication – email, social media sites, chat rooms
Kiang, Raghu & Shang (2000) argue that the rapid development of the internet and
online computing technology has made it almost mandatory that companies develop
a presence on the internet, to avoid losing competitive advantage. The internet has
developed through these three channels and has embarked on a journey.
There have been two major internet revolutions and there is still scope for many
more. The following three revolutions are described by Prabhudesai (2008) and can
be linked to the three channels of the internet (Peterson, Balasubramanian &
Bronnenberg, 1997).
 Web1.0 – This was the introduction of web pages using hyper-linking and
bookmarking. (Distribution, leading to Transaction)
 Web2.0 – This refers to sharing and interaction, with importance given to
usability. (Transaction of information and Communication)

20. 20
 Web3.0 – The Web3.0 world hasn‟t quite arrived yet but when it does it will
be made up of networks of applications and will take communication to new
levels entirely. (Communication)
The three internet revolutions can be also be described in the following way (Bhakdi,
2010, slide presentation);
 “It all started with a simple idea: putting content on the web”.
 Web1.0 – Media companies put content on the web and „push‟ it to users.
This failed to take advantage of the possibilities of the internet.
 UGC (User-generated Content) was invented by smart entrepreneurs and
Web2.0 was born.
 Web2.0 – New platforms allow users to generate content themselves, which
has empowered internet users.
 Web3.0 – Business platforms now empower everyone to be able to become
an entrepreneur. The users are the entrepreneurs, they generate the business.
Although Web1.0 technologies provided the basis for e-commerce and promotion
through websites and Web3.0 seems to be starting to change the business world,
Web2.0 is indeed a revolution of huge significance and will now be explained in
detail.
2.2.1. What is Web2.0/Social Media?
The term „Web2.0‟ was created by Dale Dougherty, Vice President of O‟Reilly
Media, during a brainstorming session in 2006 (O‟Reilly Media Inc., 2006).
According to Tim O‟Reilly himself, Web2.0 is a new way of thinking, with an
entirely new perspective on the internet (O‟Reilly Media Inc., 2006, p.4). Web2.0 is
described by O‟Reilly media as being:
―a set of economic, social, and technology trends that collectively form
the basis for the next generation of the Internet—a more mature,
distinctive medium characterised by user participation, openness, and
network effects.‖

21. 21
The terms „Web2.0‟ and „social media‟ are interchangeable and both will be referred
to throughout this dissertation. „Social media‟ can be explained as:
―a group of new kinds of online media, which share most or all of the following
characteristics; participation, openness, conversation, community, connectedness .‖
(Mayfield, 2008, p.5)
From the definitions above, it is clear to see that these terms can be used
interchangeably and are both referring to the same principles of openness,
participation, conversation and networking. Mayfield (2008) explains the main types
of social media and provides examples;
 Social networks – Facebook, Bebo, MySpace
 Blogs
 Wikis - Wikipedia
 Podcasts – Apple itunes
 Content communities – Flickr, Youtube
 Microblogging – Twitter
Kagan (2008) explains that there is now a new communication model on the internet,
„dialogue‟. Kagan (2008) explains that consumers are using Social Media to talk
about brands „right now‟ and presents some interesting statistics;
 36% of people think more positively about companies who have blogs.
 32% of people trust bloggers‟ opinions on products and services.
 Only 14% of people trust online advertisements.
 Only 18% of television advertising campaigns generate a positive ROI
(Return on Investment).
These are all reasons, which Kagan (2008) gives for getting involved with Social
Media and explains that companies shouldn‟t miss out.
Frédéric Cavazza (2009) provides a helpful diagram (see Figure 2.1 below) which
not only expands on the description provided by Mayfield (2008), but demonstrates
the sheer scale of the Web2.0/social media landscape.

22. 22
Figure 2.1 : The Social Media Landscape
2.2.2. The Growth of Social Media
The scale of the social media landscape can clearly be seen in Figure 2.1 above, but
these technologies are a relatively modern phenomenon. It is unclear when exactly
social media was born, but around the years of 2005 and 2006, the term „Web2.0‟
was coined and the development of social media sites became apparent. Since then,
the growth of social media has been staggering. To once again emphasise the scale of
the social media landscape around the world, the following diagram is useful (Figure
2.2).

23. 23
Figure 2.2 : Social Media Use Around the World
Source: Universal McCann, Wave 3 (2008) in Ramos (2009)
With millions of people using and engaging with these technologies worldwide, it‟s
necessary to look at how the popularity of these social media sites has grown and the
reasons for this growth. Kagan (2008, slide 7-14) presents figures which emphasise
the scale of Social Media use:
 Wikipedia has almost 4,000,000 articles.
 There are over 100,000,000 YouTube videos.
 Blogger hosts over 200,000,000 blogs.
 Second Life (the virtual reality software) boasts 1.5 million residents.
 73% of active online users have read a blog.
 39% subscribe to RSS Feeds.
 57% have joined a social network.
Baring in mind that these statistics were presented in 2008 and the fact that Social
Media has really taken off in the last few years, the amount of consumer involved in
the Social Media arena will, in 2010, be staggering.
The Nielson Company, produced statistics in January 2010, showing the growth of
Social Media. In December 2009, Facebook was the most popular social networking
destination, with 206.9 million unique visitors. The time spent one social networking
sites was also on the increase (The Nielson Company, 2010). (see Figure 2.3)

24. 24
Figure 2.3 : Global Web Traffic to Social Networking Sites
The amount of time spent on these social networking sites is therefore increasing
month on month, with the average person spending nearly 6 hours on them per
month (The Nielson Company, 2010).
Tapscott & Williams (2006) explain exactly what the Web has evolved into. In their
book entitled „Wikinomics – How Mass Collaboration Changes Everything‟, they
describe how people are taking part in economy more and why they no longer want
to passively watch and listen. Instead, people now want to socialise, share things
with each other, collaborate ideas and create Web content themselves.
Tapscott & Williams (2006) coined the new trend of collaboration as „wikinomics‟,
which is based on four main ideas; openness, sharing, peering and acting globally. Li
& Bernoff (2008) describe the trend in a different way. In their book „Groundswell –
Winning in a World Transformed by Social Technologies‟, Li & Bernoff (2008)
explain that there is a fundamental change occurring in online behaviour. The term
they use for this change is the „Groundswell‟, which is described as:
―A social trend in which people use technologies to get the things they need
from each other, rather than from traditional institutions like corporations.‖
(Li & Bernoff, 2008, p.9)

25. 25
To summarise and collaborate the thoughts of both Tapscott & Williams (2006) and
Li & Bernoff (2008), there has been a shift in online behaviour. Whereas previously,
internet users would source their information from companies (websites) on the
internet, they now obtain their information from each other, share it with other users
and pass it on to users on a global scale.
The overriding reason for both the „Groundswell‟ and „Wikinomics‟, has been the
growth in customer empowerment, which will be fully discussed in chapter three.
Mayfield (2008) explains that the reason for the rapid growth of social media, is not
because it‟s ―great, shiny, whizzy new technology‖ (Mayfield, 2008, p.7) but because
it lets consumers be themselves. Consumers have become more and more
empowered since the improvement in economic conditions in the early 1950s, which
eventually led to what is called the „brand-conscious consumer‟ (Davies & Elliott,
2006). Customer empowerment has now grown to the extent that, „empowerment‟
can be equated with „the power to exercise choice‟ (Canniford, Cherrier & Shankar,
2006). Consumers are exercising their newly-found empowerment on social media
sites, where they can comment on companies, rate products, select companies based
on rankings and share information with each other on a global scale. It can therefore
be said that social media and Web2.0 technologies allow consumer to exercise their
power and provides an environment in which they can easily do so.
2.2.3. The Benefits of Using Web2.0 and Social Media
Apart from benefits to the consumer, there are also many benefits which Web2.0 can
bring to organisations. Cunningham & Wilkins (2009, p.24) describe several reasons
for companies to become involved with Web2.0 and to leverage the opportunities it
creates.
 “They support collaboration across time and space”
 “They are easily accessible and easy to use”
 “Many people already have a comfort level using them”
 “They are low cost (sometimes even free)”
 “They do not require much IT support”
 “They have very little „downtime‟”

26. 26
 “Because they are inexpensive and easy to use, there is little risk in trying
them”
There are certainly many reasons for the use of Web2.0 and it seems to also be
changing the business landscape in many ways (Li & Bernoff, 2008). There have
been many success stories from companies who have leveraged the potential of
Web2.0, in particular social media and who have benefitted both financially and in
reputation as a result. Li & Bernoff (2008, p.198) present one particularly interesting
success story: the story of Unilever USA and its „Dove‟ brand. The company created
an „Evolution‟ video for Youtube showing the time-lapsed transformation of an
ordinary woman, into an airbrushed beauty. The video turned into a viral marketing
video and was viewed more than 5 million times in a year. The video generated a
large surge of internet traffic to Dove‟s Campaign for Real Beauty website, which
was more than double the amount of traffic driven to the site by the brand‟s Super
Bowl advert. The cost of airing a 30 second advert on the Super Bowl was $2.5
million, the cost of distributing the „Evolution‟ video on Youtube? – absolutely
nothing.
The benefits described by Cunningham & Wilkins (2009), fail to include one of the
most important advantages of effective social media engagement and that is the
„connection‟ and „conversation‟ with your customers. Often when organisations are
being urged to use social media, they are urged to „join the conversation‟ which is
already happening around them. Vitalari (2009) explains that there are many
conversations occurring in the world around us and demonstrates this through the
„Conversation Prism‟ (see Figure 2.4). Each segment of the prism indicates a
different conversation which serves a distinct business purpose.

27. 27
Figure 2.4 : The Conversation Prism
It can be concluded that there are many benefits to the use of Web2.0 and social
media, all of which can be reaped by any organisation who effectively engages with
the technology. The power of social media has increased with the power of
consumers and now consumers are able to utilise social media to demonstrate their
power over companies, brands and indeed other consumers. In order to be successful
in managing customer relationships, it‟s necessary for companies to „join the
conversation‟ and engage with their consumers in an environment where they are
already conversing: the social media landscape.
2.3. Industry Overview: Business Schools
In order to provide further background to this dissertation, an overview of the
Business School industry will now be presented, with reference to both the UK and
the USA. The role of the Business School will be discussed, as well as the future
outlook for the Business School in general.

28. 28
2.3.1. Business Schools in the UK
As a result of more students opting to go on to higher and further education and the
high demand for paper qualifications coupled with the need for competent graduates,
there has been a large expansion of Business Schools (Kilcourse, 1995). In August
2009 there were 166 Higher Education institutions in the United Kingdom, 116 of
which were Universities (Universities UK Facts 2009). Within the UK, there are 15
Business Schools which are ranked in the top 100 Business Schools in the world for
the provision of the global MBA program (FT.com, 2010 MBA Rankings).
Competition in the Business School sector is strong (Starkey & Tiratsoo, 2007) and
there is a constant need for each Business Schools to differentiate themselves from
one another. The importance given to rankings, differs between Business Schools,
but they act as a yearly goal for some. In order to achieve these rankings, which are
complied by Business Week and the Financial Times, there are claims of some
unethical behaviour, with cases of Dean involvement (Starkey & Tiratsoo, 2007). In
order to differentiate themselves, several different degree structures are offered.
Within most Business Schools in the UK, students have the option to complete an
undergraduate degree, postgraduate degree, Masters degree, PHD or MBA. Students
now also have the option of studying full-time or part-time and there are even online
degree courses, an example of how technology had impacted on education in the past
decade.
As an academic subject, Business and Administration is extremely popular in the
UK, with over 300,000 students studying the subject. The following diagram (Figure
2.5) shows the number of students enrolled on certain courses within the UK in
2007/2008 (Universities UK Facts 2009).

29. 29
Figure 2.5 : Higher Education Course Enrolment 2007/2008
2.3.2. Business Schools in the USA
Whereas the UK have 15 Business Schools in top 100 Business Schools in the world,
for the Global MBA, the USA have over 45 (FT.com, 2010 MBA Rankings). With
Business Schools such as Harvard, Wharton and MIT Sloan, the USA has always
been at the forefront of Business education. The importance of rankings and
reputation is apparent due to the presence of the „Ivy League‟ in the USA. The Ivy
League is made up of 8 privately run Universities who enjoy an excellent reputation
and attract the very best students all over the world (Admissionsconsultants.com). It
could therefore be deduced that competition between Business Schools is much
stronger in the USA than in the UK, increasing the need for differentiation. Harvard
and Yale for example aim to educate the leaders of the future, whereas MIT Sloan
pride themselves on being at the forefront of technological education. In order to stay
ahead of the competition, Harvard and Yale have set up research centres in India, in
order to attract the best of the Indian student population (Nargundkar, Rajashekar &
Shahiada, 2009).

30. 30
2.3.3. The Future for Business Schools
The future for Business Schools is difficult to predict but in the opinion of both
Kilcourse (1995) and Starkey & Tiratsoo (2007), education landscapes are changing
and Business Schools will also need to change if they want to survive. In most cases,
threats can pose great opportunities, which incidentally is the case for Business
Schools. Starkey & Tiratsoo (2007) are of the opinion that if Business Schools
continue to operate in the way in which they do currently, they will not survive:
keeping up with the changing educational and business environment is the key to
their future success. Business Schools must make sure that they do not lower their
standards simply to recruit new students, they must not stretch their academics too
far, risking a lower research quality and lesser contribution to society.
Hawawini (2005) presents some of the many challenges and opportunities facing
Business Schools in the years to come. The issues include;
 The effect of globalisation on education and how Business Schools can
respond to this.
 The effects of information and communication technologies and how to
integrate these into learning and teaching within a Business School.
 The need to strengthen reputation and to build on the School brand in order to
secure a long-term competitive position within Higher Education.
This need to strengthen the Business School brand is also highlighted by Parker and
Guthrie (2010) and Kilcourse (1995). The Business School is often not given the
credit it deserves within a University and is seen as the ―institutional cash cow‖
(Parker and Guthrie, 2010, p.7). If the Business School is to be taken more seriously,
then some changes will have to be made.
In the opinion of Hawawini (2005) and Syvertsen (2008), the challenges and issues
currently facing Business Schools, provide them with strategic objectives, which if
met successfully, can create opportunities for each School, allowing for their
differentiation from their competitors.

31. 31
It is not clear whether Business Schools, although an integral part of society today,
will still be as important in the future, therefore emphasising the need for Business
Schools to embrace the opportunities they face, such as „social media‟, and strive for
the differentiation they need to survive (Hawawini, 2005).

32. 32
CHAPTER THREE: LITERATURE REVIEW

33. 33
CHAPTER THREE: LITERATURE REVIEW
3.1. Introduction
The main aim of this dissertation is to examine the extent to which Web2.0 and
Social Media are being utilised by the top Business Schools in the UK and in the
USA. This chapter aims to fulfil objective one of the dissertation and will present and
discuss the relevant literature. The literature can be categorised into four main
strands; „Business School Marketing – The Traditional Approach‟, „Customer
Empowerment‟, „Business School Marketing – A New Marketing Mix‟ and
„Marketing to the Net Generation‟ (see Figure 3.1 below). Each of these four strands
will be discussed in turn and a conclusion will be presented at the end of the chapter,
presenting any research gaps which the researcher could fill.
Figure 3.1 : Literature Review Strands
Business School
Marketing - The
Traditional
Approach
Marketing to the Customer
Net Generation Empowerment
Business School
Marketing - A New
Marketing Mix

34. 34
3.2. Business School Marketing – The Traditional Approach
As was previously deduced from the importance of rankings and reputation,
differentiation is of great importance for most Business Schools.
3.2.1. Building the Business School Brand
The emphasis on image and reputation, is highlighted by Ivy (2008) and emphasised
by Maringe & Gibbs (2009) who state the importance of the „Oxford‟ brand in UK
Higher Education. Berthon et al. (1999) explain that a Business School brand is no
different to any other brand in the way that it must perform, as it must fulfil all the
functions in a similar way. In many cases, the best brand management strategy is to
analyse the competencies of the Business School, seeking something which can set
them aside from the competition. In some cases, this involves a tighter focus on
strategy, with the aim of achieving differentiation (Starkey & Tiratsoo, 2007).
Business Schools provide a service and are therefore marketing themselves in this
way (Kotler & Fox, 1995; Ivy, 2008). There are three key stakeholders of a Business
School; students, faculty and corporate (Nargundkar, Rajashekar & Shahiada, 2009)
and the importance of each of these must be recognised. A conceptual model has
been developed for brand-building within Business Schools (Figure 3.2), which
considers top management philosophy and stakeholders (Nargundkar, Rajashekar &
Shahiada, 2009, p.62).

35. 35
Figure 3.2 : A Conceptual Model for Brand-building for Business Schools
As can be analysed from the brand-building model, there are four external variables
which must be considered; technological upheaval, demographic shifts, global
competition and Indian context (Nargundkar, Rajashekar & Shahiada, 2009), which
should naturally be altered to the country in question. These factors influence the
strategic direction chosen in the fast paced environment in which Business Schools
operate. Kotler & Fox (1995) are also of the opinion that the external market is of
great importance and stress the need for institutions to become responsive to any
market fluctuations.
Becoming an organisation which is responsive to market fluctuations requires a great
deal of commitment and change (Kotler & Fox, 1995). Kilcourse (1995) explains
that one of these changes is often the need to become a “flatter organisation”,
allowing for ease of management and better information flows towards the top end of
the organisation.

36. 36
The author explains that becoming a flat organisation requires decentralisation and
the fragmentation of business areas into customer-focused entities. It is also clear that
in order to survive, let alone achieve success in the education industry, there is the
need for management teams who are:
―clearly focused, integrated, flexible in response and aware of what is happening in
their business environment‖
(Kilcourse, 1995, p.34).
With senior management having more responsibility and control over strategy, it is
they who must take into account the value of the stakeholders, termed as „customer-
groups‟ by Kotler & Fox (1995), evaluate the market opportunities and create the
vision to which the whole Business School will strive towards (Nargundkar,
Rajashekar & Shahiada, 2009). Without a vision and without monitoring the external
environment, it would become very difficult for a Business School to position
themselves effectively in an ever-changing environment.
3.2.2. Traditional Business School Marketing Approaches
Organisations use marketing to differentiate themselves from one another and
Business Schools are no different. According to Kotler & Fox (1995, p.6):
―Marketing exists when people decide to satisfy their needs and wants through
exchange‖.
Educational establishments offer courses and career progression in return for tuition
fees, donations and volunteers. It‟s necessary to establish the current role which
marketing plays in the provision of the services provided by Business Schools.

37. 37
Ivy (2008) emphasises the amount of competition in the education industry and
explains that the need for differentiation has led to the increasing use of marketing as
a means creating identity. Ivy (2008, p.294) believes that there has been a shift in the
marketing mix elements for Business Schools, who now lend themselves to a „7P‟
model (see Figure 3.3 below).
Figure 3.3 : Business School 7P Marketing Mix
Through the analysis of the research conducted by Ivy (2008) on South African
Business Schools, it‟s clear that there has been a shift from a 5/6 P marketing mix, to
the new 7P mix presented above. He outlined the changes which have occurred in the
marketing mix, allowing for the development of this new 7P structure;
 The new „Programme‟ element of the marketing mix is the most important
element and relates to curriculum aspects of the MBA degree.
 „Prominence‟ was the second most important element. This was dominated
by staff reputation and position on league tables/rankings.
 „Promotion‟ was split into two sections: Promotion (mass media advertising)
and Prospectus (hard copy promotional materials).

38. 38
 The „Price‟ element was unchanged in this new 7P marketing mix.
 The „People‟ element was altered slightly to include „face to face tuition‟ and
„personal contact‟ at recruitment events.
The final element of the 7P Marketing Mix is:
 „Premiums‟: This element includes class sizes, computer facilities and
student exchange programmes. This element was considered by Ivy (2008) as
being the least important of the marketing tools, but it was however noted
that the absence of some of these items would affect the recruitment efforts of
the Business School.
Ivy (2008) has identified „Programme‟, „Prominence‟ and „Promotion‟ as being the
three most important elements of the Business School Marketing Mix. These three
elements could also be described as; information, reputation and communication, all
of which are extremely important for the brand-building of a Business School
(Nargundkar, Rajashekar & Shahiada, 2009).
Despite the fact that Ivy (2008) has presented the new 7P Marketing Mix model for
Business Schools, it is believed that changes need to be made in the marketing
activities of Business Schools (Starkey & Tiratsoo, 2007). The simple truth that
Business Schools provide a service to their customers, the stakeholders, means that
Business Schools have been marketing themselves as services, in the same way as
many other organisations (Nargundkar, Rajashekar & Shahiada, 2009). It is thought
that Business Schools must break away from the concept of „services marketing‟ and
must look for innovative ways to market themselves. In the model of Ivy (2008), it is
clear that there is beginning to be more focus on the needs of the customer, with
face-to-face contact included as part of the marketing mix.

39. 39
This is emphasised by the model of Nargundkar, Rajashekar & Shahiada (2009),
which demonstrates the presence of feedback from the stakeholders to the Business
School, which in turn indicates „listening‟ to the needs and wants of the stakeholders
in order to learn how best to meet their needs.
Traditional marketing approaches do not seem to be effectively meeting the needs of
consumers in general. Kagan (2008) presents the statistics that the average person is
exposed to over 3000 advertising messages every day, but that only 14% of people
trust advertisements. 78% of people on the other hand, trust the recommendations of
other consumers (Kagan, 2008, slide 25). These statistics alone, present a problem.
Organisations are obviously still trying to bombard consumers with advertising
messages. The consumers, on the other hand, don‟t want to listen to these messages
and obtain their product information in other ways. Kagan (2008) also presents the
fact that 90% of people who can skip television adverts, do meaning that only 18%
of television ad campaigns generate positive ROI (Return on Investment). It‟s
therefore clear to see that traditional marketing approaches are no longer effective:
―It‘s a DIALOGUE, not a monologue.‖
(Kagan, 2008, slide 55)
With traditional marketing approaches being rendered ineffective, there is definitely
the need to engage more with consumers, interact with consumers and listen to their
needs and wants more carefully than ever before.
3.3. Customer Empowerment
3.3.1. The Power Shift to the Consumer
Lyon (2009) explains that there has been a shift in power from the institution to the
consumer, which can be seen in the education sector by the growth in part-time,
evening and online learning options – the consumer has forced the market to alter.

40. 40
There are two ways of viewing this power shift; a re-distribution of power from the
organisation to the consumer or a process of change and an infinite resource (Eylon,
1998), the latter of which is the preferred viewpoint of Eylon. There is nothing to say
that the power will not shift back to organisations, but for the time-being, consumers
have more power than ever before, collaborating, sharing information and exerting
their opinions. A recent blog post by Lyon (2009) discusses this paradigm shift in
power towards the consumer, and states that:
―In the most innovative marketing efforts, consumers are the creators, advocates,
promoters, marketers and buyers.‖
Lyon (2009) discusses consumer empowerment in terms of “pull marketing” in
which the consumer is now in control of marketing, choosing when and if they are
going to take an interest in a product or service, rather than having it forced upon
them. Companies must try and engage consumers in a variety of different ways in
order to sustain their interest, in contrast to “push marketing” which encompasses all
of the traditional forms of advertising such as billboards, television adverts and
Radio adverts. This new form of marketing, known as „pull‟ marketing, combines
viral, blogging, RSS Feeds and internet marketing and allows consumers to engage
with a brand (Lyon, 2009).
3.3.2. The Drivers of Customer Empowerment
This paradigm shift in power to the consumer has occurred gradually due to a
number of factors, one of which is the internet, which enables consumers to
collaborate, share information and voice their opinion on a global scale. The four
main drivers of customer empowerment are; Internet, Market, Customer,
Competition. These drivers can be related to the higher education sector and to
Business Schools in particular:

41. 41
 Internet: the internet has allowed for online courses and allows students to
easily check the Business School rankings, compare Business Schools, look
at course ratings and comments about the academics, before making a
decision on where to study. Just as there are price comparison websites for
insurance (eg. www.gocompare.com), students can now compare Business
Schools with online rankings (eg. www.ft.com).
 Market: The Business School market is reaching saturation and with so
many Business Schools to choose from, it‟s a „buyer‟s market‟, meaning that
students can afford to choose their Business School carefully.
 Customer: The generation current going through the education system is the
„Net Generation‟ (Tapscott, 2009), a generation which is becoming more and
more demanding. They will choose whichever Business School they want and
will discuss their choice and the advantages and disadvantages with their
friends.
 Competition: With Business Schools so focused on rankings, sometimes the
stakeholders are forgotten. The fierce competition between the Business
Schools for students has given the customer (the student) the purchasing
power, enabling them to carefully choose their Business School.
To summarise the growth of customer empowerment in the Business School sector, it
can be said that the market is saturated, which has led to hyper competition in a fast-
paced sector. This has increased the power of the consumer in that industry, in this
case, the student. The students have the power to choose carefully between Business
Schools, comparing and contrasting as they go, with the abundance of information
now available on the internet. According to Starkey & Tiratsoo (2007), hyper
competition between Business Schools has led to the need for more “business” and
less “school”. It is thought that in order to survive, Business Schools must be much
more market-orientated and business minded (Nicholls et al., 1995) and instead of
focusing on what they can provide, should be focusing on how they are providing it.

42. 42
3.3.3. The Need for Business Schools to Become „Customer-Led‟?
The concept of becoming more „market-orientated‟ (Nicholls et al., 1995) is in line
with the view of Maringe & Gibbs (2009), who believe that the student is no longer
the „customer‟ of higher education, but is instead an integral part of any institution, a
development of the opinion of Kotler & Fox (1995). Maringe & Gibbs (2009)
believe that student satisfaction and the improvement of the student experience,
should be at the heart of any educational strategy. The student experience begins
with their first contact with an institution, therefore Business Schools must make sure
that their marketing strategy is customer-focused in order to ensure that their students
and other stakeholders for that matter, are having the best experience possible –
which is, in turn, necessary for their reputation.
The first point of contact for most prospective students would be the Business School
website. There are two types of website: an “inside-out” website and an “outside-in”
website (Hamill, 2009). An example of an „inside-out‟ website would be one which
explains all about the Business School, with a message along the lines of (Hamill,
2009):
Figure 3.4 : Example of an „inside-out‟ Website Message

43. 43
„Outside-in‟ websites on the other hand encourage feedback, interaction and
collaboration. Most Business School websites are „inside-out‟ websites, which
explain to students why they should study there, what they will learn, the awards the
school has won etc. These websites treat prospective students as a number, another
statistic on the web traffic statistics and may encourage, but will not engage with or
develop a relationship with any prospective student.
With the growth of Customer Experience Management, as a development from
Customer Relationship Management, Business Schools are realising the need to build
one-to-one relationships with their students through their marketing activities, even
from the first point of contact (Nicholls et al., 1995). An example of this was
presented in the model of Ivy (2008) with the inclusion of „face-to-face tuition‟ to the
Business School marketing mix framework. This is where social media comes into
its own. Social media and Web2.0 are interactive technologies which most students
are already using, these students are part of the „Net Generation‟ (Tapscott, 2009).
3.4. Marketing to the Net Generation
„Grown Up Digital‟, by Don Tapscott, author of „Wikinomics‟, is a book about the
generation who are currently going through the education system – he has named it
the „Net Generation‟. His 2009 book „Grown Up Digital‟ was inspired by a $4
million research project funded by large companies and was written to help everyone
understand the Net Generation, in preparation for the future. Tapscott (2009)
surveyed more than 11,000 teenagers and was surprised that instead of finding
spoiled teenagers, with low attention spans, he discovered a (Tapscott, 2009, inside
front cover):
―bright community, which has developed revolutionary new ways of thinking
interacting, working and socialising.‖
The book gives companies and institutions an insight into how the Net Generation
functions, what makes them tick and how they can be targeted.

44. 44
It is first of all important to analyse the characteristics of the generation and to
understand what makes this generation different to others. Tapscott (2009, p.6)
describes the generation as:
―As the first global generation ever, the Net Geners are smarter, quicker and
more tolerant of diversity than their predecessors.‖
Tapscott (2009, pp.4-5) explains that many journalists, academics and even parents,
present negative and cynical views of the Net Generation, some of which are;
 “They‟re dumber than we were at their age.”
 “They‟re screenagers, Net addicted, losing their social skills and they have no
time for sports of healthy activities.”
 “Because their parents have coddled them, they‟re adrift in the world and
afraid to choose a path.”
 “They‟re bullying friends online.”
 “They steal.” (referring to the illegal downloading of music)
 “They have no work ethic and will be bad employees.”
 “This is the latest narcissistic “me” generation.”
One author who presents a cynical view of the Net Generation is Professor Mark
Bauerlein (2008, p.201):
―They upload and download, surf and chat, post and design, but they haven‘t
learned to analyse a complex text, store facts in their heads, comprehend a
foreign policy decision, take lessons from history or spell correctly.‖
These criticisms are too common and straight-cut to be ignored: they make the future
seem very bleak indeed and cannot be pleasant for member of the Net Generation to
hear. Don Tapscott took note of the negative stereotypes and began his quest to find
out the truth about this, in his opinion, mis-understood generation.

45. 45
3.4.1. Characteristics of the Net Generation
According to Tapscott (2009), the Net Generation is a very distinct generation, made
up of the children of the Baby Boomers (US term). To understand the reasons for Net
Gen behaviour, it‟s helpful to understand the demographics. The different
generations are explained by Tapscott (2009, pp.11-16):
 Baby Boom – born between 1946 and 1964, there are over 81 million Baby
Boomers worldwide. This generation later became known as the “TV
Generation”.
 Generation X (The Baby Bust) – born between 1965 and 1975, a decade
when birth rates fell dramatically. This generation are among the best
educated in history and are now adults between the ages of 32 and 43.
 Generation Y/Net Generation (The Echo of the Baby Boom) – born
between 1977 and 1997. This generation has lasted so long because of the
number of women putting off having children until their 30s and 40s.
 Generation Z/Generation Next – born between 1998 and the present day.
To gain a better idea of the proportion of each of the generations, Tapscott (2009,
p.15) collates the demographic information into percentages of the US population
(see Figure 3.5).
Figure 3.5 : Demographic Breakdown of U.S Population by Generation
Generation % of the US Population
Pre-Boomers 17%
Boomer Generation 23%
Generation X 15%
Net Generation 27%
Generation Next 13%
The fact that the Net Generation seem to be a very large generation in the USA,
could be one of the reasons for the negativity they receive. There are however,
positive characteristics to the Net Generation and more positive stereotypes being
created as well.

46. 46
Carlson (2005, p.1) described the Net Generation in a slightly more positive light to
that of Bauerlein (2008):
―They are smart but impatient. They expect results immediately. They carry
an arsenal of electronic devices -- the more portable the better. Raised amid
a barrage of information, they are able to juggle a conversation on Instant
Messenger, a Web-surfing session, and an iTunes playlist while reading
Twelfth Night for homework.‖
Many would interpret that quote in a negative manner, but many, those with an open-
mind to new innovations and technology, would think “what a clever generation”.
Through analysing this quote in particular, it‟s clear that even though results are
expected immediately, the Net Geners are given results immediately through the
internet for example and have therefore been brought up with instantaneous action.
Multi-tasking is evident in this situation, a skill which is invaluable in the world of
work and education. There is also the mention of reading, a skill which many say is
being eroded by the introduction of new technologies (Davies & Merchant, 2009).
Due to the unclear message being sent to everyone about the Net Generation and
their characteristics, Tapscott (2009) has generated what he calls the „norms‟, which
are distinctive differences, differentiating one generation from another. The eight
norms which Tapscott (2009, pp.74-97) created for the Net Generation are
summarised in Figure 3.6 below;

47. 47
Figure 3.6 : The Eight “Norms” of the Net Generation
Source: Adapted from (Tapscott, 2009, p.74-97)
„Norm‟ Description
Freedom They choose what they want, when they
want it, where they want to work, where
they want to be and when they want to
talk to friends.
Customisation They can customise phones, cars,
desktop computers, websites, clothes,
calendars and many more. They can even
customise their jobs eg. Working from
home one day a week for change of
scenery.
Scrutiny Due to the large amount of information
on the internet, the Net Geners have to be
aware of the world around them and are
able to distinguish between fact and
fiction.
Integrity They like to be able to trust other people
and companies. They will also pass on
information to their friends, so
companies must be honest with this
generation.
Collaboration As previously mentioned, Net Geners are
natural collaborators. They‟re known as
the „relationship generation‟. Net Geners
can work hand in hand with companies
to create better products and services.
Entertainment Net Geners value the experience of using
a product very highly and always like to
have fun with whatever they‟re
using/doing. Net Geners become bored
easily, so playing with their high-tech
toys keeps them amused.
Speed Net Geners are used to instant response,
24/7 and have grown up with and now
expect speed. When Net Geners email a
company, 80% expect a reply quickly –
this isn‟t how most companies operate.
Innovation This generation has been raised in a
culture of innovation and now want new
products every few months eg. Mobile
phones. In the workplace, they exchange
traditional work rules for a culture of
collaboration and interaction.

48. 48
Tapscott (2009) paints a positive picture of the Net Generation through his creation
of the eight „norms‟. In a way, Tapscott is saying that these Net Geners have grown
up with the technologies and now live in a way which only seems strange to their
parents and grand-parents because they are the ones who are not used to the fast pace
of life, the continuous technological innovations and the need to be instantly
contactable at any time.
One challenge exists, however, which Don Tapscott clearly realised and wanted to
dissolve by creating an understanding of how this generation functions and what they
expect of companies and institutions alike.
3.4.2. Strategies for „Tapping the Groundswell‟
Due to the digital divide between the Net Generation and companies/institutions, it
has become clear that many institutions, including Business Schools are being left
behind and are constantly playing „catch-up‟ with their consumers/students. Carlson
(2005) explains that many educational institutions are simply being advised to use
new technologies such as Web2.0 and social media even though they don‟t know
anything about them – there is a lack of knowledge about these new technologies.
Not only is Higher Education changing completely (Starkey & Tiratsoo, 2007), so
too is the global marketplace, meaning that companies need to adapt just as much, if
not more than Business Schools must. According to Tapscott (2009), in order to
reach the Net Generation as a target market, it‟s necessary to adopt the strategy of
„candor‟. Companies must provide their consumers with ample product information
which is easy to access. This generation likes to „shop-around‟. With the amount of
information available on the internet and with peer ratings and reviews taken very
seriously on sites such as Tripadvisor and Amazon, companies must make sure that
their products have the best possible chance of being noticed and scrutinised by the
Net Geners (Li & Bernoff, 2009).

49. 49
For companies or institutions who are struggling to reach this complex generation, Li
& Bernoff (2009, p.67), in their book „Groundswell – Winning in a World
Transformed by Social Technologies‟, have created a simple plan for them to follow:
the POST method. The authors describe the method as:
―the foundation of groundswell thinking – a systematic framework for
assembling your plan.‖
Li & Bernoff (2009, p.67)
The POST method starts with questions and makes a company/institution think about
what they‟re trying to achieve and who they‟re trying to target, which then helps
them to build their groundswell strategy (see Figure 3.7 below).
Figure 3.7 : POST Method for Developing a Groundswell Strategy
Source: (Li & Bernoff, 2009, pp.67-68)
Method Question Explanation
People What are your customers ready for? Carrying out customer profiling
will answer this question. You
must find out how your customer
will engage by monitoring what
they‟re already doing.
Objectives What are your goals? Are you more interested in talking
with the groundswell for
marketing purposes or do you
want to energise the groundswell
in order to increase sales?
Strategy How do you want relationships with Do you want customers to
your customers to change? become more engaged with your
company? Do you want to get
your customer talking to one
another? By answering these
questions, you will establish how
to measure your results once your
goals have been met.
Technology What applications should you build? This stage must be completed
after the other three. After you‟ve
decided on the people, objective
and strategy, it‟s time to choose
the technologies eg. Blogs, social
networks etc.

50. 50
When analysing „Objectives‟ in particular, there are five main „Groundswell
objectives‟ which companies or institutions can choose from (Li & Bernoff, 2009,
pp.68-69);
 Listening – Research your customers in the groundswell in order to better
understand their needs and wants and how your company can meet these
needs.
 Talking – Spread messages about your company through the groundswell.
 Energising – Locate your most valued customers and use the groundswell to
generate or increase word of mouth amongst them.
 Supporting – Help your customers support each other by setting up
groundswell tools.
 Embracing – Try and integrate your customers into your business, by letting
them become involved in product design for example.
Once companies have chosen their objectives and created their POST strategy, they
should be on the right track to engaging with the Net Generation and their other
customers. Thanks to Don Tapscott (2009) and Li & Bernoff (2009), many
companies now have a clear frame of reference for use during their strategy creation.
The Net Generation may be controversial and difficult to understand, but according
to these authors, they‟re not impossible to target – all that‟s needed is change and
adaptation. Companies and Business Schools alike will need to begin to use
„Groundswell thinking‟ and their knowledge of the Net Generation to survive and
prosper through further technologically innovative years.
3.5. Business School Marketing – A New Marketing Mix
Through better understanding the „Net Generation‟, the growth of customer
empowerment and realising the need for change in the Business School sector, it has
become clear this change must begin with the way Business Schools are marketing
themselves. Can the traditional marketing mix from Ivy (2008) be effective in
today‟s highly competitive, technology driven world?

51. 51
Hawanini (2005) believes that there are two options for the top Business Schools in
times of crisis; transform themselves in order to meet the demands of the market, or
be prepared to give some of their ground to other providers of education.
Through a detailed evaluation of the literature on social media, customer
empowerment and the Net Generation, it‟s clear that Business Schools need to
develop a new mindset towards their marketing activities, in order to effectively
reach and meet the needs of their stakeholders. Starkey & Tiratsoo (2007, p.223)
believe that the Business School must change if it‟s to survive and:
―re-establish its social link to the outside world.‖
3.5.1. A New „Business School Marketing Mix‟
Through the realisation that a new marketing mindset is needed, in order for the
Business School sector to prosper, the 7P Business School Marketing Mix, as
presented by Ivy (2008), must be scrutinised. Ivy (2008) has split „Promotion‟ into
two sections; hard copy promotion and traditional promotion, including electronic
marketing. The model is however, not technology-focused and fails to mention the
importance of the Business Schools website and the use of technology in both
marketing and relationship building activities. The 7P model fails to show any
interaction between the Business School and its stakeholders, aside from „personal
contact‟ and „face-to-face tuition‟, both of which cannot easily build long-lasting
relationships.
Daniel (1996) believes that since the foundation of the University of Bologna in
1088, Universities have provided a consistent, continuous service: they are masters
of continuity. He has three firm beliefs; that the academic mode of thinking is
“among the most precious assets of mankind”, that Universities know that they need
to keep up with the times and that technology is “the key to the renewal of higher
education” (Daniel, 1996, p.1).

52. 52
The absence of technological aspects to this 7P Marketing Mix is evidence that
Business Schools are either not yet aware of the need for change in their marketing
activities, or are unaware that technology can aid them in doing so.
The „7P Business School Marketing Mix‟ model can be altered in order to
encompass the benefits which technology can bring to any marketing strategy and
can enable the new mindset needed by Business Schools. The model has been
adapted by the researcher in order to incorporate Web2.0 and social media
technologies into the marketing mix. As can be seen from Figure 3.8 below, the „7P‟
model has become the „8P Business School Marketing Mix‟ model, with the addition
of an 8th element: „Participation‟.

53. 53
Figure 3.8 : The „8P Business School Marketing Mix‟
Adapted from: Ivy (2008, p.294) The „7P Business School Marketing Mix‟
8P
Business School
Marketing Mix
Participation
Internal:
 An „outside-in‟ website
 A Business School blog
External:
 A presence on social and professional
networking sites, such as Facebook and
Linkedin.
 The use of Twitter
 A Business School channel on YouTube
Internal
 Website alterations towards a more „outside-in‟ approach to the marketing of
the Business School will keep in line with what students of today intrinsically
want, interaction and the opportunity to voice their opinion (eg. Feedback
about the website, or about courses).