Skip to main content
Get Started
Get Started
Open the mobile menu:

Tag Archive: Higher Education Strategy

  1. Student Recruitment Strategies for Higher Education: Breaking Through Enrollment Plateaus

    Comments Off on Student Recruitment Strategies for Higher Education: Breaking Through Enrollment Plateaus

    Most conversations about student recruitment strategies for higher education focus on marketing channels: which platforms to use, how much to spend, how to optimize campaigns for inquiry volume. These are real questions worth answering, but they’re downstream of a more fundamental set of questions that university leaders should be asking first.

    Before you add budget or change your channel mix, you need to determine what is actually limiting your enrollment growth. The answer determines the strategy. And more often than not, the answer isn’t what the marketing team thinks it is.

    Plateau Is Normal and Predictable

    Enrollment growth for online programs follows a predictable arc. A well-positioned program in a healthy market will grow quickly in its early years, then slow as it approaches its natural market ceiling. That ceiling typically reflects the intersection of program design, target audience size, competitive intensity and institutional factors, not just marketing performance.

    A plateau isn’t a failure. It’s a realistic forecast of what a program can achieve given its current design and positioning. Many institutions reach their plateau and find it acceptable. They’re serving the students they set out to serve, at a volume their operations can handle.

    At AllCampus, we make note of expected plateaus in the enrollment projections we provide to universities before a program launches. But for institutions that want to grow past the plateau, the path forward requires honestly diagnosing what’s creating the ceiling. Marketing spend alone rarely breaks through it.

    Five Factors That Determine Your Enrollment Ceiling

    Program Design and Requirements

    Admissions requirements that made sense when a program was designed for a traditional campus audience can become barriers in an online market. A strict 3.0 GPA requirement with no exceptions for experienced working adults, a mandatory GMAT or GRE for a professional program or an on-ground residency requirement in a program marketed as fully online can reduce your addressable market in ways that no marketing investment can fully compensate for.

    The question worth asking is whether every requirement in your admissions process serves the educational goal of the program, or whether some were inherited from a different context. Requirements calibrated for a 22-year-old traditional student may screen out exactly the experienced working professionals your online program is designed to serve.

    Concentration and Specialization Depth

    Programs that offer a single track compete in a narrower market than programs with multiple concentrations. An MBA with tracks in finance, healthcare management, data analytics and nonprofit leadership can reach audiences that a general MBA cannot. If your program has reached a plateau in its primary audience, expanding specialization options is often the most direct path to capturing additional market share without changing the fundamental program structure.

    When concentrations are designed with stackability in mind, individual courses can also count toward a standalone certificate, giving prospective students a lower-commitment entry point before pursuing a full degree. Institutions that grant certificate students direct admission to the full degree program, without requiring a separate application, remove a meaningful re-enrollment barrier.

    In our experience, students who enter via a certificate frequently choose to enroll in the full program once they learn that federal financial aid, which typically does not apply to standalone certificates, is available for the degree.

    Allowing on-campus students to enroll in the same concentration courses as online students also supports cost efficiency. Concentrations with smaller online cohorts are more viable to run and sustain when enrollment is not limited to a single modality.

    Pricing Relative to Online Competitors

    The adult learner market is price-sensitive in ways that traditional students are not. Affordability has ranked as the top factor in online program enrollment decisions for adult learners in 12 of the past 14 years, according to the annual Voice of the Online Learner report. If your tuition is significantly above what competing online programs charge for comparable credentials at comparable-brand schools, there will be students in your addressable market who are choosing alternatives.

    Application Decision Speed

    How long does it take for a student to receive a decision after submitting their application? Two weeks or two months? In a market where prospective students are comparing multiple programs simultaneously, a slow admissions process loses students to faster competitors. This is an operations problem, not a marketing one, but it has a direct effect on enrollment outcomes.

    Two operational changes tend to produce the biggest gains. First, map the review process end-to-end and audit whether each step and each reviewer adds measurable value. Many programs accumulate approval layers over time without questioning whether they are necessary. Reducing the number of handoffs shortens decision timelines directly.

    Second, document a consistent evaluation rubric. When admissions decisions depend on individual judgment rather than written criteria, staff turnover creates inconsistency in who gets admitted and at what pace. A rubric ensures that new staff apply the same standards as their predecessors, and it makes it easier to identify where in the process decisions are slowing down.

    Number of Starts Per Year

    Programs with a single annual cohort lose students who are ready to enroll but do not want to wait six or eight months for the next available entry point. Programs that offer at least two starts per year, and three or more when possible, convert a meaningfully higher percentage of interested prospects into enrolled students. Every additional start window captures students who would otherwise wait and reconsider.

    The Marketing Investment Question

    For institutions that have addressed the programmatic and operational factors above and still want to grow, the marketing investment question becomes more relevant. Spending more on marketing makes sense when the constraints limiting growth are genuinely demand-side: when there are more qualified prospective students in the market than your current campaign is reaching.

    Rankings as a Long-Term Growth Lever

    Improving program rankings is one of the harder paths to enrollment growth, but it’s not an impossible one. For programs where credibility is a primary barrier, where prospective students are choosing more recognized competitors, investing in the inputs that drive rankings (alumni outcomes, faculty credentials, selectivity, peer assessment) can meaningfully improve competitive position over a three-to-five year horizon.

    This isn’t a short-term recruitment strategy. But it’s a real one, and institutions that plan their program development with rankings in mind sometimes create market position advantages that are difficult for competitors to replicate quickly.

    The Competitive Landscape Question

    Sometimes the most direct explanation for an enrollment plateau is visible via a competitive scan. New entrants, pricing changes, additional concentrations or a well-resourced institution entering your market can each shift enrollment patterns in ways that look like internal performance problems until you map the competitive context. A program that was growing steadily two years ago and has since stagnated may simply be competing against a program that did not exist two years ago.

    A few questions worth auditing regularly:

    • Have new programs entered your core market in the last 12 to 18 months?
    • Has a competing program changed its tuition or added concentrations that overlap with your target audience?
    • Has a more recognized brand institution launched an online version of a credential you have long owned in your region?

    If the answer to any of these is yes, competitive pressure is likely a contributing factor that warrants programmatic changes..

    Differentiation is the other side of this question. Understanding how your program compares against the two or three programs a prospective student would actually consider — and the competitors may not be who you think they are — tells you where you are genuinely strong and where you are asking students to accept a compromise. The goal is not to be better than every program in the category. It is to be the clear choice for the specific audience your program is designed to serve.

    As part of our discovery process, AllCampus provides prospective university partners with in-depth research on competitive programs covering admissions requirements, curriculum, tuition rates and more before a contract is signed. If understanding your competitive position is where you want to start, that research is part of the initial conversation.  Interested?  Reach out to our team here.

    Diagnosis Before Channel Selection

    The practical implication of this framework is that effective student recruitment strategy starts with diagnosis, not channel selection. Before adding marketing budget, the most productive investment is usually an honest assessment of what’s actually limiting growth.

    According to the National Student Clearinghouse Research Center’s Final Fall Enrollment Trends report, graduate enrollment declined 0.3% in fall 2025, even as overall postsecondary enrollment grew 1.0%. In that environment, programs that grow are the ones that have identified and removed the specific barriers limiting their enrollment, whether those barriers are programmatic, operational or genuinely demand-side. Programs that simply increase marketing spend in a flat or declining market typically produce more inquiries and the same number of enrolled students.

    The Question Most Institutions Skip

    The most effective student recruitment strategies for online graduate programs start with the question most institutions skip: what is our enrollment ceiling and what is creating it? The answer shapes everything that follows. Marketing investment is more productive when it’s directed at genuine demand-side constraints, not used to compensate for programmatic or operational limitations that no campaign budget can fix.

    Need help identifying how your program could grow? Reach out to our university solutions team.

    About AllCampus

    AllCampus grows enrollment for colleges and universities at a lower cost to serve. AllCampus delivers five core solutions for universities — market intelligence and program strategy, marketing, recruitment, learning design and student success — that support online, hybrid, and campus-based programs across 150+ programs at 30+ partner institutions. Institutions can engage AllCampus across all five areas or focus on the one or two where they need the most support, backed by structured reporting, disciplined operating workflows and measurable enrollment outcomes.

  2. Leaving Your OPM: What Every University Should Know Before Making the Switch

    Comments Off on Leaving Your OPM: What Every University Should Know Before Making the Switch

    After years of locked-in contracts without visibility into marketing budget, performance data or strategic goals, a growing number of universities are deciding it’s time to move on from their online program managers. In 2023 alone, institutions terminated or didn’t renew 147 OPM partnerships, nearly matching the termination and non-renewal rate of the previous three years combined. By the first half of 2025, just 18 new partnerships were established across the entire country, down 45% from the same period in the year before. 

    The decision to leave tends to build over time as the relationship is eroded by a lack of transparency and flexibility. You may not know what’s being spent on your behalf (or why), how campaigns are performing or when strategy has shifted until the impact shows up in enrollment numbers. Or, maybe the revenue-share agreement that made sense when your institution was first building online capacity no longer reflects what you can do independently. Many institutions have spent years developing internal capacity for curriculum development and instructional design. 

    However, most universities still want and need a strategic partner that can build the marketing and enrollment strategies that they need to reach their enrollment targets. So, the transition is rarely leaving an OPM partnership and bringing everything in-house. More often, it’s investing in a strategic, flexible partner that aligns with institutional needs and goals, works transparently and delivers results.

    Making that transition is harder than most institutions expect. Here’s what to know before you start.

    What You Need To Negotiate Before You Leave.

    To come out of an OPM transition in the strongest position, institutions should do what they can to start the process long before they send formal notice. 

    The sales and contracting process with a new vendor can take months. Building new program pages, migrating content assets and configuring a new CRM or enrollment platform all require additional lead time. The window between turning off one site and turning on a new one is another period of real risk for pipeline health, organic search performance and enrolled students needing continuity of support.

    Institutions that begin transition planning at least 12 months before their intended switch date are in a fundamentally better position than those that start at 6 months out. If you’re considering a change, begin the internal conversation now, even if the formal process is more than a year away.

    “The schools that come out ahead are the ones that treat the transition as a project, not an afterthought. Most institutions wait until the exit notice is sent before they start planning. By that point, the window to negotiate, migrate and rebuild has already narrowed significantly. The preparation you do in the 12 months before notice is worth more than anything you can scramble to do after.”

    Rose Reardon, AVP of Operations, AllCampus

    There are a few issues around ownership that tend to catch universities off guard, and addressing them proactively in collaboration with your new higher education strategic partner can change the outcome significantly.

    1. Your Content Belongs to You: Make Sure Your Contract Says So.

    Over the course of a multi-year OPM agreement, a substantial body of content is created in your institution’s name: program pages, blog articles, FAQs, landing pages, enrollment guides and more. That content has accumulated SEO value that took years to build. If your OPM owns it, you lose it when you leave.

    Before you exit, review your contract carefully for IP ownership language. If the contract is ambiguous, negotiate now, not after notice has been given. Migrating existing content cleanly to a new site is far less costly than rebuilding from scratch, and a knowledgeable incoming partner will have a documented process for handling it.

    2. Negotiate Your Lead Data.

    Your prospective student data is one of the most valuable assets in the relationship, and one you can’t assume you’ll simply walk away with. In most OPM arrangements, the provider funds lead acquisition and owns the resulting records, which means getting them at exit is a negotiation, not a guarantee. Common practice in the industry dictates that lead data does carry a price, but a reasonable provider will sell it back to you at a clear, fair rate rather than refusing outright or hiding behind vague ownership language.

    Best practice is to push to acquire 12-18 months of historical lead data: name, contact information, inquiry source and program of interest. This means negotiating a per-lead buyout. This may seem intimidating, but a buyout is a normal part of a well-managed transition, and a fair one is priced by channel. Your incoming partner should be able to tell you what that benchmark looks like from channel to channel. Be cautious of any provider that won’t name a rate at all or treats your program’s data as leverage rather than an asset it will transfer on reasonable terms. 

    This data matters for more than continuity. It directly affects how quickly a new partner can rebuild your pipeline. Starting from scratch costs time and revenue that a well-negotiated data transfer can offset.

    3. Know Who Owns the Curriculum.

    Curriculum ownership is one of the most consequential issues in an OPM exit and one of the least examined during the original contract review.

    Some OPMs retain ownership of course materials developed during the engagement. Others allow institutions to purchase them at exit. And some never address it clearly in the original agreement, which creates difficult leverage problems for both parties.

    Find out where you stand now. Some institutions choose to buy their curriculum at transition. Others, with enough lead time, can begin rebuilding content independently while still under contract so they have something to work with on day one. Either path is manageable with effective planning, but not so manageable if you discover the issue after you’ve given notice.

    4. Plan for Your Currently Enrolled Students.

    The transition between partners affects students who are already enrolled and in progress just as much as it does incoming inquiries.

    Continuity of support for current students is consistently underdiscussed in transition planning. Before your existing contract ends, confirm that enrolled student records, academic progress data and advising history will transfer cleanly. Your incoming partner should have a documented process for accepting existing student relationships and maintaining service continuity from day one, including proactive outreach to students currently in progress so they understand what’s changing and what isn’t.

    How To Pick the Right Partner This Time.

    Many of the frustrations that drive OPM transitions trace back to the original vendor selection process. A pitch that emphasized scale doesn’t necessarily reveal how decisions actually get made. Revenue-share terms that seemed reasonable at the time, didn’t reflect actual market trajectory. A contract with no exit mechanism and no guarantees leaves your institution with no recourse if performance falls short.

    Our guide to evaluating higher education marketing partners, How to Choose a Higher Education Marketing Agency covers the questions to ask before you sign. One question specific to transition: ask the incoming partner how they have managed prior transitions, who on their team owns the launch process and what the first 90 days look like. The ability to answer that question clearly says something important about how they operate.

    The SEO Reality.

    Switching vendors will likely cause a temporary decline in organic search traffic. This is not a reason to stay, but it is something to plan for.

    SEO authority builds over time through domain history, backlinks and indexed content. When site structure changes, URLs get reconfigured or content migrates to a new environment, some of that equity is temporarily disrupted. How much depends heavily on how the migration is managed. 

    One point deserves special attention: the domain itself. If your program pages sit on your institution’s own domain or a subdomain you control (for example, online.youruniversity.edu), keep it through the transition. Domain history is one of the biggest drivers of search authority, so carrying the same domain and URL structure into the new environment preserves years of ranking signals rather than resetting them. If your pages currently live on a domain the OPM owns or controls, make regaining or replacing it a priority in your exit terms. Rebuilding authority on a brand-new domain is the most expensive way to lose ground. 

    The right incoming partner should be transparent about this risk and prepared to invest more aggressively in the early months to close the gap. A solid content migration plan, proper redirects and a structured approach to link continuity can significantly reduce both the depth of the disruption and how long it lasts.

    Be cautious of any partner who tells you there won’t be any disruption. Be equally cautious of any partner who uses the disruption risk as a reason to delay. It’s real, but the right partner will tell you exactly how they’ll handle it.

    What a Different Kind of Partnership Looks Like.

    The frustrations universities describe when leaving OPMs follow a recognizable pattern: limited visibility into how marketing dollars are being spent, no access to lead data, contracts with no real exit clause and assets that walk out the door with the vendor at the end of the relationship.

    AllCampus was built around a different operating model. Our All Clear, All Aligned, All Results approach means partners have visibility into their program data and receive structured reporting on performance, including lead volume by channel, so they can see what’s working and be made aware of any changes. In a revenue-share arrangement, AllCampus has the autonomy to move marketing investment as the data warrants, but we commit to a defined investment level for year one with projections for years two and three, and we report transparently on what was spent. Partners know what’s happening with their program, even when we’re moving quickly.

    For institutions that want a different financial structure, AllCampus offers flexible models: revenue-share, co-investment, hybrid or full fee-for-service depending on the level of service required and the institution’s risk tolerance. In co-investment and hybrid arrangements, your institution contributes marketing dollars directly, which means you have a direct say in how those funds are allocated and confidence that the investment reflects your program’s priorities.

    We also back our commitments with a performance guarantee that provides an early exit option for partners if AllCampus doesn’t deliver on the targets we set together at the start of the relationship. Accountability has to go both ways.

    We’ve helped institutions transition out of agreements with the largest OPMs in the market. We know where the pressure points are and how to protect what matters most: your content, your students and your enrollment pipeline. 

    If you’re starting to think about what comes next, the conversation may already be overdue. Start with the checklist in How to Choose a Higher Education Marketing Agency and reach out to our team when you’re ready to talk through what a transition could look like for your institution.

    About AllCampus

    AllCampus grows enrollment for colleges and universities at a lower cost to serve. AllCampus delivers five core solutions for universities — market intelligence and program strategy, marketing, recruitment, learning design and student success — that support online, hybrid, and campus-based programs across 150+ programs at 30+ partner institutions. Institutions can engage AllCampus across all five areas or focus on the one or two where they need the most support, backed by structured reporting, disciplined operating workflows and measurable enrollment outcomes.