MARKET SHARE BY P.J. BEDNARSKI

Stations May Suffer In For-Profit Schools Fight

The government thinks that so called “for-profit” colleges are making empty and expensive promises and want to do something about it. For broadcasters, the fear factor is that if some of the schools go away or get regulated more closely, hundreds of millions in ad revenue may be in jeopardy.

I remember when I was a teenager and heard radio commercials predicting that within five years or so, there would be “a critical need” for 20,000 new disc jockeys. This could have never been true, and I’m really sure of that now that I found out Glenn Beck once was one.

But back then, had I gone to disc jockey school, I probably couldn’t have received federally-backed financial aid like the kind offered by all kinds of schools now.

In recent years, so called “for-profit” colleges, teaching topics like law enforcement, nursing skills, court reporting, computer programming and other professions can entice students with offers student loans. The trouble is that many students get in deep and later don’t snag that high-paying job they were counting on.

These schools happen to be very good advertisers. On buses. Online. And on TV.

You’ve seen ads for Kaplan University, DeVry Institute, the University of Phoenix and many other smaller operators. Whether you will see more may depend on how hard a new crackdown by the Department of Education and the Senate Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee is on the schools.

The government thinks the schools are making empty and expensive promises and want to do something about it. Students who wash out at these schools — and that may be more than half of them — begin careers at low wages, owing tens of thousands of dollars.

BRAND CONNECTIONS

In the vanguard, the DOE last summer proposed a number of rules designed to tighten academic standards and protect students from overly aggressive recruiters. The rules would also require schools to provide prospective students with graduation and job placement rates.

Early next year, when this debate gets going again, look out. For broadcasters, the fear factor is that if some of the schools go away or get regulated more closely, hundreds of millions in ad revenue may be in jeopardy.

“That’s a lot of our money,” said one general manager who didn’t want to be quoted.

According to data from Kantar Media, for-profit colleges have spent nearly $148 million on TV ads from January to June in 2010. That’s just about the pace they spent in 2009, when Kantar data said they spent just over $294 million for the whole year.

And it turns out that government aid accounts for $24 billion of the revenue the career colleges got last year, according to a congressional study. Viewed another way, at 14 for-profit schools, federal dollars totaled 87% of revenue in 2009, according to a report presented by the Senate committee.

But defenders — and there are some surprising ones including Operation PUSH’s Jesse Jackson — argue that new rules would deprive minorities, the poor and immigrants of a path to the middle class. Others say traditional nonprofit universities also should be required to prove they’re doing a good job and just not overwhelming poor students with massive debt.

The for-profit colleges, of course, say they’re the right place for students, young and old, who need to develop marketable skills in a tight market.

Corinthian Colleges operates in several locations nationwide and has more than 100,000 students. Spokesman Kent Jenkins says Corinthian has no plans to change its college-specific advertising to students — 73% of which, he claims, leave Corinthian with a job in their field. “In a down economy like this, schools like ours do very well with people who are trying to improve their skills.”

“At traditional schools, people are groomed from birth that they are going to college,” says Bob Cohen, the spokesman for the Association of Private Sector Colleges and Universities, which until last month was called the Career College Association. “In the case of our students, many of them have been told since high school that they aren’t college material. It’s only after a few years that they hear a message or get the idea. The commercials are generating that awareness.”

Television is a perfect medium for the marketing of these schools because education is sold, unabashedly, as a product, just another thing that can improve lives. The ads offer a path to a career to people who may have never considered higher education before.

It’s hard to say what impact the closer government scrutiny will mean to the schools’ TV spending.

So far, it doesn’t appear to have had much impact. In the near term, you might expect an expansion of image-building campaigns by the bigger schools. The University of Phoenix acknowledges it just began a new flight of ads featuring success stories — just the kind Washington thinks for-profits don’t have many to tell.

But, long term, if the government tightens regulations and the amount of its money flowing out to schools, the money flowing into TV will likely slow, too.

 


Market Share by P.J. Bednarski, all about TV sales and TV sales people, appears every other week in TVNewsCheck. Bednarski is a longtime TV reporter and a former top editor at TV Week and B&C. If you have comments on this column or ideas for future ones, contact him at [email protected].


Comments (13)

Leave a Reply

kendra campbell says:

October 12, 2010 at 7:34 am

Some of these “universities” are a complete rip-off. University of Phoenix is the biggest and the worst. This diploma mill should be shut down by the government.

Gregg Palermo says:

October 12, 2010 at 8:24 am

Public universities provide a more cost-effective education for both the student and the government. The problem is, some prospective students are too unqualified for even the worst two-year community college, so they cannot get in. But the for-profits have no shame. They take the government debt subsidy and the students fail. The students default on their loans. I read somewhere that the impending college debt meltdown is going to make the housing meltdown look small in comparison. Can’t broadcasters find some other crooked advertisers? Rent-to-own, payday loans, etc. Some of us remember when broadcasters said ‘no’ to dishonest advertisers, but that was before the internet and cable started eating their lunch.

    kendra campbell says:

    October 12, 2010 at 8:41 am

    RustbeltAlumnus2 –
    Excellent comments. Many years ago local broadcasters had standards and would not accept fraudulent and deceptive ads. Now it’s like the wild west with snake oil salesman everywhere. 30 minute scam infommercials, screaming phony car deals, colon cleaners, and these awful diploma mills.

Lauri Neff says:

October 12, 2010 at 9:52 am

Rustbelt and JDShaw,

I see we have other oldtimers here. The first client I ever signed on my own was rejected by my boss. It didn’t create the image we wanted for the station. I was pretty steamed at the time, but these days it’s easier to see his point. If you build an environment that welcomes sleaze, eventually sleaze will be all you have left.

Jennifer C. Kerr says:

October 12, 2010 at 12:13 pm

Like in any business sector, there are good ones and bad ones. Adding some transparency on job placement stats would be a good move, but I’d hate to see this category become too regulated because of a few bad apples.

Brian Walshe says:

October 12, 2010 at 12:14 pm

One might apply the same logic about sleaze to all the “claims” made for and against candidates during our current and past election cycles.

Brian Walshe says:

October 12, 2010 at 12:35 pm

And lets not forget programming!

Much of what’s in the situation comedies aired during what used to be “family” time is essentially one running sexually related thread after another. Maybe suitable for adults, but do you want your five month to 15-year olds inundated with messages that get a PG-13, R or X rating at the local theater?

Two and a Half Men and Big Bang Theory are two that come to mind after sitting on a five-hour flight from Dulles to Sacramento and channel surfing recently.

Maybe you’re up to answering your kid’s question sparked by the language used as the two former lovers/still neighbors in BBT walked upstairs talking about what words he couldn’t use to tell other people what they used to do in private.

2.5 Men seems to be one sexually-based situation after another.

Next thing ya know, you’ll have a 2011 version of Leave It to Beaver using the same kind of language and really putting Ward, June and Wally in a bit of a pinch. OOps. Maybe I shouldn’t have said that.

    Teri Keene says:

    October 12, 2010 at 1:15 pm

    @TedLangdell What does this have to do with the story? If you don’t like it, change the channel. Take your prudeness somewhere else.

mike tomasino says:

October 12, 2010 at 1:08 pm

What’s really the biggest problem is that through the G.I. Bill and Student loans and grants, its the government that supports these diploma mills. If the government had better standards on where government money could be used these colleges would go away.

Frederik Fleck says:

October 12, 2010 at 2:39 pm

What troubles me is this nameless general manager who is more worried about “our money” than integrity. That shows you how low the industry has sunk in the name of a buck. And to Ted Langdell, when you get the kind of response you received, that probably means you’ve struck a chord. Television has long since lost any sense of shame, period! Don’t talk to me about prudeness. When you’re watching an “Andy Griffith” rerun and a Cialis commercial appears, the audience doesn’t possess a log to know when that ad is going to appear. And yes, T Dog, a lot of us ARE changing the channels or turning the sets off now. People such as Ted and me are only asking for a balance that no longer exists on over-the-air television.

Emily Teaford says:

October 12, 2010 at 11:36 pm

Don’t throw out the baby with the bath water. There are some good trade schools and it would be a shame if they are limited in their programs, student funding programs, and advertising. I have done business with several, though I will admit we have dropped a couple because of complaints from students who either dropped out or reported problems. http://www.alanbestbuys.com

Peter Tannenwald says:

October 13, 2010 at 10:08 am

Good work, Peej.

Janet Frankston Lorin says:

October 14, 2010 at 11:19 am

What’s really sad is that the majority of you are saying “…the government needs to….”