Breaking Up Is Hard To Do

Was this forwarded to you by a friend? Sign up, and get your own copy of the news that matters sent to your inbox every week. Sign up for the On EdTech newsletter. Interested in additional analysis? Try with our 30-day free trial and Upgrade to the On EdTech+ newsletter.

We’ve been hearing a lot lately about higher education institutions ending or significantly changing their relationships with OPMs. But we rarely get public details about which institutions are making these moves or what their plans are going forward. Recently, however, I came across a couple of accounts that offer a fascinating window into how institutions are approaching the decision to part ways with an OPM. These cases shed light on institutional thinking around online learning and reveal some striking differences in how colleges and universities view their own capabilities in this space.

Drake University recently decided not to renew its contract with the OPM that had been supporting several of its graduate programs. The university cited budgetary concerns and a desire for a better cultural fit as primary reasons for this decision. They emphasized that managing these programs internally could lead to cost savings and preferred processes.

In contrast, William Paterson University (WPU) shows a different approach. A discussion within WPU's Faculty Senate provides insight into the deliberative process of evaluating their relationship with an OPM. While no final decision had been made at the time, faculty senators and university leadership engaged in an analysis of the potential implications of either maintaining or ending the partnership. This included considerations of medium and long-term impacts on the university's operations and strategy. ​

The contrasting approaches of Drake University and William Paterson University not only show the diverse strategies institutions may employ when reassessing their partnerships with OPMs. These two decision making processes also highlight how different institutions approach online learning, either with or without an OPM. The contrast contains some important lessons for institutions seeking to change or grow their online programs.

Rethinking relationships

It’s neither a secret nor particularly surprising that some institutions are reassessing their relationships with OPMs. These decisions are likely driven by a combination of factors:

• The steady drumbeat of critical press coverage surrounding OPMs.

• Ongoing turmoil and uncertainty in the OPM market, including a higher-than-usual rate of bankruptcies, mergers, and acquisitions.

• In the US, we saw a significant rise in university partnerships with OPMs in the mid 2010s. Many of the contracts signed during that period span around ten years, meaning a large number of institutions are now reaching the point where they must decide whether to renew, renegotiate, or end those agreements.

• The growing importance of online learning and the sector’s increasing maturity, which has led some institutions to recognize that online education should be a core part of their strategy. Others, having gained more experience, now feel better equipped to manage and support online programs in-house without relying on external partners.

A couple of recent public sources have offered rare insight into the decision-making process behind institutions choosing to end their relationships with OPMs. It’s unusual to get this kind of visibility, while new deals between institutions and OPMs are sometimes publicly announced, we seldom see formal announcements when those partnerships come to an end.

The Drake University Case

Last month, however, a news article detailed Drake University’s decision not to renew its contract with the OPM that had been supporting eight of its master’s programs. One of the key factors behind the decision was concern about the budget. Emphasis added.

Note: While the discussions in both cases refer to the OPM by name, in order to avoid focusing on the specifics and missing the larger point about what goes into decisions to end or continue contracts, I have chosen to obscure the OPMs names. Emphasis added below.

But there also appear to be issues around cultural fit.

Going forward, marketing and recruitment at Drake will be handled by the university’s own Drake Online Programs unit, though clearly with much more direct involvement of the faculty in the departments concerned.

The William Paterson University Case

At another institution, we get a different perspective. A discussion from the Faculty Senate at William Paterson University offers insight into the kind of analysis more institutions should undertake before ending an OPM relationship. While no final decision had been made at the time, the Senate discussed the potential implications of parting ways, highlighting the complexity of such a move. Emphasis added below.

As of today, the OPM’s website still lists William Paterson University as a client, and the university president also referenced the partnership in his State of the University address last fall.

What this means

It’s no surprise that the discussions at both institutions center on marketing and recruitment. These are typically the areas where OPMs contribute most significantly to their partner institutions’ operations, as highlighted by a recent UPCEA snap poll.

In large part, this focus on marketing and recruitment stems from the fact that universities often lack the specialized expertise needed to market online programs, expertise that can be both difficult and costly to develop in-house or acquire from outside. Just as online courses differ significantly from on-campus classes, the marketing approaches for the two are also quite distinct. These differences include (but aren't limited to) the target audiences, communication channels, messaging strategies, funnel design, and expected response times.

Transitioning from outsourced marketing via an OPM to in-house support can be challenging, and the discussions at William Paterson University illustrate exactly why. The speed with which Drake University appears to have made its decision, the hands-on role planned for faculty, and the apparent blurring of lines between marketing and enrollment give me pause. That said, it’s entirely possible the decision unfolded over a longer timeline, included a thorough weighing of pros and cons—much like at WPU—and that the faculty-driven marketing revamp is backed by a strong, experienced internal support team.

One of my key recommendations for both institutions would be to conduct a comprehensive pro forma budget analysis, comparing projected enrollment, revenue, and costs under each scenario. Then again, perhaps they did, though clearly not with newsletter writers like me in mind, since nothing has been posted publicly!

It’s easy for those outside the online program support world to assume that moving marketing in-house will be simple. Sometimes ending a relationship with an OPM is the right move, but doing so successfully requires careful consideration of the implications and a solid transition strategy.

We plan to track both cases to see how the decisions impact future performance.

The main On EdTech newsletter is free to share in part or in whole. All we ask is attribution.

Thanks for being a subscriber.