Lead gen sites pose as informational resources, but give unlimited exposure to colleges that are usually paying for placement, largely for-profits. These sites drive unknowing students to the wrong schools.

1. The
$1.25
billion
plague:
Educa7on
Lead
Gen
Why
They’re
Evil
and
What
We
Can
Do

2. The
Problem
• Lead
gen
sites
pose
as
informa7onal
resources,
but
give
unlimited
exposure
(with
liKle
adver7sing
disclosure)
to
colleges
that
are
usually
paying
for
placement,
largely
for-­‐profits.
• These
sites
drive
unknowing
students
to
the
wrong
schools.
• Their
methods
are
sneaky
and
predatory,
and
the
market
size
is
tremendous.
An
es7mated
$1.25B
is
spent
annually
on
educa7on
lead
gen.

3. The
Problem
• For-­‐profit
colleges
have
terrible
outcomes
– 6-­‐year
gradua7on
rate
of
22%,
compared
to
60%
at
non-­‐profit
ins7tu7ons.
– Spend
23%
of
revenue
on
finding
and
enrolling
new
students,
compared
to
the
non-­‐profits’
1%.
– Average
student
borrows
$39,950.

4. Who
Does
This
Hurt?
• Lead
gen
sites
hurt
the
students
who
most
need
guidance:
– First
genera7on
college
students
– Veterans
• The
student
who
might
start
by
searching
for
“best
online
university”
is
most
at
risk.

5. Pay-­‐to-­‐Play
Sites
• Universi7es
pay
to
be
included
in
the
website’s
database.
• Users
search
for
colleges
and
are
led
to
believe
these
pay-­‐
to-­‐play
universi7es
are
their
only
or
best
op7ons.
• How
It
Works:
Users
input
their
desired
degree
and
concentra7on
and
the
portal
yields
a
limited
number
of
op7ons.
Instead
of
“best
fit”
search
results,
users
are
prompted
to
fill
out
a
lead
gen
form
that
collects
personally
iden7fying
informa7on.
• These
websites
offer
liKle
or
no
informa7on
about
the
actual
program
and
have
no
data
facets
that
would
enable
matching.
Websites
that
pose
as
degree
search
portals
to
match
users
to
the
right
degree
program

6. Two
Types
of
Pay-­‐to-­‐Play
• Type
1:
only
schools
that
pay
show
up
in
search
results
• Type
2:
paying
&
non-­‐paying
sites
both
show
up
in
search
results,
but
the
site
ranks
paying
schools
higher
and
points
students
to
them.

7. Examples
of
Pay-­‐to-­‐Play
(Type
1)
• Military.com’s
School
Finder
– Poses
as
an
innocuous,
student-­‐
centered
search
portal
• eLearners
– Does
include
a
disclosure
to
users
about
how
their
info
will
be
shared,
which
many
lead
gen
portals
do
not

8. Examples
of
Pay-­‐to-­‐Play
(Type
2)
• AllNursingSchools.com
– shows
the
paying
universi7es
as
the
learner’s
top
three
matches
instead
of
lis7ng
them
as
sponsored
search
results.

9. Why
Pay-­‐to-­‐Play
Sites
Are
Bad
• These
sites
don’t
help
the
user
make
beKer
decisions
or
deliver
on
the
“matching”
they
claim
to
offer.
• Users
are
led
to
believe
that
the
six
results
are
the
only
universi7es
that
offer
their
intended
major
-­‐
but
those
universi7es
are
paying
customers.

10. Content
Marke7ng
• Lead
gen
websites
expend
a
lot
of
effort
to
drive
traffic
to
their
websites.
Content
marke7ng
has
become
a
popular
tool
to
drive
learners
down
the
conversion
funnel
into
filling
out
a
lead
form.
• A
student
will
start
conduc7ng
a
search
and
be
drawn
to
baity,
ohen
low-­‐quality,
content.
• Unbeknownst
to
the
student,
he
or
she
is
falling
into
a
pay-­‐to-­‐play
scheme
rather
than
gejng
real
info
about
colleges.

11. Examples
of
Content
Marke7ng
• Infographics
• Syndicated
content
from
agencies
like
Vantage
Media
appear
as
actual
news,
but
are
really
ads
for
for-­‐profit
colleges.

12. Examples
of
Content
Marke7ng
• Yahoo!
Educa7on
posts
syndicated
content
and
includes
content
marke7ng
on
the
main
slider
on
its
homepage.

13. Why
Content
Marke7ng
Sites
Are
Bad
• Some
of
these
sites
will
direct
a
student
to
fill
out
a
lead
form
before
even
showing
the
user
his
or
her
top
op7ons.
• All
these
websites
do
is
create
informa7on
to
get
people
to
come
to
their
website.