Los efectos de la publicidad en la elección de la universidad en Españauna propuesta metodológica basada en factores emocionales y racionales

  1. Mamani Ramos, Olinda Julia 1
  2. Pintado Blanco, Teresa 1
  1. 1 Universidad Complutense de Madrid
    info

    Universidad Complutense de Madrid

    Madrid, España

    ROR 02p0gd045

Revista:
Pensar la publicidad: revista internacional de investigaciones publicitarias

ISSN: 1887-8598,  1989-5143

Año de publicación: 2022

Volumen: 16

Número: 1

Páginas: 25-38

Tipo: Artículo

DOI: 10.5209/PEPU.79616 DIALNET GOOGLE SCHOLAR lock_openAcceso abierto editor

Otras publicaciones en: Pensar la publicidad: revista internacional de investigaciones publicitarias

Resumen

El incremento de la competencia de las universidades españolas en el mercado ha sido constante durante las últimas cuatro décadas. Y unido a la complejidad del proceso de toma de decisiones ha hecho que los estudiantes se vuelvan más exigentes a la hora de elegir la universidad. Asimismo, los factores que influyen en la toma de decisiones son externos e internos como la familia, los profesores, los asesores de escuela, la reputación, el coste, la ubicación, la comunicación, las experiencias personales, la autoestima y otros factores que consciente o inconscientemente contribuyen en la elección de una institución. Además, los estudiantes buscan hoy en día información en diferentes medios de comunicación para llegar a una toma de decisiones confiable, dado que esto afectará económica y personalmente a su futuro laboral. Por esto, las universidades necesitan estar preparadas para satisfacer esta necesidad y el papel de la publicidad contribuirá a informar y establecer ese vínculo de unión con los estudiantes potenciales. El objetivo de este trabajo es plantear un modelo conceptual que a través de una propuesta metodológica aporte comprender cómo influye la publicidad basada en factores racionales y emocionales en la elección de la universidad. La contribución de esta propuesta de estudio está dirigida al sector educativo, específicamente las universidades y los responsables de comunicación o gerentes de marketing, en el que se propondrán estrategias publicitarias, emocionales y racionales que garanticen la eficacia de los anuncios de las universidades.

Referencias bibliográficas

  • Ancheh, K. S. B. (2006). Institutional factors attracting students to Malaysian institutions of higher education. International Review of Business Research Papers, 2(1), 46-64.
  • Brown, J. A. C. (1963). Técnicas de persuasión: De la propaganda al lavado de cerebro. Alianza.
  • Cabrera, A. F. & La Nasa, S. M. (2000). Understanding the college-choice process. New Directions for Institutional Research, 2000 (107), 5-22.
  • Cannizzo, F. & James, S. (2020). Existential advertising in late modernity: Meaningful work in higher education advertisements. Journal of Sociology, 56(3), 314-332.
  • Chapman, D. W. (1981). A model of student college choice. The Journal of Higher Education, 52(5), 490-505. https://doi.org/10.2307/1981837
  • ClarkE, G. & Brown, M. A. (1998). Consumer attitudes to the higher education application process. Journal of Marketing for Higher Education, 8(4), 83-96.
  • Conard, M. J. & Conard, M. A. (2000). An analysis of academic reputation as perceived by consumers of higher education. Journal of Marketing for Higher Education, 9(4), 69-80.
  • Connor, H. (2001). Deciding for or against participation in higher education: The views of young people from lower social class backgrounds. Higher Education Quarterly, 55(2), 204-224.
  • Creswell, J. W. & Poth, C. N. (2017). Qualitative inquiry and research design : choosing among five approaches (4th ed.). Sage.
  • Dabenigno, V. (2017). La sistematización de datos cualitativos desde una perspectiva procesual. De la transcripción y los memos a las rondas de codificación y procesamiento de entrevistas. En Borda, P., Dabenigno, V., Freidin, B., & Guelman, M. (2017). Estrategias para el análisis de datos cualitativos. (Herramientas para la Investigación social nº 2, pp. 22-70). Universidad de Buenos Aires. Facultad de Ciencias Sociales. Instituto de Investigaciones Gino Germani.
  • Deighton, J., Henderson, C. M. & Neslin, S. A. (1994). The effects of advertising on brand switching and repeat purchasing. Journal of Marketing Research, 31(1), 28-43.
  • De Sousa, R. (1990). The rationality of emotion. Mit Press.
  • Diel, S. & Katsinas, S. (2018). University advertising and universality in messaging. Innovative Higher Education, 43(3), 171-183. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10755-018-9421-7
  • Eisend, M. & Tarrahi, F. (2016). The effectiveness of advertising: A meta-meta-analysis of advertising inputs and outcomes. Journal of Advertising, 45(4), 519-531. https://doi.org/10.1080/00913367.2016.1185981
  • Eisend, M., Eisend, M., Küster, F. & Küster, F. (2011). The effectiveness of publicity versus advertising: A meta-analytic investigation of its moderators. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 39(6), 906-921. https://doi.org/10.1007/ s11747-010-0224-3
  • Foskett, N. (2011). Markets, government, funding and the marketization of UK higher education. En Molesworth, M., Scullion, R., & Nixon (Eds.), The marketisation of higher education and student as consumer (1era ed., pp. 25-38). Taylor & Francis Ltd., Routledge.
  • Foskett, N. & Hemsley-Brown, J. (2002). Choosing futures: Young people´s decision-making in education, training and careers markets. Routledge.
  • García Alcaraz, J. L., & Moreno Morales, C. S. (2012). Factores considerados al seleccionar una universidad: Caso ciudad Juárez. Revista Mexicana De Investigación Educativa, 17(52), 287-305.
  • Harris, M. S. (2009). Message in a bottle: University advertising during bowl games. Innovative Higher Education, 33(5), 285- 296. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10755-008-9085-9
  • HartleY, M., & Morphew, C. C. (2008). What’s being sold and to what end? A content analysis of college viewbooks. The Journal of Higher Education, 79(6), 671-691
  • Heckman, S. J., & Montalto, C. P. (2018). Consumer risk preferences and higher education enrollment decisions. Journal of Consumer Affairs, 52(1), 166-196.
  • Hemsley-Brown, J., & Oplatka, I. (2015). University choice: What do we know, what don’t we know and what do we still need to find out? International Journal of Educational Management,
  • Blair, M. H., & Rosenberg, K. E. (1994) Convergent findings increase our understanding of how advertising works. Journal of Advertising Research, 35-44.
  • Holbrook, M. B., & O’Shaughnessy, J. (1984). The role of emotion in advertising. Psychology & Marketing, 1(2), 45-64.
  • Hossler, D., & Gallagher, K. (1987). Studying student college choice: A three-phase model and the implications for policymakers. College and University, 62, 201-221.
  • Hossler, D., Schmit, J., & Vesper, N. (1999). Going to college: How social, economic, and educational factors influence the decisions students make. Press. Journal of College Admission, 168, 30
  • John, E. P. S., Paulsen, M. B. & Starkey, J. B. (1996). The nexus between college choice and persistence. Research in Higher Education, 37(2), 175-220.
  • Joseph, M. & Joseph, B. (2000). Indonesian students’ perceptions of choice criteria in the selection of a tertiary institution: Strategic implications. International Journal of Educational Management,14(1), 40-44.
  • Jugenheimer, D. W. (1995). Advertising the university. Journal of Marketing for Higher Education, 6(1), 1-22. https://doi. org/10.1300/J050v06n01_01
  • Kim, C., Jeon, H. G. & Lee, K. C. (2020). Discovering the role of emotional and rational appeals and hidden heterogeneity of consumers in advertising copies for sustainable marketing. Sustainability, 12(12), 5189.
  • Kohn, M. G., Mansk, C. F. & Mundel, D. S. (1976). An empirical investigation of factors which influence college-going behavior. Annals of economic and social measurement, NBER 5(4), 391-419.
  • Kotler, P. (1965). Behavioral models for analyzing buyers. Journal of Marketing, 29(4), 37-45.
  • Kotler, P., & Fox, K. F. (1995). Strategic marketing for educational institutions. Prentice Hall.
  • Mangold, W. G. & Faulds, D. J. (2009). Social media: The new hybrid element of the promotion mix. Business Horizons, 52(4), 357-365. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bushor.2009.03.002
  • Maringe, F. (2006). University and course choice: Implications for positioning, recruitment and marketing. International Journal of Educational Management,
  • Maringe, F. & Foskett, N. (2012). Globalization and internationalization in higher education: Theoretical, strategic and management perspectives. A&C Black.
  • Maringe, F. & Gibbs, P. (2008). Marketing higher education: Theory and practice. McGraw-Hill Education (UK).
  • Markle, G. (2015). Factors influencing persistence among nontraditional university students. Adult Education Quarterly, 65(3), 267-285.
  • Mehboob, F., Shah, S. M. & Bhutto, N. A. (2012). Factors influencing student’s enrollment decisions in selection of higher education institutions (HEI’s). Interdisciplinary Journal of Contemporary Research in Business, 4(5), 558-568.
  • Menon, M. E. (2004). Information search as an indication of rationality in student choice of higher education. Education Economics, 12(3), 267-283.
  • Menon, M. E., Saiti, A. & Socratous, M. (2007). Rationality, information search and choice in higher education: Evidence from greece. Higher Education, 54(5), 705-721.
  • Mogaji, E. & Yoon, H. (2019). Thematic analysis of marketing messages in UK universities’ prospectuses. International Journal of Educational Management, 33(7), 1561-1581.
  • Moogan, Y. J., Baron, S. & Harris, K. (1999). Decision-making behaviour of potential higher education students. Higher Education Quarterly, 53(3), 211-228.
  • Morse, J. M. (1995). The significance of saturation. Qualitative Health Research, 5(2), 147-149.
  • Muthaly, S., C. Lobo, A. & Song Jen-Yuan, J. (2013). Marketing of postgraduate education in taiwan: Issues for foreign universities. Asia Pacific Journal of Marketing and Logistics, 25(1), 118-130.
  • Navarro, G. M. & Rivera-Camino, J. (2008). La influencia de la comunicación comercial en el proceso decisional jerárquico: Una evaluación empírica en el contexto educativo. Cuadernos De Economía, 31(86), 83-116.
  • Ng, P., Lee, D., Wong, P. & Lam, R. (2020). Making a higher education institution choice: Differences in the susceptibility to online information on students’ advice-seeking behavior. Online Information Review,44(4), 847-861
  • Obermeit, K. (2012). Students’ choice of universities in germany: Structure, factors and information sources used. Journal of Marketing for Higher Education, 22(2), 206-230.
  • OtamendI, F. J. & Sutil Martín, D. L. (2020). The emotional effectiveness of advertisement. Frontiers in Psychology, 11, 2088.
  • Papadimitriou, A., & Blanco %amírez, G. (2015). Exploring advertising in higher education: An empirical analysis in North America, Europe, and Japan. Tertiary Education and Management, 21(2), 99-110. https://doi.org/10.1080/13583883.2014.999702
  • Penalva-Verdú, C., Alaminos, A., Francés, F. & Santacreu, Ó. (2015). La investigación cualitativa: Técnicas de investigación y análisis con atlas. ti. Pydlos ediciones.
  • Perna, L. W. (2000). Racial and ethnic group differences in college enrollment decisions. New Directions for Institutional Research, 2000(107), 65-83.
  • Price, I. F., Matzdorf, F., Smith, L. & Agahi, H. (2003). The impact of facilities on student choice of university. Facilities, 14-27
  • Poels, K. & Dewitte, S. (2019). The role of emotions in advertising: A call to action. Journal of Advertising, 48(1), 81-90.
  • Ramasubramanian, S., Gyure, J. F. & Mursi, N. M. (2003). Impact of internet images: Impression-formation effects of university web site images. Journal of Marketing for Higher Education, 12(2), 49-68.
  • Saichaie, K. & Morphew, C. C. (2014). What college and university websites reveal about the purposes of higher education. The Journal of Higher Education, 85(4), 499-530.
  • Shah, M., Nair, C. S. & BennetT, L. (2013). Factors influencing student choice to study at private higher education institutions. Quality Assurance in Education,
  • Sheth, J. N. (1974). Measurement of advertising effectiveness: Some theoretical considerations. Journal of Advertising, 3(1), 6-11.
  • Sidin, S. M., Hussin, S. R. & Soon, T. H. (2003). An exploratory study of factors influencing the college choice decision of undergraduate students in malaysia. Asia Pacific Management Review, 8(3), 259-280.
  • Simões, C. & Soares, A. M. (2010). Applying to higher education: Information sources and choice factors. Studies in Higher Education, 35(4), 371-389.
  • Soutar, G. N. & Turner, J. P. (2002). Students’ preferences for university: A conjoint analysis. The International Journal of Educational Management, 16(1), 40-45.
  • Stear, C. (1977). A university measures the effects of its advertising. Journal of the National Association of College Admissions Counselors, 21(3), 7-9.
  • Tavares, O., & Cardoso, S. (2013). Enrolment choices in portuguese higher education: Do students behave as rational consumers? Higher Education, 66(3), 297-309.
  • Telli Yamamoto, G. (2006). University evaluation-selection: A turkish case. International Journal of Educational Management, 20(7), 559-569.
  • Temple, S. L. (2009). Factors that influence students’ desires to attend higher education.
  • Tucciarone, K. (2007). Vying for attention: How does advertising affect search and college choice? College and University, 83(1), 26.
  • Tucciarone, K. (2008). Advertising’s effect on community college search and choice. Community College Enterprise, 14(2), 73. https://search.proquest.com/docview/218812591
  • Vaughn, R. (1980). How advertising works: A planning model. Journal of Advertising Research, 20 (5), 27-33
  • Vrontis, D., Thrassou, A. & Melanthiou, Y. (2007). A contemporary higher education student-choice model for developed countries. Journal of Business Research, 60(9), 979-989.
  • Wagner, K. & Fard, P. (2009). Factors influencing malaysian students’ intention to study at a higher educational institution. E-Leader Kuala Lumpur., 1-12
  • Yadi Yaakop, A., Mahadi, N., Zainal Ariffin, Z. & Sarah Omar, S. (2018). Review of hierarchy-of-effects (hoe) models and higher education advertising in Malaysia. The Journal of Social Sciences Research, (11), 212-219. https://doi.org/10.32861/ jssr.411.212.219
Fuente de los datos: Dialnet