Marketing Can't Fix What Leadership Won't Face

We need to stop blaming marketing for problems leadership refuses to own.

I keep seeing the same pattern in higher ed — and it’s starting to actively damage the sector. 

Hundreds of presidents will soon gather for ACE’s annual conference where one of the panel sessions is titled “Are We the World’s Worst Marketers?” Meanwhile, institutions (some profit and non-profit) with ~50% graduation rates are running national ads deriding college costs and the value of college, dragging public perception of the entire industry down with them.  

Let’s be honest … this isn’t a marketing problem. You don’t fix declining belief in higher education by asking marketing to “make a better case” while: 

• Pricing stays disconnected from outcomes 
• Delivery models don’t evolve 
• Product portfolios lag the market 
• Marketing isn’t invested in, aligned, or empowered 

That’s not poor storytelling. That’s poor enterprise alignment. 

When leaders outsource accountability to marketing, they oversimplify an increasingly complex discipline and undermine their own institutions (and marketing leaders). Marketing doesn’t fix a broken strategy. It exposes it. 

The most dangerous part? Institutions making inflated claims without evidence don’t just hurt themselves; they erode trust for everyone else. Contrast that with what good looks like: clear programs, specific skills, transparent outcomes. When product, value, and story are aligned, marketing doesn’t persuade; it substantiates.

Trust is the asset we can’t afford to keep burning.

Higher Education’s Trust Gap Is an Alignment Problem, Not a Marketing One

Higher education is facing a confidence crisis. Public belief in the value of a college degree is declining. Cost sensitivity is rising. Employers are rethinking credential requirements. And institutions are increasingly being asked to justify not just what they do but why it’s worth it. 

In response, many conversations land on marketing. The question is often framed as storytelling: Are we communicating value effectively? Are we making the right case for higher education? While those questions matter, they miss the core issue. This is not a marketing failure. It is an enterprise alignment failure. 

Over the past decade, expectations for marketing in higher education have expanded dramatically. Marketing leaders are now expected to influence enrollment, reputation, differentiation, fundraising, workforce relevance, and long-term institutional sustainability. Yet the enterprise itself has not evolved at the same pace. 

Pricing strategies remain disconnected from outcomes. Delivery models lag learner behavior and employer expectations. Academic portfolios move slowly relative to labor market change. And marketing is often positioned downstream and asked to explain decisions rather than shape them. 

This gap between expectation and design creates friction, inefficiency, and mistrust. Marketing becomes the visible surface of deeper structural misalignment. At SimpsonScarborough, we see this repeatedly: institutions asking marketing to solve problems that originate in strategy, structure, and leadership alignment. 

When Misalignment Becomes a Sector Problem 

The consequences extend beyond individual institutions. When colleges with weak outcomes or unclear value propositions aggressively promote themselves without evidence, they don’t just damage their own credibility, they erode trust in the entire sector. They reinforce skepticism about cost, relevance, and return on investment. They make it harder for institutions doing real, differentiated work to be believed. 

In contrast, institutions that align product, price, outcomes, and narrative don’t need to argue that higher education is “worth it.” They demonstrate it.  

Marketing doesn’t persuade. It substantiates. 

The Infinite Game of Trust

Higher education is an infinite game. Institutions succeed not by winning a single cycle, but by sustaining trust across generations of students, families, employers, and communities. I hope that the Presidents on the panel at ACE both acknowledge and recognize their roles as Chief Reputation Officer for their institutions (and the industry). Trust cannot be rebuilt through messaging or by marketers alone. 

It is earned when leadership: 

• Invests in meaningful differentiation 
• Aligns strategy with organizational design 
• Empowers marketing as an enterprise capability 
• Holds itself accountable for the promises it makes 

The path forward is not louder storytelling. National campaigns and coalition building will amplify individual efforts. But better alignment will lead to meaningful change. And alignment is a leadership responsibility. 

If Marketing Isn’t the Problem, What Should Presidents Be Asking?

If declining trust in higher education isn’t primarily a marketing issue, then the real question becomes uncomfortable but necessary: What should institutional leaders be examining instead? 

Based on our work with colleges and universities nationwide, the most effective leaders shift the conversation from communication to design. Here are five questions that matter more than “Are we telling our story well?” 

1. Is Our Value Proposition Clear and True? Can students, families, and employers clearly articulate what makes this institution distinct? And more importantly: do outcomes consistently support that claim? If value requires explanation rather than evidence, the issue isn’t messaging it’s definition. 
2. Are Price and Outcomes Aligned? Do tuition, aid strategy, and time-to-degree reflect the outcomes students can reasonably expect? Misalignment here fuels skepticism faster than any marketing campaign can fix.  
3. Are Our Offerings Designed for Today’s Learners? Do academic programs, credentials, and delivery models reflect how modern learners live and work or how institutions have historically operated?  Adaptation is not dilution. It is survival. 
4. Is Marketing Positioned as Strategy or Support? Is marketing involved early in institutional strategy, or asked to “make it work” after decisions are made? Institutions that outperform treat marketing as an integrator of insight—not a megaphone. 
5. Are We Optimizing for the Long Term or the Next Cycle? Are decisions being made to protect short-term metrics, or to build durable trust and relevance over time? To change long-term issues, we must ensure coherence, not quick fixes. 

Leadership Sets the Ceiling

Marketing can amplify alignment, but it cannot substitute for it. Presidents and senior leaders set the ceiling for institutional credibility through the choices they make about strategy, structure, investment, and empowerment. When those elements align, marketing becomes a force multiplier. When they don’t, marketing becomes a convenient scapegoat. 

The institutions that will thrive are not those with the cleverest campaigns but those willing to redesign themselves around the value they claim to deliver. That work starts at the top. 

__

If marketing can’t fix alignment, leaders need a place to face it.

CMOLab is where CMOs come together to talk honestly about trust, alignment, and enterprise change without scapegoating marketing or oversimplifying the work. Sound good? Make plans to join us June 2-4 in Boulder. Learn more and register today.