Name the Strategy or Keep Losing Ground

We’re on the “shit is real” side of May 1st for many institutions, and the higher ed trade pubs are busy sharing stories of budget cuts, shortfalls, and advice that mostly screams, “URGENT.” 

If higher ed had a bumper sticker right now, it would likely read, “Adapt or Die.”

Certainly, May 1 has long been a date that looms over chief enrollment officers’ heads, but the time has come for campus leaders to not only understand market realities, but assist in carrying the load of what is a large, structural issue.  

And, right now across the country, higher ed CMOs are likely the leader who is being called on to “fix enrollment,” because in the year of our Lord 2026, we are still treating enrollment pressure like it’s only a marketing problem. 

So, CMOs will do the following:  

• Fight for more budget to spend more on advertising. 
• Work with enrollment management to widen the top of the funnel and buy more names. 
• Over index in performance marketing by increasing digital spend in the hopes of achieving next-cycle lift. 
• Push harder on yield (which at this point, is open to interpretation).
• Launch another campaign, buy another tool, sign another contract with an alphabet soup vendor who will promise butts in seats. 

It’s not that all of this doesn’t matter, but by the time these tactics are rolled out; it’s because they’re an amplifier, not a strategy.  

Reputation, visibility, brand and advertising matter, but right now, colleges and universities need to also make a much more fundamental decision:   

What are we actually managing for? 

And none of those are inherently bad strategies, but the inclination I see on most campuses (despite size, budget, or ability) is to continue pursuing growth. 

The paradox is that they continue to do so while operationally behaving like institutions managing contraction. 

That disconnect eventually shows up everywhere:

• budget instability 
• reactive cuts 
• overextended teams 
• inconsistent messaging 
• declining morale 
• fractured decision-making 
• brand erosion 

• short-term enrollment tactics replacing long-term positioning 
• academic portfolio review that is, in some cases, decades overdue 
• misalignment around priorities as leadership teams grasp for revenue opportunities  

You cannot market your way into sustainable growth while budgeting, staffing, governing, and decision-making like an institution preparing for decline. 

The institutions that will navigate the next decade best are the ones willing to make an explicit choice about what future they are actually building toward. 

If you are managing for growth, that requires real investment and institutional alignment: 

• student experience 
• enrollment infrastructure 
• brand and reputation 
• digital experience 
• pricing strategy 
• operational capacity 
• research and differentiation 

Growth is not just “more advertising.” Growth is a whole-institution strategy. 

If you are managing for stasis, that is also a legitimate strategy. 

Not every institution needs to grow aggressively to be successful. 

Some institutions should focus on sustainability, operational discipline, protecting core strengths, improving margins, and serving their mission exceptionally well within realistic market conditions. 

There is nothing inherently wrong with stability. 

And then there’s the hardest category to talk about honestly: managing for descent. 

Some institutions are facing structural, demographic, financial, geographic, or market realities that make contraction likely. 

The strongest leadership teams will not treat that as failure. They will treat it as stewardship. There is a profound difference between intentional contraction and unmanaged erosion. 

One is strategic. The other slowly drains trust, culture, reputation, and resources over time. 

What worries me most right now is not that institutions are making hard choices. 

It’s that many institutions are refusing to name the strategy they are actually operating under. 

And when that happens, marketing teams often become the pressure valve and many CMOs end up over-functioning inside systems that rely on that over-functioning to survive.  

Advertising can amplify momentum and performance marketing can provide lift as long as it stays fed like the hungry beast that it is, but neither of those actions can create institutional coherence. 

At some point, institutions have to align enrollment strategy, academic strategy, financial strategy, operating model, brand position, and leadership decision-making around the same future state. 

Because the market can feel the difference between an institution moving with intention and one reacting in real time.