An exploration of the effect of servicescape on student institution choice in UK universities.

Transcription

1 An exploration of the effect of servicescape on student institution choice in UK universities. With the introduction of increased fees and the stagnation of graduate employment, Higher Education has become an increasingly competitive environment; universities vie to attract prospective students and choice of university has progressively become a more complex decision making process. When Briggs (2006) talks of perception being an important determinant of student choice of institution, the association with the concept of branding is apparent. As part of marketisation, it is argued that branding is a key organisational competence as universities compete for students (Louro & Cunha, 2001; Veloutsou et al, 2004; Helmsley-Brown & Oplatka, 2006). Bulotaite (2003) suggests that university brands actually have the potential to create stronger feelings than most brands and that the key to doing this successfully is to create a unique communicative identity. Universities, however, have plural identities (Lowrie, 2007) that make articulating a simplistic identity challenging and Jevons (2006, p.467) argues that universities often fail to practice what they preach in terms of differentiation. It seems that university brands have possibilities that may not be fully exploited due to a lack of a clear conceptualization of what a successful university brand really encompasses, and on occasion a tendency to rely too heavily on visual identity. Arguably, the provision of a university education is an experience centric service (Voss, Roth, & Chase, 2008); a service in which the customer experience is deliberately created to provide a service which can be distinguished from similar offering s from other providers. If this is accepted, then the domain of experiential branding could offer possibilities for the branding of HE which is arguably not wholly supported by existing commercial branding conceptualisations and practices (Hemsley-Brown and Oplatka, 2006). Since experiential marketing replaces functional values and focuses on customer experiences that provide sensory, emotional, cognitive and behavioural values (Schmitt, 1999), the service design and delivery environment becomes a major concern for the organisation (Zomerdijk & Voss, 2010). Therefore the Open Day, a key component in university promotion and student decision making (Briggs, 2006; Connor, Burton, Pearson, Pollard, & Regan, 1999; Maringe, 2006; Pampaloni, 2010; Veloutsou, Paton, & Lewis, 2005), is a prime opportunity to begin to brand the experience and showcase the service environment. And it is this service environment which may offer possibilities for beginning to both understand the basis of the particular branded experience and explore its impact on student decision making. Booms & Bitner (1981) first put forward the term servicescape to refer to the physical environment in which a service is delivered. Originally designed to consider the environment of a marketplace exchange, Bitner (1992) presented a conceptual model which categorised the servicescape into 3 distinct physical areas i) ambient conditions, ii) spatial layout and functionality and iii) signs, symbols and artefacts. This concept has since been developed and reviewed by many including Wakefield & Blodgett (1994); Wakefield & Blodgett (1996); Aubert-Gamet (1997); Turley & Milliman (2000); Ezeh & Harris (2007). Whilst Bitner acknowledged the impact of the servicescape on social actors, her seminal work did not extend the paradigm beyond the physical environment. Synthesising extant literature across a number of related disciplines, Rosenbaum & Massiah (2011) provided an expanded 1

2 servicescape concept to include three new dimensions with a social focus the social dimension, the socially symbolic dimension and the natural or restorative dimension. The four key dimensions of this model appear to have clear resonance and applicability to the education service envioronment as is discussed below: The Physical Dimension Using Bitner s original concept of servicescape, the physical dimension is divided into three areas incorporating: i) the ambient conditions; ii) space and function; and iii) signs symbols and artefacts. The explanation of the physical environment is highly transferrable across many sectors and HE is no different. Bitner s defined stimuli include the specifically designed elements of temperature, odour and background noise or music (ambience); design and placing of furniture (space/function); and the decor and signage (signs/symbols/artefacts). The Social Dimension This dimension includes more than just sufficient presence of staff and students, it includes the interaction between them that can influence approach/avoidance decisions. Applied to the context of an Open Day, the theory suggests that positive interactions with optimal numbers of both staff and existing students would illicit a positive emotional response from the prospective student and therefore lead to positive influence on their decision to apply to the university. Rosenbaum & Massiah (2011) specifically discuss social density within the servicescape as there is evidence to suggest that within retail, both overcrowding can have a negative effect on intentions (Harrell, Hutt, & Anderson, 1980) as well as undercrowding (Eroglu, Machleit, & Barr, 2005; Foxall & Greenley, 1999; Turley & Milliman, 2000) The Socially Symbolic Dimension Within Rosenbaum and Massiah s model, this dimension refers to signs, symbols and artefacts purposefully employed to appeal to groups of customers with a unique ethnic, subcultural, or marginalized societal status (Rosenbaum & Massiah, 2011, p. 478). In the HE environment, this might include evidence that an institution is inclusive. Less obviously, the dimension may also refer to cues of the type student the institution is looking to attract. The Natural Dimension An interesting dimension which has more obvious links to both retail and third space, Rosenbaum and Massiah refer to this as the restorative dimension the ability of an environment to help overcome mental fatigue. As some students might argue that a university environment might be the very cause of mental fatigue, this dimension could refer to the extent to which the institution offers communal space outside of teaching areas, as either a more relaxed working environment or, perhaps, for socialising. The concept of servicescape has always been used in conjunction with the much cited stimulus-organism-response model put forward by Mehrabian & Russell (1974), to explain how consumers respond to environmental stimuli as part of a service encounter. Whilst the relevance of the S-O-R model to the learning environment has been suggested (Mehrabian & Russell, 1974), there is a lack of research that explores the actual application of servicescape to the educational context. However, the need to research this area is compelling: Allen (2002) presents a framework to explain how rational choice for postsecondary education can be driven by the sense that the institution feels right ; Veloutsou, Lewis, & Paton (2004) acknowledge that campus is one of the specific information requirements of students but do not explore the factors constituting the term; Briggs (2006) cites own perception amongst the top ten factors for university choice; Pampaloni (2010) highlights atmosphere as the ultimate reason for application for almost 60% of students; Diamond, Vorley, Roberts, & Jones (2012) discuss intangible factors in conjunction with Dolan, Hallsworth, Halpern, King, & Vlaev s (2010) MINDSPACE framework. Whilst the literature suggests subjective factors appear to influence student choice of institution, there 2

3 seems to be a dearth of information exploring what constitutes these subjective feelings. The concept of servicescape would seem a logical way to close this gap. It is therefore in taking the servicescape model and applying it to an aspect of the modern UK higher education service environment that this research aims to offer genuine insight for both theory and practice. Methodology The need to understand the significance of the university servicescape is key. Given its status as the most recently acknowledged holistic view of the servicescape, this research will use Rosenbaum & Massiah s framework as a structural guide for data gathering and analysis. Semi-structured interviews will be conducted with students who have attended a university open day at Portsmouth Business School to yield both qualitative and basic quantitative data. The research is designed to explore the impact of all four elements on student decision making and to begin to understand the relative importance of the acknowledged dimensions: i) The Physical dimensions ii) The Social dimension iii) The Socially Symbolic dimension iv) The Natural dimension The work embraces an interpretivist approach (Bryman and Bell 2003) but it is accepted that in research of this nature boundaries are not quite as solid as a rationalist might hope (Miles and Huberman, 1994). As this will entail primarily qualitative, exploratory research, random selection is not important and therefore sufficient participants will be recruited arbitrarily to yield twenty completed interviews. A sample of this size is appropriate for an exploratory study, and offers indicative results that are representative (Miles and Huberman, 1994). Respondents will be required to participate in a telephone interview and will be asked to reflect upon their perceptions of the four dimensions of the Business School servicescape and discuss the influence on their decision making. Questioning will be modelled on the format used by Cockrill, Goode, & Emberson (2008) designed to explore the effects of servicescape within betting shops. Conclusion As a working paper, the primary purpose at this stage is to explore the conceptual framework and corresponding gap in the literature underpinning this research that concerns application of the extended servicescape to part of the higher education marketing process. It is believed that when the methodology detailed above is implemented, the results will make a valuable contribution to understanding the nature of the impact of the university servicescape. Results will also suggest practical implications in terms of branding the service experience as a core element of the decision making process of potential students. 3

4 Allen, D. E. (2002). Toward a Theory of Consumer Choice as Sciohistorically Shaped Practical Experience: The Fits-Like-a-Glove (FLAG) Framework. Journal of Consumer Research, 28(4), Aubert-Gamet, V. (1997). Twisting servicescapes: diversion of the physical environment in a re-appropriation process. International Journal of Service Industry Management, 8(1), Bennett, R.& Ali-Choudhury, R. (2009). Prospective student s perceptions of university brands: an empirical study. Journal of Marketing for Higher Education, 19(1), doi: / Bitner, M. J. (1992). Servicescapes: The Impact of Physical Surroundings on Customers and Employees. Journal of Marketing, 56(2), Booms, B. H. & Bitner, M. J. (1981), Marketing strategies and organisation structures for service firms, in Donnelly, J. H. & George W. R., (Eds) Marketing of Services, Chicago: American Marketing Association Briggs, S. (2006). An exploratory study of the factors influencing undergraduate student choice: the case of higher education in Scotland. Studies in Higher Education, 31(6), Bryman A, and E. Bell Business Research Methods. Oxford University Press Bulotaite, N. (2003). University heritage: An institutional tool for branding and marketing. Higher Education in Europe, 28(4), doi: / Chapleo, C. (2005). Do universities have successful brands? International Journal of Educational Advancement, 6(1), Cockrill, A., Goode, M., & Emberson, D. (2008). Servicescape matters - or does it? The special case of betting shops. Marketing Intelligence and Planning, 26(2), Connor, H., Burton, R., Pearson, R., Pollard, E., & Regan, J. (1999). Making the Right Choice. How students choose universities and colleges. Institute of Employment Studies. Diamond, A., Vorley, T., Roberts, J., & Jones, S. (2012). Behavioural Approaches to Understanding Student Choice. York: The Higher Education Academy. Dolan, P., Hallsworth, M., Halpern, D., King, D., & Vlaev, I. (2010). MINDSPACE: Influencing Behaviour through Public Policy. London: Institute for Government. Eroglu, S. A., Machleit, K., & Barr, T. F. (2005). Perceived retail crowding and shopping satisfaction: the role of shopping values. Journal of Business Research, 58(8), Ezeh, C., & Harris, L. C. (2007). Servicescape research: a review and a research agenda. The Marketing Review, 7(1),

5 Foxall, G. R., & Greenley, G. E. (1999). Consumers' emotional responses to service environments. Journal of Business Research, 44(3), Gibbs, P. (2001). Higher Education as a market: a problem or a solution? Studies in Higher Education, 26(1), Harrell, G. D., Hutt, M. D., & Anderson, J. C. (1980). Path analysis of buyer behaviour under conditions of crowding. Journal of Marketing Research, 17(1), Hemsley-Brown, J. & Oplatka, I. (2006). Universities in a competitive marketplace: A systematic review of the literature on higher education marketing. International Journal of Public Sector Management, 19(4), doi: / Jevons, C. (2006.) Universities: A prime example of branding gone wrong. Journal of Product & Brand Management, 15(7), doi: / Louro, M.J., & Cunha, P.V. (2001). Brand management paradigms. Journal of Marketing Management, 17(7/8), doi: / Lowrie, A. ( 2007) Branding higher education: Equivalence and difference in developing identity, Journal of Business Research, 60(9), Marketing of Higher Education, 1st Symposium of the Academy of Marketing Special Interest Group, Cyprus Maringe, F. (2006). University and course choice. Implications for positioning, recruitment and marketing. International Journal of Educational Management, 20(6), Mehrabian, A., & Russell, J. (1974). An Approach to Environmental Psychology. Cambridge, Mass: MIT Press. Miles, M. B., and A.M. Huberman (1994). Qualitative Data Analysis: an expanded sourcebook. USA :Sage. Pampaloni, A. (2010). The influence for organizational image on college selection: what students seek in institutions of higher education. Journal of Marketing for Higher Education, 20(1), Rosenbaum, M., & Massiah, C. (2011). An expanded servicescape perspective. Journal of Service Management, 22(4), Schmitt, B. (1999) Experiential Marketing. Journal of Marketing Management, 15(1-3), Turley, L. W., & Milliman, R. E. (2000). Atmospheric Effects on Shopping Behavior: A Review of the Experimental Evidence. Journal of Business Research, 49(2),

6 Veloutsou, C., Lewis, J. W., & Paton, R. A. (2004). University selection: information requirements and importance. International Journal of Educational Management, 18(3), doi: / Veloutsou, C., Paton, R. A., & Lewis, J. W. (2005). Consultation and reliability of information sources pertaining to university selection. International Journal of Educational Management, 19(4), Voss, C., Roth, A. V., & Chase, R. B. (2008). Experience, Service Operations Strategy and Services as Destinations: Foundations and Exploratory Investigation. Production and Operations Management, 17(3), Waeraas, A., & Solbakk, M. (2008). Defining the essence of a university: lessons from higher education branding. Higher Education, 57(4), doi /s z Wakefield, K. L., & Blodgett, J. G. (1994). The Importance of Servicescapes in Leisure Service Settings. Journal of Services Marketing, 8(3), Wakefield, K. L., & Blodgett, J. G. (1996). The effect of the servicescape on customers behavioral intentions in leisure service settings. Journal of Services Marketing, 10(6), Zomerdijk, L. G., & Voss, C. A. (2010). Service design for experience-centric services. Journal of Service Research, 13(1),