In a cost-cutting year, don't switch off the lighthouse

Many universities are going through the hardest financial period I’ve seen in my career. Restructures, voluntary severance schemes and spending freezes have become familiar items on executive agendas. When savings need to be found quickly, marketing and communications budgets look like an easy place to start. They’re discretionary, the impact isn’t immediate, and nobody’s teaching timetable changes.

I understand the logic. I’d still argue it’s usually the wrong call, and I’ve seen the consequences from both sides.

What hospitality taught me about downturns

At the Cairn Hotel Group, we operated in a sector where demand can fall off a cliff with very little warning. The brands that came through difficult periods strongest were rarely the ones that went quiet. They were the ones that kept investing in visibility, focused their spend ruthlessly on what worked and used the silence of competitors to take share. We grew revenue from £60M to £110M, and much of that growth came from staying visible when others weren’t.

The wider evidence points the same way. Research from the IPA and others has shown for years that brands which maintain their share of voice through a downturn tend to recover faster and grow more strongly afterwards. Reputation, once lost, is slow and expensive to rebuild.

Reputation, once lost, is slow and expensive to rebuild.

Why universities are especially exposed

Higher education has a long purchase cycle. A prospective international student may start researching two years before they enrol. A research partner may take longer still. Cut visibility this year, and the impact lands in recruitment and partnership pipelines in two or three years’ time, often after the people who made the decision have moved on.

There’s a second risk. When an institution is restructuring, the story is already being told: by staff, by unions, by local media and by students. Pulling back on communications at that moment doesn’t make the story go away. It simply means someone else tells it.

Cut smarter, not deeper

None of this means marketing budgets should be protected without question. Difficult years are a good moment to be rigorous. In my experience, the best approach looks like this.

Stop what doesn’t work. Every marketing function has activity that continues out of habit. Look hard at cost per enquiry, cost per application and cost per enrolment by channel, and be prepared to switch off the bottom quarter.

Protect the long-term brand work. The temptation is to keep the short-term recruitment campaigns and cut everything else. Keep a core of reputation activity running, especially in priority markets and with academic audiences, because that’s what feeds future demand.

Use AI and automation to protect capacity. If headcount is reducing, redesign how work flows rather than asking fewer people to do the same work. Automated reporting and AI-assisted content production can protect output while the team adjusts.

Communicate internally, early and honestly. Your own staff are your most credible ambassadors and, during a restructure, your biggest reputational risk. Clear, respectful internal communication is never wasted.

A word for vice-chancellors and finance directors

The most useful conversation I ever had with a finance director was about treating marketing as investment rather than overhead. Once we agreed how we’d measure return, from enquiry to enrolment and from campaign to income, the discussion changed. We weren’t defending a budget any more. We were deciding together where the next pound would work hardest.

If your institution is facing difficult choices this year, that’s the conversation I’d encourage you to have before the cuts are made, not after.