Main Variable versus Dynamic Variable

In the Spring-Meadows case I have chosen Innovative Schools as the main variable and Community Integration as the dynamic variable.

MV: Innovative Schools (primary)

DV: Community Integration

The primary variable will be the main variable as is appropriate when pursuing an acquisition stimulate demand strategy. The goal here again is to get institutions that otherwise do not invest in education to realize that the best way to make an impact in education is to promote the programs that have proven to be successful. The measure of the success of a program will be based on the accomplishments of the children who have left the program. The measure of success of our marketing program will be simply the measure of new donors to the school and amount raised.

Since the heart of Spring-Meadows competitive advantage is centered on integration of the children and learning opportunities into the community, I have made this the dynamic variable. Spring-Meadows clearly shines in this regard and will stand out among the competition, especially against private schools.

Additionally, since part of the value proposition is that the school will become a model for programs of all types in the future, the schools ability to integrate and 'play well' with other programs will maximize its attractiveness as a high-impact investment. The message will be something like: "This is a fantastic program, every other school in the area can learn from them and they have proven that they can integrate with other groups and programs such that value is created for all involved."

As I continue I am constantly reminded of the path to purchase and sales cycle for the school. Spring-Meadows will likely have to contact each institution directly, or perhaps through it's alumni, current parents, current donors or other grassroots means. I am not convinced that our target institutions will agree with the notion that investing in a high quality model will lead to propagation of the model entities practices and qualities into other programs, thus increasing net benefit to all.

I am currently working on my 5-box after choosing to proceed with a marketing objective of acquisition and stimulate demand source of volume.

My target audience is institutions that don't currently invest in education directly, but may have an interest in helping to create learning economies. One of the primary problems I foresee going forward with this approach is the path to purchase. My background is not in non-profit or fundraising for social programs. So, I know very little about how to go about approaching these firms. I will deal with that part when I come to implementation. However, the question is lingering: should I be considering this more deeply now?

In any case, at this point I am trying to attract new category users.

The five box approach I will take is as follows:

Current Do: Do not invest in education directly.

Current Belief: It's hard to justify investing in education because the public schools systems are wasteful, private schools are for the rich and there are no other alternatives that directly align with our core businesses. Despite those facts, we know that the future of our markets depend on a strong base of highly educated, creative individuals

Consumer Proposition: Spring-Meadows has a compelling and innovative approach to education and the children coming out of their program go on to perform significantly better than their peers from both private and public schools alike.

Desired Belief: A direct investment in Spring-Meadows will transform an already great school into a high-profile model that can be collaterally copied by schools of all types, thus maximizing the impact of our investment in education and granting us social goodwill and status as a contributor to innovation in learning.

Desired Do: Invest directly in Spring-Meadows