We believe  schools and programs have a right – perhaps even an obligation – to market and promote themselves.  Marketing done right and well benefits the young people we work for. without quality marketing, it would be difficult if not impossible learn what we consultants and parents choosing treatment programs need to know. Good marketing is essential to how we learn which schools and programs could meet the needs of a young person with whom we work . 

When Tom Croke worked in marketing,  he was constantly reminded that institutions don't refer to institutions but people refer to people.  Marketing is about relationships just as good treatment and quality change is about relationships.

Marketing should have two goals.  It should inform and it should build relationships.  If the latter seems to be a stretch, we remind the reader that referral (from our point of view) and placement (from a family point of view) depend upon trust and relationships can be a foundation for trust. Some will challenge us on what we say about the appropriateness of relationship building in marketing, and we anticipate printing some of those challenges so the reader can see all sides here.  But we think it is an appropriate part of marketing – within limits.

Our concerns with marketing are, broadly speaking, ethical concerns.  We use the word "ethical" with caution here, and will use it only sparingly in the future, because much of what raises ethical concerns for us has not been determined by any established authority to violate objective ethical standards, and many of our consultant colleagues and program people would not agree with us about this. 

Our greatest concerns  with ethics in marketing are misrepresentation (informing) and concealed conflict of interest (building relationships).  One problem with setting standards here are that these things are not simply black and white.  On the issue of misrepresentation, programs can tell a literal truth set in a context that is intended to lead to a false conclusion.  A recent example is a school website we recently noticed  from a school that claimed all teachers are "certified" suggesting that they are properly certified by the state in which they operate for teaching the subjects they teach at the grade level where they teach. It turned out that some were certified only by a religious group and the certification seemed to be primarily about skill in incorporating Bible topics into mainstream curriculum.  Did they lie? No. But to our highly subjective sensibilities, it was misleading and we suspect intended to lead the reader to draw a false conclusion. 

An equally difficult problem arises with concealed conflict of interest.  Where is the line appropriately between a marketing effort targeting the facilitation of a totally appropriate trusting professional relationship and the inappropriate granting of favors in exchange for referrals?  IECA in its Principles of Good Practice permit favors of up to $50 in value to a member consultant, presumably to facilitate an appropriate trusting professional relationship. Usually, the $50 involves going to dinner to discuss the service being promoted or some token gift at a holiday season.  Beyond that, an IECA member is officially subject to sanction by the organization.  We generally agree with that, accepting the reality that the specific $50 limit is arbitrary.  People of good will object on both sides of that limit.  Some say no gifts or favors should be allowed. Others say there should not be a limit and they are not influenced in their referral patterns by this kind of thing.  Again, we anticipate printing challenges to our point of view if we receive them.

As we publish our guidelines for marketing, we need to recognize that trusting professional relationships are formed in a variety of ways,  that these are highly subjective, and they do influence both referring professionals and parents.  Parents will often be influenced by whether or not they develop trust with the admission person representing a school or other program.  Over the years we have learned to trust some individuals in education and treatment services and our referral patterns reflect that, notwithstanding the absolute fact that some we do not know as well might be just as worthy of that trust.  We affirm that those we have not gotten to know quite so well have every right to reach out to us to attempt to build equivalent relationships.  Frankly those who take initiative are likely to be most successful at that endeavor. It is not a perfect system. 

One other wrinkle makes objectivity difficult.  When programs need to refer a client to another program, do they do it themselves, with limited knowledge of what is available, or do they automatically transfer to another facility of similar ownership, or do they refer back to the referral source that referred to them, or do they refer to an educational consultant?   Some argue that for a school or program to refer to a consultant is equivalent to giving a bribe. On the other hand, not to do so, is, in many cases to deprive a family of the best information on what is the best further referral point.  We accept such referrals acting on the assumption that they are straightforward and based upon the belief we would do the job well, but always suspicious that they were motivated to curry favor with us.  We genuinely don't let these referrals to us guide where we refer our clients.  But the issue is messy.  We do not believe all  programs are guided by quality of the consultants in determine the consultant to recommend when their client needs to be moved.   We don't get many of these referrals.  We think the programs that use referrals to consultants to curry favor realize we don't respond in the manner they hope.  We are frankly unable to figure out a way to correct this situation with specific guidelines.  We are not satisfied with what we have developed in that regard. 

Our guidelines are:  

1.   All promotion should be fully accurate.  That means not just literally truthful but with all wording and symbols and context communicated so that prospective clients and referral sources would consistently gain an accurate understanding. 

2.  Building relationships must not be confused with rewarding referrals.  No item of value or perceived value should be provided to a referral source. 

3. Individuals receiving incentives for referral in any form should be identified as part of the marketing staff. 

4. Referrals from programs to potential sources of referral should be based solely on expectation of quality work. Those referral sources should not be guided by receiving referrals in where they make referrals.

Construction bulletin:  This article is in progress and will be completed. 

Last updated April 11, 2008; Minor edit August 6, 2008