What You Need to Know Before Entering or Renewing an OPM Partnership

When institutions realize the model isn’t working

We’ve had more than a few partners come to us waving the white flag. They’re stuck in contracts that overpromised and continue to under deliver. But with little-to-no insight into the daily operations, data, and marketing strategy, it becomes increasingly difficult to find a way out that doesn’t jeopardize what’s already in motion or stall the programs still in planning. Said plainly, this is not the symbiotic relationship they were sold.

And more and more institutions are catching on. Since 2021, new revenue-share deals have declined by nearly 50% as colleges and universities opt for fee-for-service agreements that offer transparency, flexibility, and allow schools to retain long-term control. A fee-for-service partnership puts both the school and its strategic partner in the front seat to work together to get to the final destination (the driver) and best way to get there (the navigator). And in some cases, these partnerships can be a stop gap, ensuring what is in motion stays in motion while schools work to build their own internal OPM, eventually being able manage their own online programs autonomously.

The punchline is you have options. “OPM” is not synonymous with revenue-share. Enablement-based partners now deliver the same services without taking over your strategy or forcing you to relinquish control.

10 reasons to rethink the revenue-share OPM model

The challenges with traditional OPM contracts aren’t always obvious upfront. It’s only after the ink dries that many institutions realize the trade-offs run deeper than expected — disrupting operations and long-term strategy. As more institutions reconsider their approach to online growth, it’s essential to understand what’s really at stake.

So before you lock your school into an OPM’s golden handcuffs and sign a revenue-share agreement, here’s what you need to know.

1. You’re not just outsourcing — you’re giving up control

There is a big difference between external support and ceding control entirely. The traditional OPM model assumes ownership of key functions like marketing and enrollment, resourcing decisions, and budget allocation. That’s not collaboration; it’s surrendering some of your biggest strategic levers to an outside vendor whose priorities are often centered on enrollment volume, not institutional mission. And once you’ve given up that control, getting it back is not easy.

2. OPM’s “no upfront cost” has a high long-term price tag

The traditional OPM pitch (no upfront fees and no budget approvals) sounds like a win. But many institutions end up giving away 50–80% of tuition revenue for up to a decade or more. That’s funding that could be reinvested in faculty, student support, or academic innovation. Without that revenue, it becomes even harder to build internal teams or expand capabilities, leaving you stuck with the same constraints that pushed you toward an OPM in the first place. It’s a cycle that’s tough to break.

And because these contracts often lack transparency, the full financial impact isn’t clear until it’s too late. Every year in a revenue-share agreement can mean more value slipping through your fingers.

3. The promised results don’t always materialize

Even after giving up a significant share of tuition revenue, many institutions report underwhelming enrollment growth, unclear ROI, and limited visibility into performance. Add to that the cultural disconnects between OPM teams and on-campus leadership (different priorities, processes, and communication styles) and frustration can quickly mount.

When that much is at stake, institutions deserve meaningful outcomes, aligned strategies, and a partner that’s fully invested in their success.

4. OPM contracts are built to keep you in them

OPM agreements are intentionally rigid and extremely difficult to exit. The OPM wants to increase your dependency on them and often includes tail clauses, auto-renewals, and other provisions that make it challenging to walk away. Even if the partnership underperforms, you may still be stuck paying for services you no longer want or need while the market moves on without you.

5. You lose control of your data and rely on systems you don’t own

With revenue-share models, the tech stack is owned by the OPM and often lives outside your ecosystem. That means your access and visibility is limited to what the OPM is willing to share. This lack of transparency into performance data slows decision-making and leaves you dependent on tools you don’t control or fully understand. For a modern institution, that dependency is downright dangerous.

6. There are reputational risks in programs built for scale and not students

Revenue-share OPMs are financially incentivized to prioritize enrollment growth over educational outcomes. That often results in generic courses, diluted rigor, and aggressive marketing — especially toward vulnerable student populations. One high-profile partnership between a university and its OPM provider made headlines when tuition was set high, outcomes lagged, and questions emerged about who was truly being served.

And because the OPM is essentially invisible to students, your institution bears the full weight of any backlash — whether it’s from prospective students, faculty, or the public. The long-term impact? Lower student satisfaction, reduced faculty trust, and reputational damage that’s hard to repair.

7. You’re accountable for compliance

The Department of Education and several states are scrutinizing tuition-share deals. If regulations change or compliance gaps emerge, your institution will bear the legal and financial consequences. Unlike your vendor, you can’t opt out of oversight — your name, your accreditation, and your funding are all on the line.

8. Your brand and mission take a back seat

Speaking of brand integrity, when traditional OPM vendors control your messaging, your communications, and your marketing funnel, your voice starts to disappear. The student experience and institutional identity can quickly diminish and become disjointed. What’s left is often little more than your logo on a landing page, detached from the values and mission that set your institution apart.

9. The path to independence is steep (and costly)

Revenue-share OPMs aren’t structured to make independence easy. Even if you’ve built internal capabilities over time, you may not have access to the data, systems, or strategic insight needed to take control. Without a clear runway to transition, institutions often feel forced to renew, because picking up the ball and running with it isn’t possible when you can’t see the full playbook.

10. There are better options and true partnership models

Enablement-based, fee-for-service models let you control the pace, scope, and strategy. You keep your data, you own your student experience, and you build sustainable capacity to grow on your terms.

Sustainable growth starts with ownership

If your goal is to build a mission-aligned, financially sustainable online portfolio, outsourcing core capabilities may not be the answer. Traditional OPM models once helped institutions enter the online space, but today, they’re more likely to hold you back.

Don’t give away your tuition dollars. Don’t give up your data. And don’t sign away your flexibility.