The Pulse of Higher Ed

By Jim Fong

As my retirement last year eases into a stage of semi-retirement or what some have labeled as “micro-retirement,” I have had eight months of reflection on my nearly four decades of doing research. After a few months of total abstention, I could no longer keep myself away from the higher education field that I so loved. I slowly eased myself back in by casually reading articles, blogs, and research papers. Then, I read the UPCEA Secret Shopping Benchmarking Report and went down a rabbit hole I should not have.  

I started reflecting on my early market research career, some of which included corporate mystery (or “secret”) shopping analyses. I remember sending teams of people to hotels for check-ins, malls for shopping experiences, restaurants for dining and service engagements, and to car dealerships to test the customer service process. For every client, despite each having a strong plan or strategy, either something was broken or the competition was outperforming them. More recently, I remember the institution that called me on average three times a day for three months to see what my interest was in a data analytics degree. 

Secret shopping is still relevant, as it unmasks problems, shortcomings, and opportunities. While it is a simple concept, given the amount of disruption in higher education and the lack of true knowledge regarding generational behavior, secret shopping and understanding the consumer purchasing process is probably more critical today as it would have been decades ago. Today, we are in a market that is shrinking by some definitions, while pre-Millennium was a major growth market for higher education and mistakes could be made. 

The UPCEA report is important because customers and students are a precious asset, the lifeblood for colleges and universities. Every long-term profitable student and potential student lead should matter. While I am sure to irk the purest academic, “profitability” does not always mean dollars and cents in every case. Every profitable student helps contribute toward a long-term sustainable model. One important statistic from the UPCEA study is that 44% of inquiries go unanswered. This is a lost opportunity, impacting not only profitability, but institutional reputation. 

Responding to the inquirer and potential student is also important given the technology and artificial intelligence tools upstream or at the top of the enrollment funnel. In numerous articles and blogs, Will Scott of Search Influence points out that many colleges and universities are getting leads driven to them through AI-enhanced search or other tools.  As a result, we no longer have the luxury of a three-strikes-before-you’re-out approach. We need to understand the potential student immediately. We need to engage them more efficiently and effectively. As a result of upstream AI, they are likely to be more informed and a better match for the institution and thus more prepared and ready to make a faster purchase decision. This is further supported by a recent EducationDynamics study that shows that potential students apply to two schools on average.  Shockingly, 45% apply to just one. This implies either greater readiness or frugality. Institutions need to be ready to not only persuade the searcher, but also to close the deal with the more informed. 

The UPCEA report shows some shocking numbers regarding institutional follow-up using technology or via a human response. For example, nearly two thirds of email inquiries went unanswered, as compared to 37% originating through a request for information (RFI) form. It also highlights the numbers and percentages of those using advanced enrollment tools, as well as response times. As compared to past UPCEA studies, response times have gone in the wrong direction, increasing from just over 7 hours in 2023 to 14 hours in 2025. Every college or university, especially those serving adult and corporate learners, should have a plan or goal for how they respond, how fast they should respond, what metrics are considered good and what their goals and aspirations should be. We are in a time of chaos right now, with many factors out of our control. Managing the lead generation and nurturing process should not be one of them. We have the capability and resources to manage our own processes and should do so with intention and strategy. 

For 2026, what can institutions do?  

For starters, an institution should consider shopping itself with the intent of fixing processes. However, when doing this, the institution needs to be careful and not weaponize the data. The impact of secret shopping can be significant, but also destructive if not managed correctly. When institutions embark on a secret shopping initiative, those managing the process will be eager to immediately fix things and react, often forgetting about the impact to individuals. UPCEA can help you manage your own secret shopping initiative and guide you through the process. 

Another consideration would be to secret shop the competition to better understand their approach and strategy. This too is an area to avoid weaponization. I’ve seen College A do this and run to staff or leadership saying “University XYZ does it this way and we should as well.”  While it may be true, it may be off strategy for College A. 

Upon completing a secret shopping initiative, key staff need to objectively map out the results and identify process improvements. Before, during and after process improvements are being put in place, metrics and realistic goals need to be put in place. 

Secret shopping, on the surface, seems easy, but can have meaningful, long-lasting results if done correctly. A successful secret shopping initiative can strengthen an institution’s efforts, improve student relationships and lead to a more streamlined process. 

Jim Fong is the Chief Advisor for Research, Strategy, and Innovation and a Strategic Advisor for UPCEA Research and Consulting. To learn more about UPCEA Research and Consulting, please contact [email protected].