A lot of businesses lose momentum with schools for a reason that sits much earlier in the process than they realise. The product may be strong, the data may be decent, and the campaign may even generate some opens, yet the whole thing still feels harder than it should, because the audience has been treated far too loosely from the start.

Usually, that shows up in a very familiar way. A business decides the safest route is to go straight to headteachers, or perhaps a broad SLT list, and then sends one message that tries to cover every possible angle at once. There is a certain logic to that approach, because senior leaders do have authority and budget influence, but school buying decisions rarely begin and end there, and that is the part that trips people up.

By the time a headteacher is seriously considering a supplier, someone else in the school has often already formed an opinion. A classroom teacher may have spotted the problem first. A subject lead may have been comparing options. A SENCO may already know exactly where the provision gap sits and what kind of support would help. A business manager may already have concerns about implementation, cost, or contract structure. If your campaign only ever shows up at one point in that process, you are relying on one person to do all of the interpretation, all of the internal selling, and all of the next-step thinking on your behalf.

That’s a big ask, especially in schools, where people are short on time, cautious with budgets, and quick to dismiss anything that feels broad, generic, or disconnected from how the school actually works.

The mistake usually starts with a shortcut

Most businesses don’t consciously decide to oversimplify schools. What happens is that they take a shortcut that feels efficient, then build everything around it.

The shortcut usually sounds something like this:

*“The headteacher can approve it, so let’s start there.”

“SLT will care most, so we’ll keep the list senior.”

“One strong message should work across the whole school.”*

The problem isn't that these roles are irrelevant. The problem is that the whole campaign ends up leaning on them far too heavily, while the people closer to the issue, and often closer to the early conversation, never really see a message written with them in mind.

That matters because schools are not difficult to understand in theory. Most businesses already know there are different roles, different responsibilities, and different pressures at play. Where results start to wobble is in the execution, because all of that nuance disappears once the campaign is actually built.

Why this damages performance more than people expect

When a campaign is structured around one role and one broad message, the cracks show up quite quickly.

You get emails that sound sensible enough in general terms, but they don't quite land with anyone in particular. Teachers may find them too strategic and slightly removed from day-to-day reality. Senior leaders may feel they are talking around the issue rather than making a credible case. Finance and operations staff may not be given enough to work with at all, especially if cost, admin, rollout, or resource implications are vague.

This is where a lot of otherwise decent products get stuck. The issue isn't always that the school has no need. More often, the relevance is buried under a message that is trying to be useful to too many people at once.

That usually leads to a frustrating pattern:

• Some engagement, but not much depth.
• A few replies, but from the wrong roles.
• Interest that never quite turns into a serious conversation.
• Campaigns that feel inconsistent even though the audience looks right on paper.

Once that happens, many businesses start looking at send volume, timing, or subject lines, when the real issue sits further upstream in the way the audience and message were originally defined.

Separate end users, influencers, and decision-makers

One of the simplest improvements you can make is to stop grouping everyone together under the vague label of “school contacts” and instead break the audience down by the part they play in the buying process.

Most school purchases involve three broad groups:

• End users. The people who will actually use the product, service, or resources in day-to-day school life.
• Influencers. The people who help shape whether something is taken seriously, discussed internally, or recommended upwards.
• Decision-makers. The people who hold budget authority, sign things off, or decide whether something moves forward.

Sometimes one person covers more than one of those roles, especially in smaller schools, but most of the time the decision is spread across several people, which is exactly why a single-message campaign struggles to hold up.

If you sell a classroom resource, a digital learning platform, or anything tied closely to teaching and learning, the first serious opinion often forms at teacher or subject lead level. If you sell something operational, such as a finance system, estates service, safeguarding platform, or trust-wide process tool, the balance shifts, and operational leaders, business managers, or central trust teams may have much more influence much earlier.

That distinction matters because the person who first sees the value in your offer isn't always the person who signs the budget off, and the person who controls the budget may not have enough day-to-day visibility to spot the value immediately without help from elsewhere.

Different roles need different messages

This is where campaigns often become much more effective, because once you accept that different people are involved, the next step becomes obvious: the message has to do a different job depending on who is reading it.

Teachers and classroom staff

Teachers are usually closest to the day-to-day problem, so they are rarely looking for broad strategic claims. They want to know whether something is useful, realistic, and easy to bring into a week that is already full.

Good teacher-facing messaging tends to focus on:

• Time saved.
• Simplicity.
• Classroom relevance.
• Ease of use.
• Practical outcomes.

Examples of angles that tend to land better with teachers include:

• Reduce Year 5 marking time by 30%.
• Ready-to-use resources for KS3 science.
• No extra training, no extra admin.
• Helps pupils practise independently in under 10 minutes a day.

Examples of angles that are more likely to feel too remote include:

Drives whole-school transformation. Supports strategic excellence in teaching and learning. Revolutionary platform for modern schools. Those phrases may sound polished, but they make the reader do too much work to connect the message back to their own day.

Subject leads and heads of department

This group sits in a very useful middle ground. They understand the classroom reality, but they are also thinking about consistency, staff adoption, curriculum fit, and whether something can work beyond one individual teacher.

Messages for this audience usually need to answer questions such as:

• Will this work across a department, not just for one person?
• Will staff actually use it?
• Does it align with curriculum or subject priorities?
• Can it improve consistency without creating more work?

That means the message often needs to move slightly wider than it would for a teacher, while still staying rooted in practical delivery.

Examples of stronger department-level angles include:

• Helps English departments standardise feedback without adding workload.
• Already used across multiple secondary maths teams.
• Easy to roll out across KS2 with no complex setup.

SENCOs, safeguarding leads, pastoral leads, and other specialist roles

These audiences tend to be very specific, and generic messaging misses them very easily. If you are selling something related to SEND, behaviour, attendance, safeguarding, mental health, pastoral support, or compliance, then vague benefits do very little.

You need to show that you understand the pressure attached to that area, and that your offer fits the way those roles actually work.

For example:

• A SENCO will care about provision, evidence, workload, and fit for specific pupils.
• A safeguarding lead will care about risk, process, confidence, recording, and practical implementation.
• A pastoral lead may care more about consistency, staff time, and whether the approach works in the real conditions of school life.

The more specialised the role, the more damaging broad messaging becomes, because it signals very quickly that the message was never really written for them.

Senior leaders and headteachers

This is where many campaigns start, but it is more useful to think of this group as one part of the chain rather than the whole chain. Senior leaders are usually asking a different set of questions:

• Does this align with current priorities?
• Is the impact credible?
• Will implementation be manageable?
• How much staff time will this take?
• Does the school already have something similar?

You are generally further away from the day-to-day detail here, so the message needs to make the wider value clearer without drifting into vague, empty claims

Good leadership-facing messaging often includes:

• Clear outcomes.
• Low-risk implementation.
• Evidence of use elsewhere.
• Reassurance around staff workload.
• A sense that this can fit into existing systems rather than disrupt them.

Phrases such as “used by schools like yours”, “quick to implement”, “minimal staff training”, and “easy to roll out” often do more work here than louder claims about innovation ever will, because senior leaders are managing risk as much as opportunity.

Business managers, finance leads, and operations staff

These roles are left out of too many campaigns, especially when a supplier assumes that the educational value alone will carry the decision through. That rarely happens.

If the product has a price tag, a contract implication, an implementation burden, a reporting requirement, or any kind of operational knock-on effect, somebody in this part of the school will care.

Messaging here needs to be direct on:

• Cost and value.
• Setup time.
• Admin burden.
• Ongoing support.
• Contract clarity.
• Resource implications.

If you leave those answers vague, you create friction later, even when interest has already been built elsewhere in the school.

Decision-makers and influencers should be targeted together

One of the most useful practical shifts you can make is to plan campaigns around both the people who feel the pain and the people who approve the spend.

That means, instead of asking “who signs this off?”, you ask two better questions:

• Who is most likely to recognise the problem first?
• Who will need convincing later on?

That small change makes campaign planning much sharper.

For example:

If you sell a literacy intervention, teachers and English leads may recognise the value first, while senior leaders want evidence of impact and rollout ease later.

If you sell CPD, teachers may care about relevance and practicality, while SLT cares about consistency, coverage, and fit with school priorities.

If you sell an operations platform, business managers may care first about functionality and implementation, while headteachers care later about efficiency and reliability.

The campaign should reflect that sequence.

Timing and audience are linked more closely than people think

Another reason one-size-fits-all campaigns underperform is that timing matters differently for different roles.

A teacher may scan an email between lessons and only pay attention if the relevance is obvious immediately. A senior leader may look at the same message later in the day, but only if it feels aligned with something already on their radar. A business manager may care far more at budget-setting points than at other times in the year.

That means your campaigns improve when you plan around:

• Who needs to see the message first.
• Who needs to see it later.
• Which term, month, or school cycle makes it more relevant.

This is one of the reasons broad school marketing can feel patchy. The message may not be wrong, but it reaches the wrong role, at the wrong moment, with the wrong emphasis.

This becomes even more important in MATs

Once academy trusts enter the picture, the same issue gets bigger, because now you are dealing with another layer of stakeholders on top of the school-level roles.

Some categories lean much more trust-led, particularly finance and operational systems, estates and facilities, and some energy or sustainability decisions. Other categories remain heavily school-led, such as classroom resources, trips and enrichment, and much of the day-to-day teaching-related spend. Then there is the middle ground, where decisions are shared, including areas such as staff CPD, edtech, safeguarding, and assessment.

That means you cannot rely on a single trust contact any more than you can rely on a single school contact.

Campaigns aimed at MATs usually work better when they create visibility:

• At school level, where the need is often recognised first.
• At trust level, where consistency, rollout, and budget control may sit.

When one side sees the practical relevance and the other sees the wider value, the internal case is much easier to build.

What better campaign planning actually looks like

If you want this to be practical rather than theoretical, here is what changing your approach usually involves:

Build target lists by role, not just by school

Instead of one broad “school contacts” segment, separate teachers, subject leads, SENCOs, senior leaders, finance roles, and trust contacts where relevant.

Write the first paragraph for the specific reader

A teacher should feel, from the opening lines, that the message belongs in their world. The same applies to leaders and operational staff.

Lead with the benefit most relevant to that role

Teachers usually care first about time, ease, and practical value. Leaders care about impact, risk, and priorities. Finance and operations care about cost clarity and implementation.

Use examples that match the audience

“Cuts marking time by 5 hours a month” is more persuasive to a teacher than “supports school improvement”. “Rolls out across departments with no additional training” is more persuasive to leadership than “helps individual teachers”.

Plan campaigns so more than one role sees your brand

Internal conversations are easier when more than one person has already come across you. Familiarity lowers risk, especially in schools.

Check whether your CTA fits the role

A teacher may be more likely to reply to a simple question. A senior leader may prefer a short summary or case study. A business manager may want pricing clarity earlier.

The practical questions to ask before every campaign

Who is most likely to care first, who is most likely to influence the discussion, and who is most likely to approve the spend?

If your campaign only addresses one of those people, there is a good chance it is carrying too much weight on too narrow a route.

If your campaign reaches all three, with messaging that respects what matters to each of them, the whole thing becomes much easier to move internally.

How to improve results when selling to schools

The biggest mistake companies make when selling to schools isn't that they misunderstand education, or that they fail to find decision-makers, or that they lack a decent product. It usually comes down to a simpler, more fixable issue: the campaign is aimed too narrowly, written too broadly, and expected to do too much with one contact and one message.

Results tend to improve when you:

• Reach more than one role involved in the decision.
• Separate decision-makers from influencers.
• Tailor the message to the audience, rather than the organisation in general.
• Match the benefit to the role reading it.
• Build visibility across the school, and across the trust where relevant.

Once you start doing that consistently, responses feel less random, conversations start earlier, and campaigns stop relying on one person at the top spotting the value instantly.

Book an education strategy call with our team and we’ll map out how to target the right people, sharpen your messaging, and generate more consistent leads from schools and MATs.

FAQs

What is the biggest mistake when selling to schools?

The most common mistake is relying on a single contact, usually a headteacher or a broad SLT list, and expecting one message to carry the whole decision.

Who should I target when marketing to schools?

That depends on your product, but strong school campaigns usually reach a mix of end users, influencers, and decision-makers, rather than focusing on one role alone.

What is the difference between a decision-maker and an influencer in schools?

A decision-maker approves spend or signs something off. An influencer helps shape whether the product is taken seriously, discussed internally, or recommended upwards.

Should I always email the headteacher first?

Not always. Headteachers are important, but many products gain traction earlier with teachers, subject leads, SENCOs, operational staff, or trust teams, depending on what you are selling.

How should messaging change for different school roles?

Teachers need practical relevance, time-saving, and ease of use. Senior leaders need reassurance around impact, priorities, and implementation. Finance and operations staff need clarity on cost, setup, and workload.

How do I improve school marketing results?

Start by mapping the roles involved in the decision, then tailor your targeting, messaging, and call to action to those audiences rather than sending one broad message to everyone.

Tags
How to Sell to Schools How to Sell to Teachers Marketing to Education Marketing to Schools Marketing to Teachers

Similar Articles

What to do with your education marketing during lockdown 3.0

You received more marketing and business advice last year than you could shake a stick at, but what about now? Here's an update for 2021.

Read Post

The Inclusive Mainstream Fund (And What It Means for Businesses Selling to Schools)

What the Inclusive Mainstream Fund means for suppliers selling SEND, inclusion and education services to schools.

Read Post