Final Reports

Executive Summary

This study evaluates the effectiveness of the Bachelor of Media Studies (BMS) program’s marketing strategies and their alignment with student expectations, experiences, and perceived value. Conducted as part of a Communications Capstone project, the research used a detailed quantitative survey to collect feedback from 50 out of 65 enrolled BMS students (76.9% participation rate). Focus group insights supplemented the quantitative data, offering rich context around student satisfaction, unmet expectations, and communication breakdowns.

The results reveal several critical gaps between promotional messaging and student experiences, particularly concerning career and career support related opportunities, the BMS + Master of Management Dual Degree, and the distinction between UBC Okanagan and UBC Vancouver’s BMS programs. 

Statistical analysis, including Pearson’s r and Spearman’s rho correlation tests, reveal significant relationships between pre-attendance knowledge and satisfaction levels. Students who were better informed prior to enrollment were more likely to perceive BMS marketing as accurate and representative. Additional insights drawn from average section scores and qualitative focus group data show trends of dissatisfaction with BMS marketing and highlight specific areas for improvement. 

1. Methodology

A structured online survey, hosted through UBC’s Qualtrics platform, was distributed to current BMS students. The survey included:

  • Demographic questions (Section 1)
  • Degree and program awareness (Section 2)
  • Likert-scale* items assessing satisfaction and perceptions of communication success (Section 3)

This was complemented by a qualitative focus group session with current BMS students to gather narrative feedback on their experiences. The analysis incorporates descriptive statistics, correlation analysis (Pearson’s r and Spearman’s rho), and attention checks to ensure data integrity. Only one case of response straightlining was identified and considered non-impactful due to the breadth of data.

*As the scale ranged from 1 to 4, with 2.5 representing a neutral midpoint, values below 2.5 indicate disagreement and those above 2.5 indicate agreement.

2. Key Findings

A. Demographic and Enrollment Insights

  • Year-Level Breakdown: Broad participation with 2nd-year students making up the largest share (35.3%), followed by 4th-year (27.5%) and 1st-year (19.6%).
  • Program Exploration: 55% of students reported changing their practice/niche since joining BMS, suggesting that the program encourages interdisciplinary exploration and adaptability.

B. Pre-Attendance Knowledge Gaps

  • UBCO vs. UBCV Confusion: 35% of students were unaware of the difference between the UBC Okanagan and UBC Vancouver BMS programs. This lack of awareness is strongly negatively correlated with perceived accuracy of marketing (r = -0.784, p < 0.00001).
  • Career Opportunity Awareness: Students who were unaware of community engagement, work-study, and co-op options prior to attending reported lower ratings across multiple marketing effectiveness metrics. Students strongly agree (avg = 3.5) that BMS marketing should provide more realistic insights into student experiences, coursework, and career pathways.

C. Marketing Effectiveness and Communication Channels

  • Clarity & Strategy: Preliminary findings from Section 3, Question Group 1 (5 questions) showed an average rating of 2.24, indicating that students generally found BMS marketing lacking.
  • Social Media: Social media and online content were not influential in student decision-making (avg = 1.8), with only 17.7% saying it played a role. Enhancing the BMS digital presence aligns with findings in our literature review.
  • Website & SEO: Students who learned about BMS from counselors or post-secondary fairs rated marketing accuracy higher than those who used online search or program websites.
  • Focus Group Insight: Students found BMS’s website misleading, especially regarding technical skills like coding, access to resources, and clarity on course offerings. There were recurring comments about expectations for more coding and tech support, which marketing failed to address.

D. Expectation vs. Experience

  • The average score across 6 questions was 2.28, indicating misalignment between student expectations and their actual experience.
  • Students rated the communication of career opportunities and networking possibilities particularly low (S3.Q2_2 avg = 1.6 for fourth-year students), which is especially concerning as these students approach graduation.
  • Extracurricular and industry engagement opportunities were also rated poorly (S3.Q2_4 avg = 2.1), along with alignment of advertised resources and actual support (S3.Q2_6 avg = 2.3).
  • Focus Group Insight: Students noted feeling unprepared for industry expectations due to a lack of technical skills and limited real-world applications. The lack of clarity around course content, co-op availability, and career pathways was frequently cited.

E. Program Communication & Student Engagement

  • The average score for this section was 2.625, though this is skewed by S3.Q3_3 (avg = 3.6) where students agreed it would be helpful to see student work before enrolling.
  • When excluding that item, the average drops to 2.3, indicating general dissatisfaction with communication and engagement.
  • Students feel welcomed in the program (S3.Q3_4 avg = 2.9), suggesting that while internal culture is strong, external representation needs improvement.
  • Focus Group Insight: Students expressed significant frustration with the lack of centralized communication, inconsistent messaging from faculty, and the invisibility of program leadership. Many said they discovered helpful resources only in their final year, and felt the program was disorganized in communicating academic paths and opportunities.

F. Perceived Value & Recommendation

  • Overall average score for this section was 2.5, indicating a neutral stance.
  • Students rated marketing’s communication of real-world applicability (S3.Q4_1) and skills gained (S3.Q4_2) lower (avg = 2.3).
  • However, students were more positive about the program’s actual value (S3.Q4_3 avg = 2.7) and likelihood to recommend BMS (S3.Q4_4 avg = 2.7).
  • Focus Group Insight: While some students said they would still choose BMS for the relationships and support they found, others indicated they would not have enrolled had marketing been more transparent. There was a strong call for truthful, detailed marketing.

G. Students Considering Transfer

  • Students considering or planning to transfer out expressed greater dissatisfaction. 100% of this group said they would have made different academic choices if better informed.
  • Nearly all felt marketing failed to communicate career and networking opportunities.
  • Despite dissatisfaction, 66.7% of those already transferring would still recommend BMS to others.

3. Correlation Highlights

  • S2.Q6 & S3.Q1_3: Students aware of the UBCV/UBCO program distinction found marketing more accurate regarding career opportunities (r = -0.301, p = 0.0337).
  • S2.Q4 & S3.Q1_1: Students aware of experiential learning opportunities rated the marketing as more accurate (r = -0.524, p = 0.0000933).
  • S2.Q4 & S3.Q4_3: These students also rated BMS as providing good educational and career value (r = -0.349, p = 0.0131).
  • S2.Q3 & S3.Q5_3: Students unaware of the BMS + Master of Management Dual Degree were more likely to believe BMS marketing should provide more realistic insights (rho = 0.309, p = 0.0289).

4. Recommendations

  • Differentiate UBC Okanagan and UBC Vancouver BMS Programs Clearly
    • Add a visual comparison chart or dedicated webpage.
    • Integrate this distinction into brochures and recruitment materials.
  • Improve Pre-Attendance Communication of Co-op, Work-Study, and Engagement Opportunities
    • Create a “Beyond the Classroom” section on the website.
    • Feature alumni success stories highlighting these experiences.
    • Consider inviting alumni to speak about their experience. 
    • Feature labs and other industry partners on the BMS website.  
  • Promote the BMS + Master of Management Dual Degree Pathway
    • Include it prominently in admissions materials, info sessions, and on program webpages.
  • Showcase Student Work Pre-Enrollment
    • Develop a curated online gallery or social media series featuring student projects.
    • Invite prospective students to virtual or in-person showcases.
  • Clarify Program Value and Career Outcomes
    • Clearly highlight the skills and knowledge students gain.
    • Include concrete examples of real-world applicability and graduate success stories.
  • Enhance Internal & External Communication
    • Develop consistent weekly or monthly updates for students.
    • Centralize communication from faculty, advising, and program leadership.
    • Clearer course naming and concrete course descriptions. 
  • Optimize Digital Presence for Accuracy and Discoverability
    • Improve search engine optimization (SEO) for the BMS website.
    • Ensure consistency in branding across platforms.
    • Update and clearly label course descriptions, program structure, and resource access.

5. Conclusion

This study reveals the critical role that transparent, accurate, and value-driven marketing plays in aligning student expectations with actual experiences. Survey and focus group results suggest that while students find the program itself valuable and supportive in certain areas, BMS marketing often fails to convey key information—especially around career, co-op, and networking opportunities.

By improving digital content clarity, showcasing student work, and proactively communicating program distinctions, BMS can enhance its marketing effectiveness and increase student satisfaction and retention. These insights also support broader institutional efforts toward data-informed communication strategies and improved program outreach.

The following section details our findings at the qualitative focus group. 

 

BMS Focus Group Summary Report

Overview
As part of a broader investigation into the effectiveness of the BMS program’s marketing strategies and student perceptions, a qualitative focus group was conducted with current BMS students. This session aimed to gather first-hand feedback about the clarity of pre-enrollment marketing, alignment with student experiences, and perceptions of communication and engagement throughout the program.

1. Marketing Clarity & Expectations

Findings:

  • The most referenced marketing tools were the BMS website and UBC-wide resources. However, students consistently found them uninformative, vague, or misleading.
  • Several students noted that external blogs and social media content (e.g., vlogs, student-run accounts) provided more helpful insights than official university materials.
  • Students expressed frustration at discovering only after enrollment that:
    • The program did not include expected technical skills, such as coding.
    • Career outcomes listed on the site were inaccurate or exaggerated.
    • Course availability and descriptions were not current or detailed enough.
    • There was no transparency regarding changes to curriculum or available resources.

Quotes:

“The list of jobs listed on the website doesn’t reflect what this degree qualifies us for.” “I expected coding and got graphic design.”

2. Student Experience vs. Expectations

Findings:

  • Students appreciated the freedom to explore different interests, and some named specific professors who exceeded expectations.
  • There were strong concerns about the lack of concrete technical skills, dedicated resources, and access to industry tools that were implied through marketing.
  • Many reported having to take a self-directed approach to build skills not covered in the curriculum.
  • Students were surprised by the inconsistency across academic years and the program’s undefined focus.

Quotes:

“We were promised personalized tech access – what we got was outdated Mac Minis.” “I feel unqualified. I don’t have enough technical skills to work in the field.”

3. Communication & Engagement After Enrollment

Findings:

  • Communication from BMS leadership was described as infrequent, unclear, and fragmented.
  • Students noted that they receive more consistent updates from Fine Arts than BMS.
  • Key resources (e.g., blogs, career pages, tech lists) were difficult to find or completely unknown.
  • Many felt left to “dig up information themselves” with minimal institutional support.

Quotes:

“We didn’t even know the student blog existed until fourth year.” “Who is the program coordinator and what do they do?”

4. Program Improvement & Recommendations

Student Suggestions:

  • Transparent, updated marketing with real course outlines, staff profiles, tech access, and expected skill development.
  • A centralized communication platform (emails, newsletter, website updates) from BMS leadership.
  • Increased visibility of student work to show real examples of outcomes.
  • More consistent messaging across faculty and departments.
  • Reword promotional content to better manage expectations.
  • Greater student involvement in program development and promotion.

Advice to Prospective Students:

  • “Talk to upper years and dig for the truth.”
  • “Don’t expect too much. Be ready to self-advocate.”
  • “There’s potential here, but the communication has to improve.”

End Note: 

The focus group revealed that while BMS students value some of the flexibility and support they found in the program, there is a clear disconnect between marketing promises and lived experience. Students want transparency, communication, and honest representation. Their recommendations highlight the need for stronger alignment between what BMS promotes and what it actually delivers.