Leaders across the advertising industry are warning that the federal government’s plan to shake up funding for university degrees could significantly damage future talent available for agencies.
Some say lack of discussion on the issue in the industry has created a “false sense of security” that the sector won’t be impacted.
The government in June revealed a new scheme that will change how much funding it will provide for university degrees.
While some degrees, such as maths, architecture, IT and languages, will receive more funding, others, such as communications, creative arts, social studies and behavioural science will get less.
For example, a student studying a communications degree would rack up $14,500 in debt per year under the new scheme, compared to $6,800 now.
The government says the aim of the legislation is to produce “job-ready” graduates to help the economy recover from the pandemic which has increased unemployment, last recorded at 6.8%, and put Australia in its first recession in nearly 30 years.
However, people are warning that boosting fees for certain degrees will likely keep people from lower socio-economic backgrounds out of these industries, including marketing, public relations and media.
Leigh McClusky, national president for the peak body for public relations PRIA, also chairs the newly launched Australian Communications Advocacy Group (ACAG) set up to fight the changes.
While ACAG would like to see the government’s proposal scrapped, McClusky says a “pragmatic” alternative is for communication degrees to be moved from Cluster 1 to Cluster 2 in the government’s proposed changes to lessen the burden on students.
“By using a hefty financial stick to drive students in the government’s preferred STEM cattle yard, we’re taking away student’s choices and also the potential diversity of those students,” McClusky told AdNews.
“The inference is clear. Those young people from diverse cultural and financial backgrounds, who can’t afford to follow a humanities course of their passion and choosing, will be financially shut out.
“It strikes me as fundamentally wrong that the government is proposing a system where only the kids with families with deep pockets and fat bank accounts actually get to have a real choice about their future.”
The lack of diversity in Australian media, and particularly advertising, has long been reported, with a 2016 PwC report finding that the average media worker is a “white male ‘hipster’ who lives in Sydney's inner west or eastern suburbs”.
While no advertising bodies have formally joined ACAG’s launch, leaders across the industry are pushing against the changes.
Jules Hall, The Hallway CEO, has opposed the changes in a submission to the senate inquiry looking into the legislation. He says the lack of protest from the advertising industry masks the impact it will have.
“The PR industry has taken a better stand, establishing ACAG. The result is that we’re hearing more about the ‘communications’ courses being affected which has the consequence of creating a false sense of security for the ad industry,” he tells AdNews.
“Communications is shorthand for PR. So the ad industry thinks it’s unaffected. It’s not, the impact is real and significant.”
Instead of removing support for the arts, Gall says the government should create incentive for students to study STEM courses.
“By taking away funding for Arts degrees the government is actively disincentivising people to pursue these courses. While that might help solve a short-term skills gap, it’s a terribly short sighted approach - all it does is create another (potentially bigger) problem and bigger skills gap down the line,” he says.
“The fact is we need both - just as you need your left and right brain. If this legislation proceeds the ad industry will suffer as a result. The impact will be sudden and significant.
“The Year 12 students of 2020 are already facing a world turned upside down by COVID, by the economic crisis and the worst unemployment figures in living history. Should this legislation be passed, many may have their desired futures taken away from them as well. It’s just wrong, and as an industry, we simply have to rise up and reject this with passion.”
Jane Caro, a former senior copywriter who advocates for free education, says the legislation will hurt women who have already been severely impacted by the pandemic’s economic fallout.
“I am also concerned about its effect on the quality of our comms sector – journalism, serious writing, film, TV, advertising, even music and comedy,” she tells AdNews.
“All of them export earners and value-added products which, when successful and recognised internationally, attract visitors to this country with foreign dollars to spend.
“I am also concerned that Arts degrees will become the fiefdom of children of the privileged, often with a more conservative view of the world. This cannot be part of the reason why this profoundly paranoid and conservative government is attracted to such a policy, surely? Pardon my cynicism.”
Caro also notes the lack of discussion across the industry.
“They [advertising and media industries] have not protested loudly enough, but the media and advertising industries are both in freefall,” she says.
“June and July were among the lowest ad revenue months in history, I have been told. The media is hemorrhaging both jobs and publications at the moment. Worryingly, many of the publications lost have been female-focussed and staffed.
“Another blow to the incomes and life chances of the best educated women in the world (according to the World Economic Forum), and wasting that resource and investment in their education is a huge impediment, I would suggest, to our economic recovery.”
Nick Cleaver, 303 MullenLowe Australia CEO, labels the government’s plans to make it “more expensive and difficult” for people to educate themselves as a “backwards” step for all of Australia.
“The government's arbitrary pricing policy seems perverse and dangerous,” Cleaver tells AdNews.
“It discriminates against people who lack the financial resources to take on this level of debt. It therefore potentially robs society of educated people who can make significant contributions across a breadth of different categories. That’s not good for anyone.
“In terms of our industry it again can only be a backward step. We need more bright, educated people in our ranks, not less.
"Our industry now demands more smarts than it ever has done. We tackle more complex challenges using more sophisticated tools than we ever have.
"Our challenge is to add value to our clients' businesses that demands more incisive and lateral thinking than ever and social science and humanities students have proved themselves a vital component of the talent pool our industry requires.”
Cleaver would like to see industry leaders step up against the legislation, which still needs to be passed by parliament. A senate inquiry looking into the proposed changes is set to hand down its report on Friday.
“That fact the Advertising Council is mute on the issue is once more a failure on their part to represent the views of their constituents. They should be providing a robust defence on what is an important issue to our industry,” Cleaver says.
“As an industry we should be encouraging higher levels of training and education for entrants into our profession not thinking of means of diluting the intellectual capital of practitioners.
"We will command greater respect from our clients if we are seen to be upholding the highest standards not compromising them. Our aspiration should be to make advertising an all graduate profession which has increasingly become the case. We need to ensure that momentum is maintained not made more problematic.”
Tim Parker, The Possibility Partnership chair, has previously led graduate programs at agencies such as Clemenger Group. He says while the industry has come a long way in being more inclusive, these changes could undo some of that work.
“Motivated graduates have long been a rich source of talent, and most schemes already look way beyond the traditional comms/marketing degrees. But don’t penalise someone who’s set their sights on a comms degree,” he tells AdNews.
“Raising the financial bar, in some cases doubling the cost, will inevitably lead to fewer folk from less well advantaged backgrounds pursuing mind-expanding courses which can help fuel the curiosity, articulacy and cultural awareness that makes great communicators.”
“They’re simply unfair and unreasonable. Penalising students for their chosen path is a brutal kick in the teeth at a time when most of them are already facing crushing, covid-related challenges. Why should they be disadvantaged vs their STEM peers?”
Have something to say on this? Share your views in the comments section below. Or if you have a news story or tip-off, drop us a line at adnews@yaffa.com.au
Sign up to the AdNews newsletter, like us on Facebook or follow us on Twitter for breaking stories and campaigns throughout the day.