Why was doing research on Chick-fil-a’s marketing strategy a bad idea for college?
In the fiercely competitive arena of college admissions, students are continually seeking unique opportunities to set themselves apart. Among these opportunities, engaging in research stands as a pinnacle experience that can significantly bolster an applicant's profile.
Recently, you may have come across a student’s research project on Chick-fil-a’s marketing strategy that went viral for all the wrong reasons. First, it was done through a “paid” research program. And second, the research topic, itself. While the issue of whether a student should pay for a research opportunity is a subject of debate (pros and cons to each side), the reporting failed to give proper attention to the latter half—the actual most harmful aspect of this experience for the student’s college applications.
Coming from a former admissions officer, the fact that a student pays or not to engage in research experience does not take away from the overall research work (in the end, the work is the work, regardless of how it was done). As long as the research is true, genuine, and meets all ethical standards and practices, there is no difference for how one goes about getting the opportunity. While engaging in research opportunities for free may be most ideal, not all students have connections or resources to be paired with a college research professor. These programs give students interested in academics and research access to these opportunities (no different than hiring a private basketball coach to improve one’s athletic skill for college sports recruitment).
What the news and many did not focus on was what actually hurt the student when applying to college: the research topic, itself, on Chick-fil-a's marketing strategy. Why? Because, from the perspective of colleges, what did the findings contribute to society? What did the report add to the scientific literature and narrative? A simple Google Search of “Chick-fil-a’s Marketing Strategy” returns over 15,700,000 results, alone. Their marketing strategy is relatively well known due to the company's success and has been well studied or explored by any in the field of marketing. In this case, it was a paid experience that had no value. And that’s why it looked bad to colleges.
Rather, students who engage in research—whether through a paid program or personal connection—should find a research topic on value and meaning. So, in this example, what is missing from the research literature and online narrative? What topic can one search that yields few, if any, results? If the student would have done the research on something far more unique, creative, and missing from the research literature, colleges would have seen the work in a far different light and rewarded the value of the experience to the betterment of research and society. For example, let’s consider: "How has Chic-fil-a's religious affiliation and family practices impacted consumers among the LGBT community?" This search yields 848,000 search on Google—closer to our goal but still not quite there. Or, let’s try: "How did Chic-fil-a's use of 3D billboards expand its market awareness?” This search yields 0 results, so this may be the one!
So, in summary, the main take away point is this: Doing any research (regardless of the means of doing so) is good, but not every topic is meaningful. It is important that all students select research topics that are both well done and meaningful!
Paid Research: A Controversial Quandary
In recent years, the question of whether students should pay for research opportunities has emerged as a hot-button issue within the realm of college admissions. Critics argue that paying for research experiences perpetuates socioeconomic disparities, potentially granting an unfair advantage to financially privileged students. Furthermore, it is posited that the commodification of research devalues the authenticity and intrinsic worth of such experiences.
However, it is imperative to disentangle the act of payment from the quality and substance of the research itself. As someone who has served as an admissions officer at Ivy League institutions, I can affirm that the focus during the evaluation process is not solely fixated on the financial aspect of research. Rather, the paramount consideration is the substantive contribution and the intellectual rigor that the research endeavor embodies.
The Chick-fil-A Research Conundrum
To elucidate the complexity surrounding paid research experiences, let's scrutinize a concrete example—a student who embarked on a research project examining Chick-fil-A's marketing strategy. The issue here does not primarily revolve around the payment for the research opportunity but rather hinges on the selection of an uninspired research topic.
Chick-fil-A's marketing strategy, a subject that has been extensively documented and rigorously analyzed within the marketing domain, serves as an apt illustration. Its unprecedented success and distinctive advertising approach have attracted substantial scholarly attention over the years. Regrettably, selecting this well-trodden path did not significantly contribute to the broader research landscape.
The Importance of Original Research
In contrast, envision a scenario in which the student opted for a research topic that exuded originality and uniqueness—something that transcended the boundaries of conventional research. Consider, for instance, a research investigation into the intricate interplay between Chick-fil-A's religious affiliations and its influence on consumer behavior within the LGBTQ+ community. This bold exploration would not only break new ground but also probe the intersection of marketing, societal values, and consumer choices, thereby offering a fresh perspective with the potential to reshape academic discourse.
Similarly, an inquiry into Chick-fil-A's pioneering utilization of 3D billboards and its potential ramifications for the future of marketing could have been transformative. By venturing into the uncharted waters of an emerging advertising trend, the student would have positioned their research at the forefront of their field, making their contribution not just noteworthy but profoundly meaningful.
In the journey of college admissions, it is undeniably crucial for students to seek distinctive and meaningful experiences that enrich their applications. However, the focal point should perpetually be the quality and resonance of the research enterprise itself rather than the transactional aspect of payment. The question of whether a research experience was procured through financial means or not is ancillary when juxtaposed against the paramount criterion of substantive and groundbreaking research.
The Chick-fil-A marketing strategy case study underscores a pivotal lesson—a salient reminder that uninspired research, irrespective of its origin, wields minimal influence in the fiercely competitive domain of college admissions. To ascend above the pool of applicants, students must chart a course that embraces research topics that defy convention, pose poignant questions, and ultimately propel the boundaries of knowledge within their respective domains. In doing so, they not only amplify their prospects of admission but also carve a profound imprint upon the scholarly community.
