Exclusive: A Peek into the Student Loan Industry’s Messaging Machine
It's no wonder Americans are deeply suspicious of special interest lobbyists in Washington. Take the student loan industry's latest efforts to kill legislation pending in Congress that would end the Federal Family Education Loan program. It's a prime example of special interest lobbying at its worst.
In 2007, shortly after President Bush signed into law a bill cutting government subsidies to lenders and guaranty agencies, the student loan industry bought into a new strategy to thwart any future Congressional action that might reduce its subsidies further: manufactured grass roots opposition (otherwise known as astroturfing). With Democrats firmly in control of Congress and in a good position to take back the White House in the upcoming presidential election, industry officials knew that the FFEL program was in jeopardy.
Enter Qorvis Communications, a prominent Washington-based public relations firm that had gained notoriety earlier in the decade for its work on behalf of the Saudi Arabian government. Eager for the loan industry's business, one of the firm's partners made a pitch for the company at the 2007 legislative conference of the National Council of Higher Education Loan Programs, a trade group that represents guaranty agencies and non-profit lenders. In a power-point presentation entitled "What Just Hit Us?", this Qorvis executive said that the loan industry had lost the loan subsidy battle because it "had no organized constituency" to "counter" its critics.
"The messages and messengers we used to defend the program were not effective and thus we need new voices, new messages, and new ways to mobilize these voices," he stated.
The industry, he said, especially needed to wage a campaign to get students and their parents to speak out on its behalf. Lenders and guarantors could do this by reaching out to student organizations and parent groups, as well as spreading their message over the Internet through social networking sites like Facebook, blogs, and a website dedicated to the cause of preserving FFEL.
Qorvis, the executive said, was uniquely qualified to carry out this campaign because of its previous work building grassroots networks on college campuses dedicated to giving "students a voice in the national debate surrounding digital rights and freedoms in the 21st Century." He suggested that the firm would be able tap into these networks to mobilize students to speak out in favor of the FFEL program.
"There are now fifteen chapters on campuses nationwide where students meet to discuss current events in technology policy and take action to support or oppose relevant legislation -- and more importantly, to recruit more advocates for us [emphasis included in original text]."
Qorvis got the job on the strength of his pitch. Now two years later, with the FFEL program facing possible extinction, we can see how this strategy has worked out. The loan industry is still struggling to generate grassroots support from anyone other than those who have a vested interest in the program's survival -- particularly loan company employees and financial aid administrators who serve on lender and guaranty agency boards and/or belong to state associations that depend heavily on student loan providers for financial support.
Despite the efforts of the loan industry and the Qorvis communication team, students and their parents are not rushing the barricades to demand that lenders be allowed to continue collecting generous subsidies for making virtually risk-free loans. Evidently, digital rights supporters on campuses aren't interested in being used as pawns in the battle over the future of the FFEL program. Perhaps they're also wise to the fact that the pending legislation pits student grant aid increases against lender subsidies. Did lenders really think students would choose the latter?
As we've said before, the indifference of students to the lenders' plight shouldn't come as a surprise, considering that the terms and conditions of federal student loans are pretty much identical whether they come from the loan industry or from the U.S. Department of Education's Direct Lending program.
In our next post, we will take a closer look at the loan industry's increasingly desperate efforts to show that it has students on its side. Stay tuned.


















"A peek..." Comment
I miss your series about guarantee agencies! Talk about a group of companies that have outlived their usefulness. How much do they cost the taxpayers? Last time I checked, they have very little risk, but get reimbursed on any claim they pay and then get a nice big payday whenever they collect on a defaulted loan. Oh yeah, I almost forgot - they are supposed to prevent defaults too. But wait - they make more if it defaults. To top it off, I saw numbers that show that the program with no such thing as a guarantee agency has a lower default rate than the one that does. We can do better, can't we? Tell us some more guarantee agency stories!
Let's see
What do you call a company that has no risk of loan defaults, but still earns a handsome profit on student loans?
Answer: Direct Loan servicer.
But that's different, right?
How???!!!
I agree
I agree, these rich corporate middlemen need to be kicked out of the process--they are leeches, and they only exist, not on account of any "free" market, but because of the government action of privitization, driven by these same ideologues. We once had a healthy, functional university system where most all tuition was covered by grants, with a few low-interest federal loans that were paid off quickly upon graduation. How funding students turned into funding a multi-billion dollary industry that seeks to control future legislation with the undemocratic influence of money is a very telling story.
I've been around the student
I've been around the student loan industry for quite a while. It contains a lot of really good people who truly care about students. But let's be honest, guarantors lost their primary responsibility (guaranteeing loans) long ago. Money pours in with little or no risk and they have almost no accountability for what they do with that money. If the Senate doesn't kill FFELP, they should at least change the way guarantors get their money and hold them accountable for the services they are paid to offer. I'm ready for more change I can believe in.
The indifference of student
The indifference of student borrowers to the fact that they will not benefit from the savings is pretty surprising. Increasing the Pell Grant amount is long overdue, but why it should be linked to the demise of the FFELP remains a mystery. At the very least, Stafford borrowers should be demanding interest rate cuts as a result of this change.
This is the most one sided
This is the most one sided bunch of bull I have ever seen. left wing organizations have been soliciting student editors to write articles for the last few months. This author shoudl be ashamed of himself. Oh that's right, it's only wrong if someone else does it.
Post new comment