The K-12 administrator loved our learning platform demo. She walked through every feature, took notes, asked thoughtful questions about curriculum integration and student engagement tracking.
Two days later, I gave the exact same demo to a corporate training buyer.
He stopped me halfway through: "This is way too academic for our needs. We don't need gradebooks or parent portals. We need compliance tracking and certification management. This feels like school software, not enterprise training software."
I'd assumed "learning platform" meant the same thing across education markets. It didn't.
K-12 buyers cared about: student outcomes, parental involvement, curriculum standards alignment, and teacher workload reduction.
Higher ed buyers cared about: student retention, degree completion rates, faculty autonomy, and research integration.
Corporate training buyers cared about: compliance tracking, skill development ROI, manager visibility, and integration with HR systems.
Same product category. Completely different buyer needs, decision processes, and success metrics.
I'd just learned that "EdTech" isn't one market. It's three distinct markets that happen to involve learning software.
Why EdTech Marketing Is Uniquely Fragmented
After three years selling to education markets, I learned that lumping K-12, higher ed, and corporate learning together is a fundamental mistake:
The Buyers Are Completely Different People
K-12 buyers: School administrators, curriculum directors, district technology coordinators
- Background: Educators who moved into administration
- Priorities: Student outcomes, teacher adoption, curriculum alignment
- Budget: Public funding, grants, bond measures
- Decision timeline: Tied to academic year and budget cycles
Higher ed buyers: Academic deans, provosts, instructional designers, IT leadership
- Background: Academics, researchers, higher ed professionals
- Priorities: Student retention, faculty satisfaction, research capabilities
- Budget: Department budgets, institutional funding, tuition-driven
- Decision timeline: Semester-based, committee-driven
Corporate training buyers: CLOs, L&D leaders, HR leadership, talent development teams
- Background: Corporate professionals, HR specialists
- Priorities: Business outcomes, compliance, skill development, ROI
- Budget: Departmental budgets tied to business performance
- Decision timeline: Fiscal year planning, responsive to business needs
These aren't just different titles. They're different people with different backgrounds, incentives, and success metrics.
I made the mistake of using the same messaging across all three:
"Our platform improves learning outcomes through personalized content and engagement tracking."
K-12 response: "How does this align to Common Core standards and does it integrate with our student information system?"
Higher ed response: "How does this preserve faculty academic freedom and support different pedagogical approaches?"
Corporate response: "What's the business impact? Can you show skill development ROI?"
Same message. Three completely different objections. Because they weren't looking for the same thing.
Compliance and Regulatory Requirements Vary Wildly
K-12 compliance:
- FERPA (student privacy)
- COPPA (children's online privacy)
- Section 508 (accessibility)
- State-specific data privacy laws
- District security requirements
Higher ed compliance:
- FERPA (student privacy)
- Title IX reporting
- Accessibility (ADA, Section 508)
- Research data protection (IRB requirements)
- Regional accreditation standards
Corporate training compliance:
- Industry-specific certifications (healthcare, finance, manufacturing)
- SCORM/xAPI standards for LMS integration
- SOC 2 for data security
- GDPR/privacy regulations for global training
- Audit trails for compliance reporting
Each market has different non-negotiable compliance requirements.
I lost a K-12 deal because we didn't have a parent portal for family engagement—not a requirement in corporate or higher ed.
I lost a corporate deal because we couldn't export SCORM packages for their LMS—not relevant in K-12 or higher ed.
You can't build one product that serves all three markets equally well.
Decision Processes Are Fundamentally Different
K-12 decision process:
- Pilot with teachers (grassroots validation)
- Curriculum committee review (instructional fit)
- District technology review (integration and security)
- Budget approval (often tied to school board meetings)
- Timeline: 6-9 months, aligned to academic year
Higher ed decision process:
- Faculty committee evaluation (academic rigor)
- Instructional designer assessment (pedagogical approach)
- IT evaluation (integration with campus systems)
- Provost/dean approval (institutional fit)
- Timeline: 9-18 months, moves through academic governance
Corporate decision process:
- Business case development (ROI justification)
- L&D evaluation (platform capabilities)
- IT security review (compliance and integration)
- Executive approval (budget sign-off)
- Timeline: 3-6 months, tied to fiscal planning
These timelines aren't just different lengths—they're structured around different institutional rhythms.
I tried pushing a K-12 district to close before summer break. They said: "We can't implement during summer. Teachers aren't here for training. We'll evaluate in fall and implement for spring semester if it goes well."
I tried closing a higher ed deal mid-semester. The dean said: "We can't change systems mid-semester. That disrupts courses in progress. We'll pilot next semester if the faculty committee approves."
Fighting institutional rhythms doesn't work. You align to them.
Success Metrics Are Incompatible
K-12 success metrics:
- Student test scores and academic performance
- Teacher adoption and satisfaction
- Parent engagement
- Curriculum coverage
- Special education support effectiveness
Higher ed success metrics:
- Student retention rates
- Course completion rates
- Degree completion rates
- Faculty satisfaction
- Research output (for research institutions)
Corporate success metrics:
- Skills acquisition and competency improvement
- Compliance certification rates
- Time to proficiency for new hires
- Manager satisfaction with team skills
- Business performance impact
I built case studies showing "improved learning outcomes."
K-12 buyers asked: "What happened to test scores?" Higher ed buyers asked: "What happened to retention rates?" Corporate buyers asked: "What business metrics improved?"
"Learning outcomes" was too vague for any of them.
What Actually Works When Selling Across Education Markets
After three years of failed cross-market positioning, here's what works:
Build Separate Product Positioning for Each Market
Don't try to position one product for all three markets. Create market-specific positioning:
K-12 positioning: "Curriculum-aligned learning platform that helps teachers differentiate instruction while meeting state standards. Average impact: 12% improvement in student performance with 40% reduction in teacher grading time."
Higher ed positioning: "Flexible learning platform that supports diverse pedagogical approaches while improving student retention. Average impact: 8% improvement in course completion rates with full faculty autonomy over course design."
Corporate positioning: "Skills development platform that delivers measurable business impact with compliance tracking. Average impact: 35% reduction in time-to-proficiency with complete audit trail for certification requirements."
Same core platform. Three different value propositions.
Create Market-Specific Case Studies
Don't show K-12 case studies to corporate buyers. They won't relate.
We created vertical-specific case studies:
For K-12: Elementary school case study showing reading score improvements For higher ed: University case study showing freshman retention improvement For corporate: Manufacturing company case study showing safety certification improvement
Each case study spoke the language of that market and measured success with their metrics.
Align Sales Cycles to Institutional Calendars
K-12 calendar alignment:
- Summer: District planning, no teacher access
- Fall: Pilot season, teacher evaluation
- Winter: Budget planning for next year
- Spring: Purchase decisions for fall implementation
Higher ed calendar alignment:
- Summer: Semester break, limited faculty availability
- Fall: Active semester, difficult to pilot
- Winter: Semester break, planning for spring
- Spring: Faculty governance meetings, decision season
Corporate calendar alignment:
- Q1: New fiscal year, budget deployment
- Q2-Q3: Mid-year execution
- Q4: Budget planning for next year
We stopped pushing for deals to close when it was convenient for us and started aligning to when institutions actually make decisions.
Build Compliance Documentation by Market
We created market-specific compliance packages:
K-12 compliance package:
- FERPA compliance documentation
- COPPA compliance (for elementary)
- State data privacy requirements
- Student information system integration specs
Higher ed compliance package:
- FERPA compliance documentation
- Accessibility compliance (WCAG 2.1 AA)
- LMS integration standards (LTI)
- Research data protection capabilities
Corporate compliance package:
- SOC 2 Type II report
- SCORM/xAPI compliance
- Industry certification tracking
- Audit logging capabilities
Sales could immediately provide the relevant compliance docs for each market.
Hire Market-Specific Sales Teams
We tried having generalist education sales reps cover all markets. It didn't work.
K-12 reps need to understand curriculum standards, school board dynamics, and academic year rhythms.
Higher ed reps need to understand faculty governance, academic freedom concerns, and institutional politics.
Corporate reps need to understand business ROI, L&D operations, and corporate procurement.
We reorganized sales by market vertical:
- K-12 team (background in education sales)
- Higher ed team (background in academic institutions)
- Corporate team (background in enterprise SaaS)
Close rates improved 40% when reps sold to markets they understood.
Create Market-Specific Content
We stopped creating generic "EdTech" content and created market-specific resources:
K-12 content:
- "How to Evaluate Learning Platforms: A District Administrator's Guide"
- "Implementing New Technology Without Disrupting Teachers"
- "Measuring Student Outcome Impact in K-12"
Higher ed content:
- "Balancing Faculty Autonomy with Learning Innovation"
- "Improving Student Retention Through Learning Technology"
- "Academic Governance: Getting Faculty Buy-In for New Platforms"
Corporate content:
- "Building a Business Case for Learning Technology Investment"
- "Measuring Skills Development ROI"
- "Integrating Learning Platforms with HR Systems"
Each content piece attracted the right buyers and spoke to their specific challenges.
Managing three separate sets of messaging frameworks, competitive intelligence, case studies, and compliance documentation created organizational complexity. I used tools like Segment8 to maintain market-specific battle cards and positioning—being able to organize and export K-12, higher ed, and corporate versions from one source of truth saved significant time versus managing three separate document libraries.
The Unexpected Advantages of EdTech Fragmentation
Despite the complexity, selling across education markets has advantages:
Total addressable market is massive. K-12 + higher ed + corporate learning = virtually every organization needs learning technology.
Markets have different seasonality. When K-12 is in summer lull, corporate is active. When higher ed is between semesters, K-12 is evaluating. You can balance pipeline across markets.
Learning translates. Insights from K-12 teacher workflows inform corporate manager training experiences. Academic research from higher ed improves K-12 pedagogy. Corporate ROI measurement influences education accountability.
Expansion is natural. Companies that start in corporate training often expand to customer education, which looks more like higher ed. K-12 districts expand to adult ed programs.
Two years after giving that corporate buyer a K-12-focused demo, we'd rebuilt our entire go-to-market.
We stopped positioning as one "EdTech company." We positioned as three companies:
One serving K-12 with curriculum-aligned learning tools.
One serving higher ed with flexible academic platforms.
One serving corporate with skills development and compliance tracking.
Same engineering team. Same core platform. Three distinct market positions.
That corporate buyer who rejected our academic demo? He's now a customer. Because we showed him a corporate-focused demo with compliance tracking, skills development ROI, and HR integration.
That's the EdTech playbook:
Don't try to be one product for all learning markets.
Build market-specific positioning, sales teams, case studies, and compliance documentation for K-12, higher ed, and corporate separately.
The markets look similar from outside. They're fundamentally different from inside.
Respect the differences. Build for each market's unique needs.
That's how you win in EdTech.