Do online programmes really cannibalise on-campus enrolments?

Why design (and who you aim at) matters more than the mode

Let’s talk about a question I hear in almost every new-client meeting with higher education institutions: “If we launch an online MBA or conversion MSc, won’t it steal students from campus?” It’s a fair worry. None of us wants to erode the on-campus experience we value so highly. But the best evidence — and what I see across UK HE — points the other way: when online is designed and positioned for a different segment, it usually grows the pie rather than slices it thinner.

Who actually chooses online?

For postgraduate taught programmes, especially professional routes like MBAs and conversion MScs, the online cohort tends to look different: mid-career, employed, and geographically dispersed (often international) and unable to relocate or study 9–5. That’s a separate market from people who actively want a campus-based immersion (OfS, 2021; HESA, 2023; Open University, 2024).

Is there rigorous proof?

Yes. A large, quasi-experimental study of an online MSc found around 7% growth in total degree production with no displacement of on-campus students — expansion, not substitution (Goodman, Melkers & Pallais, 2019). UK system data also show distance/online as a sustained slice of enrolment with distinct learner profiles (HESA, 2025).

When cannibalisation does happen

It’s usually a design and positioning problem: launching a near-identical, lower-priced clone marketed to the same audience on the same timetable. One US example — retiring a residential MBA alongside a scaled online MBA — is often cited (Inside Higher Ed, 2019; Poets&Quants, 2019). The lesson isn’t “don’t go online”; it’s “differentiate the proposition”.

Guardrails that keep you safe (and successful)

  • Segment clearly. Aim online at employed and international distance learners; don’t fish in the residential pool.

  • Differentiate the experience. Flexible pacing and multiple starts; professional-experience routes; work-integrated assessment.

  • Make the value visible. Live faculty touchpoints plus impactful digital design: concise, high-quality micro-lectures (with captions/transcripts), interactive cases/simulations, formative checks with analytics, collaborative tasks, mobile-first accessibility. Consider short, optional residentials to deepen community and brand experience.

  • Price and message with intent. Parity of standards and a clear value story — not “the cheaper version”.

  • Measure the overlap. From launch, track who enrols and ask the counterfactual: “Would you have enrolled here this year without the online route?” Then adjust targeting and pricing accordingly.

Bottom line

With clear segmentation, thoughtful design and disciplined pricing, fully online programmes extend your reach (including internationally) and increase total participation — while protecting the distinctive strengths of in-person education.

Learn more / talk to me

Reach out to me if you would be interested in the short paper I have prepared on this subject: https://www.learningdesignsolutions.co.uk/book-a-consultation

For examples of large-scale online programme implementation, see: https://www.learningdesignsolutions.co.uk/

References

Goodman, J., Melkers, J. and Pallais, A. (2019) ‘Can online delivery increase access to education? Evidence from a large online master’s in computer science’, Journal of Labor Economics, 37(1), pp. 1–34.

HESA (2023) ‘Higher Education Student Data 2021/22’.

HESA (2025) ‘Where do HE students study?’.

Inside Higher Ed (2019) ‘Illinois will end residential M.B.A.’

Office for Students (2021) Improving opportunity and choice for mature students.

Open University (2024) ‘Facts and figures’.

Poets&Quants (2019) ‘Illinois to end full- & part-time MBA programmes’.

Steve Hogg