Today, I wanted to engage in an exercise of truth to explain these price differences. Those who have the highest margins are not necessarily those you might think…
In the language training market, the price of an individual English course can vary from single to triple. Traditional language schools charge up to £75 excluding VAT for one hour of lessons, while at the same time you can find individual courses charged at £25 excluding VAT, and sometimes even less. And yet the commercial discourse of what we’ll call “low-cost” actors is modelled on that of face-to-face actors. Under these conditions, how can you find your way and why are there such differences in rates for a service that seems identical?
Hidden costs and constraints of face-to-face courses
The core business of traditional language schools is the individual face-to-face course. As a result, regardless of the intrinsic qualities of the teacher:
The teacher often resides in an expensive big city like London. The school will therefore not be able to pay them below £15 net per hour. Sometimes more, if as is often the case, the teacher holds an English teaching qualification (TEFL, CELTA, TESOL, …) and has many years of experience.
They are generally employed by the school, so the cost for the school rises to at least £30 per hour. But it doesn’t stop there, a collective agreement requires them to be paid during their travel time and during their periods of inactivity (during which they are supposed to prepare their lessons). It is therefore preferable that the school arranges for them to have a well-filled schedule and that they prepare their lessons during their travels!
For the client, fortunately, these courses offer certain guarantees:
The teacher is from an Anglo-Saxon country. Their mother tongue is therefore English, their culture is close to ours, and exchanges are quite spontaneous. It is not uncommon for a real rapport to develop, making learning more pleasant and therefore more effective.
Many Anglo-Saxon teachers have previously worked in business; they have real professional skills and master a specialty of business English.
The pedagogy is generally well-established, and the human qualities of the teachers are well above average.
The reality behind “low-cost” courses
But then how do “low cost” providers achieve such low prices?
The Philippines or India are a breeding ground for “teachers” for these actors. These are generally self-proclaimed teachers whose mother tongue is not English and whose greatest merit is to speak Shakespeare’s language more or less correctly, with a very distant accent. Nevertheless, some of them hold a certificate of aptitude or a teaching diploma (TEFL, CELTA, TESOL, etc.).
A visit to an online job site is enough to see how much these teachers are paid: it ranges from £3 to £6 per hour depending in particular on the number of guaranteed hours. The teachers are therefore freelancers (no employer contributions, no employment contract) and hours not worked are not paid.
Seduced by these prices that defy all competition, I tested a few. And there, I was disillusioned: the interlocutor (called a teacher) seems formatted; sometimes you wonder if you’re not dealing with a robot, the dialogue is so stereotypical. The cultural difference could be an advantage but turns into a handicap, lightness or humour have no place, the dialogue is not natural and lacks spontaneity. Boredom ends up dominating.
Absenteeism and dropout rates are, as a result, very high. The provider then equips itself with an army of telemarketers who follow up with learners, since naturally they don’t want to book other courses. Moreover, these actors are beginning to recruit some native English teachers in order to shed the “low-end course” label and showcase Anglo-Saxon teachers in their commercial offers.
What to conclude?
Far be it from me to discredit “low-cost” courses: there is demand, so they correspond to a need.
These low-cost offers are relevant for learners who simply wish to express themselves orally without any more ambitious objective. Not to mention the interest in understanding all sorts of accents, increasingly frequent in assistance services, for example.
From an economic point of view, it is easy to understand that companies do not necessarily have the means to spend £70 per hour for hundreds of employees. Especially when you know that, according to ALTE, it takes 600 hours of lessons for a learner to go from a true beginner level to a B2 level in English. The price of these courses is of course their main asset, as it democratises access to oral expression in “one to one”.
However, to properly compare the cost of a course, one should consider that an employee benefiting from training and paid approximately £38,000 gross annually costs their company approximately £35 per hour. This puts the interest of the price of a “low cost” course into perspective because if the training takes place during working hours, and if the employee feels they are wasting their time, the return on investment for the company will be clearly negative.
In conclusion, the price of these two types of courses is not comparable, but the objective pursued by the buyer should in no case be identical. It’s about not confusing “oral expression session” and “English training”.
If you have a population of employees who request individual courses but:
their current level is such that they will not be operational in English within two years
or poor mastery of English is not penalising in their profession
then low-cost is a solution… especially if they are highly motivated.
If your objective is for a targeted population to reach an operational level in their functions (ROI gain for the company) in the next two years, then turn to more qualitative courses.
Learn more: the market trend.
In France, individual courses provided by language schools represent more than 90% of the training market, particularly for cultural reasons: the individual face-to-face course remains firmly anchored as the reference, for decision-makers as well as learners. The hundreds of schools covering the French market are there to convince the most hesitant decision-makers and do not hesitate to put all the distance learning actors in the same basket.
However, despite the high prices charged by face-to-face actors, many of them are doing poorly, and bankruptcies are following one after another. There are extremely many in the market, and even if the cake is enormous, the face-to-face market is logically declining in favour of distance learning. Finally, as you will have understood, the margin generated by a face-to-face actor is clearly lower than that achieved by a “low-cost” actor.
And 7Speaking in all this?
As a distance learning actor whose credibility is based on the quality and effectiveness of its training, 7Speaking immediately excluded exploiting the “vein” of teachers based in the Philippines or India, for the reasons set out above. Yet, the margins generated on these very low-wage profiles were tempting… Reciprocally, paying teachers when they are in periods of inactivity or travel, and thus indirectly making our clients bear this cost, was not consistent.
Our specifications were therefore to offer courses of equal or superior quality to “real” face-to-face courses while offering ultra-competitive prices in order to optimise the ROI objective for the client.
Our choice fell on native Anglo-Saxon teachers from Western countries (culture close to ours), qualified in English teaching, with many years of experience and versed in our pedagogy. Video courses allow you to enjoy an experience very close to face-to-face, with flexibility (no time constraints, choice of teacher…), low logistics, and extra-verbal communication as well.
The typical profile of our teachers is a native English speaker who has held responsible positions in business (marketing, management, commercial analysis, etc.). These profiles have remained close to the field, and their management experience is a pedagogical asset. Moreover, they all master a professional specialty. As a result, the average rating given by our learners to our teachers is 18/20. It is common for affinities to develop: there’s nothing like enjoying your learning to progress!
