Every day the system checks five things: what people search for on Google and what the AI engines answer, what is happening in the job market, what competing institutions are doing, what your program page brings in, and what happens to inquiries in your CRM. When several move at once, that is a window, and the system sees it the day it opens.
From everything it heard, the system writes up one move for the week, with an estimate in numbers of what it should bring. Your decision, in one click. Nothing publishes without you. From approval to live takes under a minute, and everything is logged.
The move goes out through what you already have. A program page built so AI engines can draw an answer from it, a source and a date on every figure, updated with what candidates ask. Every inquiry reaches the institution's advising center and WhatsApp with what the candidate asked and what they were interested in, so the advisor starts the call three steps ahead. Live within a week.
Every move is measured down to the student who enrolled: enrolled students vs. last year, cost per inquiry, response time, and whether AI answers mention you. Two screens: one for leadership across the institution, one for the program head on their program. No report to request from anyone.
Every week the system checks whether the move brought what it forecast, and corrects. An agency starts from zero with every client. Here, what was learned stays. Comparisons across institutions use no names and no identifying data, and what is learned at your institution stays yours.
The five stages are one cycle, not five tools. Every recommendation is logged with its forecast, and every result is checked against it, so the system in week 12 is smarter than in week 1.
Academic marketing fails for three reasons. It reacts slowly to a market that moves in days. It talks about the institution rather than answering what the candidate asked. And it is measured on inquiries rather than on who enrolled. PULSE was built against all three.
Research shows the choice takes months, but the decision falls on a single day: the day results come out, a wave of headlines, a change in what employers require. So the system works at two speeds. A constant presence where the candidate builds a shortlist: the program page and the AI answers. And speed on the days the decision falls: daily listening and a reply within the hour.
AI engines like order: question, answer, figure, source. That is how we build every page, from a knowledge base the program approved, and every week we check whether the engines are drawing their answer from it.
The system prepares, you decide, the system carries it out. Before anything publishes, it is checked for a source on every figure and against the advertising rules that apply to higher education. Behind the scenes work six digital specialists, each in their field: strategy, content, visibility in search and in AI answers, design and brand, compliance and accessibility, campaigns and budget.
One number: students enrolled this year against last year. The baseline is set together on day 0. What is measured on inquiries produces inquiries; what is measured on enrolled students produces enrolled students. And at the end waits the day-100 gate: if it fails, the cost is ours, not yours.
In academic marketing, one factual error burns years of trust. So with us this is not a procedure, it is the way the system is built: every figure carries a source and a date. A fact without a source never reaches the page. Nothing publishes without the signature of the person your institution has designated. That protects your name, and it is part of the product. It is also what the Privacy Protection Law (Amendment 13) requires: a source, minimum data, and a person's approval.
Ten at night. A student with 4 units of mathematics writes to ChatGPT: “Where should I study computer science without an entrance exam?” The engine answers her: three institutions, with reasons and links. Your program is not there. She will never know it exists. You will never know she was there.
The usual explanation for the decline, “the market” or “this generation”, suits everyone and helps no one. People who know the picture from the inside say more precise things. And they are right.
And the claim is right. The decision moved to search engines, to AI, and to short windows. In those arenas there are detailed answers about every program, and not one of them was written by the program itself. Candidates ask, compare and hesitate as they always did. Just not with you.
And the claim is right. The candidate of 2026 asks one question: “Will I have a job in the age of AI?” And the answer is academic by nature. Marketing that skips the program head will always answer the wrong question.
And the claim is right. Every program has its own audiences and its own entry routes. One institution-wide campaign averages them all out, and on average nobody feels spoken to.
And the claim is right. An inquiry handled within the hour is seven times more likely to reach a real conversation with a qualified candidate (HBR). Speed of reply is worth more than any budget increase, and fixing it costs almost nothing.
And this claim matters more than the others. This is a failure of governance, not of personality. Whoever carries responsibility for the result must hold the mechanism that decides the story. We built that mechanism, and it runs at the scale of one program, 100 days, with a gate. Because anyone who makes claims should be ready to be tested on them.
Year after year, I watched good programs lose candidates from up close. Not because of the program. Because of the distance between where the institution speaks and where the candidate decides.
Omer Zaigerman · Higher-education marketing expert · 20 years · Founder, PULSE
I started in the simplest place there is: on the phone with candidates. Higher-education telemarketing. Listening to hundreds of undecided students, learning what really tips their decision. Six years later I was CMO of the Peres Academic Center, a partner in its branding and in choosing its name.
From there I moved to the international arena: innovation roles at JWT and at Mindshare and a director on the global Digital Council, working with global brands including HSBC, Nestlé and Mastercard. 20 years in higher-education marketing in all, with strategic guidance for institutions including Ariel University, the College of Management Academic Studies and SCE; owner of INNOVATE Digital; former CEO of JWT Digital; M.A. in International Marketing.
And why PULSE? Because I came back to the starting point. The candidate's decision still falls in the same conversation. Only today it begins in front of an AI engine at 10 PM. I built the system that answers there, and it is measured on who enrolled, not on inquiries.
We don't touch academic content · we don't replace marketing teams · we don't publish a figure without a source and date, including on this site.
Because the market has a pulse: waves of demand, days when decisions fall, shifting requirements. Advertise without measuring it and you advertise with your eyes shut.
In an industry that sells promises, the only serious commitment is to be measured: one program, 100 days, targets set together, and a stopping point at the institution's decision.
Built in advance, from public data only
Against the questions candidates actually ask
Timed live, on the clock
Yours to keep, even if we never work together
PULSE is the decision system for student recruitment, one program at a time. Every day it hears what candidates search for and what the AI engines answer about you. Every week it says what the right move is, you approve, and it measures down to who enrolled.
More and more candidates get their comparison of institutions from an AI answer, before they open anyone's website. If you are missing from the answer, you are missing from their list.
EAB 2026 · 46% of candidates use AI when choosing an institutionTotal student numbers in Israel barely moved, and in the same year an entire program fell 15%. Dozens of programs, one marketing team and an aggregate report: the decline shows up after it has already set in. Whoever sees each program on its own sees it in time.
Israel Council for Higher Education (PBC), as reported by Calcalist · 20.10.2025 · Computer science first-year starters 7,277 → 6,219 · All students +0.5%, CBS 2024/25The same channels, more institutions fighting over them, and a team measured on inquiries rather than on enrolled students. More budget does not fix that.
EAB 2026 · At institutions that grew, +22% applications yielded +4% enrollment · US, 2019 to 2024What people search on Google · What the AI answers · What competitors are doing · What happens to your inquiries
Once a week, with an estimate in numbers of what it should bring
One click, from your phone too. Nothing publishes without you
The program page updates and the reply to the candidate goes out, with no waiting on anyone
Every move is checked against what it forecast, down to who actually enrolled. What is learned this week improves the next.
Read it, approve or decline, and get back to work. That is all we ask of you each week.
One number: how many enrolled this year against last year. The baseline is set together on day 0. On day 100 we check against it, and if we missed it, we stop. Your decision.
The number is read out at the leadership meeting, and the program head is accountable for it. The control was never theirs. Now it is: the program is told from a knowledge base they approved, every publication passes through them with one click, and the numbers are in front of them in every discussion.
True. The team, the ad agency and the media stay where they are. We add one management layer above them: what moved this week in each program, in search, in AI answers, at competitors and in inquiries, and what is worth doing because of it. The agency keeps leading strategy, creative and media. We monitor, recommend and measure, and every output also passes the marketing director's approval.
At the next leadership meeting someone will ask “have you seen the numbers?”. This time with a smile.
Candidates ask ChatGPT, Gemini and Perplexity before they ask you. We check what the engines answer about your field, whom they recommend, and where you are missing. The first report is free.
Ten questions candidates actually ask, put to ChatGPT, Gemini and Perplexity. Who is mentioned, who is not, and what is said about them. An engine that cannot be measured on a given day is marked "not measured", never "absent".
Which institutions get the recommendation in your field, where they are strong, and where they are weak.
What candidates are searching for now, and which questions your program page does not answer. From public data only.
A personal check is shaped by your account's memory and location. Our report measures in a uniform environment, in Hebrew, located in Israel, with several runs per question. So the results may look different, and that is fine.
Want us to do it for you, in full and across ten questions? Ask for PULSE Scan, free.
We learn what people search for, who the audience is and what to say to them, and build a knowledge base the program approves. By the end of the first week the program page is live, every figure with a source. What is built stays yours even if you stop.
A program page that keeps updating, daily listening to the market, one move a week for your approval, a reply to every inquiry within the hour, and a live picture for leadership and the program head.
We check against the targets. Met them? We expand. Missed them? We stop. Your decision.
1. PULSE Scan, the first report, free. 2. A 100-day pilot: an initial map of all programs, and one program fully live against a baseline set together on day 0. What gets built stays yours: the program page, the knowledge base and the decision log. 3. An annual subscription and expansion to the next program on what has already been built. You pay for media directly to Google and Meta, in your own accounts. Media management is a separate service, if you want it. We do not sell inquiries.
A weekly file from your admissions system (inquiry source, status, date), about a quarter of an hour a week · Permission to use the data for measurement only; the data stays yours · One contact at the advising and admissions center. No systems to replace, no implementation project.
