Branding in Universities: Analysis of its Implementation and Effectiveness
Ana Karina Silva
ABSTRACT
This study was designed to illustrate how universities implement branding, i.e.,
how universities market themselves to be profitable while maintaining their social
responsibility. The literature review addresses the primary objectives, principles,
tools, techniques and challenges of branding for universities. This research used
quantitative methods to test branding effectiveness as well as its influence on
stakeholders’ image of universities. The research concluded that the university is
arguably too complex to be expressed in a succinct brand proposition. The
implications of studying branding are to provide a foundation for better marketing
communication institution-wide and with the stakeholders.
BACKGROUND/PROBLEM STATEMENT
That money can buy anything and bring happiness is considered to be self-evident by
those who hold this belief. It’s common for most people to spend more than 30 years working to
provide for themselves and their family. Some workers excel at their profession and so will
become successful; others are lucky or may come from wealthy families. On the other hand,
there are workers who struggle for each dollar they earn and try to use it as economically as
possible, avoiding unnecessary expenditures. In spite of the global economic crisis, most
countries eventually become, to some extent, more prosperous, so people are willing to spend
more on a quality education as it becomes a priority in their lives.
In the past, education was seen as an end in itself, a goal to be accomplished for its own
sake. Today, however, education is seen as a means to an end; one that will open doors to
financial or material success. Americans are known for encouraging their children to get jobs as
soon possible in order to be able to afford the tuition at a good university. The value of education
continues to increase as the job market becomes more competitive. Advances of technology and
constant migration of people to the U.S. are escalating the environment of competitiveness.
But how is the quality of education measured? No individual is in a position to judge the
quality of research, teaching, student selection, curriculum design, infrastructure, staff
consultancy skills, and other elements that go into the design and daily operations of large
universities. Only branding is capable of measuring the quality of a university (Jevons, 2006).
Due to increased national and international competition, universities and colleges all over
the world are searching for unique definitions of what they are and what they do, in order to
differentiate themselves from other institutions and attract students and academic staff (Chapleo,
2004; Hemley-Brown & Goonawardana, 2007).
This research study intends to demonstrate how universities market themselves in order
to attract and retain students, faculty, employees, and parents, stay profitable, and, at the same
time, remain socially responsible. Some universities are more than 100 years old; some have
built their names by investing in sports, providing scholarships, building huge campus,
supporting experimental research, and developing new technologies. Other universities are tiny,
“unknown,” with humble campuses. Some exist only in the online world.
An additional point of inquiry in this project is that, because the U.S. is a competitive
country with thousands of universities, individuals tend to feel that their association with a
particular school labels them. MBA students at small universities may have worries about
whether they will be qualified to face the real world once they “finish” their studies and able to
compete with students from larger and more famous universities.
Environmental changes, like privatization, diversification, decentralization,
internationalization and increased competition are common to every country and have an effect
on the daily operations of higher education institutions. These institutions are feeling the pressure
to market their products and services.
The cost of tuition may not be the key factor for measuring the quality of universities but
rather the perception people have of the universities. This perception depends largely on how
universities communicate and manage their image. Education is an intangible, inseparable,
perishable, and heterogeneous service product, and, for these reasons, branding in education has
to, above other considerations, be based on the experience and employability they provide their
students. The marketing and branding of education is seen by institutions as essential for their
survival; as a result, marketing and branding are gaining popularity with private institutions,
changing people’s way of seeing education, and changing the scope of the number and type of
courses being offered.
HYPOTHESIS
H0: Branding is effectively implemented in Universities;
H1: Branding is not effectively implemented in Universities;
H0: Branding has a positive influence on stakeholders’ image of universities;
H1: Branding doesn’t have a positive influence on stakeholders’ image of universities;
H0: Effective branding attracts more students to the university;
H1: Effective branding doesn’t attract more students to the university.
RESEARCH QUESTIONS
Norwegian researchers, Albert and Whetten (1985) state that in some countries the
University is not an organization with a coherent, single identity; rather, it should be understood
as a “parliament of selves” (Albert & Whetten, 1985) where different individuals and units see
the totality, meaning, or purpose of the university differently (Humphreys & Browns, 2002).
Several authors see branding in a positive light, as a mean to improve competitiveness and
reputation. Branding is a wide subject that leads to numerous questions, but the primary
questions for this research are:

How is branding being implemented in universities?

What leads students to pick a university and it to accept them?

What is the stakeholders’ image of Universities?
LITERATURE REVIEW
University’s Purpose
Some authors discuss the issue of how institutions see themselves and how this view does
or does not match the stakeholder’s view of the institution. This view depends on the country,
culture, and evolves through the time. In 1894, Cardinal Newman’s idea of a university,
excluded the creation of new knowledge through research and insisted that the university simply
transmit existing knowledge efficiently. In the 1980s, many US business school deans held
research in low esteem, and described it using picturesque terms such as “crap, pretentious, and
irrelevant” (Argenti, 2000). By way of contrast, Canadian university presidents hold the belief
that the foundation of a university is the fostering of new ideas and critical thinking followed by
disciplinary expertise (Mount & Belanger, 2001).
There are primarily two kinds of universities: private universities, which are not operated
by governments – although many receive public subsidies, especially in the form of tax breaks
and public student loans and grants – and public universities, which are funded predominantly by
public means through a national or sub-national government. Some stereotypes are held that the
best universities are public. Private universities, according to stereotype, are essentially business
companies, and as such, worried about profit and loss. However, some of the world's most
renowned universities, such as Princeton University, Harvard University, Massachusetts Institute
of Technology, and Stanford University, are private universities.
Education is an experiential product that is built on trust and relationship so one way of
attracting customers is by the word of mouth. There are hundreds of ranking scales for
universities based on several criteria. But what motivates a student to pick a university, or if s/he
is already there, to switch to another? In other words, how does a student measure a university’s
quality? Why are the some universities seen as being better than others? The study takes, as its
premise that it’s due to their brand; a term that became known in the 21st century, and is a
specific name, symbol, design, or combination of these, used to distinguish a particular seller’s
product (Doyle, 2001, p.166). These universities are successful because they have established a
place in people’s mind, thereby making it more desirable than similar universities.
A rigorous student selection process increases the compatibility between student and
school (Belanger et al, 2002). And the greater the congruence between the students’ values, goals
and attitudes and those of the institution, the less likely a student is to drop out (Jevons, 2006),
and therefore will have a higher probability of being satisfied with the university, A university’s
brand becomes an aid to efficient recruitment as applicants usually self-select the schools that
match their expectations and plans.
Due to the growing number of universities, different appeals to the public, and the
ambiguous definition of “quality,” universities are spending money to promote a specific image
and create a trusted brand through better and differentiated products and services, though little
research exists to demonstrate the efficiency or outcomes of these investments. Despite the
increase in marketing education and research being carried out within these institutions, the
culture of marketing is still disappointing in universities (Jevons, 2006).
Branding
Branding can be described as the process which uses advertising campaigns with a
consistent message such that a unique name and image for a product/service/idea is created in the
consumer’s mind. The literature reveals very few studies that specifically address higher
education branding, but an important finding is that a university may be too complex to be
encapsulated by one brand or identity definition (Waeraas & Solbakk, 2008).
Branding in higher education is all about “what” the institution is, not about the particular
product that is being offered in the market place. Branding aids the institution to answer to
stakeholders’ needs and expectations and so becomes a filter through which to make decisions
about strategic direction, resource allocation, hiring, and curriculum development (Gupta &
Singh, 2010).
There is some controversy about where academic values fit into the branding processes,
and whether such processes would build on the cultural heritage that primarily defines the
university as a scientific institution, with attributes such as freedom of research, objectivity,
truth, freedom to teach and to learn, etc. In other words, branding might challenge the
institutional integrity of universities (Waeraas & Solbakk, 2008). Paul Temple, MBA, senior
lecturer in higher education management at the Institute of Education, University of London,
state that there are three components of a successful brand: an effective product, a distinctive
identity, and added values. Branding is not just about getting a target market to choose one
university over the other, but rather, it is about getting prospects to see the university as the only
one that provides a solution to their particular need. The main objectives of branding are to
deliver a clear message with credibility, which may connect them emotionally to the prospect,
motivate them to buy the service, and ultimately, turn them into loyal customers. Unfortunately,
to some educational institutions, branding is just the logo on the letter paper.
In the case of universities, the product to be branded depends almost completely
on the students themselves. The outcome of education largely depends on each student’s
abilities, motivations, and interactions and helps to determine the quantity and quality of
outcomes of the academic experience. In order to maintain the university’s quality standards, the
branding team will be responsible for how and how many students are admitted and what the
curriculum will be for a given area of study.
The institutions identity is not just its name or logo. Identity varies from university to
university ranging from focus on research, consultancy and technology to a wide range of
subjects or thousands of students around the world, and so on. In the final analysis, effective
marketing is about the university’s ability to meet the needs of the students.
In order to have an effective brand in the world of higher education, the university has to
have a position statement. A position statement describes a truly unique attribute within the
institution’s competitive set, i.e., what the other institutions do not or will not offer (Scarborough
& Scarborough).
Positioning, according to Ries and Ries begins with the product but more importantly is
about what the institutions/organization does to put the image of that product into the minds of
potential customers. This position statement is a promise that the institution makes to the
consumer, and in which everyone in the institution has to believe, in order to transmit that
assurance to the consumer.
The last component of a brand is the value placed on it by the consumer. The brand has to
be seen as being unique so that it is inextricably fixed in the mind of the consumer. However,
because universities don’t want to be perceived as companies that focus on their own profits
instead of the transmission of knowledge, a brand enhancing marketer attempts to transmit the
university’s values in a more subliminal manner.
The final reality is that, no matter how skillful is the branding team, if the product is not
good, the university will not be successful in the long term. The opposite might also be the case;
if a university’s product is excellent, attention will be drawn to it and the university will flourish
with or without branding.
In higher education, the target of marketing includes the students, who can be treated as
direct and immediate customers of higher education services; employers, who utilize the skills
and abilities acquired by students during their studies; as well as society, parents, government
and funding bodies, quality assurance agencies, and other regulatory and professional bodies
(Gupta & Singh, 2010).
Principles
The benefits of branding in education are as apparent as the benefits of branding in
business; as a result, brand management has become an imperative. Various researchers and
authors cite different principles; this study will highlight the principles that follow.
The first principle is integrity. The institution should state only what is accurate, since
trust is something hard to attain and the lack of it can jeopardize the way society sees the
institution. To build a successful brand in education can take between 10 and 15 years. The
importance of rankings has grown significantly as the demand for evaluation of academic
institutions has increased and their modes of governance have become more market-based
(Engwall, 2007). Reputation may vary across stakeholder groups according to the perception of
each group regarding the degree to which the organization in question meets its unique
expectations (Bromley, 2002). Deephouse (2000) argued that the construction of reputation
occurs in the media when a corporation is praised for its actions or associated with positive
actions. Conversely, reputation is damaged when the organization is criticized for its actions or
associated with questionable actions.
Additionally to avoid the educational institution being seen as just any other business, the
branding team shouldn’t advertise it with an emphasis on excitement. This gives the impression
that the institution is just chasing after money.
Another principle of branding is that the effective delivery of the brand’s promise
requires that the institution’s leaders have a clear understanding of the marketplace’s perceptions
of its brand; the sense of belonging creates the student’s engagement with fellow students. The
faculty, staff, and administrators all play key roles in delivering an institution’s brand promise
(Black, 2009).
Moreover, although branding should drive marketing strategies; in order to avoid being
ineffective, they must also be profitable (Apte, 2004). In other words, branding should generate
revenue, fundraising receipts, and other resources.
To ensure the principles listed here, higher institutions should have a documented
position statement and a brand strategy. Marketing plans are fluid and may change over time, but
in order that the institution is “known” for something, the brand strategy should remain intact
over a long period of time (Gupta & Singh, 2010).
Universities should invest heavily on pedagogy and care less about returns. The effects
of globalization requires not only new academic subjects, but they also present fresh venues of
pedagogy (Gupta & Singh, 2010), such that the curriculum and pedagogy must be relevant in the
global marketplace.
Other authors defend only two branding principles: differentiation and integration.
Differentiation offers something totally unique in order to achieve a sustainable market position.
Integration ensures that campus-wide decisions (by admissions, the academic divisions/
departments, university relations, etc.) are integrated to reinforce the same core differentiators
(Scarborough & Scarborough).
Tools and techniques
There are three major branding tools, according to Gupta and Singh (2010): making,
enabling, and delivering the brand promise.
Making the brand promise has to do with the strategies and steps that are taken in
accordance with the institution’s mission, vision and values. An additional consideration is the
image the institution wants to project to the consumer. The designer of the brand then develop a
5Ms model (mission, media, message, money and measurement) of branding and positioning that
is intended to ensure that the communication matches the institution’s objectives; that it is
effectively communicated to the target audience; that there exist sufficient financial resources to
communicate the message; and, finally, that a measurement tool assesses the effectiveness of the
message being projected.
Enabling the brand is the second step in the process. This is accomplished by employing
qualified and talented faculty/staff for the organization, in order that quality services can be
delivered to the students. The institution may motivate the employees through an effective job
design and reward system; this facilitates their cooperation and makes it more likely that they
will be more effective and productive employees. By providing proper training and
empowerment to the employees they are making sure the employees will act in accordance with
the brand promise.
Delivering the brand promise is the final tool. Universities should incorporate all aspects
of its brand throughout its culture, so that no disparity will be exist between the organization’s
claims and the consumer’s experience. Brand authors make clear that the brand promise must be
executed and personified through services, business transactions, human interactions, the
teaching and learning process, information delivery, and learning experiences (Black, 2008).
Challenges
Education brands are influenced by more deeply felt and longer lasting considerations
than other commercial products. In contrast to the example that children and young adults like
the same games, cars, people, etc., that their peers like; when choosing a university, prospective
students rely on rankings, family histories, and parents’ and teachers’ advice, among other
variables In other words, The decision to apply to this or that university doesn’t depend only on
the students’ whims nor is it done on the spur of the moment.
Another challenge is that universities are selling their products and services to educated,
sophisticated, and mature people, and so must work harder to make their particular service and
products appealing. Additionally, in the attempt to attract a diversity of students from all over the
world, the institution may be hard-pressed to transmit a unified message. Further, due to the
diversity of students, their study ambitions and involvement in university life might vary
considerably (Warwick, 2004).
Moreover, some of the finest institutions, those that rely on gifts and donations as much
as on tuition, have more faculty members per student and smaller class sizes. This is a much
different situation than experienced by most businesses.
The final challenge is that, although universities are trying to be unique, they’re
frequently being seen as becoming more similar (Belanger, 2002).
RESEARCH DESIGN
The research used a simple random sample for reasons of convenience. Data collection
included primary data (questionnaire) and secondary data (peer review journals). The data was
analyzed through the use of descriptive statistics in charts and graphs, and interpreted through
generalization.
Participants numbered 150 students and consisted of undergraduate and graduate students
and alumni, mostly from Virginia International University (VIU). The data was collected from
November 10 to November 20, 2011. In order to get different points of view, and to take
advantage of social media tool, www.facebook.com was used to reach students from around the
world.
Sixty-eight people responded but only 36 answered all questions. The following table
shows the frequency distribution of the participants. Of the people interviewed, 56 percent were
between 22 and 26 years old, roughly half were female and half male, and 57 percent were
graduate students. More than 80 percent of participants were from Virginia International
University (VIU). The large percentage of participants from VIU was probably due to the fact
that the researcher was also a student at Virginia International University.
Table 1. Characteristics of Survey Participants
Number of
Participants
Age
21 or younger
1
Between 22 and 26
38
Between 27 and 30
16
Between 31 and 35
5
Older than 35
8
Didn’t answer
0
Gender
Female
35
Male
33
Didn’t answer
0
Status
Undergraduate
14
Graduate
39
Alumni
4
Professor
3
Staff
1
Staff/Graduate
1
Staff/Undergraduate
0
Staff/Alumni
0
ESL
1
Didn't answer
5
University
Virginia International
59
University
1
University of Reading
Leeds Metropolitan
1
University
1
University of Chester
1
Damelin South Africa
The Art Institute of
2
Washington
Catholic University
1
of America
1
Strayer University
1
Didn't answer
Continent of Origin
Europe
9
Characteristics
Percent
1
56
24
7
12
0
51
49
0
21
57
06
04
01
01
00
00
01
07
87
1
1
1
1
3
1
1
1
13
Africa
Asia
South America
North America
Middle East
Didn't answer
22
28
3
2
1
3
32
41
4
3
1
4
The questions in the survey were divided in four main areas. The first part collected
information about the survey subject. The second part was related to the university itself, the
overall identity definition or the “what to be.” The third part was related to core values, or “what
to stand for.” And the fourth was related to consistency or “how to orchestrate” the universities
communication (Waeraas & Solbakk, 2008).
In order to respect the time constraints of the responders, the survey consisted of only 26
questions. All were structured with multiple choice answers, in order to prevent
misunderstandings that might stem from hand-written answers or from receiving too many
different answers that could lead to inconclusive interpretations.
As shown in Figure 1, early 58 percent of participants had been advised by a friend,
classmate, or relative to attend VIU. While it is a good sign that students are referring the
university to others, the marketing team should be open to other communication means.
Figure 1. How Somewhat Easy to Found Out about VIU
1.5%
4.4%
Searching online
36.8%
57.4%
Referral from a
friends/classmate/relative
Print advertisements
Didn't know
Because the research subjects were adults, most of the participants had decided where to
study on their own (Figure 2).
Figure 2. Who Made the Decision for the Somewhat Easy to to Study at VIU
1.5%
4.4%
2.9%
You
Parents
91.2%
As shown in Figure 3, although 81 percent of the participants recognize the university’s
logo, only 37 percent recognize its slogan. It is, therefore, an anomaly that 62 percent of them
think that VIU’s logo and slogan match.
Figure 3. Participant Recognition of VIU Logo and Slogan
90%
80%
70%
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
81%
57%
37%
16%
3%
62%
62%
34%
6%
4%
32%
59%
38%
Yes
6%
3%
No
Didn't Answer
Regarding branding, it is alarming that 59 percent of participants was not aware of the
university’s presence in the media and did not think the university has a strong brand. We have
to recall the first chart where no participant heard about the University through a TV or radio
advertisement.
It seems like the term brand overlaps with the term reputation. And the term reputation is
overly associated to the size and/or age of the university. Since most of participants study, work
at, or use relatively new universities, they do not see the institution as having a strong brand.
The previous data might be supported by the fact that 85 percent of participants consider
their university a small one. And smaller universities are hardly noticed by the public.
A positive result was observed concerning communication with university employees.
Almost 83 percent of the participants that attend small universities answered that it is easy or
somewhat easy to communicate with staff or faculty (Figure 4). On the other hand, only about 10
percent of students from large universities answered that it was easy or somewhat easy (Figure
4).
Figure 4. Participant Perception of Ease of Communication with Faculty and
Staff in Small Schools
4.4%
1.5%
2.9%
Easy
8.8%
Somehow easy
Neutral
19.1%
63.2%
Somehow difficult
Difficult
Didn't know
Figure 5. Percentage of Participants Who Agree that it is Easy or Somewhat Easy to
Communicate with University Faculty and Staff, by School Size
10.29%
4.41%
Big
85.29%
Small
Being part of either a big or small university, 84 percent of the participants said they are
aware of the school’s culture, 12 percent said they were not, and 4 percent did not answer.
As shown in Figure 6, only 57 percent of the participants consider that their university
has a modern culture. The 10 percent that didn’t answer weren’t sure of the meaning of culture.
Figure 6. Percent of Participants Who Believe Their School Has
a Modern, Traditional or Outdated Culture
10%
Modern
7%
Traditional
25%
57%
Outdated
Didn't answer
When we decide to buy a product or a service, we have expectations. After acquiring it,
the product or service might exceed, meet, or fall short of our expectations. From this we infer
whether the product or service is good or not. Twenty-five percent of survey participants feel that
the product – their university – fell short of their expectations (Figure 7). Either the university
made promises it couldn’t keep or the participants had an unreal expectation about the university.
Figure 7. University Success in Satisfying Participant Expectations
4%
13%
Over expectations
24%
Equal Expectations
Under Expectations
59%
Didn't answer
The culture as a combination of the different backgrounds of each individual within an
institution is extremely subjective. Universities usually make an effort to present this culture to
its staff, professors, and students. There are several ways to deliver it, and the results were that
almost 40 percent of participants felt that they were being introduced to the culture through
welcome events, seminars, and similar approaches (Figure 8).
Figure 8. Participant Perception of How They are Introduced to Their
University’s Culture
1.4%
14.9%
9.5%
40.5%
20.3%
13.5%
Welcome events, Seminars and
other events
Informal speeches by the staff
and faculty
Emails, newsletters and other
print advertisements
I was not introduced to the
university’s values
Other
Didn't know
Regarding overall student opinion about the quality of their university, over 60 percent of
participants thought it is good or excellent (Figure 9). For the most part, students that consider
their university “modern” are the same one who considers it “good”.
Figure 9. Participant Perception of the Quality of Their University
5.9% 1.5% 10.3%
Excellent
Good
13.2%
19.1%
Acceptable
50.0%
Could be better
Poor
Didn't answer
As can be seen in Figure 10, none of the participants thought that best professors or best
students come from unknown universities. Similarly, they don’t think the best professors come
from less expensive universities. This might be because, as potential employees, they seek better
salaries and benefits that less expensive universities won’t be able to meet.
Regarding where best students come from, half of participants said that there’s the same
probability regardless of where they had studied. The result might be biased due the fact most of
participants were students, and none want to admit they’re not good students.
It is interesting how the idea of “known university” is not associated with “expensive
university” or “bigger university”.
Figure 10. Participant Perceptions of the Types of Universities with the Best Professors and
Students
60.0%
50.0%
50.0%
40.0%
33.8%
30.0%
20.0%
10.0%
0.0%
19.1%
17.6%
16.2%
8.8%
8.8%8.8%
7.4%
4.4%
2.9%
0.0%
13.2%
8.8%
Best professors
Best Students
0.0%
According to this research, besides current students, 79 percent of participants thought
that employers are concerned about the background of their prospect employees (Figure 11).
Figure 11.
4.4%
19.1%
Yes
No
76.5%
Didn't answer
Regarding our sresearch question “What leads students to pick a University and it to
accept them?” the answers were quite divided because the participants were presented with 14
possibilities, and they could pick as many as applied. Twenty-four percent of participants
thought that affordable tuition was the main factor in their decision. This factor was followed by
school location and the courses available.
Figure 12. Factors Influencing Participants to Select a University
25.0%
24.0%
20.0%
15.0%
10.0%
13.7%
5.4%
5.0%
12.3%
7.8%
3.9%
4.9%
6.9%
2.5%
0.5%
5.4%
7.4%
2.9%
2.5%
0.0%
Series1
LIMITATIONS OF STUDY
The first limitation regarding the study is the researcher’s lack of experience of
conducting research and the second is the time constraints the research was under. A similar
paper is typically takes at least 2 years to prepare while this one took only 8 weeks. A drawback
of limited was that the volunteers used to survey the participants didn’t deliver the answers on
time to be properly edited and coded.
Regarding the research itself, beyond rankings and accreditations, there was little
research on reputation-building and branding in universities.
CONCLUSIONS
H1: Branding is not effectively implemented in universities.
Some universities seem to be ignoring “commercial branding models and practices” and
the ones that are imitating it, have a lot to learn yet. Branding in university is not a fad or a
superficial idea but a necessary process. A university is arguably too complex to express itself in
a succinct brand proposition (Waeraas and Solbakk, 2008).
H0: Branding has a positive influence on stakeholders’ image of universities.
The factors that are important for branding universities (Gray et al., 2003; Gatfield et al,
1999) have not yet been presented in any type of branding framework. The success of branding
in universities could be regularly measured by analyzing the brand perception through surveys or
comparisons between universities. Nevertheless, it is hard to quantify improvements in branding
activity and the benefits it brings to the university’s strategic objectives (Chris Chapleo, 2010).
H0: An effective branding attracts more students to the university.
Branding is not about getting a target market to choose one university over another, but is
about getting prospects to see the University as the only one that provides a solution to their
problem. So branding’s main objectives are to deliver a clear message and credibility, motivate
the prospect to buy by connecting with them emotionally, and turn them into loyal customers.
Unfortunately, to some educational institutions, branding is just a logo on their letterhead.
According to Chris Chapleo, the concept of “success” in any aspect of the organizational
and business arena is subjective, and this could be argued to be particularly so when applied to a
concept as intangible as brand management. A real understanding of branding, however, may
require researchers to continually ask why some organizations are more successful than others in
brand building (Urde, 2003). De Chernatony et al. (1998, p. 778) ultimately concluded that
“brand success is a multi-dimensional construct comprising both business based and consumer
based criteria”. Findings, of the Portsmouth University Business School, Portsmouth, UK
research, showed that successful higher education institutions have some points in common:
Table 2. Commonalities between Successful Institutions of Higher Education
Evidence of association with a
successfully branded university
Support from leadership
Clear vision
Internal support (or “buy in”)
Location – synergy with brand of city/town
Use of public relations
Possible association with a
successfully branded university
Number of marketing staff
Individuals with brand guardian roles
Brand has been researched and is understood
Use of marketing communications
Experiential aspect to brand
IMPLICATIONS OF THE STUDY
In summation, it appears that brand management has a role to play in relationship
construction between the institution and key stakeholders, as well as increasing the exposure of
the institution in the community it serves. The literature review highlighted a number of salient
points. The study showed that there’s the need for a better understanding of the essence of a
university brand. In addition, the financial implication of university branding is the fact that it is
costly. The research showed as well that there is a clear role for branding in “correcting a
negative perception” and “giving greater visibility to the university”.
REFERENCES
Albert, S., & Whetten, D. (1985). Organizational identity. In L. L. Cummings & B. Staw (Eds.),
Research in organizational behavior pp. 263–295. Greenwich, CT: JAI.
Argenti, P. (2000). Branding B Schools: Reputation management for MBA Programmes.
Corporate Reputation Review, 3(2). 171-178.
Belanger, C., Mount, J., & Wilson, M. (2002). Institutional image and retention. Tertiary
Education and Management, 8(3). 217–230.
Black, J. (2009) The branding of higher education. Retrieved from
www.semworks.net/papers/wp_The-Branding-of-Higher-Education.php
Chapleo, C. (2004). Interpretation and Implementation of reputation/brand management by UK
university leaders. International Journal of Educational Advancement, 5(1). 7-23.
Chapleo, C. (2005). Do universities have ‘successful’ brands? International Journal of
Educational Advancement, 6(1). 54–64.
Cooper D. R. & Schindler P. S. (2009) Business research methods (10th ed). New York, NY:
McGraw-Hill.
De Chernatony, L. & McDonald, M. (1998). Creating powerful brands in consumer, services
and industrial markets. (2nd ed). Oxford, UK: Butterworth-Heinemann.
Deephouse, D. (2000). Media reputation as a strategic resource: an integration of mass
communication and resource-based theories. Journal of Management, 26(6). 1091-112.
Doyle, P. (2001). Marketing management and strategy. Hemel Hempstead, UK: Prentice Hall.
Engwall, L. (2007). Universities, the state and the market: changing patterns of university
governance in Sweden and beyond. Higher Education Management and Policy, 19(3)
87-104.
Jevons, C. (2006). Universities: A prime example of branding going wrong. Journal of Product
& Brand Management, 15(7). 466 – 467.
Gray, B. J., Fam, K. S., & Llanes, V. A. (2003). Branding universities in Asian markets. Journal
of Product and Brand Management, 12(2). 108–120.
Hemley-Brown, J. & Goonawardana, S. (2007). Brand harmonization on the international
higher education market. Journal of Business Research, 60(9). 942–948.
Gupta, M., & Singh, P. B. (2010). Marketing & branding higher education: issues and
challenges. Review of Business Research, 10(1).
Mount, J. & Belanger, C. (2001). Academia Inc.: The perspective of university presidents.
Canadian Journal of Higher Education, 23(2.) 135-65.
Ries, A. & Ries, L. (1998). The 22 immutable laws of branding: How to build a product or
service into a world-class brand. New York, N.Y.: Harper Business.
Scarborough, E., & Scarborough S. (n.d.). American Academy of Advertising.
Temple, P. (2006). Branding higher education: Illusion or reality? Perspectives, Policy and
Practice in Higher Education, 10(1). 15-19.
Urde, M. (2003). Core value based corporate brand building. European Journal of Marketing,
37(7/8). 1017-40.
Waeraas, A., & Solbakk, M . (2008). Defining the essence of a university: Lessons from higher
education branding. Higher Education, 57(4). 449 – 462.
Warwick, (2003). Perceived risk in college selection: Differences in evaluative criteria used by
students and parents. Journal of Marketing in Higher Education, 13. 101-125.