Branding universities
Higher Education
07.12.2010
In:
Education
This tournament for talent has rekindled interest in marketing strategy and branding. It has also relit conflicts that higher education institutions have with telling their story.
Why the interest now? I recently read a study from 2004 that suggested universities’ reluctance to mainstream branding was the mainstream media itself. It was intrusive, expensive and sales-y. But today, with more media choices than ever, universities are well positioned to tell their stories through diverse, user-generated and targeted ways. Improving a school’s image without appearing to squander patron dollars should make the chancellor’s job easier. Being the sum of ideas, emotions and associations for the university, branding is a logical starting point to improve competitiveness for the future.
Competition has also dictated a smarter approach to the whole recruitment experience. Granted, factors like location, type of institution, ranking and credentials are major influencers. But the clincher is emotional. Prospects want to know how they’ll feel about being associated with an institution for the rest of their lives. This is where brand scores big with two major points. 1. People make buying decisions based on emotion, then rationalize them based on logic. 2. To differentiate through branding, the entire organization must work to make the branding a promise they can keep. It’s about having an emotional connection and ensuring it stays consistent. Recent studies say that consistency is the real struggle. More on that in a minute.
People need trust to believe in a higher purpose and to belong. You’d think the hallowed halls of intellectualism would welcome this idea for promoting their mission. Not really. The idea of branding higher education institutions has met huge resistance and has been vigorously questioned by well-meaning academicians. Here are the few points I’ve seen most often.
- Branding is either superficial spin or hollow deception.
Not so. Brand-building exercises are a way for universities to examine who they are and what they stand for. In the age of complex stakeholder matrixes, new demands are being put on universities. Branding is a way of prioritizing objectives to help institutions remember their mission. - Branding is alien to the culture of higher education.
Maybe promotion is foreign to universities but as long as there’s choice, there will be brands. The unified university message may overshadow the individualism that institutions work so hard to promote. In doing so it dictates how this entity acts and interacts. But what is brand if not simply a sense of place? Isn’t that what all of us want? Twenty-five years after leaving college, I still get all tinglely on crisp September mornings. Tell me that’s not an indelible brand. - Branding is indulgence that squanders resources better invested in learning and research.
While “brand” is a dirty word in some institutions, “reputation” is more accurate and authentic, reflecting the well-earned merits of an institution. If branding is understood to mean merely a cosmetic change, without reference to a deeper meaning, it’s no wonder the academic community is against this concept. Clearly a better understanding is needed. It takes a great partner to navigate the process with clarity and precision.
Coherence is perhaps the most useful contribution branding can make to higher education by promoting focus and efficient resource management in an ever-demanding world. The more focused the proposition, the more control an institution has over its image, the more its expenditure on marketing becomes an investment rather than a drain.
Universities didn’t start as businesses but often have to act like them. They can believe this is empty hucksterism, or they can build on opportunities of branding in their unique sector. Trust me, their audience will help them decide what’s most unique for them. After all, branding isn’t simply about being competitive, it’s about being distinctive. There’s a difference.
