Strategic Brand Management in Higher Education

Bang Nguyen, T.C Melewar, Jane Hemsley-Brown, Bang Nguyen, T.C Melewar, Jane Hemsley-Brown

• Publisher: Routledge
• Year: 2019
• eBook ISBN: 9780429639432
• Edition: 1
• Topic: Business
• Subtopic: Advertising
• Index: Business

University branding has increased substantially, due to demands on universities to enrol greater numbers of students, rising tuition fees, the proliferation of courses, the growing 'internationalization' of universities, financial pressures, and reliance on income from foreign students. As higher education continues to grow, increased competition places more pressure on institutions to market their programs. Technological, social, and economic changes have necessitated a customer-oriented marketing system and a focus on developing the university brand.

This book is unique in providing a composite overview of strategy, planning, and measurement informed by ground-breaking research and the experiences of academics. It combines theoretical and methodological aspects of branding with the views of leading exponents of branding in different contexts and across a range of higher education institutions. Expert contributors from research and practice provide relevant and varying perspectives allowing readers to access information on international trends, theory, and practices about branding in higher education.

Readers are exposed to the critical elements of strategic brand management, gain insights into the planning process of higher education branding, and gain a solid understanding of the emerging research area of branding concepts in higher education. Advanced students, and researchers will find this book a unique resource and it will also be of interest to brand practitioners in both education and public sector markets.

1 Introduction to Strategic Brand Management in Higher Education

Bang Nguyen, T C Melewar, and Jane Hemsley-Brown

1 Introduction

As higher education continues to grow, increased competition has placed more pressure on higher education institutions (HEIs) to market their programs (Kaplan, 2018; Sujchaphong, Nguyen, and Melewar, 2017). Technological, social, and economic changes have necessitated a customer-oriented marketing system (Adams and Eveland, 2007) and a focus on developing the university brand (Judson, Gorchels, and Aurand, 2006; Lowrie, 2017). Researchers suggest that, in recent years, university branding has increased substantially (Binsardi and Ekwulugo, 2003; Chapleo, 2017; Melewar and Akel, 2005; Naudé and Ivy, 1999). These researchers propose a number of reasons, namely, a consequence to governmental demands on universities to attract and enrol greater numbers of students, rising tuition fees, the proliferation of courses on offer, the growing ‘internationalization’ of universities, escalating advertising costs, financial pressures, and, in many universities, heavy reliance on income from foreign students (Bennett and Ali-Choudhury, 2009; Binsardi and Ekwulugo, 2003; Ivy, 2001; Lowrie, 2017).

A university’s brand is defined as a manifestation of the institution’s features that distinguishes it from others, reflects its capacity to satisfy students’ needs, engenders trust in its ability to deliver a certain type and level of higher education, and helps potential recruits to make wise enrolment decisions (Bennett and Ali-Choudhury, 2009; Bick, Jacobson, and Abratt, 2003; Sujchaphong, Nguyen, and Melewar, 2017). These are only some of the issues marketers should address.

Due to these complexities, the study of branding in higher education is a timely topic for further investigation. This book, ‘Strategic Brand Management in Higher Education’, will include academic and practitioner perspectives and be of interest to a wider audience than students studying marketing and branding. It aims to address the following:

Strategy: Readers are exposed to the critical elements of strategic brand management in higher education, such as the development of a mission, vision, values, organizational design, leadership, and so on, examining the effects of these on stakeholder behaviour and brand performance by drawing from extant strategy and organizational theories and research. This enables the readers to understand different characteristics of brand strategy and subsequent applications towards managing these in higher education.

Planning: Readers will gain insights into the planning process of a higher education branding from different perspectives. The planning aspects of higher education branding include elements such as architecture, visual identity, image, reputation, communication, and so on. This enables readers to compare, contrast and comprehend how a brand is implemented and sustained at different levels in a higher education institution and how plans for brand management are created and managed.

Measurement: An exciting aspect of this book is the presentation of the measurement of branding concepts in higher education, which is an emerging research area. This section highlights the operationalization of the branding concepts in practice and covers the measuring of brand performance, brand equity, and scales for measurement. Readers are exposed to differing measurement approaches, which, once applied to a university, would increase chances of success in improving branding efforts and successful implementation and management of branding across the sector.

The editors of this book also edit the Journal of Marketing for Higher Education which involves working closely with academics and academic authors regarding research and practice in education marketing and, in particular, brand management in higher education. The editors also guest edit special issues on branding for well-known journals. Last summer (2017), for example, saw the publication of a special issue of the Journal of Business Research, looking at the impact of branding on higher education, across the areas of ‘BIMIR’ – brand identity, meaning, image, and reputation.

2 Introducing key concepts of branding in higher education

In the present chapter, we review the role of branding in the higher education sector, focusing on contemporary issues such as brand equity in higher education, the positioning of the university brand, the branding of business schools and their MBA programs, the emergence of online programs, brand personality and communication, and student perceptions of the university brand. Finally, we present the book’s coverage and content is briefly summarized chapter by chapter to provide an overview of the most current issues of branding in the higher education sector. A topic that permeates the book is that of brand identity. Researchers have long acknowledged that a university brand influences students’ beliefs about individual attributes (Melewar and Nguyen, 2015). It is said that brand identity for a university is ‘the essence of how you would like alumni, prospective students, legislators, and the public to perceive your institution’ (Lawlor, 1998, p. 19). Universities thus increasingly recognize that knowledgeable, prospective students are more likely to process their college choices based on the institution’s brand identity. Consequently, many universities are taking the necessary steps to alter the market position of their institution in order to attract targeted groups of prospective students (Judson et al., 2006; Sujchaphong, Nguyen, and Melewar, 2015).

Brand definitions

Previously, Ambler and Styles (1996) defined a brand as the promise of attributes that someone buys, and said that these attributes may be real or illusory, rational or emotional, tangible or invisible. Balmer and Gray (2003), reflecting on the idea that a brand involves a collection of promises concerning the brand’s physical and emotional benefits to buyers, used the term ‘brand covenant’. Scholars posit that the brands’ characteristics, as a covenant, are particularly appropriate for services because of their intangibility and heterogeneity. Intangibility stresses the associations with the brand’s values (de Chernatony and Segal-Horn, 2003). Fan (2005) suggests that these brand core values include trustworthiness, honesty, and integrity. Thus, researchers note that the promises embodied in a brand should be in line with the organization’s values and behaviour (e.g. Hatch and Schultz, 2003). However, Gutman and Miaoulis (2003) demonstrated how marketing communications in the university sector frequently made promises of benefits that the universities could not deliver. They proposed that universities must link all the benefits promised in communications to the real attributes and capabilities of an institution, coherently and consistently (Bennett and Ali-Choudhury, 2009).

Keller (2002) notes that branding involves the development of expectations about desired outcomes in the mind of the buyer that differentiates the brand from its competitors. These outcome expectations, consequently, provide meaning for the brand among consumers and indicate differences in the products’ benefits (Keller, 2002). Thus, a successful brand is expected to deliver the most desired benefits (Heslop and Nadeau, 2010). In addition, researchers suggest that brand definitions are based on ‘emotional’ and ‘rational’ factors (Caldwell and Freire, 2004; de Chernatony and McWilliam, 1990). Pringle and Thompson (1999) note that these two main constituents explain a brand’s authority, namely, its rational or performance benefits and its emotional or image ones. Louro and Cunha (2001), highlighting brands’ multidimensionality, add ‘strategic’ and ‘relational’ dimensions in their conceptualization. In a symbolic sense, a brand consists of the name, which should be relevant and distinct (Berry, Lefkowith, and Clark, 1988), logos, typefaces, colour schemes, stationery, forms, receptionists’ uniforms, vehicles, and premises (LeBlanc and Nguyen, 1996). These aesthetic designations are customers’ observed touch points and influence their opinions about the organization (Pratt and Rafaeli, 1997). Visual aesthetic designations, or visual identity, are employed to symbolize numerous aspects of an organization’s aims and values (Melewar and Karaosmanoglu, 2006). The aim is to create and sustain organizational meaning (Simoes, Dibb, and Fisk, 2005). Stern, Zinkhan, and Jaju (2001) note how symbolism is important for service organizations due to the intangibility aspects (Bennett and Ali-Choudhhury, 2009). Symbolic branding is thus particularly important for universities if they are to brand themselves successfully. This is typically seen in university logos and merchandising, which students use as a way to develop an affiliation with their university brand.

Brand equity in higher education

Research into brands in higher education has been extensive, and studies are attempting to describe the university brands’ substantive components. Scholars emphasize three basic ingredients that are present within a university brand, namely (a) a collection of promises concerning the brand’s benefits (e.g. ‘covenant’); (b) a set of distinctive features that define the brand’s inherent nature and reality (the quiddity); and (c) an assortment of aesthetic designations and external communications that describe the brand (symbolic and external representation (Bennett and Ali-Choudhury, 2009)).

Universities establish strong brands in order to (a) enhance market awareness among potential recruits, their parents, and careers advisors; (b) improve their ability to recruit high-calibre faculty and administrators; (c) differentiate themselves from rival new universities; and (d) gain market share. For example, in the UK, the new university sector’s increased branding activities has encouraged ‘older’ and more traditional institutions to market themselves more aggressively in order both to retain market share and to maintain their student intakes’ quality (Bennett and Ali-Choudhury, 2009; Melewar and Akel, 2005; Naudé and Ivy, 1999). Scholars suggest that to achieve the above, a university brand should communicate both the ‘cognitive’ and ‘affective’ dimensions. Specifically, those responsible for conveying the university image should communicate attributes that address these distinct components (Palacio, Meneses, and Pérez, 2002), which, it is suggested, are manifest through ‘functional values’ (cognitive) and ‘emotional values’ (affective).

The next section presents an in-depth look at branding at several levels, including overall university brand image, business school MBA brands, and online programs.

University brand image and positioning of university brands

Despite increasing research into branding as an instrument for improving university competitiveness and reputation (Melewar and Akel, 2005), scholars argue that a university may be too complex to be encapsulated by one brand or identity definition (Wæraas and Solbakk, 2008). This complexity is driven by the mis-match between brand perceptions and delivery in terms of tuition fees, competitive differentiation, league tables, and university statuses (Stamp, 2004). The increased need for international recruitment is also forcing universities to consider international brand image, and in doing so, confront dilemmas of standardized or adapted brand strategies (Chapleo, Durán, and Diaz, 2011; Gray, Fam, and Llanes, 2003). However, with rising national and international competition, universities all over the world are continuing to brand themselves in order to create a unique brand identity. Many universities are under pressure to act as businesses (Chapleo et al., 2011) forcing them to adopt the concepts and practices of corporate branding.

Corporate branding and, in particular, corporate image, are described as the associations created from personal experience, word-of-mouth, advertising, and promotion (Lemmink, Schuijf, and Streukens, 2003). A corporate image is a multi-dimensional construct (Boiger, 1959; Spector, 1961) and suggested to be the sum of impressions (Bromley, 1993; Davies and Chun, 2012) or set of perceptions (Holzhauer, 1999) held by stakeholders. For universities to overcome previous mis-matches and successfully create a corporate image, we posit that universities must use both marketing resources and internal operations to construct a desired image in the minds of various stakeholders. Dowling (1993) demonstrates that corporate image is the result of organizations aligning themselves with their stakeholders’ perceptions through communication efforts. We suggest that the mis-matches may not be as problematic, as individuals will not have the same perception of a university brand (Nguyen and LeBlanc, 2001), suggesting that a university does not have a single image, but rather multiple images. The key is to manage a university image with an understanding of how a corporate image is formed and how it is measured. Furthermore, it is crucial to attain knowledge and understanding of current images and what they are based on (Dowling, 1986). Brown and Dacin (1997) refer to ‘corporate association’, as the umbrella of information a person holds about a company, including their cognition, judgment, and association. For universities, a clear market positioning and a unique corporate image is thus the key to overcome existing issues. For example, to successfully promote degree programs, universities must include marketing to industry, selling convenience, and emphasizing interactive technologies (Carnevale and Olsen, 2003). Promoting academic reputation includes the emphasis on several factors including successful graduates, facilities, rigour, and distinguished faculties (Adams and Eveland, 2007; Conard and Conard, 2001).

Bennett (2007) reveals that recruitment messages should heavily feature (pictorially and textually) imagery associated with social and learning environments. Specifically, a university’s learning environment attracts students with the quality and extent of student support services, high-calibre teachers, and a student-friendly administration (Gatfield, Barker, and Graham, 1999; Gutman and Miaoulis, 2003). Other desirable elements of the social environment include numerous societies, clubs, and sports facilities, and opportunities to socialize on campus (Bennett, 2007; Gatfield, Barker, and Graham, 1999). Many universities al...

Table of contents

• Cover Page
• Half Title Page
• Series Page
• Title Page
• Copyright Page
• Table of Contents
• Notes on contributors
• 1 Introduction to Strategic Brand Management in Higher Education
• PART I: Strategy
• PART II: Planning
• PART III: Measurement
• Index