Title : Exploring rationales for branding a university ; should we be seeking to measure
branding in UK universities?
Abstract
Although branding is now widespread among UK universities, the application of branding
principles in the higher education sector is comparatively recent and may be controversial for
internal audiences who question its suitability and efficiency.
This paper seeks to investigate how and whether the effectiveness of branding activity in the
higher education sector should be evaluated and measured, through exploratory interviews with
those who often drive it; UK University marketing professionals.
Conclusions suggest that university branding is inherently complex and therefore application of
commercial approaches may be over simplistic. Whilst marketing professionals discuss challenges
they do not necessarily have a consistent view of the objectives of branding activity although all
were able to clearly articulate branding objectives for their university, including both qualitative
and, to some extent, quantitative metrics. Some measures of the real value of branding activity are
therefore suggested but a key debate is perhaps whether the objectives and role of branding in
higher education needs to be clarified, and a more consistent view of appropriate metrics reached?
Various challenges in implementing branding approaches are also highlighted.
Key Words: Branding, Brands, University Brands, University Branding.
Exploring rationales for branding a university; should we be seeking to measure branding
in UK universities?
Introduction
“Despite the unclear purpose…..vast quantities of money are spent on promoting whatever it is
that universities are, do, and how they do it, without publicly available research on the efficiency
or the outcomes of these investments” (Jevons, 2006).
In recent years there has been a trend among most UK universities to seek to employ the
techniques of branding, often expending considerable sums in the process. Whilst branding
activity in UK higher education (HE) is arguably as relevant as in the commercial world, (Roper
and Davies, 2007) it is a sector that arguably may not easily suit all such principles. Branding in
HE, as an area that may be controversial, has so far received limited scrutiny among academics.
Although this is changing, however, there is little evidence of much work to investigate how and
whether the effectiveness of branding activity in the HE sector should be evaluated and measured.
This paper seeks to take initial steps to remedy that situation through exploratory work designed
to highlight issues and offer suggestions for further empirical work.
Literature Review
Branding in Higher Education
There is a reasonable body of work concerning marketing in higher education (Brookes, 2003 ;
Hemsley-Brown and Oplatka, 2006) that focuses on distinct areas of marketing planning (Maringe
and Foskett, 2002), marketing communications (Klassen,2002), positioning and corporate identity
(Gray, Fam and Llane,2003; Melewar and Akel, 2005) university selection requirements and
student satisfaction (Beerli Palacio, Diaz.Meneses and Perez Perez, 2002; Veloutsou, Lewis and
Paton, 2004) and, to some extent, the associated discipline of branding. The body of work in the
academic literature concerning branding of higher education does seem to be limited, however
(Hemsley-Brown and Oplatka, 2006; Waeraas and Solbakk, 2008) despite branding’s rise up the
strategic agenda for UK universities (Rolfe, 2003).Aspects of branding have been explored; the
role of websites in university branding (Opoku, Abratt and Pitt 2006) the role of heritage
(Bulotaite, 2003)
the emergence of brand identities ( Lowrie, 2007), and harmonisation within
brand architecture of universities (Hemsley-Brown and Goonawardana, 2007).
There is also a growing body of work that questions the suitability of commercial branding
concepts for higher education (Jevons, 2006; Waeraas and Solbakk, 2008; Temple, 2006).
This arguably stems from a fundamental examination of the applicability of market principles to
higher education ( Gibbs, 2001) and indeed whether attempts to apply commercial style branding
to higher education can actually challenge the institutional integrity of universities (Waeraas and
Solbakk, 2008).
When considering the applicability of branding to HE a tension that quickly becomes apparent is
that of whether reputation and brand are the same thing? The literature suggests that an
organisation can define and communicate brand but that reputation is harder to manage as it
results from impressions of organisation’s behaviour (Argenti and Druckenmiller,
2004).
However, there seems to be little doubt that there can be a degree of overlap between the
terms when used in a university context, and that reputation is often more comfortable for internal
audiences to discuss.
Another fundamental issue may be argued to be communicating a naturally diverse and complex
university’s corporate brand to multiple stakeholders with differing perceptions (Roper and
Davies, 2007), which inherently adds to the challenge of branding activity (Waeraas and Solbakk,
2008). One may call into question the very notion of what universities mean by branding and
whether their understanding is the same as that for many commercial organisations (Chapleo,
2004). Whilst too broad to fully explore in this paper, this is area that may need consideration
when one seeks to understand whether branding can be measured in terms of its effectiveness for
a university? Certainly there is evidence of barriers to implementation of branding in universities
– not least frequent ‘internal resistance’ to the very concept ( unless, seemingly, termed
‘reputation’) or a rather simplistic implementation of branding by university marketing
practitioners that is marketing communications led (Chapleo, 2007)
although these practitioners
arguably increasingly understand branding in a fuller context.
In summary, it seems that universities are expending considerable amounts of resource on
branding their institutions
( Rolfe, 2003) but the literature on branding in higher education, is
limited, despite the assertion that ‘higher education and branding go back a long way’ (Temple,
2006).
Objectives of branding
Any examination of the objectives of branding for UK universities should take account of what
branding in a wider context seeks to achieve. Initially, branding was conceived as a means to
establish a product’s name and to convey the legitimacy, prestige and stability of the
manufacturer. However, this evolved into the modern paradigm built upon abstraction and cultural
engineering, while products embodied people’s ideals and were only tenuously linked to
functional benefits (Holt, 2002).
Most conceptualisations of brand are reasonably explicit when it comes to the advantages of
branding, but generally relate more to a commercial arena. De Chernatony and McDonald (2005)
assert that a successful brand delivers sustainable competitive advantage and invariably results in
superior profitability and market performance. These concepts, whilst arguably challenging to
measure in any sector, become particularly so when applied to higher education.
Holt (2002) argues that, to be socially valued, cultural content must pass through brands; post-
modern consumer culture insists that meanings must be channelled through brands to have value.
In short those brands will be more valuable if they are offered not as cultural blueprints but as
cultural resources – as useful ingredients to produce the ‘self’ one chooses.
De Chernatony and McDonald (2005) and Keller (2003) agree that it is important to measure
brand performance, but suggest that monitoring systems should suit the organisation in question.
Keller (2003) offers the brand value chain as a means to ultimately understand the financial
impact of brand marketing expenditure. A number of other models such as Millward Brown’s
Criteria to assess the strength of a brand (1996) and Young and Rubicams brand asset
valuator (1994) are widely known. However, all of these models, whilst having a degree of
applicability to the HE sector, are primarily focused on commercial brands and upon close
examination do not wholly suit the particular situation of universities. Variables such as ‘market
share’, ‘price premium’ and ‘loyalty’ are examples of the metrics alluded to in these models,
which may a degree of need re-conceptualisation for HE markets.
The marketisation of UK higher education (Stamp, 2004) may change the way that branding
activity is quantified, as price comes into the equation. When consumers have limited prior
knowledge of a product or service category, brand name may be the most accessible and
diagnostic cue available. Strong brands get preferential attribute evaluation, generally higher
overall preference and can charge price premiums (Hoeffler and Keller, 2003). The price premium
theme may become increasingly relevant as many countries adopt a market system for university
tuition fees.
Despite the wealth of literature on strong or successful brands, the literature is more limited when
it comes to discussing the specific area of brand metrics or specific objectives of brand spending.
This situation is exacerbated when it comes to considering specific objectives in less traditional
marketing fields such as education. This is perhaps surprising when one considers that spending
university budgets on branding activity can be controversial (Jevons, 2006).
Jevons believes that branding is a shorthand measure for the whole range of criteria that go to
make up the quality of the university whilst Bennett, Ali-Choudhury and Savani (2007)
suggest
that universities require strong brands to enhance awareness of their existence and course
offerings, to differentiate themselves from rivals and to gain market share. All of these offer a
rationale for branding activity but again actually measuring outcomes or return on investment are
elusive.
It may be that conventional brand management techniques are inadequate in higher education
(HE) due to brand proliferation, media fragmentation, rising competition, greater scrutiny from
‘customers’ and internal resistance to the concepts (Jevons, 2006).
Perhaps the better brands gain in quality of student and raise the overall academic standing of a
university? (Bunzel, 2007). Bunzel essentially associates branding in US universities with
enhancing reputation and possibly positive influence on university ranking but concedes that there
is little evidence in rankings to support branding activity.
It seems one cannot ignore the relationship between brands in universities and league tables.
The question, in the context of this research, would seem to be the extent to which branding
activity seeks to influence league table position. Does the presence of league tables change the
conception of branding in the sector, as there is an increasing focus as league table position as a
measure of success among some target groups? (HEFCE, 2008)
HEFCE suggest that commercial league tables in the UK “avoid disrupting the dominant
expectations too much” – this includes assumptions such as that ‘Oxbridge’ will come near the
top and that most pre 1992 universities will be above most post 1992 universities.
However, there certainly seems to be a role for branding over and above a focus on league table
positioning alone. HEFCE
argue that league tables may be influential, but only part of the complex
decision making process and often used to confirm a decision already made. A strong brand
should communicate far more about strengths in key areas than the often narrow league table
placing indicator. If used appropriately, branding could build upon league table positioning,
whether that be high, middle or low, by emphasising unique selling points? This perhaps
illustrates the essence of the difference between a successful brand and a league table position, as
it may be argued that an institution that is comparatively lowly placed in the league tables can
nevertheless have a successful brand with niche target audiences.
Effective branding can use considerable resources and it is therefore important for managers to
monitor their brands. However, brands are complex, and any monitoring system should be tailored
to suit the organisation’s environment (de Chernatony and McDonald, 2005). Whether we should
seek to quantify all branding activity in universities is therefore debatable, but is seems evident
that some appropriate metrics are desirable.
The literature reveals some work on measurement of branding activity in general, but very little
for university branding programmes. The competitive situation in UK higher education has
arguably forced UK universities to adopt a more professional approach to their marketing activity
(Bakewell and Gibson-Sweet, 1998)
.
However, whether this extends to branding objectives in
debatable. Whilst it is conceded that not all branding activity can be quantified, surely when it has
been claimed that ‘vast sums are spent without clear purpose’ (Jevons, 2006) investigation is
necessary and timely?
Methodology
This research utilised a phenomenon driven inductive approach that sought to understand the
social world through an examination of the interpretation of that world by its participants (Bryman
and Bell, 2003). The focus was exploratory, seeking to explore perceived objectives and
measurement of UK university branding activity through a ‘deeper understanding of factors’
(Christy and Wood, 1999; de Chernatony, D’all Olmo Riley and Harris, 1998).
Specific objectives of the research were:
• To explore the current objectives of branding activity in UK universities.
• To explore the clarity of rationale for branding in UK universities.
• To explore whether appropriate metrics for university branding activity can be articulated?
Ultimately the aim is to investigate the degree to which the value of branding activity can be
articulated by those who often drive it; university marketing professionals. The sample involved
twenty interviews with those charged with responsibility for university marketing programmes -
university heads of marketing or external relations. The sample size is broadly in line with
McGivern (2003) as appropriate to understand interviewees’ collective views on a topic. Whilst
appropriate for an exploratory qualitative study, it is conceded that results are indicative and it is
accepted that boundaries are never quite as solid as a rationalist might desire (Miles and
Huberman, 1994).
The sample broadly reflected that in Chapleo ( 2005) where UK universities were segmented
into three sub groups based on date of incorporation and therefore comprised 9 new universities
(1992 and post-1992), 5 1960s universities and 6 older universities (incorporated before 1950).
The UK higher education sector has a great variety of institutions, in terms of age, mission and
market position ( often reinforced through league tables) and grouping these into three categories
(similar to other studies) was considered to add value to results and help identify similarities and
differences (Bennett, Ali-Choudhury, and Savani, 2007).Within these categories the respondents
were a convenience sample, accessed through contacts from the author’s previous work and
making the most of opportunities to ask potentially useful informants where access may be
difficult (Daymon and Holloway, 2004).
This meant that thirty eight potential respondents were
approached to obtain the required interviews. Senior marketing, external relations and careers
personnel were selected as they represented experts with a breadth of experience who can draw on
their specialist knowledge to define the fundamental characteristics of relevant matters (Tremblay,
1982; de Chernatony and Segal-Horn, 2003).
Semi-structured interviews were considered to be most suitable, as “complex and ambiguous
issues can be penetrated” (Gummesson, 2005), providing an illustration of the participant’s true
feelings on an issue (Chisnall, 1992). This technique is reinforced by other branding studies such
as Hankinson (2004). An interview guide was used to steer the discussion, but respondents were
also invited to expand upon ideas and concepts as they wished. A pilot study was not considered
essential, due to the exploratory nature of the work and the corresponding broad questions elicited
from previous research (Chapleo, 2005).
The interviews were conducted between August 2008 and January 2009 and the average duration
of interviews was 24 minutes. It is accepted that this is comparatively short for exploratory work,
but includes interviewees who gave particularly succinct answers to aspects of the questions.