Branding Strategies in Universities

Branding strategy, often used synonymously with the term “brand architecture” (Kapferer, 2012), refers to an explicit relationship between the corporate brand, the organisation, and its various products and services (Balmer and Gray, 2003). Brand strategies can be distinguished when an organisation either employs ‘a single umbrella image that casts one glow over a panopoly of products’ (Hatch and Schultz, 2001: 129) sometimes referred to as branded house; or a collection of individual brands are presented with different names and referred to as house of brands (Ollins, 1978). Keller (2015) claims that sub-branding is a strategy that sits between branded house and house of brands which facilitates access to attitudes and associations with both the corporate brand and the product brand. Empirical studies have shown that brand architecture has a strong impact on profitability, and marketing efficiency (Morgan and Rego, 2009). However, despite the fact that ‘higher education and branding go back a long way’ (Temple, 2006: 15) few studies have explored the concept, or application of, branding strategies in universities and as a result universities tend to be more focused on such approaches as advertising and promotional material (Bunzel, 2007).

Unlike many commercial organisations, universities do not have the same level of resources to implement branding strategies (Jevons, 2006) although as Higher Education Institutions (HEIs) become increasingly competitive research highlights the rationale for managing brands. For example, Petruzzellis and Romanazzi (2010) maintain that if branding were to be applied to a university then this would comprise many different and complex features including teaching, research, specialisms and consultancy described as ‘the whole range of criteria that go to make up the quality of a university’ (Jevons, 2006: 466). Further, Pinar et al (2010: 725) point to the huge number of colleges and universities competing for the same students which in the UK marketplace includes diminishing Government funding and raised tuition fees. Therefore branding strategies in universities has become a strategic issue for university managers as importance is attributed to developing differentiated brands with values that have congruence with those of students in order to attract and retain them (Jevons, 2006).

However, many universities continue to be focused internally ‘uncertain about what is important for the brand, their students, or other stakeholders, they grasp at less-than-differentiating value propositions…’ (Jevons, 2006: 467). Corporations, such as universities, are seldom able to create a ‘meaningful connection’ with their stakeholders (Kay, 2006: 744) and more specifically Balmer and Gray (2003) argue that a fundamental issue in itself is for a university to try and communicate a diverse and complex brand to multiple stakeholders (Chapleo, 2011). Nonetheless, universities and other educational institutions across the globe are looking for ways in which to differentiate themselves from the competition (Hemsley-Brown and Goonawardana, 2007) but there limited research in the branding arena on the development of branding strategies in universities. Further, Croxford and Raffe (2015: 1637) point out that differentiation in Higher Education (HE) is grounded ‘on a hierarchy that is strong, pervasive and persistent…’ and may be difficult to change. HEIs have traditionally been averse to marketing language and concepts such as “branding” (Hankinson, 2004). What research has shown is that there are distinct pockets of specialities which may provide the very source of competitive advantage required for a post-92 university seeking to hold a corporate brand with a distinct competitive edge (Abratt and Kleyn, 2012; Spry, 2014). These “sub-brands” in a university can make stronger connections to their students through the development of values which signal differences in specific products (Keller, 2015). Hsu et al (2015) praise sub-brands for their ability to control risks particularly in terms of negative feedback concerning the corporate brand (Muzellec and Lambkin, 2009). However if branding practices change in universities, and ‘corporatization’ (Hemsley-Brown and Gonnawardana, 2007: 945) is introduced, departments may have to align their identity with that of the university. This could result in departments losing their ‘house-of-brands approach’ (Hemsley-Brown and Gonnawardana , 2007: 946) and hence their individual branding to different target markets particularly those departments operating in niche markets. This strengthens the calls for more research devoted to understanding how corporate branding strategies might work in universities as according to Uggla (2006) a coherent and effective brand architecture can effectively be created by sub brands.