This is not just the plight of smaller schools that struggle in many ways to compete against their larger brethren. Brand confusion is a virtual epidemic at top 100 schools, and in fact the problem worsens at the larger universities with a portfolio of colleges, where the colleges are actively seeking their own brand identity in a manner similar to a breakaway Soviet republic. Regardless of the size of the institution, there is a general lack of experienced resources that can provide the required leadership and expertise to properly re-position the school's brand. While there is a (slowly) growing trend for larger schools to establish CMO and VP Marketing level positions, this does not assure a school that it is establishing a brand management competency.
In a commercial business, this problem has a simple solution: hire a brand manager. For Higher Ed, the solution is not as simple, mainly because the problem isn't very simple. As a public service, here are five changes Higher Ed institutions need to enact in order to make brand management a stronger and more permanent competency:
- Understand your real business. Since the lion's share of on-campus activity is focused on curriculum and learning, one can easily be led to the incorrect (albeit ironic) conclusion that your business is about delivering academic programs. Once schools begin to dive into the branding question, they find that their brand is really built on their reputation for being the best at making their students and alumni feel special. This externally-focused goal is about creating multi-faceted relationships, and is the essence of what makes students and alumni feel bonded to their school. It is also the area where effective branding can produce the greatest benefit. I will expand upon the different relationship types (transactional and emotional) in a future blog. For now, let me say that this insight too often goes unnoticed, amid the mushroom cloud of activities surrounding operating budget, curriculum, tenure, admissions, development, athletics, et al. The forest is really hard to see through all the trees.
- Reduce tribalism. Guen's Law silos will appear in any institution, whether Higher Ed or corporate, that is in operation for more than 10 years (yes, stay tuned to this space for more startling insights). The larger the organization, the greater the level of tribalism, and ultimately the greater number of conflicting answers to the question "Who are we?". In Higher Ed, the on-campus rivalries between faculty versus administration, athletics versus academia, big department versus little department, all detract from a strong, unified brand. In most cases these rivalries are founded on the battle for resources (money and people), and it's too easy to lose sight of who the real competition is... the other school that's competing for your prospective students. Developing a master brand positioning requires all stakeholders to arrive at a level of consensus on the critical meaning of the brand. This is a daunting challenge in an environment where there is little common ground between the tribes.
To illustrate this brand management challenge, let's imagine that you are the brand manager for the U.S. Congress, and are trying to position it to the American public as a progressive and effective governing body. You do your market research and find that people can identify two main features of your brand: Republican and Democrat. The top-of-mind attributes of the U.S. Congress are words like partisan, political, focused on re-election, protect home turf, dogmatic, bureaucratic, party line, ineffective. Do you think managing this brand would be an easy gig? And by the way, do you think any of these attributes exist in Higher Ed? Whether this is a major or minor issue at your school, a strong brand can be the unifying force that can rally all the tribes to a common purpose. - Legalize the M word. Peter Drucker, the renowned strategist advised, "A business has only two basic functions, marketing and innovation. Marketing and innovation produce results. All the rest are costs." Since Higher Ed institutions generally perceive marketing as a either a necessary evil (at best) or pure evil (at worst), this statement is a cause for concern. Marketing remains The Word That Must Not Be Named across many campuses, from Top Tier schools on down. The primary censors seem to be faculty elites who feel that marketing is only one step above (or below) prostitution. They say that "our school is over 100 years old, everyone knows who we are, and our reputation speaks for itself". See Change #1, above.
At the November 2009 AMA Symposium on Higher Ed Marketing, the two most often-heard laments from attendees were that (1) Marketing has no voice when it comes to the school's long-term strategy, and (2) expectations to support critical functions (i.e., admissions and development) have never been higher, yet Marketing staff and budget have been reduced due to current fiscal tightness. If Drucker is right, then it is a questionable the decision to have Marketing play a purely tactical role. I am seeing central Marketing departments report to a variety of functions, including admissions, advancement, finance & administration, the Dean's Office, and communications. Moreover, universities that have de-centralized governance at the college level have Marketing personnel dedicated to each program; and since they are segregated they are presenting a different brand voice, identity and message to their discrete audiences. One pass through a large university web site will show you how disjointed and confusing a school's brand presentation can be. If an unbearable level of dissonance exists, there is no go-to person with either the clout or the expertise to negotiate an integrated result.
It may be that "branding" is a convenient code word to be able to talk about marketing without using the M word. While this may provide a glimmer of hope for real brand management to take root, I am convinced that branding goals will never be achieved until Marketing is let out of the closet. - Leave branding to the experts. Whoever coined the phrase "too smart for your own good" may not have been thinking about Higher Ed, but the shoe certainly fits. Please don't misunderstand this as a knock on educators and administrators; one of the biggest reasons I choose to consult in Higher Ed is because I find everyone I meet intellectually stimulating and passionate. And I really do mean everyone; I always leave a discussion with a Higher Ed contact feeling like I have learned something new and interesting.
If there is a bane of professional marketers, it's that everyone has an opinion. Since every American is the recipient of thousands of marketing impressions every day, it's fair to say that all opinions are valid opinions. And Higher Ed faculty and administrators can express particularly impressive and thoughtful opinions! The issue is that the science of marketing is easily camouflaged by the physical outputs of marketing. For too many administrators and faculty the scope of branding strategy is limited to logos, ad campaigns and tag lines; and too few understand the importance of a solid brand positioning, brand equity measurement and internal branding. Again, it's not for lack of intellectual capacity. As the Dean of a Tier 1 business school program admitted, "The trouble with (our administrators) is that we are very smart, but not savvy." - Lead from the top. To me, this is the biggest driver in successful Higher Ed brand management. Many senior administrators enter the branding discussion with the belief that branding is simply marketing with a sharper focus - an unfortunate misperception. While marketing execution is an important component of branding, it goes well beyond the new logo and ad campaign. The proper scope of a Higher Ed branding initiative can impact strategy development, curriculum and programs, competency development, and organizational behavior; therefore, it is as much about change management as it is about brand management. This is why leadership matters: an effective strategic change requires a champion who can articulate a compelling vision of future success, and then create the right environment for other leaders to step up and fulfill the vision. Given the expected multitude of tribal interests (see Change #2), the person who is best positioned for this champion role is the school's President or Chancellor; this is because he/she has the clout and influencing skills to attain the required levels of consensus, collaboration and sacrifice necessary to reach a proper decision.
At last fall's AMA Higher Ed Conference, Ted Long, the President of Elizabethtown (PA) College, presented a case study about his school's brand re-positioning initiative. A highly visible and engaged leader, President Long found himself at the heart of every difficult disagreement with entrenched faculty factions, non-supportive Board members, and change-averse alumni. He found himself on a steep learning curve about brand strategy (ably assisted by a consulting firm), and finally reached the point where he proudly declared himself to be "College President and Brand Manager". He added, "I was the number one supporter of the improvements we had to make, and the number one cheerleader for the new brand." So I suppose the model for bringing effective branding to Higher Ed is to hire Ted (insert rim shot here). The Maine College of Art is currently in the midst of a Presidential search. Among the top selection criteria is a person who has a solid understanding of branding strategy and how to execute it.
The other reason why leadership is the most important factor is that Presidents, Chancellors, Deans, and Department Heads are the people who can make the changes #1 through #4 happen. These are the leaders who will decide whether branding will be a strategic differentiator or just a set of temporary tactics. I am not advocating for colleges and universities to start raiding Procter & Gamble for brand management talent (at least not today!), because there are numerous brand consulting firms who can provide excellent advice on how to build your brand governance. But whether it's your Marketing Director, Communications Director, Dean of Faculty, Advancement Officer, or your President, ultimately a bona fide brand champion must be found from within your school for brand management to stick.
