Level 5 Blog

A reputation, argues Dr. Paul Temple, a senior lecturer in higher education management at the University of London’s Institute of Education, is built, not bought.

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                             We would heartily agree with this position, outlined in a recent article in Times Higher Education, a weekly British publication devoted to the subject of post-secondary learning, had he but stopped there. Unfortunately, though, he goes on to illustrate perfectly the prevailing misconceptions about brand and the influence it can wield on said reputation. (Clearly, the guy hasn’t been reading this blog.)

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                             His article, which introduces the very legitimate concept of university as brand, proposes that branding consultants have “almost no effect” on how a school is perceived, and that much of their work is “a waste of time and money.” Poppycock.

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                              As opposed to merely presenting the university “in an appealing way,” through “superficial manipulations…” and crossing fingers that time will do its work to cement an appealing legacy (as Temple suggests), our idea of brand is different and effective (as we’ve proved in working with one of Canada’s leading universities).  It’s not focused just on communicating a reputation (although that is important) but on the conviction that brand impacts how an institution is managed, and that its fundamentals can be changed for the better through aligning and operating the various departments and functions inside a common ideal (read: brand).

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                       Taking this management-by-brand approach, universities can move closer to reaching their objectives by addressing questions in four key areas that will inform how they manage and communicate the school/brand:

• What is at the heart of their brand? What promise are they making?  How should the organization be managed to deliver it?
• Why would their students want to attend? What value do they get?  How do the functional, emotional and self-expressive benefits get demonstrated through the university’s words and actions?
• How do they express their promise in the market? What makes them better and different? How do they communicate that in the market? How do professors and administration live that promise every day?
• What measures do they have in place to track their progress and reach their brand and organizational goals? What are the key management metrics that will guide priorities, decisions and actions throughout the university?

When used in the management of the organization, and not just in the marketing, these inquiries, and the answers thereto, demonstrate that brand is not merely “candyfloss,” as Temple so erroneously suggests, but a powerful operating philosophy creating a very real source of competitive advantage.