Utilizing the brand ecosystemframework in designing brandingstrategies for higher education

Musa Pinar and Paul TrappCollege of Business Administration, Valparaiso University,

Valparaiso, Indiana, USA

Tulay GirardDivision of Business & Engineering, Penn State Altoona, Altoona,

Pennsylvania, USA, and

Thomas E. BoytCollege of Business Administration, Valparaiso University,

Valparaiso, Indiana, USA

Abstract

Purpose – In today’s complex and highly competitive marketplace, universities and colleges,realizing a need to develop sustainable strategies, have turned to branding as a solution. However,because of their unique service characteristics, universities’ branding attempts may not always resultin success. The aim of this paper is to present a brand ecosystem framework in order to developbranding strategies for colleges and universities.

Design/methodology/approach – The key elements of the framework include: student experiencesas the driving force of the university branding strategies, academic services as the core value creationactivities in delivering student learning experiences that are co-created with students and faculty, andsupporting activities that are important in creating the core value.

Findings – The framework suggests that both core and supporting value-creating activities aredynamically inter-related and work jointly in creating student learning experiences, and ultimately, astrong university brand.

Originality/value – The paper presents the crucial elements and the relationships among them forbuilding successful brands in higher education.

Keywords University branding, Brand ecosystem, Branding, Student experience,Sustainable development, Higher education, United States of America, Brand awareness

Paper type Research paper

IntroductionIn today’s global marketplace, the role of brand management has been elevated to anew level of importance. In fact, the most distinctive skill of marketers is their ability tobuild and manage brands (Kotler and Armstrong, 2010). This is because brands aspowerful assets represent the essence of a company, outlasting the company’s specificproducts and facilities; thus, they must be carefully developed and managed. Becausebrands represent consumers’ perceptions and feelings about a product and itsperformance (Kotler and Keller, 2006), the real value of a strong brand is its ability tocapture customer preference and loyalty. As one of a company’s most valuable

The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available at

www.emeraldinsight.com/0951-354X.htm

IJEM25,7

724

Received August 2010Revised October 2010Accepted November 2010

International Journal of EducationalManagementVol. 25 No. 7, 2011pp. 724-739q Emerald Group Publishing Limited0951-354XDOI 10.1108/09513541111172126

intangible assets, a brand functions as a powerful differentiator for the business and asa decision-making tool for customers (Aaker, 1991, 1996; Keller, 1993, 2008). At theirbest, brands represent promises kept, and build loyalty through trust, which in turnresults in continued demand and profitability (Reichheld, 2001, 2006). Thus, brandingis an integral part of marketing strategy; it is the creation of a corporate identity andreputation. Because branding efforts are not limited to “consumer” products, firms invarious service industries have been trying to utilize branding strategies to buildstronger brands. In this regard, higher education and universities have also begun torealize the need to develop sustainable brand strategies. Therefore, branding hasbecome a strategic issue and focus for universities and other post-compulsoryeducational institutions in order to develop meaningfully differentiated brands tocommunicate their strengths ( Jevons, 2006).

Recently, the economic environment has had a major negative impact on the financialsituation of most higher education institutions. More enduring is that vast numbers ofuniversities and colleges (i.e. brands) in the marketplace often compete for the samestudents. Moreover, the relatively simple promotional tools of the past no longer work asthey once did. As today’s prospective students are fully immersed in a variety of digitalworlds, institutions of higher education sometimes struggle to understand and embracetheir needs. It is in this context that colleges and universities are turning to branding asthey seek to thrive, and in some cases to survive, in the current marketplace for highereducation. For example, in the UK, increased competition within the education sector anddiminishing university funds at British universities highlight the growing importance ofbranding for the UK educational institutions (Mazzarol and Soutar, 1999; Mok, 1999). Asa result, in 2000, the UK government supported a worldwide re-branding exercisecampaign to establish a clear and competitive identity for UK universities in order toattract more international students (Hemsley-Brown and Goonawardana, 2007). The aimof developing a brand for the UK institutions was to enable the various schools to attractstudents and to differentiate British education from its major competitors, such as theUSA and Australia. This shows the branding efforts for higher education institutionssupported by the British government. In addition, a few studies (papers) (Gatfield et al.,1999; Gray et al., 2003; Mazzarol, 1998) have focused on marketing and branding in orderto identify the factors that are important when marketing and promoting universitiesand/or positioning higher education institutions. Nevertheless, the focus of these studieswas not how to create a university brand; rather, to promote the universities to attractinternational students.

In today’s complex and highly competitive marketplace, universities and collegeshave turned to branding as a solution in dealing with today’s global challenges(Whisman, 2007). Because a university as a service organization is one large,undifferentiated mass of people and process (Schultz, 2006), coupled with the uniquecharacteristics of its services, the marketing challenge has been how to differentiatethese organizations in the market place so that they will be preferred by consumers(Berry, 2000; Bitner, 1995, Zeithaml et al., 1990, 2006). In fact, heterogeneity is thegreatest source of difficulty in branding services (de Chernatony and Dall’Olmo Riley,1999; Ostrom et al., 2005), and education is no exception. Because universities candifferentiate themselves through serving the needs of different segments with differentmixes of services and products, they must understand not only how differences areperceived by different segments, but also how the different dimensions of service are

Utilizing thebrand ecosystem

framework

725

interrelated such that a change in one area of service could impact other areas. This isespecially important for services branding because of the process nature of serviceswith many customer touch points (Gronroos, 1984; Berry, 2000; Zeithaml et al., 2006),where each of these components could have a critical impact on service quality, andultimately on the image of a service based brand.

Given the growing importance of branding for the competitiveness of highereducation in the global economy, this paper presents a framework to help betterunderstand and guide branding decisions for college and universities. In this regard,we suggest that a brand ecosystem framework (Pinar and Trapp, 2008) could beutilized in developing successful branding strategies in higher education. Theframework developed in this paper shows the relationship and interactions among themajor activities of university value-creating networks (e.g. academics, sports, studentlife, and community services) in delivering exceptional learning. As will be presentedbelow, we believe that this framework could help brand managers in higher educationto identify the key value-creating activities and their interrelations and interactionsthat are critical for creating a strong, differentiated education brand desired andpreferred by stakeholders (mainly students). One may argue that students are the rawmaterials of education, graduates are the products, and employers are the customers.Although the merit for this argument is not denied, generally speaking, manyemployers do not fully pay universities for their graduates. Students often payuniversities for education, services, and ultimately their degrees (Ivy, 2008). Thecurricula are developed and adapted appropriately to meet the needs of students whowould like to concentrate on a field of study. Program duration may influence student(or student and parent) choice of the school (Ivy, 2008). In addition, when brandmanagers (administrators and staff) consider the wide variety of publics with which auniversity needs to communicate, different communication tools are used for differentpublics. Ivy (2008) argues that prospective students are mainly the target publics forrecruitment. Messages in communication media (e.g. pamphlets) are designed toinform, remind, and/or persuade prospective students to select the advertisinginstitution because they will be the ones who will be the direct receivers of theeducational services (i.e. value-creation activities, interactions with faculty, staff, andother students, involvement with student organizations). For these reasons, in thispaper students are seen as the customers. We also believe that, without an exceptionalstudent learning experience, other stakeholders could not exist.

Unlike the above-mentioned studies, where the main goal was to market andpromote university brand to attract more students, this paper is aimed at providing aframework that identifies the major forces, or value-creating networks (Kotler andArmstrong, 2010) and their interactions that are important in delivering desirededucational experience to students. In this respect, this is a conceptual paper where themain goal is to present a theoretical framework that captures the major factors(value-creating networks) and the interactions of these factors in developing a stronguniversity brand. The authors of this paper believe that this framework shows aholistic approach in creating a strong brand for higher education institutions.Moreover, contrary to the other university branding studies where the focus was onpromoting and branding the university or institution, as suggested by Ng and Forbes(2008) and Schultz (2006), this paper focuses on students’ experience as the core ofhigher education (university) branding.

IJEM25,7

726

Branding in higher educationThe brand image of a university plays a crucial role in attitudes towards thatinstitution, and to the sector as a whole (Yavas and Shemwell, 1996; Landrum et al.,1998). Based on their study of university image, Paramewaran and Glowacka (1995)suggest that higher education institutions need to develop and/or maintain a distinctimage to create a competitive advantage in an increasingly competitive global market.Such a distinct image is likely to impact a student’s willingness to apply to thatinstitution; thus, establishing these images in the mind of the stakeholders is quiteimportant (Ivy, 2001). Hemsley-Brown and Goonawardana (2007) state that despite thegrowing importance of this subject, empirical research specifically related to thebranding of higher education is relatively scarce. However, they claim that the broadertopic of the international marketing of higher education has been a key topic of bothempirical research and theoretical papers.

A review of the literature reveals very few papers (Gatfield et al., 1999; Gray et al.,2003; Mazzarol, 1998) that concentrate on university branding, although someattention is given to the international marketing of higher education. A study byGatfield et al. (1999) suggests that recognition (quality of teachers and resources),campus life (added features), and guidance (access services) are the most salientpromotional features used in marketing universities. In a study of educationalinstitutions in Australia, New Zealand, Canada, and the UK, Mazzarol (1998) found thattwo factors – i.e. “image and resources” and “coalition and forward integration” –were significant predictors of market success. In addition, Gray et al. (2003) identified auniversity’s learning environment, reputation, graduate career prospects, destinationand cultural integration as the main brand positioning dimensions for higher educationinstitutions. The above studies indicate that academic instruction and learningenvironment, campus life, reputation, and career prospects of graduates are the mostsalient brand positioning dimensions for higher education institutions. However, thesestudies were conducted with the aim of international marketing of higher educationand attracting international students.

Furthermore, much of the branding effort in higher education appears to be focusedon promotion and identity, including logos, mottos, promotional materials, advertising,mascots, names, and the like (Argenti, 2000; Bunzel, 2007; Jevons, 2006). These effortsappear to be largely concerned with external branding without a clear understandingof the holistic nature of what constitutes a brand. As a result, Jevons (2006, p. 467) hasquestioned the effectiveness of these exercises, stating: “Uncertain about what isimportant for the brand, their students, or other stakeholders, they [universities] graspat less-than-differentiating value propositions”. Likewise, Bunzel (2007, p. 153) states:“In the final analysis there has been little evidence to show that a university brandingprogram really creates a change in perception or ranking of a university”. As for themottos and tag lines that are becoming increasingly common, Goldney (2008) asks:“Could these words become, if it has not already occurred, weasel words, meaning theyhave essentially lost any true meaning because of their frequent and at times ratherindiscriminate use?”. Clearly, there are limitations to focusing on the externaldimensions of a brand without considering the larger internal and external context. Tothe extent the focus is simply on “better” marketing and communications, brand effortsare not likely to deliver the intended results.

Utilizing thebrand ecosystem

framework

727

A search of the literature reveals that this narrow approach to brand developmentand management may be changing. Black (2008) specifically addresses the concept ofbrand promise and “the role of all faculty, staff, and administrators as ‘institutionaltrust agents’” in the delivery of the promise. Ng and Forbes (2008) have developed acompelling gap model for the university experience based on the service qualityliterature that explicitly recognizes the various parties involved in the creation of thelearning experience, including the students themselves. While recognizing theimportance of physical evidence and processes, Ng and Forbes (2008) rightly highlightthe complexity of the university experience, as it is co-created, emergent, unstructured,interactive, and uncertain, and that not all students share the same goals andorientation (academic, personal, vocational, social) with respect to the universityexperience. Notably, Ng and Forbes (2008) also highlight the importance of trust indelivering effective experiences.

Adapting the Gap Model of Service Quality developed by Zeithaml et al. (1990,2006), Ng and Forbes (2008) propose four expectation-perception gaps that must bemonitored and managed in order to provide satisfying university experiences:

(1) the difference between what a student expects and what the institution thinksthe student expects (knowledge gap);

(2) the difference between the institution’s understanding of students’ expectationsand the development of the service designs and standards (standards gap);

(3) the difference between the development of the service designs and standardsand the actual delivery of the service (delivery gap); and

(4) the difference between the delivery of the service and the institution’s externalcommunications (communications gap).

Beyond these basic gaps, Ng and Forbes (2008) propose an “ideological gap” that is“the difference between designing the service towards fulfilling students’ expectationsand designing the service towards what the institution believes the students shouldexperience” (p. 14, authors’ italics). Of these gaps, the ideological gap may be the mostfundamental issue to resolve in terms of competitive advantage.

Brand ecosystem and value networksFrom a strategic perspective, brands can be designed to deliver greater customer valueby building a “brand ecosystem” that includes the value networks and interactions ofthese value networks at each stage of brand value building. This concept is similar toseveral other value-delivery frameworks found in the literature. For example, Porter(1985) proposed the value chain as a framework to describe how the activities of abusiness contribute to its tasks of designing, producing, delivering, communicating,and supporting its products to create value. In a similar way, Kumar (2004) presented a“3Vs” framework which includes valued customers (who to serve), a value proposition(what to offer) and a value network that will deliver the promised product and/orservice. All activities in a value network are driven by the end-consumer’s intendedexperience and preferences (i.e. desired value proposition).

Kotler and Keller (2006) presented a holistic marketing framework to show how theinteraction between relevant actors (customers, company, and collaborators) andvalue-based activities (value exploration, value creation, and value delivery) helps to

IJEM25,7

728

create, maintain, and renew customer value. Earlier, Moore (1996) proposed a businessecosystem as an economic community consisting of customers, market intermediaries(including agents and channels, and those who sell complementary products andservices), suppliers, and of course, the firm. The key aspect of Moore’s businessecosystem is that, as in a biological ecosystem, any change in the business ecosystemimpacts the entire system due to the inter-relationships and interactions among thesystem elements, which underscores the inter-dependencies of the businessecosystem’s value networks. However, Moore’s (1996) framework makes no specificreference to any kind of brand(s) or branding; rather, it covers all sub-sectors of abusiness to create competitive advantage for sustainable growth.

In the public services context, Ivy (2008) finds seven distinct factors rather than thetraditional 4Ps of marketing mix in the marketing activities of state business schools ofhigher education institutions. Ivy’s study develops 25 statements that measure studentattitudes and their perceptions of the importance of various marketing activities andtools they were exposed to in the selection of the business school. The most importantfactors in sequence were the program (choice of majors, electives), prominence(reputation), price (tuition), prospectus (communication through direct mail), people(interactions with faculty, staff, and other students), promotion (publicity and e-media),and premiums (mixture of various offerings). In a similar empirical study, Price et al.(2003) assess specifically the impact of facilities on student choice of university andfind that quality of facilities has significant impact on student’s choice of institution.The main focus of these studies is examining the factors that help to market andpromote university brand to attract more students. However, other studies argue aboutthe importance of emphasizing people (i.e. faculty, staff, other students, community)and processes (logistics of the service delivery) in marketing of services (Cowell, 1982;Nicholls et al. (1995) and suggest the close link of positioning to the concept of branding(Nicholls et al., 1995) taking a more holistic approach (Pinar and Trapp, 2008).

Pinar and Trapp (2008) propose a brand ecosystem framework for building andmanaging a brand. They define a brand ecosystem as a set of different activities (valuenetworks) that contribute to building a strong brand that includes all the stages ofvalue creation from initial design idea to the final consumer (target market) brandexperience. In creating a strong brand to deliver the promised customer experience andvalue, the key aspect of the framework is that the customer is the starting point of thebrand ecosystem as consumer preferences and experiences drive the inter-linked valuenetworks. Unlike Moore’s (1996) business ecosystem, the brand ecosystem is proposedto create a specific brand that promises to offer a specific value proposition and imagethat target consumers desire to experience. It is important to note that the preferencesand expectations of the chosen target market(s) are the driving forces for the entirebrand ecosystem. Additionally, every activity (internal and external) in the brandsystem is inter-related, and must be consistent with and contribute to accomplishingthe desired brand image and consumer experience with the brand in both the short-and long-term. Moreover, any change in any part of the brand ecosystem, like in abiological ecosystem, affects all other value networks of the brand ecosystem, andultimately the brand image and brand value.

Today, as consumers are demanding more social responsibility from the brandsthey use, a brand ecosystem as a whole must reflect the core values associated with thebrand. In this respect, the brand’s identity provides the DNA for the entire ecosystem,

Utilizing thebrand ecosystem

framework

729

and ultimately brand equity. The importance of consistent high standards and valuesthroughout the entire brand ecosystem cannot be ignored. Recognizing the holisticnature of a brand ecosystem requires an organization to fully understand and manageits value network(s) and their interactions that are driven by desires and preferences ofthe chosen target markets. In essence, the brand ecosystem places the brand andrelated customer experiences as the focal point. It integrates the mechanism of anorganization’s supply chain(s). Many firms tend to have a logistics emphasis withefficient distribution capabilities, but they ignore final customer preferences andexperiences and their impact on creating a strong brand and brand equity.

The Tallgrass Beef Company in Kansas (USA) is a good example of a brandecosystem in creating a successful brand by appealing to health-conscious consumers(Babwin, 2006). In order to guarantee consistently high-quality steak and brandconsistency, the company controls all the value-delivery networks in its brand ecosystemfrom using high-quality bulls to high-end steak restaurants that are consistent with theTallgrass Beef brand image. Consumer desires and preferences for healthy andhigh-quality steak drive the Tallgrass Beef Company’s brand ecosystem in developingits special brand of steak, otherwise a generic (graded) commodity product in most cases.One of the best recent examples of a large-scale brand ecosystem is Starbucks Coffee. Inorder to be consistent with its premium brand identity, Starbucks controls all activitiesfrom coffee beans to delivering consistently the best service in its brand ecosystem tomeet customers’ preferences and expectations with respect to experiencing the perfectcup of coffee (Michelli, 2006). Providing direction and focus to the Starbucks brandecosystem is the idea of an authentic coffee experience (i.e. the “third place”) while beinga socially responsible community member. As these examples indicate, it is important toremember that each activity in the brand ecosystem exists to deliver a specific, uniqueend experience to the final consumer and must justify itself on that basis. This impliesthat the brand ecosystem’s overall strategic intent is (or must be) known throughout thevalue network and that consumer preference drive each activity.

An ultimate goal of all branding strategies is to build strong brand equity, which isalso the main goal of a brand ecosystem. This is because brand equity, as a keyindicator of the state of health of a brand (Keller, 1993; Kim and Kim, 2004), is builtthrough an effective management of the brand. As a multi-dimensional variable, brandequity, refers to the value inherent in a well-known brand name (Keller, 1993, 2008;Schiffman and Kanuk, 2007). Basically, value is created in a consumer’s mind as aresult of a brand’s superior quality, the social esteem the brand provides, consumertrust in the brand, and self-identification with the brand (Aaker, 1991, 1996; Keller,1993; Schiffman and Kanuk, 2007). Brand equity is the positive differential effect thatknowing the brand name has on consumer responses to the product or service (Keller,1993). One measure of a brand’s equity is the extent to which customers are willing topay more for the brand (Aaker, 1996; Keller, 1993, 2008). For a university brand, it is astudent’s willingness to pay premium tuition for his/her education without theuniversity resorting to high levels of discounting through financial aid. A powerfulbrand enjoys a high level of consumer awareness and loyalty, and it forms the basis forbuilding strong and profitable customer relationships (Aaker, 1996; Keller, 1993, 2008).An effective brand ecosystem has the potential to not only differentiate aproduct/service experience in a meaningful way for the customer, but also to createstrong brand equity for the producer.

IJEM25,7

730

Brand ecosystem for developing a higher education brandThe factors that are important for branding universities (Gray et al., 2003; Gatfield et al.,1999) have not yet been presented in any type of branding framework. In this study, wepresent a brand ecosystem framework for a college or university that can be envisionedas all of the activities in a value-creation network that provide value to the institution’svarious constituencies, both internal and external. Figure 1 provides a conceptual view ofa university brand ecosystem. As shown in this framework, the focus and direction forthe ecosystem are provided by the educational experiences the institution intends toprovide to its targeted constituencies. Also, as suggested by Gray et al. (2003), whenbuilding a university brand, it is important that universities need to understand the keyeducational needs of students and the perceived value of core and augmented elements oftheir offerings. Therefore, students are central in defining intended experiences becausethey are the only reason for the existence of colleges and universities. However, attentionalso must be given to other constituencies including parents, potential employers,alumni, donors, and the local community. While these other constituencies are animportant part of any university brand and should be included in the holistic branddevelopment process, the focal point of university branding is the learning experience ascore-value creation (Ng and Forbes, 2008); therefore, this paper will focus on students’academic and non-academic university experiences.

The brand ecosystem presented in Figure 1 proposes that because the student is thecustomer of higher education and students’ satisfaction in the consumption of a

Figure 1.University brand

ecosystem

Utilizing thebrand ecosystem

framework

731

university experience is critical, student (target market) learning experiences are thedriving force for all value creation networks in developing university branding. As thecore service of the university experience is embodied in the learning experience,academics (i.e. teaching and research) are the core value creation activities for students’learning experiences. It is important to note that teaching and research may holddifferent levels of importance for students’ educational experiences, depending on auniversity’s emphasis on each academic area. The next elements of the brandecosystem are the supporting value creation activities of student life, sports, andcommunity activities. While these services, as hygiene factors, may not necessarilyprovide a superior university experience, Ng and Forbes (2008) state that the coreservice cannot function effectively without these supplementary services, such that thetwo interact dynamically in construction of the entire university experience forstudents. The brand ecosystem also includes employers, alumni, and donors who mayhave direct and/or indirect effect on student learning experience and on universitybrand image. Certainly, as shown in Figure 1, all these factors individually and/orcollectively may affect students’ university experiences, and ultimately the university’sconsumer-based brand equity.

Each of these value creation activities of academics (core value creation), studentlife, sports and community service (supporting) can be broken down into more definedexperiences to the point where the experience exists as a specific, meaningfulindividual encounter (Bitner, 1995; Zeithaml et al., 2006). As in any service, theeducation experience as a process is the sum of many encounters consisting ofstudent-faculty, student-administration/staff, and student-student interactions, each ofwhich has the potential to impact education quality, students’ university experience,and ultimately a university’s brand. For example, the academic experience dimensioncan be viewed as a sum of all the encounters consisting of classroom lectures anddiscussions, assignments, tests, student group projects, internships, student researchprojects supervised by faculty, after class chats between a professor and student(s)about the course material, academic advising, and more. All of these interactions (i.e.encounters) contribute to student learning and an academic experience that serve asbuilding blocks of core value creation for university branding. The value of learning isco-created with the student (Bitner et al., 1997; Gummesson, 1993) in a way that isemergent, unstructured, interactive, and uncertain (Ng and Forbes, 2008). Moreover,with education as a service (Ng and Forbes, 2008), as suggested by Bitner (1995) andGronroos (1984), the delivery process of education could be more important than whatis delivered. Therefore, in delivering academics as a core value delivery process,faculty-student, and student-student interactions in the co-creation process are thecritical parts of a university learning experience that can have a significant impact on auniversity brand.

In addition to the core value creation activities, each of the supporting value creationactivities contributes to a students’ overall university experience and resulting brandimpressions. Ng and Forbes (2008) state that supporting (or supplementary) servicessuch as the application process, payment of fees, campus facilities, and studentaccommodations all play a role in facilitating the core service experience. They claimthat the core cannot function effectively without the supplementary services, and thetwo interact dynamically (directly or indirectly) in the construction of the universityexperience. This indicates the importance of each student encounter (interaction) with

IJEM25,7

732

supporting services in creating the core academic experience. For example, the studentlife experience at its most elemental level can be viewed as a specific encounterbetween a student and a dining-room employee, or the taste of tonight’s dessert. Thestudent life experience at its broadest is the sum of all such student experiencesthrough each and every encounter that make up student life. Similarly, studentencounters in their dormitories, payment of fees, campus facilities, or sporting eventsmay enhance or inhibit the students’ core service experience. In each case, theexperience is tightly defined by time and place, yet driven by a broader experientialintent. Each encounter at every touch point contributes positively or negatively to astudent’s university experience. The brand ecosystem as a branding framework ismerely a tapestry of interrelated experiences over time, sharing a common focus anddirection. Moreover, the brand ecosystem reflects these dynamic interactions amongthe core and supporting services that impact student learning experiences and auniversity’s brand equity.

At the broadest level of a college or university, the institutional brand ecosystem’sintent is defined by its focus and direction, its vision and purpose. This level of intentdefines the next level of intent, which in turn defines the next lower level, etc., related tostudent university experience. As a simplified example, a college’s focus and directiondefine the intent of student life, which defines the intent of dining services, whichdefines the intent of the individual roles within dining services. Likewise, the intent ofstudent life would also define the intent of residential living and the roles of its staffmembers. One can view experiential intent as cascading throughout the brandecosystem through encounters, always with an implied in order to focus driven by thedesired student experience. Each individual within the ecosystem has a defined rolebased on what that individual is to accomplish given the intent of that person’sdepartment. As with maneuver as practiced by some military units (Lind, 1985), thatindividual (e.g. faculty member, administrator, staff person) knows what she mustaccomplish in terms of the desired student experience (intent), but the “how” is left upto her. To the extent that the individual is qualified for her role, understands theexperiential intent of her role and her department within the broader context of theuniversity, and desires to serve the student, she will be able to provide the type ofexperience called for by Bitner (1995) and more recently Ng and Forbes (2008) inkeeping promises (i.e. living the brand). Moreover, as the employee is able to determinethe how, she is not only able to keep the promise, but should be encouraged to exceedthe student’s expectation as keeping promises leads to satisfaction, while exceedingpromises leads to passion and loyalty. Therefore, as pointed out in prior research(Berry, 2000; Bitner, 1995; Gronroos, 1984; Zeithaml et al., 2006), it is the personnel,especially the contact personnel at every touch point, that are critical in delivering thedesired service (educational) quality for creating an education brand. The emotionaldimensions of such experiences can be very powerful for both parties (Gobe, 2001).Faculty, staff, and administration should know and understand intent not only withintheir area, but also the next level up as well as the college or university’s overall focusand direction.

The brand ecosystem presented in Figure 1 must be viewed as interrelateddimensions of the student experience, with the entire education ecosystem driven by ashared focus and direction (based on a global vision) as expressed through experientialintent at each level and department within the whole. Because students are a key

Utilizing thebrand ecosystem

framework

733

component in the co-creation of the core service experience (Ng and Forbes, 2008),academic-student interaction is often an important aspect of the learning experience inbuilding a university brand. Given the dynamic nature of the brand ecosystem, asstudents and others interact with the institution and its faculty, staff, andadministration, the cognitive and affective dimensions of the various experiencescontinually influence the brand and its meanings, and ultimately its value (“BrandEquity” in Figure 1). This interaction is no different than is found with anyorganization. For example, to what extent does the Singapore Airlines brand derive itsmeaning from the passengers’ experiences found flying with the airline? In this way,the brand and experience exist in a yin/yang relationship. That is, the brand suggeststhe nature of the experience (i.e. establishes the promise and expectation), while theexperience itself reinforces and ideally strengthens the brand. In turn, the brand leadsback to the next experience in a relationship that is ongoing, dynamic, and mutuallyrewarding. This is especially true as a university experience results from thesimultaneous nature of production and consumption of student learning (orco-learning), where all parties have an impact on each other. A university brand andits associated meanings represent an experiential promise as well as an influence on astudent’s expectations with respect to the educational experience offered. In a yin/yangrelationship, interacting with a university through experiential encounters in turninfluences the brand as a result of direct learning. Consequently, the brand and itsmeanings may be confirmed, or ideally, strengthened as a result of new positivemeanings and deeper emotional bonding.

It is critical to note that without highly qualified, enthusiastic employees (i.e. faculty,staff, and administrators), involvement and creating great student experiences with thebrand ecosystem are highly unlikely. Unhappy employees cannot be counted on toprovide good service experiences, much less great experiences (Heskett et al., 1997;Zeithaml et al., 2006). This implies the necessity of a strong internal branding program(Whisman, 2007; Ostrom et al., 2005; Berry and Lampo, 2004; Berry and Bendapudi,2003; Hemsley-Brown and Goonawardana, 2007) that fully engages and motivates auniversity or college’s employees in their student-centered roles to deliver greatexperiential outcomes. This suggests that the essence of any brand building, especiallyfor service brands, depends on how a company clarifies the roles and behavior it needsfrom employees to deliver on the brand promises. In this regard, universities mustfocus on internal branding, where the goal is to convey the value proposition and brandassociations to the university personnel in the core and supporting areas so that thepersonnel understand what the university brand promises to its students and others.This could minimize potential gaps (i.e. delivery, standards, knowledge, andcommunication) for the brand value proposition between students and universitypersonnel. Also, internal branding would facilitate communication betweenadministration (brand managers) and the academic and supporting units (Whisman,2007), as well as development and delivery of a coherent and consistent brand identityfor the university (Hemsley-Brown and Goonawardana, 2007). This implies thatuniversities must have high-quality personnel and sufficient resources to serve theirstudents well, particularly in the delivery of core academic experiences. Moreover,university personnel in all areas must have sufficient training so that they allunderstand the university value proposition and their role in delivering the valueproposition and creating a strong university brand.

IJEM25,7

734

Conclusion and suggestionsAt its best, a college or university brand ecosystem has the potential to take students toplaces they do not yet know they want to go. Indeed, this is one of the challenges ofmanaging the ideological gap that Ng and Forbes (2008) identified. However, to theextent that a gap is mastered, and students are provided a “wow” educationalexperience, a university or college may have a powerful brand differentiator. Thepromise of the brand ecosystem as a platform for bridging this gap lies in its unifyingstrategic focus and direction, resulting levels of intent, and individual employee rolescentered on the student experience. Given the special service characteristics ofintangibility, complexity, heterogeneity or variability, simultaneous production andconsumption, and the process nature (Berry, 2000; Ostrom et al., 2005; Zeithaml et al.,2006), creating a great (learning) experience and university brand depends not only oncore value creation with academics, but also on student experiences with all supportingvalue creating activities. This is because all value creation networks are dynamicallyinterrelated with each other, where each of these value networks individually andcollectively contributes to the student learning experience with a university brand. Asa result, students’ expectations are continually updated and revised throughout theirdirect or indirect experiences with the university brand (Ostrom et al., 2005). Forexample, even though academics are the core value creation means for students, thereis no doubt that student experiences (positive or negative) with the library, residencehall, dining, or even with sports may significantly impact their university experiences;in turn, the university brand.

This process nature of (university) services contributes to the complexity of theservice encounter experience, where student evaluation of learning experience becomesthe sum of many factors – some under the control of university employees and somenot. This in part may explain the challenges universities as service producers face inbranding strategies. It is well-known that a customer’s experiences with a company faroutweigh the company’s own communications to the customer (Ostrom et al., 2005). Byfar, experiences dominate the formation of customer evaluations (e.g. perceptions ofquality, satisfaction, value, and loyalty), and expectations for subsequent serviceencounters (Berry, 2000). As stated by Ostrom et al. (2005), the frontline employee is thebrand for the customer; it is the employees who deliver the service, which conveys thebrand to the customer. Berry (2000) and Berry and Bendapudi (2003) point out thatbecause the frontline (or contact) employees embrace the majority of a customer’simpressions, marketing the brand to employees, or internal branding, is critical. Thissuggests that all personnel (administrators, faculty, and staff) need to understand theirimportance in delivering desired student learning experiences. The brand ecosystemframework we proposed shows the dynamic interrelationships among the valuecreation elements in developing university branding. The implication is that in order tocreate the exceptional multidimensional student learning experience that universitiespromise, universities must coordinate all of the activities of the value deliverynetworks of their brand ecosystem through internal branding. Finally, the brandecosystem offered in this paper provides a holistic approach to developing a universitybrand by focusing on the core-value creation of academics, as well as all supportingareas in delivering a superior learning experience for students.

Although this paper focused on the primary elements of the university brandecosystem (i.e. core and supporting activities), the complete ecosystem would also

Utilizing thebrand ecosystem

framework

735

include alumni, donors, and potential employers as presented in Figure 1. While nothaving as direct a daily impact on the student experience, these external constituencieshave the potential to add significant value to the brand ecosystem. The specificcompanies and organizations that recruit on campus is one example. Indeed, havingparticular recruiters on campus may be a powerful attraction for potential students,and thus, reflect an important aspect of a university’s brand ecosystem. In addition toattracting potential students, specific recruiting companies could serve as an importantstimulator for students’ academic success which could indirectly impact the universitylearning experience of students in a significant way. Moreover, the opportunity arisesfor these organizations to contribute to other dimensions of the student experience(e.g. class guest speaker, student group sponsor, etc.) that add additional value to thetotal educational experience. Integrating alumni more fully into core and supportingvalue proposition activities is another example of strengthening a university brandecosystem. It is also important to remember that parents of students are an importantpart of a university’s brand ecosystem, particularly as influencers and interpreters ofthe experiences their children are having on campus. We accept the fact that potentialemployers, alumni, donors, and parents are significant contributors of universityexperience; therefore, they should be included in the university brand ecosystem as apart of holistic university branding strategy.

Future researchThis paper presented a conceptual framework that presents the major value-deliverynetworks and their interactions in creating university band. Based on a universitybranding literature (Ng and Forbes, 2008; Schultz, 2006), we present academics as thecore of university branding and supporting areas in a brand ecosystem framework inorder to create a strong university brand and brand equity. The next step is tooperationalize the model elements to measure and test effects of each of the brandecosystem elements identified in the model on university brand equity. Following theconsumer-based brand equity and its dimensions (Keller, 1993, 2008; Aaker, 1991,1996), future studies could measure overall university brand equity, and each of thebrand equity dimensions of brand association, perceived quality, and brand loyalty.Specifically, we recommend development of a scale to measure brand equity, andbrand association related to core and supporting areas of student learning andeducational experience, perceived quality of the academics and supporting areas oflibrary, student life, sports, community, and brand loyalty. Also, the prior empiricalresearch, albeit limited, presented in this paper could help in identifying some of thefactors important for building a strong university brand that could be used inempirically resting the model.

Given that simultaneous of production and consumption, and process nature ofeducation as service (Berry, 2000; Ostrom et al., 2005; Zeithaml et al., 2006), the effectsof brand equity dimensions could be empirically tested with structural equationmodeling (SEM). This is also reflected by our brand ecosystem framework, where coreand supporting elements of the education experience are presented as ongoinginteractions, indicating that student expectations are continually updated and revisedthrough direct and indirect experiences with university brand (Ostrom et al., 2005). Assuggested by Carbone (2004), the consumer experience with brand is not an additivemodel; rather, it is multiplicative. This further indicates the importance of the

IJEM25,7

736

interactions of each of the brand ecosystem on university brand value. Therefore, wefeel that the impacts of the factors presented in the brand ecosystem are best capturedby SEM. The results of such an empirical study could help university administration indeveloping a strong university brand.

References

Aaker, D.A. (1991), Managing Brand Equity, The Free Press, New York, NY.

Aaker, D.A. (1996), Building Strong Brands, The Free Press, New York, NY.

Argenti, P. (2000), “Branding B-schools: reputation management for MBA programs”, CorporateReputation Review, Vol. 3 No. 2, pp. 171-8.

Babwin, D. (2006), “Chicago, once known for its stockyards, is at center of designer beef foodtrend”, Chicago Tribune – Business Section, September 11, p. 1.

Berry, L.L. (2000), “Cultivating service brand equity”, Journal of the Academy of MarketingScience, Vol. 28 No. 1, pp. 128-37.

Berry, L.L. and Bendapudi, N. (2003), “Cluing in customers”, Harvard Business Review, Vol. 81,February, pp. 100-6.

Berry, L.L. and Lampo, S.S. (2004), “Branding labour-intensive services”, Business StrategyReview, Vol. 15 No. 1, pp. 18-25.

Bitner, M. (1995), “Building service relationships: it’s all about promises”, Journal of the Academyof Marketing Science, Vol. 23 No. 4, pp. 246-51.

Bitner, M.J., Faranda, W.T., Hubbert, A.R. and Zeithaml, V.A. (1997), “Customer contributionsand roles in service delivery”, International Journal of Service Industry Management, Vol. 8No. 3, pp. 193-205.

Black, J. (2008), “The branding of higher education”, January, available at: www.semworks.net/papers/wp-The-Branding-of-Higher-Education.html (accessed October 16, 2009).

Bunzel, D. (2007), “Universities sell their brands”, Journal of Product & Brand Management,Vol. 16 No. 2, pp. 152-3.

Carbone, L.P. (2004), Clued In: How to Keep Customers Coming Back Again and Again, FT Press,Upper Saddle River, NJ.

Cowell, D.W. (1982), “Do we need to revise the marketing mix for services marketing?”,in Thomas, M.J. (Ed.), Marketing: Bridging the Gap between Theory and Practice,Marketing Education Group 15th Annual Conference, Lancaster, pp. 78-89.

de Chernatony, L. and Dall’Olmo Riley, F. (1999), “Experts’ views about defining services brandsand the principles of services branding”, Journal of Business Research, Vol. 46, pp. 181-92.

Gatfield, T., Braker, B. and Graham, P. (1999), “Measuring communication impact of universityadvertising materials”, Corporate Communications: An International Journal, Vol. 4 No. 2,pp. 73-9.

Gobe, M. (2001), Emotional Branding, Allworth Press, New York, NY.

Goldney, R. (2008), “It’s all in the brand power”, The Australian, February 27, available at: www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,23280453-5015710,00.html (accessed October 18,2009).

Gray, B.J., Fan, K.S. and Llanes, V.A. (2003), “Branding universities in Asian markets”, Journal ofProduct & Brand Management, Vol. 12 Nos 2/3, pp. 108-12.

Gronroos, C. (1984), “A service quality model and its implications”, European Journal ofMarketing, Vol. 18 No. 4, pp. 36-44.

Utilizing thebrand ecosystem

framework

737

Gummesson, E. (1993), “Services management: an evaluation and the future”, InternationalJournal of Service Industry Management, Vol. 5 No. 1, pp. 77-96.

Hemsley-Brown, J. and Goonawardana, S. (2007), “Brand harmonization on the internationalhigher education”, Journal of Business Research, Vol. 60 No. 9, pp. 942-8.

Heskett, J.L., Sasser, W.E. and Schalsinger, L.A. (1997), The Service-Profit Chain, The Free Press,New York, NY.

Ivy, J. (2001), “Higher education institution image: a correspondence analysis approach”,International Journal of Education Management, Vol. 15 Nos 6/7, pp. 276-82.

Ivy, J. (2008), “A new higher education marketing mix: the 7Ps for MBA marketing”,International Journal of Educational Management, Vol. 22 No. 4, pp. 288-99.

Jevons, C. (2006), “Universities: a prime example of branding gone wrong”, Journal of Product& Brand Management, Vol. 15 No. 7, pp. 466-7.

Keller, K.L. (1993), “Conceptualizing, measuring and managing customer based brand equity”,Journal of Marketing, Vol. 57 No. 1, pp. 1-22.

Keller, K.L. (2008), Strategic Brand Management: Building, Measuring, and Managing BrandEquity, 3rd ed., Pearson Prentice Hall, Upper Saddle River, NJ.

Kim, W.G. and Kim, H.-B. (2004), “Measuring customer-based restaurant brand equity:investigating the relationship between brand equity and firms’ performance”, CornellHotel and Restaurant Administration Quarterly, Vol. 45 No. 2, pp. 115-31.

Kotler, P. and Armstrong, G. (2010), Principles of Marketing, 13th ed., Prentice Hall, Upper SaddleRiver, NJ.

Kotler, P. and Keller, K.L. (2006), Marketing Management, 12th ed., Prentice Hall, Upper SaddleRiver, NJ.

Kumar, N. (2004), Marketing as Strategy, Harvard Business School Press, Boston, MA.

Landrum, R.E., Turrisi, R. and Harless, C. (1998), “University image: the benefits of assessmentand modeling”, Journal of Marketing Higher Education, Vol. 9, pp. 53-68.

Lind, W. (1985), Maneuver Warfare Handbook, Westview Press, Boulder, CO.

Mazzarol, T. (1998), “Critical success factors for international education marketing”,International Journal of Education Management, Vol. 12 No. 4, pp. 163-75.

Mazzarol, T. and Soutar, G.N. (1999), “Sustainable competitive advantage for educationalinstitutions: a suggested model”, International Journal of Education Management, Vol. 13No. 6, pp. 287-300.

Michelli, J.A. (2006), The Starbucks Experience: 5 Principles for Turning Ordinary intoExtraordinary, McGraw-Hill, New York, NY.

Mok, K.H. (1999), “Education and market place in Hong Kong and mainland China”, HigherEducation, Vol. 37, pp. 133-58.

Moore, J.F. (1996), The Death of Competition: Leadership and Strategy in the Age of BusinessEcosystem, HarperBusiness, New York, NY.

Nicholls, J., Harris, J., Morgan, E., Clarke, K. and Sims, D. (1995), “Marketing higher education:the MBA experience”, International Journal of Educational Management, Vol. 9 No. 2,pp. 31-8.

Ng, I. and Forbes, J. (2008), “Education as service: the understanding of university experiencethrough the service logic”, Journal of Marketing of Higher Education, Vol. 19 No. 1,pp. 38-64.

Ostrom, A.L., Iacobucci, D. and Morgan, F.N. (2005), “Services branding”, in Tybout, A.M. andCalkins, T. (Eds), Kellogg on Branding, Wiley, Hoboken, NJ, pp. 186-200.

IJEM25,7

738

Paramewaran, R. and Glowacka, A.E. (1995), “University image: an information processingperspective”, Journal of Marketing Higher Education, Vol. 6, pp. 41-56.

Pinar, M. and Trapp, P. (2008), “Creating competitive advantage through ingredient brandingand brand ecosystem: the case of Turkish cotton and textiles”, Journal of InternationalFood & Agribusiness Marketing, Vol. 20 No. 1, pp. 29-56.

Porter, M. (1985), Competitive Advantage: Creating and Sustaining Superior Performance,The Free Press, New York, NY.

Price, I., Matzdorf, F. and Agathi, H. (2003), “The impact of facilities on student choice ofuniversity”, Facilities, Vol. 21 No. 10, pp. 212-22.

Reichheld, F. (2001), Loyalty Rules, Harvard Business School Press, Boston, MA.

Reichheld, F. (2006), The Ultimate Question, Harvard Business School Press, Boston, MA.

Schiffman, L.G. and Kanuk, L.L. (2007), Consumer Behavior, 9th ed., Pearson Prentice Hall,Upper Saddle River, NJ.

Schultz, D.E. (2006), “Learning by doing”, MM, November/December, pp. 12-13.

Whisman, R. (2007), “Internal branding: a university’s most intangible asset”, available at: www.brandchampionablog.com (accessed September 20, 2009).

Yavas, U. and Shemwell, D.J. (1996), “Graphical representation of university image: a correspondenceanalysis”, Journal of Marketing Higher Education, Vol. 7, pp. 75-84.

Zeithaml, V., Bitner, M.J. and Gremler, G.D. (2006), Services Marketing: Integrating CustomerFocus across the Firm, McGraw-Hill, Maidenhead.

Zeithaml, V., Parasuraman, A. and Berry, L. (1990), Delivering Quality Service: BalancingCustomer Perceptions and Expectations, The Free Press, New York, NY.

Corresponding authorMusa Pinar can be contacted at: musa. pinar@valpo.edu

Utilizing thebrand ecosystem

framework

739

To purchase reprints of this article please e-mail: reprints@emeraldinsight.comOr visit our web site for further details: www.emeraldinsight.com/reprints