Branding Senior Seminar Paper

1

BrandU: An Examination on Branding in Higher Education

Bob Brown

COM425 Senior Seminar in Communications

December 3, 2014

BRANDU: AN EXAMINATION ON BRANDING HIGHER EDUCATION 2

Introduction 3

Branding and Communication Theory 4

Co-creation: the spirit that makes the band 7

Brand graphics: The look and feel 10

The Impact of Color 11

The Power of a Logo 12

Branding on Social Media 14

A Campus United: Consistant Branding 16

Website: The institution’s digital hub 18

Conclusion 20

References 22


Introduction

"A name is a moniker that a company is going to wear probably the longest of anything

we develop,” explains Sasha Stack, a partner at the brand-strategy and design from Lippencott

(Feloni, 2014). So how does a company, or an institution of higher education, leverage their

moniker to send a clear message whenever it is engaged? This paper will examine how an

institution of higher education can engage stakeholders using digital and visual brand

components. These aspects include logos, color, social media, and websites. Higher education

is an ever changing industry and it is imperative for the document that can truly reflect the

spirit and goals of the institution without needing to be rewritten each year.

There is no one concrete definition of branding, but that there are multiple acceptable

ways to define branding. This paper will operate off several definitions of branding. The first,

from the American Marketing Association (AMA) is: “name, term, design, symbol, or any

other feature that identifies one seller's good or service as distinct from those of other

sellers,” (American Marketing Association, 2014). The American Marketing Association’s

definition is very straightforward, yet it lacks the personality and creativity that a brand

includes. Michael Pinto, of Very Memorable Designs, says that branding “is the defined

personality of a product, service, company, organization or individual… A well designed brand

personality can be seen in everything from customer service to the actual products a

company may offer,” (Cohen, 2011). Pinto’s definition of branding adds life, character,

personality to it. Between a combination of the definitions offered by the American Marketing


Association and Michael Pinto, the paper will explore branding as a component of community

and a necessary staple in higher education. This paper will also explain the necessity for an

institution to brand itself and the dividends that branding plays in the success of an institution.

In the Journal of Brand Management, Matthew Joseph; Eileen Wall Mullen; and Deborah

Spake quote Robert Sevier, a senior vice president at Stamats Communications: “A well-

branded university attracts ‘more and better students, more full and fuller-paying students,

more students who will persist, better faculty and staff, more donated dollars, more media

attention, more research dollars, and more strategic partners’” (Joseph, Mullen, & Spake,

2012). Susan Herbst, the President of the University of Connecticut explained that “we’re not

breakfast cereal, and we’re not a detergent. But we still need to communicate what we do, why

we do it, how we do it, and that we do it well. So branding actually matters a great

deal,” (Jones, 2013). Herbst explained it perfectly. Branding has traditionally been a business

function and many have said that traditional higher education administrators refuse to entertain

the subject of branding the institution. But as President Herbst said, an institution needs to

communication what it does and branding does matter a great deal.

Branding and Communication Theory

Branding as a whole is a large concept and encompasses a wide range of

communication theories. Weber’s Theory of Bureaucracy explains the organization backings of

branding. Branding campaigns are initiated by leadership within the institution and the

authority that the administrators have. The administrators will hire, appoint, or contract

individuals to be part of the branding process. These individuals would report to someone


within the organization. The individual needs to dedicate the appropriate time and resources to

the staff to ensure success, as explained by Littlejohn (Littlejohn & Foss, 2011, p. 295). The

individuals that are brought onto the team have some sort of skill to offer to the institution.

They might be graphic designers, copy writers, have specialized knowledge of the institution,

they might represent a stakeholder, or have another specialization. Littlejohn explains,

“individuals are divided up according to division of labor, and people know their jobs within

the organization,” (Littlejohn & Foss, 2011, p. 296). This is not only knowing what their job is

but how to do their job.

“One of the most influential theories of the cybernetic tradition is that of Karl Weick.

Weick’s theory of organizing is significant in the communication field,” explains Littlejohn

(Littlejohn & Foss, 2011, p. 297). Weick’s theory is critical to the success of branding as it

offers a pattern of response. An act is the statement made by the brand. The interact is the

stakeholder’s response to the act. Then, the brand engaging the stakeholder’s interact is a

double interact. This sense-making process sets the brand up for success in that it sets the

brand up for an organic conversation with its stakeholders. (Littlejohn & Foss, 2011, p. 297).

When a brand manager or official with the institution engages in these conversations

with stakeholders as the institution, they are also taking part in James Taylor’s Actor-Network

Theory. The Actor-Network Theory is consistent with Weick’s view, Littlejohn explains. The

role Actor-Theory plays in branding is that the brand managers might be given complex

information to disseminate on social media, write a release or copy for, or design a poster-


among other options. When in the creative process, the information need translated into “basic,

or micro-interaction, in ways that can be understood and used by actors outside the

network,” (Littlejohn & Foss, 2011, p. 299). When creating the brand collateral discussed

above, however, it is imperative to be aware of the conversation and text: being aware of the

word choice and the meaning behind the words. In a world of soundbytes, the text of the

message is just as critical as the conversation. (Littlejohn & Foss, 2011, p. 301). Misspeaking

or mistyping a word can cause controversy and put the institution in a light that it would not

want to be in.

Many pieces of branding collateral that are used today are digital and shared amongst a

variety of platforms: websites, blogs, Facebook, Twitter, Instagram, etc. These networks are

integral forms of communication within an institution and to all stakeholders. Each network

helps foster their own unique communities that cluster forms of communication. An

institution’s branding professionals need to ensure the brand’s messages are conveyed on

formal networks- including portals, online learning modules (i.e. BlackBoard and Moodle),

and intranet sites- just as much as they need to ensure the message on emergent networks

including the social media platforms above. Many formal networks and informal networks

offer certain degrees of connectedness and information sharing. For example, students can

integrate their Facebook profile into their institution’s BlackBoard profile. Professors can link

their Twitter handle to their Moodle feed to tweet out the headlines of all homework

assignments. These levels of connectedness play into the basic structure of network theory. In


addition to the aforementioned communication theories about branding as a whole, there are

many others this paper explains throughout the text.

Co-creation: the spirit that makes the band

We are in an era when the value of a college education is not only questioned by young

people but also questioned in the headlines regularly, it is imperative for the brand of an

institution to shine through the rhetoric of the debate and show the institution’s value. There is

no argument- it is critical for an institution to focus on academic excellence, maintaining

affordability, and providing a strong social network for students the only way for prospective

students to see that is through branding and marketing material. A key factor in the value of an

institution is the alumni and friend engagement. Generally speaking, the best way to inform

alumni and friends of the work the institution is doing and the caliber of the current student

body is through strong branding and marketing material. The only way for the larger

community to clearly see the strength of the institution it neighbors is through strong branding

and marketing material. Given that it is imperative for an institution to have a strong brand.

This paper will examine the role of branding in higher education and ways the institution can

utilize branding to communicate their message.

In the past decade or so, there has been a shift in how an institution markets itself in

response to economic and social conditions. These conditions have lead to an increase in

marketization and less on marketing. This shift has lead to a reliance on outdated practices and

theories. Previously, the focus has been on marketization with goods. The good in this case is a


diploma and degree. K.M. Judson and S.A. Taylor make the case that the focus needs to be

moved to marketing an institution, not marketization. The authors make the case that

marketing is a co-creating process that involves personal growth collaboration, that the

primary stakeholders include parents; students; industry; and society, and all this with a long-

term focus. They continue, marketization is the student receives information with the goal for

job relevancy and student; parent; industry satisfaction, all with a short-term focus (Judson &

Taylor, 2014). The ideas that envelop branding correlate to the ideas that Judson and Taylor

described. Branding is a practice that is designed to take the ideas, practices, culture, and

habits of a community and put them into a focus that can be used to represent the community

and attract new members of the community.

Branding stems from co-creation and how “co-creation generates innovation and re-

energizes brands,” (Ind, Fuller, & Trevail, 2012, cover). As Michael Pinto explained above that

branding is the “personality” of an organization, the best way to truly understand and harness

the personality of the organization in the brand is by co-creation (Cohen, 2011). Meaning, it is

important when designing a brand to engage all stakeholders in the organization. Many of the

best ideas from an organization comes from co-creation and collaboration amongst

stakeholders. Steve Johnson explains that “an idea is a network,” in the most basic levels of an

idea come from inside your brain (Johnson, 2010). The idea is developed through “nodes” and

“elements of memory,” (Littlejohn & Foss, 2011, p. 152). Once the notes have connected and

processed internally, they are shared with the members of their team for a similar process to

occur. The team members share their own ideas, discuss the individual ideas, then work to find


commonalities to develop one, unified idea. A very well known example of the co-creative

culture and this process is at PIXAR Studios- the studio behind Toy Story, WALL-E, and The

Incredibles (Ind, Fuller, & Trevail, 2012).

However, collaboration and co-creation isn’t limited to internal stakeholders. The

collaboration process is open to anyone with a relation to the organization. Andrew Welch, of

WPP, contends that an organization should involved and invite customers with positive idea,

but also customers who have had negative ideas and nay-sayers of the organization, (Welch,

n.d.). In the context of higher education, this means inviting, and involving students (including

prospective, current, and engaging students who are leaving the institution prior to their

departure), alumni, faculty, staff, parents, and the local community. The multi-national coffee

company Starbucks embraced every category of stakeholder in the creation of

MyStarbucksIdea- an online platform that is, "enabling customers to contribute, discuss,

evaluate, debate and further improve their ideas about new services to be offered by

Starbucks,” (Sigala, 2012). The online platform utilizes social media and digital

communication to gather ideas and suggestions from customers. With each suggested idea,

there is a comment thread attached to it allowing customers to collaborate on that specific idea

or Starbucks staff to comment on the idea (i.e. stating the suggestion is already in the works).

However, the comment thread also allows for negative comments to be addressed organically

by customers and for staff to address concerns before they can be snowballed or exaggerated.

A concern that many organizations have with co-creation is the two-way communication and

the possibility of negative feedback. This sentiment is understandable, yet by fostering the


community and engaging stakeholders in the conversation, the likelihood negative feedback

being responded to and resolved organically becomes more likely.

Co-creation and collaboration are a critical components not only to branding, but also

in gaining compliance. The idea that an individual stakeholder can influence the entire

organization is empowering to the stakeholders. “ A person will comply in exchange for

something else supplied by the other person: if you do what I want, I will give you something

in return—esteem, approval, money, relief from obligations, and good feelings, among other

things,” explains Stephen Littlejohn, interpreting Gerald Marwell and David Schmitt’s

research and theory (Littlejohn & Foss, 2011, p. 155). Littlejohn does explain that compliance

gaining is power oriented (Littlejohn & Foss, 2011, p. 155). In higher education, there is a pre-

existing power orientation between all stakeholders and the final decision makers, be that the

institution’s administration or the governance board (e.x. the Board of Trustees or Board of

Regents). However, if the administration employs the ideas of co-creation, collaboration, and

ultimately compliance gaining it positively impacts the brand and branding efforts. How? The

above elements creates and fosters an environment that is open to conversation, to new ideas,

and constructive criticism.

Brand graphics: The look and feel

The most visible aspects of an institution come from the graphics the brand entails. The

graphics category includes many aspects of the brand beyond the obvious of graphic designs.

Collateral such as the look and feel of an institution’s website, social media, and publications.


Graphics is one of the most pivotal aspects of a brand because they are what the stakeholders

see first. The graphics of an institution are the visual markers of what the institution stands for.

By way of example, when an individual sees the Starbucks medallion; logo; or graphics, they

associate their personal experiences; quality of their products; and the messages that their

brand stands for. When an individual sees the Walt Disney Company logo or graphics, a

consumer likely associates Mickey Mouse, Disney World, the multitude of products and

creative services the company provides. The same thought process is true for higher education

institutions. When an individual sees the graphics of an institution, they might reflect on their

collegiate experience, the experience of their children, alumni (both personally known and

famous) might come to mind, or the programs offered; ultimately, the quality of the institution

is judged by the reflection of the brand and immediately, the graphics.

The graphics used in an institution’s branding falls directly in the idea of triad of

meaning from the Semiotic Tradition., the graphics-being the sign- are one third of the triad;

the the second third is the stakeholder-being the interpreter; and the final third of the triad is

the object is the institution. The sign is the logo. Meaning, when a stakeholder sees any brand

graphic including the logo; social media; or publication, immediately the stakeholder thinks of

what the institution means (Littlejohn & Foss, 2011, p. 45).

The Impact of Color

One of the most critical aspects of the branding of an institution is the color choice. So

important that Paul Sable and Okan Akcay assert that, “Many times it is the very first thing we


notice. Color shapes the way we think in an immediate and visceral way,” (Sable & Akcay,

2010). Colors resonate in our heads. There what stands out, there what we you remember

before we remember the design. To best convey the message an institution desires to send

branding requires an understanding of what colors mean to each culture. Institutions in any

given nation are no longer just competing with institutions in their geographic area. With the

Internet and social media, they are competing with the rest of the world. That is why it is

paramount to have the color palette for your brand be versatile to connect with viewers and

multiple nations, regions, and cultures. Each color has it’s own unique meaning in regions of

the world. The key to having a color palette that connects with many regions is by having

complimenting shades of colors so that an institution not only appears to be bright and vibrant,

but the institution’s message is received by various regions. By thinking of the color palette in

such a way the institution displays intercultural competence: “knowledge, mindfulness, and

skill,” (Littlejohn & Foss, 2011, p. 105).

The Power of a Logo

An institution’s logo and marks are some of the most important visual references an

institution has available to them. The authors of The Power of a Good Logo “found that the

logo of a brand can be an integrator of the marketing efforts of the brand, a reflector of such

effort and the icon of what the brand means to its customers,” (Park, Eisingerich, & Pol,

2014). The authors are explain that an institution’s logo is a direct reflection of the institution,

including “identification, differentiation and positive associations,” (Park, Eisingerich, & Pol,

2014). To further explain, the institution’s logo is how stakeholders identify and differentiate


the institution from the thousands of other institutions and make connections in their mind to

that institution.

The logo for an institution needs to be reflective of the community it represents. When

the Canadian legislature passed an act that changed the name of Ontario College of Art and

Design in Toronto to a university, the institution had to rebrand. The institution worked with

Bruce Mau Design company to create the new logo. Hunter Tura, Bruce Mau Design’s

president and CEO, explains that “students play such a pivotal role in the university so it was

important to incorporate them,” (Birchard, 2011). Birchard reports that Bruce Mau Designs

and Ontario College of Art and Design University developed a special partnership to create the

best logo for the institution it could. Bruce Mau Designs embedded a team inside Ontario

College of Art and Design University and engaged with the sets of stakeholders: the students,

the faculty, and the staff. Bruce Mau Designs solicited feedback and thoughts using social

media and even accepted several Ontario College of Art and Design University students as

interns (Birchard, 2011). The process the Bruce Mau Designs used was learning the domains

of the organizational culture within the institution. Bruce Mau Designs examined the

“ecological context: the physical world, including location, the time and history, and social

context,” (Littlejohn & Foss, 2011, p. 105). Through this understanding, Bruce Mau Designs

observed the architecture and the arts the students were passionate for. The firm also observed

the “differential interaction” and “collective understanding” by interacting with the students

and learning about how the social groups at the institution behave (Littlejohn & Foss, 2011, p.

105). And finally, Bruce Mau Designs observed the “individual domain” by engaging with the


students, faculty, and staff through conversations and focus groups. (Littlejohn & Foss, 2011,

p. 105). The result was a logo that was simplistic, straightforward, and represented the

institution. By using squares, Bruce Mau Designs captured the feel of the square-looking

buildings- seen in the ecological context. The firm captured the passions of the students by

having the squares be frames or canvases to show the students art inside the logo- discovered

through the “differential action” and “collective understanding.” And the character of the

individuals on the campus by having the logo be minimalistic and simplistic- likely learned

through the “individual domain” of the institution, (Littlejohn & Foss, 2011, p. 105).

Branding on Social Media

In this day in age, it’s nearly a requirement for every brand- inside higher education

and out- to be on some form of social media. However, it is not a requirement. But the

statistics of how many institutions utilize social media makes it appear to be one. Radian6, a

marketing company, found that “95% of college admission offices,” are “using some form of

social media,” (Radian6). Additionally, Cursive marketing found that “More than 90% of

colleges have a Facebook fan page,” but found that less than a quarter of prospective students

actually viewed them, (Cretella, 2013). But how can social media be used to engage

stakeholders and push an institution’s brand? Be interactive. Maintain strong communication

and “create meaningful connections with their audiences through simple, honest

storytelling,” (Cretella, 2013). But there are countless ways for an individual institution to

engage stakeholders on social media. Social media is a product of the the “second media age”

which is described as “(1) decentralized; (2) two-way; (3) beyond state control; (5) promoting


individual consciousness; and (6) individually oriented,” (Littlejohn & Foss, 2011, p. 340).

Social media is a product of connecting individuals with individuals. The idea of incorporating

brands (including institutions and companies), came after the creation of most networks. By

way of example, Facebook for the first three years of its existence, brands were not officially

recognized by the site. In 2007 the company introduced Brand Pages which is the foundation

of the social network’s business profiles (Weaver, 2012). Higher education has found unique

and creative ways to embrace social media. Some institutions have found success engaging all

demographics through photo uploading campaigns. Some institutions found success in the

“gamification” of fundraising and social media.

Like every aspect of communication, utilizing strategy is imperative to success. Temple

University of Philadelphia harnessed the power of social media through the “Temple Made”

campaign. The campaign was designed to crowdsource images on social media, connect

stakeholders, and is organized on a microsite (http://www.templemade.com). At the time the

Chronicle of Higher Education covered the “Temple Made” campaign, over 1,000 photos had

been posted to social media and many used in a promotional video that was “literally Temple

made,” (Peterkin, 2012). The “Temple Made” campaign brought awareness to key

stakeholders the institution was trying to engage: Temple was able to show the vibrant campus

community through the lens of current students, the experiences and successes via the lens of

alumni, and display it all for prospective students to see when they’re researching schools to

apply to.

http://www.templemade.com


Georgetown University took the competitive nature of people and school spirit and made a

social media game out of it. The Development Office created a microsite that challenged seven

different markets to donate to the institution. The University utilized social media to gather

attention, created custom graphics for each market (example a graphic that said ‘I’m a proud

Boston Hoya’), and used geo-posting to post in the market’s region. The result was $529,000

raised from 1,514 donors. Of the 1,514 donors, 898 were new donors for the fiscal year,

bringing Georgetown’s alumni giving rate from 28% to 35% (Stoner, Slover-Linett, & Ware,

2013).

A Campus United: Consistant Branding

Every institution is unique and is made up of a many different divisions, communities,

and groups. It is imperative for the institution to maintain a consistent brand across all

divisions, communities, and groups. One of the most important instances when brand

consistency is needed is between the institution and the athletic brand. It is very common in a

collegiate athletic brand to use the mascot as their logo or mark. But it is not always the case

for the institution’s brand and the athletics brand to share many similarities. The benefits of an

institution and intercollegiate athletics can pay dividends. University athletics have been

credited as being a powerful recruiting tool for universities (Toma & Cross, 1998). While

many look to the athletic records for the recruitment of players, the visual appeal of the

athletics brand is what drives fans in.


There is no one right answer on how to accurately integrate the athletics brand into the

institution’s, but there are examples of various institution’s effort that can prove to be

successful. The first example is the University of Connecticut, now officially known as

UCONN, is the land-grant university based in Storrs, Connecticut. The institution might be

best known for it’s athletic programs having attained the men’s and women’s basketball NCAA

championship multiple times in the past decade-including multiple years when the men and

women were national champions. The state institution has maintained a relationship with Nike

for uniforming the student-athletes and athletic merchandise. The move to rebrand the

institution from the University of Connecticut to UCONN came in April 2013. The first move

came in the University President Susan Herbst’s State of the University address where she

announced the move akin to other institutions including “UCLA or Penn or Georgia Tech or

Cal or MIT, nicknames all -- and proud ones,” (Fortuna, 2013). Then, two weeks later, the

Athletic Director announced and revealed the new logo.

A second avenue for an institution is by having the institution and athletics brands

separate, but have commonalities. This is a much more common example where we see

athletic brands using the same color schemes or having mascots that are related to the

institution’s name (e.g. The George Washington University Colonials). One example is Robert

Morris University in Pennsylvania. Robert Morris University engaged in a brand awareness

campaign in the past few years to expand it’s reach beyond the the southwestern Pennsylvania/

southeastern Ohio region. The institution’s new president tasked the Athletic Director, Dr.

Susan Hofacre, to lead the effort on brand awareness campaign and have athletics be at the


forefront of the effort, this is in part due to 15% of the student body participating in a varsity

sport so there would be a wide impact on the student body. The Athletic Director had a game

plan in her head: she weighed the pro’s and con’s of her options, including how the the teams

would feel if the campaigned focused on a couple of sports, the legal Title IX ramifications of

a flagship sport, and staff morale (Clark, Apostolopoulou, Branvold, & Synowka 2009). Kyle

Fisher, vice president for marketing and public relations, feels that the athletic division:

1) aid in creating awareness among of market segment that traditionally has

not considered RMU to be a viable alternative for higher education;

2) expand the reach in terms of awareness to the current market segment

from which RMU draws students; and,

3) create awareness to academically stronger students who may have been

aware of RMU, but never seriously considered attending the institution

because of the university’s perceived brand position (Clark,

Apostolopoulou, Branvold, & Synowka 2009).

Put simply, the athletic brand would help raise the university up in different aspects. But to

truly market the athletic brand, Dr. Susan Hofacre would have to select a ‘flagship’ sport or

sports. Meaning, these sports would be the subject of the branding as opposed to the entire

division. That conversation, Dr. Hofacre felt needed to be had by the administration.

Website: The institution’s digital hub

Institutional websites “are now the most prominent outward-facing recruitment tool for

most institutions,” asserts the Lawlor Group (Mayer, n.d.). But more startling is CASE- the


Council for Advancement and Support of Education- reports that “nearly 50 percent of

students say a bad institutional website experience would have a negative effect on their

perception of a school—and one in five students says a bad website would cause them to

remove a school from consideration,” (Russell, 2011). An institution’ websites is the primary

hub of information in the 21st century and institutions have been utilizing them since the

1990’s. Every institution’s website has it’s own look, feel, and organization to it. But has found

that there are specific features that visitors look for and go to first on a website. Hite and

Railsback of Emporia University reported on a study that found that 90% of community

college websites offered downloadable forms, 65% of them offered click-to-submit forms,

58% offered online registration and course searches, 47% had online applications, 37% had

virtual tours, and 21% had electronic versions of the catalog (Hite & Railsback, 2010). These

features might seem more technical, but to one of the key stakeholders- prospective students

and their parents, utilize institution websites to get a feel for the institution. The openness

provided by having the general forms and catalog online make great leaps toward showing the

openness. The virtual tours offered help show what the campus is from any location in the

world. But to put in perspective how an institution’s website is utilized, the study showed that

the most used hyperlinks were alumni, admissions, athletics, academics, and about the

university- in that order (Hite & Railsback, 2010). Just with any form of communication, it is

important to keep the information on an institution’s website current and easy to understand.

But how can an institution utilize it’s website to provide for better branding? Using the

website in conjunction with every other communication channel. One primary example is


through lead generation. Utilize information collected about prospective students and alumni

on the institution’s website and other websites to make the personal connection with the

prospect or alumni. Brendan Mayer, of the Lawlor Group, explains how lead generation

impacts a prospective student, but the same scenario and logic can be applied to alumni and

donors as well:

Because prospective students are inherently comfortable with technology and

will research colleges extensively on their own time, they don’t need or want

general facts or broad-swath messages when it comes to direct communication

with an institution. What today’s prospective student craves (along with her

parents) when facing so many choices, is not the reasons why any student

should attend a given institution, but the reasons that she should (Russell, 2011).

The website is the centerpiece to the institution’s digital branding. It is imperative the site be

receptive to the changes that the stakeholders desire through lead generation, but also making

the information easily accessible.

Conclusion

An institution is “not breakfast cereal, and we’re not a detergent. But we still need to

communicate what we do, why we do it, how we do it, and that we do it well. So branding

actually matters a great deal,” asserted UCONN President Herbst at the State of the University

Address in 2013 (Jones, 2013). Higher education is in a state of constant competition with

each other and it is imperative for a brand to be reflect the institution. The brand must tell a

story of the institution and what it stands for while simultaneously inviting in stakeholders.


However, thrust of any branding effort must come from co-creation and collaboration. Without

these efforts, the brand cannot and will not truly reflect the institution. Every institution has a

message to send. Every institution has a unique and interesting aspects to them. Harness the

brand that is being organically created and tell the world the story of the institution. But tell

the story accurately. Just like with social media, maintain strong communication and “create

meaningful connections with their audiences through simple, honest storytelling,” (Cretella,

2013). Engage the brand utilizing an international color palette on social media and in

publications while maintaining an engaging website. Utilize the data collected for lead

generation to to show prospective students why they should attend an institution and alumni

and donors why should consider making a gift to the institution (Russell, 2011). By engaging

in organized branding efforts, institutions will succeed.


References

American Marketing Association. (2014). Dictionary. Retrieved from https://www.ama.org/

resources/Pages/Dictionary.aspx?dLetter=B

Birchard, K. (2011, May 10). A versatile logo for a dynamic design school. Retrieved from http://

chronicle.com/blogs/arts/a-versatile-logo-for-a-dynamic-design-school/29356

Clark, J. S., Apostolopoulou, A., Branvold, S., & Synowka, D. (2009, March). Who Knows

Bobby Mo? Using Intercollegiate Athletics to Build a University Brand. Sport

Marketing Quarterly, 18(1), 57-63. Retrieved December 2, 2014, from ABI/INFORM

Complete; ProQuest Central; ProQuest Research Library.

Clark, J. S., Apostolopoulou, A., Branvold, S., & Synowka, D. (2009). Who knows bobby mo?

using intercollegiate athletics to build a university brand. Sport Marketing

Quarterly, 18(1), 57-63. Retrieved from http://search.proquest.com/docview/

227963442?accountid=27975

Cohen, H. (2011, August 8). 30 Branding Definitions - Heidi Cohen. Retrieved from http://

heidicohen.com/30-branding-definitions/

Cretella, E. (2013, July 9). 7 content marketing stats that should shake higher education- and 5

ways to act on them. Retrieved from http%3A%2F%2Fcursivecontent.com%2F7-

content-marketing-stats-that-should-shake-higher-education-and-5-ways-to-act-on-

them%2F

Feloni, R. (2014, June 05). Expert Explains What Makes The Best Brand Names So Good.

Retrieved November 5, 2014, from http://www.businessinsider.com/expert-on-best-

brand-names-2014-6


Fortuna, M. (2013, April 5). Connecticut re-branding as UConn. Retrieved from http://

espn.go.com/blog/bigeast/post/_/id/43385/connecticut-re-branding-as-uconn

Hite, N., & Railsback, B. (2010). Analysis of the content and characteristics of university

websites. Journal of Computer Information Systems, 51(1), 107-113.

Ind, N., Fuller, C., & Trevail, C. (2012). Brand together: How co-creation generates innovation

and re-energizes brands. London: Kogan Page.

Johnson, S. (2010). Where good ideas come from: The natural history of innovation. New York:

Riverhead Books.

Jones, S. D. (2013, April 4). UConn Announces New Visual Identity Program. Retrieved from

http://today.uconn.edu/blog/2013/04/uconn-announces-new-visual-identity-program/

Joseph, M., Mullen, E. W., & Spake, D. (2012). University branding: Understanding students’

choice of an educational institution. Journal of Brand Management, 20(1), 1-12. doi:

10.1057/bm.2012.13

Judson, K. M., & Taylor, S. A. (2014). Moving from Marketization to Marketing of Higher

Education: The Co-Creation of Value in Higher Education. Higher Education Studies,

4(1). doi: 10.5539/hes.v4n1p51

Latham & Company. (2010). COMPONENTS OF BRAND IDENTITY. Retrieved November,

from http://www.lathamandcompany.com/components_of_brand_identity.htm

Littlejohn, S. W., & Foss, K. A. (2011). Theories of human communication. Long Grove, IL:

Waveland Press.


Mayer, B. (n.d.). Tips and tools for a new era of lead generation. Retrieved from http://

www.thelawlorgroup.com/pov/review/v-xxiii-i-4/tips-and-tools-new-era-lead-

generation

Park, C., Eisingerich, A. B., & Pol, G. (2014). The power of a good logo. MIT Sloan

Management Review, 55(2), 10-12. Retrieved November 5, 2014.

Peterkin, C. (2012, October 4). Temple U creates a social media campaign and sees a surge in

school pride. Retrieved from http://chronicle.com/blogs/headcount/temple-u-creates-a-

social-media-campaign-and-sees-a-surge-in-school-pride/31992

Radian6. (n.d.). Social media strategy for higher education [Pamphlet]. Radian6.

Russell, P. (2011, August). Does your website need work? You might be off the list. Retrieved

from http://www.case.org/Publications_and_Products/August_2011/

Research_and_News_of_Note/

Does_Your_Website_Need_Work_You_Might_be_Off_the_List_Says_New_Report.ht

ml

Sable, P., & Akcay, O. (2010). Color: Cross cultural marketing perspective as to what governs

our response to it. Proceedings of ASBBS, 17(1), 950-954. Retrieved from http://

asbbs.org/files/2010/ASBBS2010v1/PDF/S/Sable.pdf

Sigala, M. (2012). Social networks and customer involvement in new service development

(NSD): The case of www.mystarbucksidea.com. International Journal of

Contemporary Hospitality Management, 24(7), 966-990. doi:

10.1108/09596111211258874


Stoner, M., Slover-Linett, C., & Ware, J. (2013). #SocialMedia, advancement, and fundraising in

education. Retrieved October 18, 2014, from https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/

12336117/CASE-Huron-mStoner-SM2013-White%20Paper.pdf

Toma, D., & Cross, M. (1998). Intercollegiate Athletics and Student College Choice: Exploring

the Impact of Championship Seasons on Undergraduate Applications. Research in

Higher Education, 39(6), 633-661. Retrieved from http://www.jstor.org/stable/

10.2307/40196314?ref=no-x-route:9e9cc9128bdc640c1bff2d28b933a5b0

Weaver, J. (2012, March 30). The Evolution of Facebook for Brands. Retrieved from http://

mashable.com/2012/03/30/facebook-for-brands/

Welch, A. (n.d.). Collaboration and co-creation for brand innovation. Retrieved from http://

www.wpp.com/wpp/marketing/branding/collaboration-and-cocreation-brand-

innovation/

http://www.wpp.com/wpp/marketing/branding/collaboration-and-cocreation-brand-innovation/

Documents

Branding Senior Seminar Paper