In “Beyond the Corporate Sphere” Roger Sametz discusses the unique challenges in college and university brand and identity development:
“Sametz goes on to describe several ways in which academic institutions differ from typical corporate structures: “For example, a professor is concerned with his or her students, publishing, tenure-and perhaps not as concerned with the success and finances of the department, school, or college or university as a whole.” Also, the existence of subject- or discipline-specific areas within an institution often contributes to the building of “silos” that don’t share information or communications with each other. What results, says Sametz, “is a lack of shared vision and a disparate array of fundraising, admissions, outreach, and media relations-with different looks and messages. The big-picture result is an undervalued, disjointed view from the outside, lower brand awareness, and less bang from every communication buck expended.” Sametz points to the “balkanized” Web sites of larger schools as compelling proof of this problem.
…”Why haven’t academic institutions embraced branding and design?” asks Roger Sametz of Sametz Blackstone Associates in this thoughtful essay. Universities and colleges tend to think of branding as appropriate for “soap, laptops, and cars,” says Sametz. Branding is thought to be a commercial construct, acknowledged in academia in terms only of selling football tickets and mugs at the bookstore. It’s “unseemly, unneeded”-maybe even “vulgar.” But when a potential student, parent, or funding source evaluates a school or department, what are they asking? Here’s a sample: What does this institution stand for? What are its values? What are the promises and expectations it evokes? How is it positioned vis-à-vis other institutions/schools/departments? What are its core capabilities, its energies? And-increasingly important-what is the value it will deliver to the prospective student or funder?
These considerations constitute “almost a textbook definition” of brand, says Sametz. As he points out, “Just as the corporate world has had to shift its focus from ‘what we have to sell’ to ‘what people want to buy,’ academia needs to look beyond the confines of the quad to understand what potential students and their families, corporate partners, alums, and funders are looking to ‘buy.’” And although the organizational structure, tenure system, compensation models, and budgeting in academia often promote internal competition, for the entire organization to be successful, it has to focus on being externally competitive. Increasingly, colleges and universities have to think like a business in order to stay in business.
