Comments on: Mad Men and Good Brands (continued)

By: keith nichols

keith nichols — Thu, 10 Jun 2010 12:39:51 +0000

Interesting piece in the chronicle on this subject. Here’s one of the more salient points:

Yet brands fit the reality of higher education less snugly than they seem to. Every Banana Republic in America will sell you the same merino sweater. Even closer parallels in the intellectual-property business have identifiable standards. A randomly selected album issued by Matador Records will almost surely feature fine indie rock. So too with Basic Books, with its roster of nonfiction books by distinguished authors, or the Met, with its renowned operas.

What you get from a college, by contrast, varies wildly from department to department, professor to professor, and course to course.

http://chronicle.com/article/The-Chimera-of-College-Brands/65764/

By: David Hunt

David Hunt — Thu, 10 Jun 2010 11:33:58 +0000

Strictly speaking, a brand is a name, symbol, design or combination of those that identifies a product or company and differentiates it from the competition (I knew there was a reason I took that marketing class!).

In the context of this conversation, I think we’re focusing on the ways we can market our university to a particular audience or audiences by associating the brand with key messages and ultimately emotions.

“We all go to NC State” is certainly one way to build the brand. It promotes a sense of ownership and family and ties the work of the university to larger issues like solving problems and safeguarding the future for the next generation.

That said, I never had the negative reaction to “Red Means Go” that some people did. I think the message that we’re action oriented and driven to get things done made sense and was accurate (which is never a bad thing in marketing). I’m not sure “edgy” plays well inside the organization so I suppose we’ll dial it back to something a bit more traditional in the next campaign.

Let’s just try not to look and sound like every other university because, in my opinion, we’re not.

By: Bob Brock

Bob Brock — Tue, 08 Jun 2010 17:45:36 +0000

I like Q’s approach to this issue! But Gene also has a great and very important point! We find dozens of different interpretations of “branding” in our work. It often leads to wildly different expectations – as shown in the Armini’s article that began the conversation. So we try to be very careful in discussing branding and marketing issues.

By: Q

Tue, 08 Jun 2010 04:02:17 +0000

Oh, c’mon, let’s not overthink it.
As in love….
Advertising is the effort you put forth so that one is attracted to you.
Branding is your commitment to that effort which makes one want to stay with you.

By: Gene Pinder

Gene Pinder — Fri, 04 Jun 2010 14:50:54 +0000

People talk about brand as if there is a common definition that marketers and communications professionals agree on. Is brand a “promise”? Or is it the product or product name? Is it a symbol like a logo? Is it all of these combined? The AMA uses one definition (and it’s not “promise”); marketing professors (Aakers) use another. Ad (men) and women often define it on their own terms, often with no basis in reality. The result? It has so many interpretations and meanings it has no meaning. It’s like a ship in the Pirates of the Caribbean. It’s a vessel without walls. Perhaps that’s why it’s so hard to find. Nobody knows what they’re looking for.

By: Bob Brock

Bob Brock — Fri, 04 Jun 2010 14:38:58 +0000

Hey Joe, you are so concise! I love that.

And many thanks for your kind comments. To return the favor, this blog is always one of my “must reads”. As Andy Careaga sometimes tabs me…I tend to be a “lurker.”

Also, have a look at Jim Ebel’s comment on this post…most interesting take on HE, coming from the “real world”!