Talks about university education have taken an astronomical magnitude as if universities were a new phenomenon. Talks about university education have taken such an astronomical magnitude because of the extent to which privatisation and marketisation have usurped the public good of education.
Privatisation and marketisation of university education continue to explore conventional ways by which universities generate revenue; hence, the conversion from logo to brand has become raison d’être of the new university. A university logo no longer carries the essence it used to. A university logo is now perceived as a badge rather than a unique selling point.
Privatisation and marketisation of university education have given rise to the application of marketing terminologies to an institution, which otherwise is seen as conservative and reflective on the use of business terminologies that make university education as if everything about it were for sale.
Comparing Oxford University (1249) to Harvard University (1636), Oxford was in existence long before Harvard was established but the level of privatisation and marketisation of Harvard far outweighs that of Oxford. Perhaps, the difference between the two universities can be likened to welfarism and capitalism in the host countries.
During the tercentenary anniversary celebration of Harvard, it was reflected how, at the inception of the university, the question was asked succinctly whether or not private universities can make good progress and raise the needed funds as compared to public universities which are supported financially by the state. The answer is the progress of Harvard and how it has been run as a multinational corporate organisation with a growing endowment fund far more than any university in the world.
The new university understands that a logo is just a symbol while a brand evokes a mental and emotional apogee of the audience. Therefore, the logo represents what is seen while the brand possesses the emotions and captivates the mind.
Be it a logo or a brand, they are both marketing tools but the latter does a good job than the former. Whereas a logo is simply created, a brand does not just originate into existence. This requires a conscientious tendering, nurturing and repetitively working on the brand for growth actualisation.
By cogent reasoning and critical analysis of a brand’s persuasion, its adherents accept the brand’s emergence by adapting, learning and changing their perception to mean that a brand is flexible, contrary to a logo that is rigid and static. The new university has a catch-on with the concept of branding and is making much gain against the orthodox way of a university’s logo that derives its importance by its mere presence.
A logo is said to be a unique identification of an organisation, same as they are for universities. It is a small image used for a variety of purposes, including printing on company materials and promotions. They may either contain the acronyms of the organisation or not. A more recent concept of logo is the name logo. Name logo is when the university crafts its own name and colours as a logo. They are a creative work from the vision of the university. Hence, a logo of a university is supposed to depict the vision of the university.
The argument is what if the university uses a name logo? What message will a name logo convey of the university? This and many other reasons make a logo not as emotional as building the brand. A logo is a microcosm of the gamut activities required in building a university brand. While a logo is tangible, a brand is intangible.
The knowledge of building a brand instead of relying on a logo was caught years ago by the leading universities in America, where privatisation of university education emanated from. Though Britain is pushing hard on privatisation and marketisation of university education, they have not achieved the level of success chalked by the Ivy League universities.
It is evident that the Ivy League universities have been practising branding long before the universities in Britain started. Having a lion, dove, snake, eagle and the like are only symbols which will make the university flourish.
However, it must be stated clearly that the long existence and relevance of Oxford can be attributed to its branding though they may not be as financially endowed as Harvard. Both leading universities have accepted branding as a potent marketing management tool that continues to propel the viability of their universities.
The conversion from logo to brand comes with episcopal determinants, such as:
- The future
In building a brand, the university is assured of a brighter future. This is determined by the university’s ways of doing things. The brand encapsulates the mission statement of the university, which is followed meticulously. The creation of a logo is usually derived from the mission statement. The logo, which is derived from the branding, cannot supersede the branding itself.
Consider a university that has an eagle as its logo and relies so much on marketing the logo that the management of the university thinks its enrolment will increase because the eagle is a unique bird and therefore, it will communicate what the university stands for.
This is a complete misconception of branding because if the university does not have its branding working right, a mere logo may have no direct impact on the university. Branding promises the future of the university, a logo does not. The university’s ways of doing things determines whether or not it will survive and be relevant.
- Performance
Service delivery is a necessary concomitant to building a strong brand. Universities promise students a great experience, but how many of the universities deliver on their promise? As the saying goes “you can talk the talk, but can you walk the walk?”
Many universities, in their effort to enrol students, promise many things which they do not fulfil. They know right from the onset that the promise they are making will not be fulfilled, yet they go ahead and promise. Their understanding is that if students enrol, they will not withdraw their enrolment because of an unfulfilled promise by the management of the university.
Students assess the failed promise and therefore, loose interest in the university. Upon completion, they never want to have continuous relationship with their alma mater because they were not given value for money while they were students. Their experience of the poor performance of the management of the university is factual, provable, measurable and concrete.
The poor performance of the management of the university will affect the brand since their rating by students’ satisfaction will be low. Students experience is measured by management’s failure by not doing what they say they will do. Students’ satisfaction is key to building a strong university brand.
- Reflection
In the reflection of students, what do they see about the university? Another measurable quality of a good brand is the memory that it evokes. A good reflection of the brand will reinforce the memory of the logo, which then makes the logo meaningful. The memory is a powerful platform of a brand’s acuity. If the memory of the brand is poor it will definitely have a negative impact on students and alumni.
Students and alumni are ambassadors of the university. Their memory of the university will determine how committed they will be to the brand.
3 ways by which a university can improve its brand
Like Oxford and Harvard, with hundreds of years of brand excellence, universities in Ghana can improve their brand by following the 3 steps as follows:
- Reliability in service
The quality of university services must be reliable and consistent. Happenstance should not be entertained. Service delivery, which includes teaching and non-teaching activities should be properly planned and executed. Employing the right staff with better compensation package for the university is a necessary ingredient for reliability in service.
- Continuous effective communication
Continuous effective communication is a right step to improving a university’s brand. No matter the style of communication that the university will adopt, it must be one that is focused on enhancing the university’s brand. University communication is a complex web that requires a step-by-step approach to be meaningful to both sender and recipient.
- Exceed expectation
In building a university’s brand, the management must promise less and exceed the expectation. Management must ensure that teaching and non-teaching staff are compensated well enough. A satisfied staff will result in a satisfied student. Students as well as staff have expectation from the university’s management. These expectations must be effectively managed so as not to lead to discouragement.
Conclusion
Time and again universities in Ghana have been called upon to follow best practices that come with privatisation and marketisation. A flashy logo of a university does not mean anything if it is not linked with a high level of branding. Like the corporate bodies, universities are to be branded well to inspire confidence and satisfaction of all and sundry.
