Download advertising slogans and university marketing: an

ADVERTISING SLOGANS AND UNIVERSITY
MARKETING: AN EXPLORATORY STUDY OF
BRAND-FIT AND COGNITION
IN HIGHER EDUCATION
Oscar McKnight, Ashland University
Ronald Paugh, Ashland University
ABSTRACT
It is not uncommon for universities to develop and market their advertising slogan. This
study examines institutional advertising slogans, and empirically tests the cognitive
component of brand-fit. Findings are indicative of a relationship between cognition and
university advertising slogans. Implications for university communications and marketing
strategies are discussed.
INTRODUCTION
Whether you identify students as consumers in a buyers' market (Wyckoff 1998) or
evaluate the effects of general advertising slogans (Mathur and Mathur 1995), the goal in
higher education when creating an advertising slogan is to be attractive, reflective, and
distinctive. This strategy is not unlike that used in business. Research suggests that the
transferring of marketing concepts in business to the marketing of universities is both
common and practical (Sherr and Lozier 1991; Kotler and Fox 1985). Therefore, the
primary goal of universities in developing advertising slogans is matching an institution's
philosophy and culture with the potential student-customer.
HISTORY
It is not uncommon for universities to develop and market their "brand." After all, some
consider image to be everything. Sevier (1994) stated that in today's economy an
institution's reputation is more important than ever before. Sevier further asserts that
every mention of your college or university is an investment in its future. Consequently,
advertising slogans take on a more important role. Advertising slogans can appear on
products (Suggs 1998), drive an advertising and marketing campaign (Marketing News
1997), or facilitate a change in identity (DeMarco 1997). Professional newsletters even
list tips on developing a successful university marketing campaign using prioritized
messages and slogans that work (Applications 1997). Hence, if a university decides to
employ a slogan or tag-line, it is implicitly assumed that the institution knows a great deal
about its student-customer.
DEVELOPMENT OF RESEARCH
Speer (1995) stated that when you judge the mind set of a customer (i.e., student)
correctly, the result can be a perfect match. Speer further reflected that one should pay
attention to the customer cues and market services or goods accordingly. This
conceptually is brand-fit. However, Dube et al. (1996) cautioned that there is little
support for the expected match between advertising (i.e., University slogan) and customer
(i.e., Student) attitude base. Furthermore, McDonald (1997) pointed out that although
short-term benefits may occur as a result of' marketing an advertising campaign (i.e.,
University slogan), factors are peculiar to each brand. For that reason, a hastily conceived
marketing strategy derived from an untested university slogan or tag-line may not be the
best long-term decision.
Many researchers have noted the turbulent internal changes taking place within the
university environment (Evans et al. 1998, Seymour and Associates 1996; Hammer and
Champy 1993; Webster 1992; and Handy 1990) over the last several years. Compare this
to 30 years ago when universities were arguably the most pampered institutions on earth
(The Economist 1993). Add to this the advent of university marketing strategies aimed at
increasing enrollments (Speer 1996) while acknowledging the decline of college-age
students (Wyckoff 1998). By and large, the emergence of a university slogan or tag-line
is the by-product of a marketing strategy designed to improve or maintain brand-fit.
However, research examining advertising slogans and tag-lines generally focuses on
advertising recall (Mathur & Mathur 1995) without specifically focusing on brand-fit.
PURPOSE
The purpose of this research is twofold. First, to qualitatively examine institutional
slogans and tag-lines used in higher education; and second, to empirically test the
cognitive component of brand-fit. A tag-line operationally defined for this research is
conceptually equivalent to a slogan, motto statement, saying, credo, catch-phrase, axiom,
or operating philosophy that is in use within and beyond the university's walls. An
implicit research assumption was that the ACT score, as provided by The American
College Testing Program (1997), reflects the cognitive ability of students in terms of
potential college achievement. This is not a unique premise, for institutions of higher
learning both admit and distribute financial aid according to a student's demonstrated
ability to benefit and achieve in college (Callaway 1997).
METHODOLOGY
In Part 1, a selected population (N = 1000) of colleges and universities was placed in a
pool and sorted according to ACT "selectivity range." Selectivity range was operationally
defined in three levels: highly competitive, competitive, and less competitive. Later, a
sample of three hundred (n = 300) colleges and universities was randomly selected and
interviewed by electronic mail from each selectivity range. The initial communication
read:
"An investigation is underway examining university tag-lines, slogans, motto statements,
sayings, credos, catch-phrases, axioms, and operating philosophies."
A brief introduction, background, and example were offered for clarification. The
questionnaire was open-ended, requesting both their slogan or tag-line and comments.
For triangulation purposes, multiple sources were randomly contacted within each
university (i.e., admissions, alumni and faculty). One general hypothesis (GH) was
investigated.
GH1: There will be a varying degree of advertising slogan or tag-line usage across
university systems.
In Part 2, responses from Part 1 were categorized using a traditional qualitative approach
involving conceptual clustering. Once a professional theme emerged, one hypothesis was
examined. The population involved one hundred five (n = 105) potential studentcustomers attending a college career workshop. Participants were administered the
following survey question after a brief introduction and tag-line definition:
"What influences you more in making your choice to attend a university-is it the tag-line,
or university
name?"
The questionnaire had a section for comments. No identification, other than the studentcustomer's ACT score was requested. Testing of the second general hypothesis (GH2)
ensued.
GH2: Can a student's cognitive level, as measured by the predictor variable ACT
score,discriminate between a preference for a slogan or institutional name with respect to
college selection?
FINDINGS
Part 1 of this study addressed representatives from admissions, alumni, and faculty and
their qualitative perceptions of university slogans. Overall, one hundred and eighty (n =
180) university systems participated. Participation was documented if an official response
(i.e., electronic mail) occurred. The sample size was representative with a 95%
confidence level (see Newman, 1976). Clustered findings of administrative and faculty
responses are in Table 1; emerging professional themes are in Table 2.
Part 2 of this research focused on the student customer perception of advertising slogans.
Specifically, the second general hypothesis (GH2) under investigation tested if a student's
cognitive level, as measured by the predictor variable ACT score, could account for a
significant amount of variance when discriminating between a student-customer
preference for a slogan or institutional name over and above chance. Significance was
found in GH2 (see Table 3).
Table 1
Administrators', Staff and Faculty Comments Concerning Their University Slogan
Comment
Number of Responses Percentage
Embarrassed
93
52%
Reflective
72
40%
Never Use
36
20%
Use School Name
27
15%
Don't Have
23
12%
In Process of Changing
22
12%
In Process of Developing
20
11%
Use Something Else
17
09%
Effective
07
03%
Use School Mascot
04
02%
Note. The number of responses and percentages incorporate "double counting." For
example, a university may not have a slogan but is in the process of developing one;
therefore, a double response would be recorded. The number of responses and
percentages were based on 180 participating universities.
Table 2 Emerging Professional Themes
University Comment Cluster
Cluster 1
Selectivity Range
Highly Competitive
Don't Have; Never Use;or
only use school name
28-33
ACT Score
Cluster 2
Competitive
Embarrased; Changing;
Developing and Reflective
22-27
ACT Score
Cluster 3
Effective and Reflective
Criterion Group
No Slogan
Distinctive
Slogan Used
Reflective
Less Competitive
13-21
ACT Score
Slogan Used
Attractive
Note. ACT Range reflects university selectivity at 85% confidence level
Table 3
GH2: Summary Table
Ho: Can a student's cognitive level, as measured by the predictor variable ACT score,
discriminate between a preference for a slogan or institutional name with respect to
college selection?
Hypothesis R Square
GH2
.14
DF
Alpha
F
p
Significance
1/103
.05
17.7
.0001
S
Note: Predictive regression equation discriminating between a student-customer
preference for the University Name (code = 1) or Slogan (code = 0) is: Criterion = -.67 +
(.05) *(ACT Score).
Table 4
Value Discipline and University Characteristics
University
Product Leader
Customer Intimacy
Highly Competitive
Less Competitive
Processes That...
Demand research
Stress teaching
Emphasis Is On...
Academics
Social Acclimation
Prominence of...
Professional development
Career Opportunity
Renowned For...
Academic reputation
Enjoyable Experience
Importance of...
Library Resources
Financial Aid
No reliance on slogan
Reliance on slogan
Defined As...
Bottom Line...
Note. Table information was categorized according to known university profiles or when
sorting professional comments.
DISCUSSION
When examining the qualitative findings of university professionals, four findings
emerged beyond the conceptual development in hypothesis testing. First, there is a
natural break which occurs with respect to advertising slogan usage. For practical
purposes, universities that are "highly-competitive" (i. e., average ACT score above 28)
have minimal use or do not use a slogan. Instead, the preference for highly competitive
universities appears to be the institutional name. Second, many professionals at
"competitive" universities appear to be embarrassed by either the use of, or content
expressed within the slogan. For example, electronic messages would begin with an
apologetic statement or openly assert that they were sorry to report, but X, Y, or Z .... is
our slogan. Several professionals even reported that, "yes, we do use a slogan, but we
write it in Latin." Third, although some university representatives were embarrassed by
slogans, others were actively hiring marketing firms or consultants to develop and
implement a marketing campaign. A genuine desire to "get the message out" was
expressed. Fourth, "less competitive" universities viewed their advertising slogan as both
effective and reflective. Ironically, no professional comment in the less competitive
university was classified as "embarrassed." Less competitive universities appeared to
know both their student-customer and self to a greater extent than universities classified
as competitive or highly competitive.
In hypothesis testing, this study found that there was a cognitive component in slogans
for student-customers. When applying a statistically derived formula, the regression
equation predicts that student-customers with an ACT score of 24 or above have a
preference for the university name, over and above the slogan. Conversely, studentcustomers below the 24 ACT score breakpoint have a preference for the advertising
slogan, over and above the university name. Hence, becoming that "best qualified nurse
in the country" or "come to a place where we meet your needs first," has more relative
impact than the "University of X, Y, Z."
IMPLICATIONS
Although one could argue that the overlap between the advertising slogan and the
university name is considerable, one cannot dispute that there may be a considerable
difference in developing a strategic marketing plan. Brand-fit remains brandfit, and
knowing your student-customer in terms of product attraction is paramount. Therefore, it
makes practical and marketing sense to stress brand-fit 'in terms of cognition. After all,
college and learning should be synonymous, therefore, advertising slogan development
should include or recognize the cognitive relationship. Likewise, if a university plans to
adjust its admission standards to reflect a new vision, then modify or eliminate the
advertising slogan accordingly.
Universities may consider a merging of Porter's (1996) concepts of positioning, tradeoffs, and fit with Treacy and Wiersema's (1995) concepts of product leadership and
customer intimacy value disciplines. Simply stated, a university must select one value
discipline and then shape every subsequent plan and decision accordingly, coloring the
entire organization, from its competencies to its culture. Table 4 illustrates a strategy that
can derive from the choice of a specific value discipline.
PROBLEMS
There are two problems that should be recognized in this study. First, many professionals,
when contacted by electronic mail, expressed a lack of awareness of an official university
slogan. This finding in and of itself is reflective of the need for internal marketing. Some
professionals stated that they believe some departments may have a slogan, but they
really did not feel that the institution promoted one. Second, when surveying the group of
potential student-customers, most of the questionnaires were filled out in small collective
groups. Therefore, the presence or existence of group pressure may have influenced the
recorded responses. However, this circumstance may as easily reflect the impact of peer
influence on college choice.
CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS
This study both qualitatively demonstrated and statistically acknowledged the
relationship between cognition and university advertising slogans. For that reason, a
university decision to employ or not to employ a slogan could be justified if brand-fit and
cognition are merged. Future research may consider the internal marketing or
organizational structures that would need to be put in place if a slogan were to be
developed and fully marketed. A factor analytic solution could compartmentalize studentcustomer needs and preferences in terms of brand-fit. The key features and outcomes of
this market research would be to establish some active guidelines for advertising slogan
development and the overall, evolutionary marketing strategy for the institution.
REFERENCES
Applications (1997). "11 Steps To A Successful Marketing Campaign,"
(Spring/Summer), pp. 1-2.
Callaway, Sean (1997). "Home Education, College Admission and Financial Aid," The
Journal of College Admission (Spring), pp. 6 - 13.
De Marco, Donna (1997). "Taking a class in image," Baltimore Business Journal, (July
4), pp, 1-3.
Dube, Laurette; Chattopadhyay Amitava; and Letarte Anick (1996). "Should Advertising
Appeals Match the Basis of Consumers' Attitudes?," Journal of Advertising Research,
(November/December), pp. 82-89.
Evans, Nancy J, Deanna Forney, and Florence Guido-DiBrito (1998). Student
Development in College: Theory, Research and Practice, Jossey-Bass Publishers, San
Francisco.
Hammer,M.and Champy,J. (1993). Reengineering the Corporation: A Manifesto for
Business Revolution, Harper Business, New York, NY.
Handy, C. (1990). The Age of Unreason, Harvard Business School Press, Boston, MA.
Kotler, Philip and Karen F.A. Fox (1985). Strategic Marketing for Educational
Organizations, Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice-Hall.
Marketing News (1997). "University launches image campaign," (March 3), p. 36.
Mathur, Lynett Knowles and Ike Mathur (1995). "The Effect of Advertising Slogan
Changes on the Market Values of Firms," Journal of Advertising Research,
(January/February), pp. 59 - 65.
McDonald, Colin (1997). "From "frequency" to continuity": Is it a new dawn?" Journal
of Advertising Research, (July/August), pp. 21-25.
Newman, Isadore (1976). Basic Procedures In Conducting Survey Research, The
University of Akron: Akron, Ohio.
Porter, Michael E. (1996). "What Is Strategy?" Harvard Business Review, (NovemberDecember), pp. 61-78.
Sevier, Robert, A. (1994). "Image is everything -Strategies for Measuring, Changing,
and Maintaining Your Institution's Image," College and University, (Winter), pp. 60-75.
Seymour, Daniel and Associates (1996). High Performing Colleges: Theory and
Concepts, Prescott Publishing Company, Maryville, Missouri.
Sherr, L., and G. Lozier (1991). "Total Quality Management in Education", In Total
Quality Management In Higher Education, edited by L.A. Sherr and D.J. Teeter. New
Directions for Institutional Research, No. 71. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Speer, Tibbett. L. (1995). "How to be a friend to your customers," American
Demographics, (March), pp. 14- 15.
_______(1996). "A nation of students," American Demographics, (August), pp. 3235+.
Suggs, Welch (1998). "Colleges gain popularity in sports gear market" Jacksonville
Business Journal, (May 29), pp. 7.
The American College Testing Program (1997). The High School Profile Report;
Normative Data. Iowa City, Iowa.
The Economist (1993). "Universities: Towers of Babble," (Vol.329), pp. 72-74.
Treacy, Michael and Fred Wiersema (1995). "How Market Leaders Keep Their Edge,"
Fortune, (February 6), pp. 88+.
Webster, F. (1992). "The Changing Role of Marketing in the Corporation," Journal of
Marketing, 56, (4), pp. 1-17.
Wyckoff, S.C. (1998). "Students as Consumers in a Buyers' Market: Implications for
Higher Education, Recruitment And Retention In Higher Education, (Vol. 12), pp. 1-10.