I watched Morgan Spurlock’s (of Supersize Me fame) movie, The Greatest Movie Ever Sold. In this movie, Morgan Spurlock reveals the relationship between Hollywood and marketing. The entire movie shows him going to companies asking for their money in return for product placement in his movie. It’s an interesting story about how much marketing is happening while you’re watching a tv show or sitting in a movie theater.
At one point in the movie, Spurlock decides he needs to understand his own brand, what he represents. The point of this is so he can find companies that fit with his brand. He spends a lot of wasted time cold calling companies who tell him that he doesn’t “fit” or that he doesn’t represent his brand. He visits a consultation company who helps him discover his brand. The company, OZA, tells him the Morgan Spurlock brand is:
Playful/Mindful
They give him examples of companies that fit his brand.
Apple
Target
Wii
Mini
Jetblue
This TED video features Morgan Spurlock talking about his experience. I think the whole video is interesting, but if you want to just look at the branding part, start at 11 minutes.
A side note, Spurlock plays with his idea further by selling the naming rights to his TED talk. Playful?
So, how does this connect to higher education? This occurred to me as I was watching the movie.
What is the higher education brand?
How about a more specific question…..
What is your university’s brand?
Or,
what is your graduate program’s brand?
Spurlock says your brand must be authentic and transparent. It should represent who you are.
People perceive your brand. Students, parents, and the community perceive the brand of your university. It doesn’t matter if the university is explicit about their brand or not.
Spurlock talks about the importance of knowing your personal brand, not so you can change who you are, but so you can find a better fit for yourself. How can that be applied to higher ed? My thoughts are that if universities can uniquely brand themselves, they can start appealing to students that fit their brand more specifically.
My experience, even at the graduate level, is that universities and/or programs lack a sense of a brand. I don’t really know what the UNC brand or my program’s brand is. I hear people talk about how they feel about the programs or how they felt when they first walked on campus. Why aren’t we talking about that to potential students?
I’m not saying every university needs to be fun and playful like Apple or Wii. I see the results of university branding efforts and I’m not energized. They usually end up including billboards of perfectly balanced groups of diverse students laughing as they walk across campus or having ‘aha’ moments in a classroom. Usually, all they say to me are “we are a big university and lots of people go here.” Is that the brand we’re trying to communicate?
This conversation is timely, especially considering the University of Colorado system just spent more than $780,000 on a branding effort that took two years and resulted in the loss of individual identity for many programs and departments. We are now mandated to use certain colors (gold, light silver, dark silver, and black) although the University of Colorado at Colorado Springs somehow got to maintain permission to use a blue that isn’t anywhere in the official color scheme of CU. All logos had to be removed from websites and promotional items, except of course that the intercollegiate athletics department gets to keep the Buffalo with the interlocking CU inside.
ReplyDeleteLest people think that the University of Colorado is alone in this expensive re-branding effort, remember that the University of Northern Colorado also just finished a re-branding effort. The result: a blue box. The price tag is not as well publicized as CU’s was, however I am guessing that it was not inexpensive. So, my fellow Bears, do you feel more connected now that you are “Bringing Education to Life”?
An interesting article I recently read on my path through research talked about a couple of students whom had sold themselves to corporate sponsors to finance their education. In return for the money to go to school the two students became, essentially, walking billboards for their sponsors - just like NASCAR only in higher ed. The author, Henry Giroux, remarked on the potential for individual crisis of self to emerge from this practice. Personally I found this a novel and intriguing approach to finding the money for school. Are such means justified in their ends? These are questions - very challenging to our assumptions in Higher Ed which we will have to face as we seek to diversify our revenues to ensure quality and access. Do we build bridges to the corporate sector at the risk of compromising the democratic underpinnings of education?
ReplyDeleteDavid Dorr
GIROUX, H "Neo-liberalism, corporate culture and the promise of higher education: the university as a democratic public sphere," Harvard Educational Review, Vol. 72, No. 4, 2002
Robyn,
ReplyDeleteI have been reading about the branding issues at CU and find that absurd to spend that much money on changing logos while higher education is receiving negative media for the increases of costs of tuition, in a troubled economy. I have tried for many years to go to different companies and essentially ask them to sponsor my teaching. I would present a lecture based on Starbucks. Personally I think it is a brilliant idea, but apparently it is not allowed. In some regards, Visa has always been walking billboards on campuses. Every time a person filled out another credit card flier on campus, they handed you a CLEAN t-shirt...with VISA written on the back of the shirt. I am not opposed to it. If it gives people a break on tuition costs, or gives a student an opportunity to receive a degree, go for it! Become a walking nascar driver or PGA golfer!
"Supersize Me" was quite an intense movie for me! I wouldn't consider myself a fast-food junkie, but it definitely culture shocked me into what our country defines as normal, efficient, and satisfying.
ReplyDeleteI haven't seen the second movie you mentioned above, and unfortunately the link to the video disappeared (or at least I can't access it on my computer), but appreciate your comments about the "brands" implied by universities. I agree, our slogans and billboards don't really tell me anyting about UNC...or any school's billboards that I can recall for that matter.
What I struggle with when it comes to "brands" is this: What happens if I enjoy my program, my university, and my instructors, but my personal brand may not fit with the culture of the faculty or my student peers? For example, what if a student's research interests are out of the "norm" or don't necessarily "fit" with faculty members on staff or with other student perspectives? Does branding leave room for innovation and individuality? I can see incidents of this becoming problematic in a campus environment, and dismissed as "Well, it's just not a good fit." Why not? Aren't alternative opinions that challenge the status quo part of the very definition of diversity? Shouldn't all of this be just as embraced as conformity and those that fit the brand identically?
Branding or marketing with a purpose is absolutely necessary in business. Who doesn’t know the company with the “just do it” tagline or swoosh? Institutions have tried to distance their school from others with the word “the.” For example, “The OSU.” I guess this can either make you stand out from Oregon State University or Oklahoma State University or just be so insanely stupid and cause a commotion in order to get all business cards and letter head hot off the press to now not just be an OSU, but “the” OSU……(ok Ohio State University). Well it did work however truly crazy it seemed at the time! Places of higher education are in some ways a business and should gear branding towards their target audience. The caution here is to not be so specific in branding that the institution limits who they are trying to bring to campus. This is a very fine balance for marketing.
ReplyDelete