Exploring Brand Identity, Meaning, Image, and Reputation (BIMIR) in Higher Education PDF

Preview

Summary

Due to the increasingly competitive landscape in the international higher education marketplace, colleges and universities have much to gain from the benefits of successful branding. In the commercial realm, the knowledge base on branding topics is extensive; in the realm of non-profit higher educat...

Description

See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/292210981

Exploring brand identity, meaning, image, and reputation (BIMIR) in higher education: A special section ArticleinJournal of Business Research · January 2016 DOI: 10.1016/j.jbusres.2016.01.016

CITATIONS

READS

83

7,089

4 authors, including: Jane Hemsley-Brown

Bang Nguyen

University of Surrey

emlyon business school

71 PUBLICATIONS3,292 CITATIONS

154 PUBLICATIONS3,214 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE

Elizabeth J. Wilson Suffolk University 58 PUBLICATIONS2,676 CITATIONS SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Fairness Research - Conceptual View project

Consumer Vulnerability View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Jane Hemsley-Brown on 05 October 2018.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

SEE PROFILE

Hemsley-Brown, J., Melewar, T.C. and Nguyen, B. ( 2016), Exploring Brand Identity, Meaning, Image, and Reputation (BIMIR) in Higher Education: A Special Section , Journal of Business Research, 69(8), 3019-3022.

Exploring Brand Identity, Meaning, Image, and Reputation (BIMIR) in Higher Education: A Special Section

Jane Hemsley-Brown, University of Surrey TC Melewar, Middlesex University London Bang Nguyen, East China University of Science and Technology Elizabeth J Wilson, Suffolk University

Submission: November 2015 Revision: December 2015 Acceptance: January 2016

Surrey Business School, University of Surrey, Guildford, Surrey, UK, [email protected]; The Business School, Middlesex University, London, UK, [email protected]; East China University of Science and Technology, School of Business, 130 Meilong Road, Xuhui District, Shanghai, 200237, P.R. China, [email protected]; Suffolk University, 8 Ashburton Place, Boston, Massachusetts, 02108, USA, [email protected].

Abstract Due to the increasingly competitive landscape in the international higher education marketplace, colleges and universities have much to gain from the benefits of successful branding. In the commercial realm, the knowledge base on branding topics is extensive; in the realm of non-profit higher education institutions, however, more research is needed. As higher education institutions strive to develop distinctive identities, deeper understanding

2 Hemsley-Brown, J., Melewar, T.C. and Nguyen, B. (2016) , Exploring Brand Identity, Meaning, Image, and Reputation (BIMIR) in Higher Education: A Special Section, Journal of Business Research, 69(8), 3019-3022.

about topics such as brand identity, meaning, image, and reputation will enable brand owners to communicate more effectively with stakeholders including faculty, students, alumni, employers, and others. The articles in this special issue offer scholarly contributions of new frameworks and perspectives to strengthen brand architecture of higher education institutions in the international marketplace. Practitioner readers may gain new insight on branding topics and methods to study branding. A range of qualitative (e.g., case study, fuzzy set analysis, metaphor analysis) and quantitative methods (e.g., cross-sectional surveys with data subjected to regression or structural equation modelling) utilizing primary and secondary data are employed by the contributions herein.

Keywords: brand identity, brand meaning, brand image, brand reputation, higher education

3 Hemsley-Brown, J., Melewar, T.C. and Nguyen, B. (2016) , Exploring Brand Identity, Meaning, Image, and Reputation (BIMIR) in Higher Education: A Special Section, Journal of Business Research, 69(8), 3019-3022.

Introduction Universities today are increasingly competing for international students and top academics in response to trends in global student mobility, diminishing university funding, and government-backed recruitment campaigns. This competition drives the need for universities to focus on clearly articulating and developing their brand (Hemsley-Brown and Goonawardana, 2007). However, despite the growing importance of branding in the higher education sector, research remains sparse and great potential therefore exists to further contribute with new branding concepts, theories, and frameworks (Melewar and Nguyen, 2015). The higher education sector has much to gain from the benefits of successful branding, which is already well established in the private sector, but more research is needed that specifically relates to the branding efforts of public sector organizations, such as nonprofit colleges, and universities (Watkins and Gonzenbach, 2013). While university reputation has traditionally been the main indicator for the uniqueness of a higher education institution, with the emergence of branding, the adoption of concepts such as brand identity, meaning, image, and reputation are becoming increasingly important, as organizations and managers alike are eager to develop distinctive university identities, understand multiple meanings held by stakeholders, improve images, and enhance reputation in this highly competitive global environment. Researchers are exploring the associations between branding and performance in order to improve employee commitment, reduce staff turnover, and increase productivity (Robertson and Khatibi, 2013). While prior studies examine diverse factors pertinent to the efficacy of branding, the majority of these studies adopt business sectors and industries as research samples, leading to more commercial profits and performance-oriented implications (Harris and De Chernatony, 2001; Hankinson, 2012; Hsiao and Chen, 2013). On the whole, the findings from these studies seldom have much relevance and application in the higher education sector, such as the management of faculties, universities, and colleges. However, there is considerable debate and uncertainty about how to respond to competition and how to capitalize on the opportunities globalization offers. Therefore, it is timely to seek articles which critically engage with theoretical and empirical issues of brand identity, meaning, image, and reputation drawn from as wide a range of perspectives as possible in the context of higher education in an international context. The diversity of the higher education sector provides a perplexing environment to the development and management of brand identity, meaning, image, and reputation. Every

4 Hemsley-Brown, J., Melewar, T.C. and Nguyen, B. (2016) , Exploring Brand Identity, Meaning, Image, and Reputation (BIMIR) in Higher Education: A Special Section, Journal of Business Research, 69(8), 3019-3022.

university has a unique profile with differing organizational cultures, development stages, resources, politics, and student profiles, which in turn requires multiple strategic directions, emphasizing different issues in different faculties and institutions (Asaad, Melewar, Cohen and Balmer, 2013). Due to these complexities, we view the study of the relationship between brand identity, meaning, image, and reputation in the higher education sector to be critical topics for further investigation. Much needs to be learned about how brand meaning and brand identity are perceived in the higher education sector; how a higher education brand manages multiple meanings, which may differ among stakeholder groups, how institutions build and re-build strong brand identities. By understanding how higher education institutions create desirable brands, universities can attract world-class faculty, sponsorship, and high quality students, leading to improved public image and goodwill (Melewar and Akel, 2005). For brand managers in higher education, a greater understanding of brand identity, meaning, image, and reputation influence key strategic decisions and contribute towards efficient use of marketing resources, cost-saving, and increased income from multiple sources. Authors of research on higher education marketing frequently base their rationale for conducting research on awareness of increasing competition in the sector, both nationally and internationally. In the US, for example, changes in demographics, globalization, economic restructuring, and information technology are putting pressure on institutions and enhancing the competition between them (Padlee, Kamaruddin, and Baharun, 2010). The most intense competition is in destinations where English has been the traditional language of study – the US, UK, Canada and Australia, but competition to study in the west is also increasing competition elsewhere, particularly to gain access to prestige institutions ((Abu Bakar and Abdu Talib, 2013) cited by Hemsley-Brown & Oplatka 2015). The argument that universities operate in a competitive environment is also frequently used by authors in this special issue to make the straightforward argument that research is needed to find out more about aspects of university branding—brand identity, meaning, image and reputation. Globalization, internationalization, changes in supply and demand, and reduction in financial support from governments intensifies competition and led institutions to make substantial changes and to focus more consistently and professionally on building a credible brand. As the competition among institutions intensifies, they increasingly adopt a more business-like stance and utilize professional marketing practices (Veloutsou et al., 2005). Institutions also increase international partnerships, develop branch campuses, and forms of

5 Hemsley-Brown, J., Melewar, T.C. and Nguyen, B. (2016) , Exploring Brand Identity, Meaning, Image, and Reputation (BIMIR) in Higher Education: A Special Section, Journal of Business Research, 69(8), 3019-3022.

transnational education which mean they are competing not only with other home universities for students, they are competing with universities worldwide (Padlee et al., 2010). Building alliances and partnerships with universities in different parts of the world can also focus institutions more sharply on their brand image, what they stand for, and how they are perceived by all stakeholders not only students (Hemsley-Brown & Oplatka, 2015). The articles in the issue can be categorized under the following broad headings: brand identity; brand meaning; brand image; brand reputation; and brand alliances and dual-degrees. Brand Identity Authors Balaji, Roy, and Saadeque, in their paper entitled, “Antecedents and Consequences of University Brand Identification,” argue that to overcome the challenges of competitive pressures, shrinking financial support from governments, decline in universitygoing population, and widespread changes in an educational environment, higher education institutions (hereafter HEI) are increasingly adopting marketing and branding strategies. Their study examines the role of university brand personality, university brand knowledge, and university brand prestige in developing student-university identification. The study’s findings indicate that university brand knowledge and university brand prestige play a key role in determining the student-university identification. The more attractive students perceive the university’s identity, the stronger will be their identification with the university which results in shared goals, identities, and values between the university and the students. Balaji et al. recommend that universities should engage in branding activities that develop a strong student-university identification in order to enhance the students’ university supportive behaviors. Palmer, Koenig-Lewis and Asaad’s article, “Brand Identification in Higher Education: A Conditional Process Analysis,” posits that the dimensions and dynamics of higher education brands remain excessively informed by general principles of branding, with inadequate empirical testing in the specific context. Their research advances understanding of brand identification in higher education by empirically assessing its antecedents and relating brand identification to brand loyalty and brand support as outcome variables, moderated by time since direct experience of the university. While the direct effects of recalled academic and social experience on brand loyalty decrease over time, the indirect effect of academic experience on loyalty via brand identification increases, indicating that the mediation effect of brand identification becomes stronger with the passage of time. The study makes important theoretical contributions to the branding literature by emphasizing the mediating role of brand

6 Hemsley-Brown, J., Melewar, T.C. and Nguyen, B. (2016) , Exploring Brand Identity, Meaning, Image, and Reputation (BIMIR) in Higher Education: A Special Section, Journal of Business Research, 69(8), 3019-3022.

identification and by examining the moderating effects of time on these variables. The results also inform marketing of higher education, suggesting that universities which focus on offering great academic experiences to their students will be more effective in developing strong brand identification over time which in turn leads to greater brand loyalty and brand support. Brand Meaning Dean, Arroyo-Gamez, Punjaisri, and Pich’s research, “Internal Brand Co-creation: The Experiential Brand Meaning Cycle in HE,” investigates how employees co-create brand meaning through their brand experiences and social interactions with management, colleagues and customers. Considering employees as part of the brand development process because they are brand representatives who are at the interface between the HE institution and their customers, the authors highlight that brand meaning commences from historical, superficial brand interactions and conceptualize the evolving, co-created nature of employees’ brand meaning in the experiential brand meaning cycle. Bridging the internal branding and the co-creation literature, the study contributes to the existing knowledge by elucidating four stages of the re-interpretation loops, highlighting that employees develop a brand meaning at both macro and micro cycles through a series of brand interactions and social interactions. The study findings illustrate the function of employees as readers and authors of brand meaning, emphasizing the crucial role of brand co-creation in guiding employees’ brand promise delivery. Dennis, Papgiannidis, Alamanos and Bourlakis, in “The Role of Brand Attachment Strength in Higher Education,” highlight the increasingly competitive higher education sector where universities face significant challenges when it comes to recruiting new students, as the rationale for their research. They point out that students form their perceptions of brand image, identity and meaning before enrolling at a university and they continue evolving during their study and even after graduation. Their paper focuses on the effect of brand attachment and its antecedents on commitment, satisfaction, trust and brand equity in the context of higher education institutions. Their findings indicate that satisfaction with practical brand characteristics, such as the courses, play a strong role for students, whereas the influence of brand meaning and commitment is stronger for graduates. Brand meaning, they argue, is the main antecedent of brand attachment strength that affects satisfaction, trust, and commitment as well as brand equity, but attachment strength has a negative effect on

7 Hemsley-Brown, J., Melewar, T.C. and Nguyen, B. (2016) , Exploring Brand Identity, Meaning, Image, and Reputation (BIMIR) in Higher Education: A Special Section, Journal of Business Research, 69(8), 3019-3022.

satisfaction. Perceived quality and reputation, however, also cause feelings of attachment, which lead to satisfying relationships and help to build brand equity. Wilson and Elliot’s research, “Brand Meaning in Higher Education: Leaving the Shallows via Deep Metaphors,” further emphasizes that HEIs in competitive environments must achieve deep understanding of stakeholder perceptions and the extent to which HEI brand knowledge is shared across stakeholder groups. A conceptual framework of mutual knowledge and shared brand meaning, empirically explored in the context of commercial brands, is adapted for the HEI context. Research propositions are explored using novel approach for the first time in the higher education branding literature. A modified ZaltmanMetaphor-Elicitation-Technique (ZMET) yielded in-depth qualitative information about brand meaning expressed as surface level thematic metaphors which led to deep metaphors. Findings for a focal HEI are consistent with findings for private sector firms; brand meanings differ somewhat across three stakeholder groups, however, differences were harmonious and did not negatively affect the HEI brand overall. Specifically, the most pervasive deep metaphor for students and administrators is “transformation” while “journey” is most pervasive for faculty. The findings offer confirmation to brand owners that intended meanings are consistent with the mission of the focal HEI and current brand positioning strategies are in alignment around discovered deep metaphors. The authors’ description of a reflexive process of deep metaphor discovery and extraction is a key takeaway for HEI brand owners to use in brand building efforts. Brand Image Research by Yuan, Liu, Yen, and Luo, “From Higher Education Brand Extensions,” explores the concepts of brand identity and brand image from a brand extension perspective. By focusing on the relationship between a parent university’s brand identity and the extended brand image of an international satellite branch, the authors develop an ‘identity-image’linkage that reveals how consumers identify and transfer university brand identity perceptions including the underlying causes of a backward reciprocal transfer of perception from the extension to the parent brand. The study’s results reveal that perceived congruence (functional, symbolic, and self-image) and legitimacy of the brand extension (regulative legitimacy, brand extension authenticity, desirable values to audiences, and cultural adaptation) are the main factors that influence the identity-image link. Further, to strengthen the brand extension relationships, the authors suggest the importance of marketing exposure

8 Hemsley-Brown, J., Melewar, T.C. and Nguyen, B. (2016) , Exploring Brand Identity, Meaning, Image, and Reputation (BIMIR) in Higher Education: A Special Section, Journal of Business Research, 69(8), 3019-3022.

with an international focus, exploitation avoidance to create a positive brand image, and resource transfer between the parent and satellite branch. Work by Rauschnabel, Krey, Babin, and Ivens, “Brand Management in Higher Education: The University Brand Personality Scale, ” suggests that increasing competition between universities heightens the need for institutions to understand, manage, and leverage a strong brand position. Their article addresses the special issue topic by developing a theoretically based measurement model to assess brand personality in a higher education context. Their study develops and validates a six-dimension scale tapping University Brand Personality Scale (UBPS) which strongly relates to brand love, positive word-of-mouth, and students’ intention to support their university as alumni. Prestige emerges as one of six UBPS factors. Brand personality scales in other contexts generally do not include prestige – universities could gain a prestigious personality by carefully selecting people with whom they engage. Findings provide university managers with an assessment tool for measuring their institution’s as well as competitors’ brand personality. Findings also offer university managers an assessment tool for measuring their institution’s as well as competitors’ brand personality. Brand Reputation Research by Plewa, Ho, Conduit, and Karpen, “Rep...