In this chapter, I explore whether university officials should use branding to market universities and programs. Many academics are opposed to its use, arguing that branding and marketing in general are fundamentally antithetical to the values and norms that should guide a university. They liken the university to a relatively insular body – a “Republic of Scholars” – with its origins in the medieval guilds (Driori, Delmestri, & Oberg, 2016). Krause (1996) argues that the academic profession retains some guild-like characteristics. In such an organization, marketing and branding are not compatible. Indeed, Gibbs (2007) notes,

… when marketing – particularly advertising – is intended to persuade it may, under certain circumstances, work against the goals of independent, liberal, higher education by undermining critical thinking and autonomous actions. In these circumstances, its use is to counter the essence of autonomous education and ought to be avoided by universities on the grounds of moral duplicity.

(pp. 3–4)

Others, especially those who manage the academic enterprise, dismiss such assertions contending that universities are not that different from corporations and thus could benefit from adopting capitalist principles and practices. (Indeed, there is a journal devoted to marketing higher education entitled the Journal of Marketing for Higher Education.) Among those principles is regarding the academic enterprise as a business – a business that employs marketing and branding to improve a university’s competitive standing and ultimately increase revenue.

Indeed, in keeping with its business orientation, branding is pervasive in the university. For some, the issue of universities employing branding is a subject that university administrators resolved decades ago. For example, it is common for universities to employ branding by marketing their logo (Idris & Whitfield, 2014). Jillapalli and Jillapalli (2014) even suggest “certain professors can be branded and managed as brands” (p. 22). Taking the practice of branding one step further, the for-profit University of Phoenix even took the extraordinary step of spending $154 million to obtain the naming rights for the Arizona Cardinals’ professional football stadium for 20 years (Weisbrod, Ballou, & Asch, 2008). However, broadly speaking, branding ultimately is the cultivation of a university’s image (Aghaz, Hashemi, & Atashgah, 2015; Pampaloni, 2010). Regardless of what aspect of the educational experience a university brands, “a successful brand will involve a product with a recognizable identity and represent a particular set of values that is important to the consumer” (Thornton & Shannon, 2014, p. 162).

Specifically, in this chapter, I briefly discuss how universities were, and to a lesser extent are, relatively unique, compared with other institutions, as well as how universities are evolving. I also review how administrators reshaped the university as a business, and how marketing and branding have played a major role in that transformation. That development raises two interesting questions. Can the traditional ideals practiced in the university coexist with marketing techniques, specifically branding? Or does that create too much of a cultural disconnect?

The modern US university owes its origins to Europe’s medieval universities (cf., Daly, 1961). In his definitive book on the origins of universities, Hastings Rashdall (1936) wrote in The Universities of Europe in the Middle Ages,

The institutions which the Middle Ages has bequeathed to us are of greater and more imperishable value even than its cathedrals. And the university is distinctly a medieval institution – as much so as constitutional kingships, or parliaments, or trials by jury.

(p. 3)

Remarkably, although the modern university has evolved significantly, particularly in the past 20 years, the university still retains some qualities that it inherited from its ancient progenitors. However, the universities’ hold on these practices is becoming increasingly tenuous, especially those institutions that face financial problems.

A prominent feature of life during the medieval period was the guild. Even today, academic departments retain some guild-like characteristics.

Guilds, also spelled gilds, an association of craftsmen or merchants, formed for mutual aid and protection and for the furtherance of their professional interests. Guilds flourished in Europe between the 11th and 16th centuries and formed an important part of the economic and social fabric in that era.

(Britannica.com, 2010, n.p.)

Indeed, assistant professors, like their medieval apprentice counterparts, become full-fledged members of their department as the result of a vote. Accordingly, once an assistant professor has successfully completed her “apprenticeship,” she receives tenure, which bestows upon the recipient something that is becoming increasingly rare in modern organizations – lifetime employment. Nevertheless,

Life-time employment is not the expectation outside of academe. The idea of a job for life with one company is a thing of the past. It was a legacy of the 20th century, when large companies created by the Industrial Revolution brought armies of factory workers together.

(Chow & Leung, 2016, p. 84)

In recent years, some cost-conscious universities have replaced tenure and lifetime employment with fixed term contracts. Nevertheless, even at institutions that retain tenure, it is weaker because of post-tenure review (Aper & Fry, 2003), making the practice that much more tenuous since in some circumstances professors can lose it.

In the medieval period, faculty governance was a central principle of the university. Referring to the Bologna college, Rashdall (1936) noted that the rector (the US equivalent of the university president) was “elected annually by ballot” (p. 201). Furthermore, “in important matters such as the alienation of property, the consent of the whole college is necessary” (p. 201).

The practice of faculty governance, especially in the USA, eventually morphed into shared governance, in which professors largely gave effective control over the university to full-time academic managers. In developing management structures that are more corporate-like, the university lost some of its distinctiveness.

Guild control is thus diluted into what is called ‘shared governance,’ raising the issue of precisely which areas of higher education should be subject to professorial guild oversight. A strong case can be made for professorial control over issues of faculty recruitment and faculty evaluation, including promotion and dismissal. Currently, it is too often the case that the faculty role in these matters has been reduced to offering recommendations to the administration; by contrast, guild status would take the peer view to be authoritative.

(Burstein, 2016, p. 36)

Shared governance, or some vestige of it, continues within US universities. In most cases, boards of trustees at US universities ultimately approve virtually all administrative decisions, including budget and personnel decisions, albeit through a process in which academic managers, often beholden to the boards, frame the decisions. Over the years, as academics lost substantial power, a university’s board of trustees became virtually synonymous with a corporation’s board of directors.

Contemplation was central in both Greek philosophy and the traditional university. Universities grant scholars the opportunity to engage in extended contemplation during sabbatical leaves. Scholars usually have the option to take a sabbatical leave every seventh year. Indeed, the word sabbatical “comes from the Greek word sabatikos, which means the day of rest that happens every seventh day” (Vocabulary.com, n.d., n.p.).

Sabbatical leave is a practice few institutions outside of academe provide, although General Mills, Microsoft, the Container Store, and American Express have made sabbaticals a component of their human resource strategy (Joseph & Kucera, 2004). Indeed, given our society’s penchant for instrumental rationality, sabbaticals, even within academe, are becoming less common. In recent years, some universities have placed strictures on sabbaticals for maintaining “accountability.” Indeed, Mamiseishvili and Miller (2010) note that scholars who have significant research records or those who have been successful in the past in obtaining grants are most likely to receive sabbaticals. In an increasing number of educational institutions, a scholar must justify his sabbatical by explaining in advance what will be accomplished during his or her leave (Mamiseishvili & Miller, 2010). In the contemporary university, faculty members, like employees in a corporation, are increasingly accountable, in contrast to the largely inner-directed academic of the past.

One of the most rewarding experiences that a faculty member engages in is mentoring. The concept of the mentor is a key aspect of Greek mythology. Before, academics began conceiving of students primarily as customers, they regarded them as mentees. The mentor–mentee relationship is one in which the mentor shares his or her knowledge and wisdom selflessly with the mentee. When this relationship occurs, it is academe at its best. According to Kram (1983), mentors when working with their mentees usually focus on some combination of psychosocial and career help. Yet, given the demands placed on professors, oftentimes mentorship becomes a lower level priority. Contemplation does not contribute to the bottom line.

The modern US university is a curious hybrid. It maintains some vestiges of its mostly medieval traditions while increasingly conforming to a highly capitalistic external environment. Capitalism influences universities in multiple ways. As a means of adapting to the demands of capitalism, universities have become more competitive with each other. That competition reflects, in part, their increased emphasis on revenue generation, a tendency to regard students as customers, and the transformation from being largely closed to largely open institutions. Indeed, given the demands of capitalism, the traditions inherited from the past appear to be increasingly antiquated in the twenty-first century university. Indeed, this increased focus on the external environment and the market enhances the appeal of branding within the university.

The contemporary USA may be the most competitive society in the history of the world, and our universities increasingly mirror that reality. We compete for students. The university is no longer the isolated ivory tower, safe from competitive forces (Richardson, Nwankwo, & Richardson, 1995). Increased competition leads universities to conduct marketing campaigns complete with recognizable brands, which are a relatively new phenomenon (Dholakia & Acciardo, 2014, p. 146).

As a director of an institute at a private university, it is a rare meeting with my dean when the subject of how to increase revenue does not come up. We frequently discuss ways of exploring new markets, such as opening up a branch campus; offering new products, like academic certificates; providing additional services to students, like a program that links students with alumni; branding ourselves in such as a way that will make us more appealing to our current and potential student-customers; and, of course, besting the competition.

The university not only competes for students but also subjects its faculty members to the competitive standards they must meet if they are to receive tenure. The stakes are high. Within the past 30 years, there are fewer tenure and tenure track positions relative to the number of full- and part-time adjunct positions. If an assistant professor does not receive tenure, that person may be doomed to a precarious life as an adjunct, teaching at multiple institutions to make ends meet or leaving the profession altogether. At many schools, to fulfill one’s research objectives, an assistant professor must not only publish but also publish in journals with a high impact. Academics also must be especially mindful of their teaching for not only they are subject to the occasional peer-review but also they receive reviews from consumer-oriented students. Competition with one’s peers, although more concentrated among assistant professors, also affects tenured professors since merit pay became a staple at most universities beginning in the late 1980s (Blum, 1989).

The modern university has an insatiable appetite for more revenue. Most universities have adopted a “growth or perish paradigm.” This “growth or perish paradigm” has been exacerbated in recent years, as online programs have proliferated. Universities primarily increase their revenues in the following ways:

• Universities initiate new programs by, for example, starting an online program, offering a new sought-after degree or starting a branch campus.

• They raise tuition. During the past 20 years, the average tuition and fees jumped 157% at private national universities, 194% for out-of-state tuition at public national universities, and 237% for in-state tuition at public national universities (Mitchell, Leachman, & Masterson, 2016); meanwhile, during that same period, the Consumer Price Index increased only 52.5% (United States Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics, 2017).

• They try to persuade their state legislatures, if they are public institutions, to increase their funding, although between 2008 and 2016, state funding declined by an average of 18% to state institutions (Mitchell et al., 2016). For example, at the University of Colorado at Boulder, state appropriations constitute only 5% of that University’s revenue (American Academy of Arts and Sciences, 2017).

• Universities seek external funding; however, “garnering these funds is very competitive and the use of these funds is highly restricted” (ibid.).

• They garner revenue from auxiliary services, such as food service and housing, except many of these operations are self-supporting and universities typically reinvest any surpluses in the operation (ibid.).

• They receive endowments. Although university endowments vary widely by institution – the top ten endowed universities controlled more than 33% of endowment funding in 2014 (National Center for Educational Statistics, 2016), and the endowed funds are typically highly restricted provided primarily for student financial aid, teaching, research and innovation, public service, and athletics (American Council on Education, 2017).

To ensure a university meets its revenue goals, it is essential that it develops a brand that successfully attracts students and donors, and in the case of public universities, appeals to a state legislature. Hundreds of quality universities exist in the USA. A successful branding strategy helps convince prospective students why they would want to go to a particular institution. Academic managers need to know their market niche and then develop a compelling brand that makes their institution seemingly irresistible.

Today, the language of the market is common within educational institutions – institutions that were previously outside the market structure. As part of this larger trend, university administrators increasingly regard students as if they are customers. This “customerization” of students occurs not only because of increasing competition for tuition dollars but also because of the substantial investment universities are asking students to make in their education. With this increasing investment, students are only more likely to think of themselves as customers (Armstrong, 2010).

This change in consciousness is a development that many academics find disturbing, myself included. As an example, administrators place significant importance on student evaluations. Subpar student evaluations, whether deserved or not, can doom an academic who is coming up for tenure. Although many academics probably will not admit it, the importance they place on student evaluations also probably has had an enormous impact on the phenomenon of grade inflation.

Especially in recent years, the US university evolved from a relatively closed organization to a highly open one. How do closed institutions differ from open institutions? “The closed-system models tend to focus on internal events when explaining organizational actions and behavior, while open system models focus on events occurring external to the organization that influences changes within the organization” (Allen & Sawhney, 2017, pp. 27–28). For centuries, the university was a relatively closed institution that underwent little change. The educational protocols of the fourteenth century also guided it during most of the twentieth century. It did not have to change because its environment was relatively stable and predictable. It was in the latter part of the twentieth century that the university changed dramatically.

What was a relatively stable environment became a highly competitive one. Capitalism caught up with the university and to a great degree enveloped it. Accordingly,

The competitive process produces winners and losers. Some schools thrive and others falter – as in every other industry. Little recognized is that the higher education industry is very much in flux, with new schools emerging and existing schools closing, merging, and even switching ownership forms, as when a nonprofit college converts to a for-profit.

(Weisbrod, 2008, p. 39)

To survive, most universities increasingly became open, sometimes radically open institutions, whose managers became much more aware of their external environments. What are the characteristics of an open organization?

External influences can be experienced by organizations from the actions of the existing competitors, potential competitors, suppliers, customers and government. The influence of these external factors has been amplified in recent years due to a changing environment as reflected in growing globalization, increased diversity, rising ethical standards and rapid advances in technology accompanied by rising e-commerce.

(ibid., p. 49)

In many cases, the universities that successfully made this transition to more of a market model were the ones that were able to retain some aspects of the medieval university, while at the same time also embracing a marketing strategy focused on branding.

Market factors such as increased competition, economic pressures, and scrutiny by parents and students acting as ‘consumers,’ are putting increasing amounts of pressure on institutions of higher education to stand out and differentiate from competitors. To help combat the notion of higher education as a commodity, universities and colleges are developing expensive and sophisticated branding campaigns to engage their constituents.

(Peruta, Ryan, & Engelsman, 2013, p. 11)

Those universities that adopted this strategy more than likely survived but also changed in the process. They became less distinctive. Like their counterparts in the private sector, successful universities usually developed a brand identity. They might be a university that touts the number of Nobel laureates employed there. Or on an epicurean note, they may emphasize the gourmet quality of their cafeteria food. Or they might choose to focus on their location, for example being situated in a so-called “urban laboratory.” University administrators realize that

Brand names are assets to any firm or organization. Colleges and universities, whether public, private nonprofit, or for-profit, are no different. Those that have national name recognition can attract a broader and more talented pool of applicants, more tuition revenue, and more donations.

(Weisbrod, Ballou, & Asch, 2008, p. 175)

Are marketing and branding compatible with the traditional university culture? It is probably at best a marriage of convenience. On the one hand, the administrators tend to favor branding, thinking that it will help ensure the survival of the institutions they maintain. On the other hand, undoubtedly most academics are skeptical of branding, thinking it despoils the ethos of their institutions. They would prefer to continue the traditions the Medieval universities established. Although our current universities maintain some traditions from the Medieval Period, those traditions are weaker. The same principles that guide overtly market-oriented businesses now are common in the university, and branding is a central component of that business strategy.

I, for one, endorse the ongoing efforts to market and brand our universities, but I do not want the customer mentality also to invade the classroom. Our students are not customers, they are mentees. I am not sure whether it is possible to confine the marketing and branding function largely to services and amenities that universities provide students, like recreational centers, attractive dormitory rooms, and a competitive football team, while not impacting what transpires in the classroom. It may be difficult to conceive of students as customers outside of the classroom, but not within it. As one academic noted:

I simply cannot see my relationship with students through the lens of customer relations. Great teaching touches minds, hearts, and souls… There are times I cannot be nice – I have to push hard. I have to challenge. I have to encourage students to do things they will not like. I have to mark a grade that is not what a student thought he or she earned. I can do so only in the context of a relationship built on trust and shared pursuit of knowledge and understanding, not in the context of students purchasing a product or service from me.

(Tanner, 1999, p. 148)

Given the all-encompassing impact that capitalism has on our society, I am not sure that is a realistic expectation we can restrict partially the tentacles of capitalism as it envelops the university. However, at the very least, I would hope that academic administrators consider what they have given up to ensure their institution’s survival. Perhaps, Thomas Kuhn provides a suitable explanation for the cultural clash that is ongoing. Driori et al. (2016) note the following:

Like Kuhn’s theory of paradigmatic changes, narratives that define the social role of the university emerge from a time and place-specific context, they rise to dominate the discourse, and then come to be overshadowed by a newly emerging narrative; rarely do they disappear completely, but rather they morph and change, get translated and sediment, and then co-exist.

(p. 180)

It is extremely likely that universities will continue to place a significant emphasis on branding. Branding is here to stay. Nevertheless, I hope that in our desire to maintain the viability of our universities, we retain the characteristics that made them both great and unique.

• 1    In an effort to enhance their image, should a university brand individual professors?

• 2    Are university traditions handed down from the Medieval Period worth preserving?

• 3    3 Unlike many professions, tenured professors in most cases are guaranteed lifetime employment, given the financial difficulties that many universities face should educational institutions discontinue tenure?

• 4    Is it inevitable that students will increasingly view their interactions in the classroom as just another customer experience?

Hubbell, L. (2018). Is academe cheapened by branding universities and programs? In H. Gringarten, & R. Fernández-Calienes (Eds.). Ethical branding and marketing: Cases and lessons (pp. 80–91). Routledge Management and Business Studies Series. London and New York: Routledge.

1. Aghaz, A., Hashemi, A., & Atashgah, M. S. (2015). Factors contributing to university image: The postgraduate students’ point of view. Journal of Marketing for Higher Education, 25(1), 104–126. doi:10.1080/08841241.2015.1031314

2. Allen, J. M., & Sawhney, R. (2017). Administration and management in criminal justice: A service quality approach (3rd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Retrieved from http://www.sagepub.com/sites/default/files/upm-binaries/33001_2.pdf

3. American Academy of Arts and Sciences. (2017). Section 1: Current revenue sources for public research universities. Retrieved from http://www.amacad.org/content/publication/pubContent.aspx?d=22071

4. American Council on Education. (2017). Facts about college and university endowments. Retrieved from http://www.acenet.edu/news-room/Documents/Facts-About-College-and-University-Endowments.pdf

5. Aper, J. P., & Fry, J. E. (2003). Post-tenure review at graduate institutions in the United States. Journal of Higher Education, 74(3), 241–260. doi:10.1353/jhe.2003.0020

6. Armstrong, M. J. (2010, March 28). Students can behave too much like customers. Chronicle of Higher Education. Retrieved from https://www.chronicle.com/article/Students-Can-Behave-Too-Much/64840

7. Blum, D. E. (1989, October 18). Concept of merit pay for professors spreads as competition among institutions grows. Chronicle of Higher Education, 36(7), A1, A20.

8. Brittanica.com. (2010). Guild. Retrieved from http://www.brittanica.com/search?query=guild

9. Burstein, A. G. (2016, September–October). The AAUP and the idea of the university. Academe, 102(5), 23–26.

10. Chow, C., & Leung, C. (2016). Reshaping universities for survival in the 21st century: New opportunities and paradigms. Sharjah, United Arab Emirates: Bentham Science Publishers.

11. Daly, L. J. (1961). The Medieval university 1200–1400. New York, NY: Sheed and Ward.

12. Dholakia, R. R., & Acciardo, L. A. (2014). Branding a state university: Doing it right. Journal of Marketing for Higher Education, 24(1), 144–163. doi:10.1080/08841241.2014.916775

13. Driori, G. S., Delmestri, G., & Oberg, A. (2016). The iconography of universities as institutional narratives. Higher Education, 71, 163–180. doi:10.1007/s10734-015-9894-6

14. Gibbs, P. (2007). Does advertising pervert higher education? Is there a case for resistance? Journal of Marketing for Higher Education, 17(1), 3–11. doi:10.1300/J050v17n01_02

15. Idris, M. Z., & Whitfield, T. W. (2014). Swayed by the logo: Does university branding work? Journal of Marketing for Higher Education, 24(1), 41–58. doi:10.1080/08841241.2014.919979

16. Jillapalli, R. K., & Jillapalli, R. (2014). Do professors have customer-based brand equity? Journal of Marketing for Higher Education, 24(1), 22–40. doi:10.1080/08841241.2014.909556

17. Joseph, G. W., & Kucera, S. D. (2004, June–August). A comparative study of academic versus business sabbaticals. Planning for Higher Education, 32(4), 130–144.

18. Kram, K. E. (1983, December). Phases of the mentor relationship. Academy of Management Journal, 26(4), 600–625. doi:10.5465/255910

19. Krause, E. A. (1996). Death of the guilds, professions, states, and the advance of capitalism, 1930 to the present. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.

20. Mamiseishvili, K., & Miller, M. T. (2010, January). Faculty sabbatical leaves: Evidence from NSOPF 1999 and 2004. Journal of Faculty Development, 24(1), 11–18.

21. Mitchell, M., Leachman, M., & Masterson, K. (2016). Funding down, tuition up: State cuts to higher education threaten quality and affordability at public colleges. Center on Budget and Policy Priorities. Retrieved from http://www.chpp.org/research/state-budget-and-tax/funding-down-tuition-up

22. National Center for Educational Statistics. (2016). Fast facts. Retrieved from http://www.nces.ed.gov/fastfacts/display.asp?id+73

23. Pampaloni, A. M. (2010). The influence of organizational image on college selection: What students seek in institutions of higher education. Journal of Marketing for Higher Education, 20(1), 19–48. doi:10.1080/08841241003788037

24. Peruta, A., Ryan, W., & Engelsman, R. (2013). Social media branding strategies for higher education: Comparing Facebook pages and web sites. International Journal of Technology, Knowledge, and Society, 9, 11–23.

25. Rashdall, H. (1936). The universities of the middle ages, volume 1. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.

26. Richardson, S., Nwankwo, S., & Richardson, B. (1995). Strategic issues for higher education strategists in the UK: A political contingency perspective. International Journal of Public Sector Management, 8(6), 7–16.

27. Tanner, C. A. (1999, April). Students as customers? Journal of Nursing Education, 38(4), 147–148.

28. Thornton, M., & Shannon, L. (2014). ‘Selling the dream’: Law school branding and the illusion of choice. In M. Thornton (Ed.), Through a glass darkly (pp. 157–176). Canberra, ACT: ANU Press.

29. United States Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics. (2017). CPI inflation calculator. Retrieved from http://www.bls.gov/data/inflation_calculator.htm

30. Vocabulary.com. (n.d.). Sabbatical. Retrieved from http://www.vocabulary.com/dictionary/sabbatical

31. Weisbrod, B. A., Ballou, J. P., & Asch, E. D. (2008). Mission and money: Understanding the university. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.