Context
“An investment in knowledge always pays the best interest” said Benjamin Franklin. And when taking closer look at the tuition fees of the top universities, we can even say that education is a costly investment indeed. Today, as excellent colleges emerge all around the world, the traditional top establishments (usually in the US and the UK) now face increasing competition, which means prospective students have more options. This means that even well-established universities engage in branding to better attract students and their families, to justify expensive tuition fees and to satisfy various stakeholders (such as staff, students, parents or alumni). The main objective of university branding is to convey promises concerning the quality of education and the value of the degree, thus alleviating the perceived risk of investing in higher education, and helping families make their decision. In an article published in 2017 in the Journal of Advertising Research, Rose, Rose and Merchant show how heritage may be used as a strategic tool by colleges to enroll prospective students.
Research questions
As brands, universities have an equity that generates perceptions of value and quality, and loyalty among students and their families. When the time comes to invest in education, families will often rely on university equity to diminish their perceptions of risk. University heritage, as part of equity, should give que brand more strength and credibility. This is why Rose, Rose and Merchant ask the following questions:
– How can one measure university heritage?
– How does university heritage affect the behavior of students and their families when choosing a college?
Method
To answer these research questions, the authors adopted a mixed-methods approach consisting of 5 studies.
They started with a qualitative exploratory study (Study 1), in which a focus-group of 15 students were asked to talk about the heritage of several US universities. Along with the literature review, this study allowed the authors to develop a 47-item list to measure university heritage.
Building on Study 1, Studies 2 and 3 consisted of quantitative measures to evaluate university heritage and assess its dimensions. Study 2 was an exploratory factor analysis carried out on 90 undergraduate students from an American university, while Study 2 was confirmatory factor analysis involving 151 MTurk respondents.
Study 4 then evaluated the impact of heritage on attitude towards university. To do so, 127 students were randomly exposed either to an advertisement for a fictitious university featuring references to university heritage (linking university heritage to the present) or no references to university heritage (control, focusing only on the present).
Finally, Study 5 assessed the importance of linking university heritage to the present among prospective students and their parents. 120 parent-child dyads planning to apply to a university in the next two years were randomly exposed to an advertisement for a real-life university with or without heritage-present linkage.
Results
– University brand heritage features 3 dimensions:
* stature, defined as the respect for the university emanating from its history, sustained success and traditions (through famous alumni, quality of faculty, improvement through the years, leader in education)
* symbols that identify and embody the university such as university colors, letters, logos, mascot
* sports legacy, defined as the history and success of the university’s athletic program over time
– University brand heritage is key in building students’ and their families’ perceptions of a university brand and their choice in selecting a school.
– An advertisement evoking university brand heritage will result in more positive attitudes towards the university as compared with a nonheritage advertisement.
– Linking university heritage with the present in an advertisement yields higher intentions to apply among parents. However, it is not the case for their children. This is probably because as people get older, they accumulate more experience and are more susceptible to past experiences and heritage references.
Why is this article relevant for researchers?
A primary contribution of this article is the university heritage scale. Apart from that, this article builds on existent literature about heritage. It notably confirms the relevance of the concept of omnitemporality: in university branding, age is not a sufficient argument to attract applications, whereas a “sense of sustained tradition” is. In other words, as for all heritage brands, past history and history in the making should both be prominently featured to attract prospects. Moreover, this research confirms that heritage may be regarded as a signal of quality and performance for universities.
Even though the results of Study 5 reveal that prospective students are not susceptible to heritage-present linkage in university advertisement contrary to their parents, Study 1 shows that students do have an interest in the universities’ past and heritage. Future articles may look into that discrepancy between the qualitative and the quantitative studies results. The fact that name recognition could be sufficient in recalling a “sense of sustained tradition” ought to be investigated in this regard.
In this article, heritage is singled out as one signal of the university’s quality and performance. However, other signals and drivers of university equity may be studied to better address students’ and their parents’ concerns, and convince them to come to a university. Inspiration may be drawn from this 2017 survey that shows the main reasons why students chose a university.
Moreover, this research focuses on intentions to apply as a measure of the prospective students’ and their parents’ attitudes. Other measures could be contemplated such as willingness to pay a premium for a university: what part does heritage play in that? Is it a direct or indirect effect because of what heritage is supposed to signal in terms of quality?
The studies focus on students and their parents. However, university branding targets other stakeholders such as staff, sponsors or alumni. Future research may investigate the importance of heritage in attracting funding, interest or even loyalty from these stakeholders.
Why is this article relevant for professionals?
This article is useful for universities. It reminds them that having a rich history is not enough, it must be made relevant into the present when addressing prospective students and their parents. The results even showed poor susceptibility to heritage-present linkage among prospective students. It seems that some colleges have already chosen to focus on the present in their communication. For instance, the “Why Harvard?” rubric of the Harvard website emphasizes very practical aspects of joining such a prestigious university such as quality courses, the financial aid program, campus life or the sense of community of the establishment. All of which echoe prospective students’ usual criteria when choosing a college. However, Harvard’s branding strategy advocates for one of this article’s main result, which is the importance of heritage as a positive signal towards prospective students and especially their parents who are susceptible to heritage-present linkage and often play an important part in the decision-making process. Harvard’s past has its dedicated rubric on the university website, highlighting the main events and prominently displaying the list of Nobel laureates who make the school’s history. Moreover, the welcome page is all in one a clever testimony to the Harvard community and a way to honor their heritage by showing how this community is key in “building the future”, “cheering on the present” and “celebrating the past”.
More broadly, this research sheds new light on the role of heritage in the university equity. Granted heritage may be beneficial to address prospective students and their families, it could also be useful in targeting other stakeholders. Namely, alumni and staff may take pride in being part of a heritage university. For instance, the employees at Yale seem to value the “history”, the “beautiful architecture”, the “chance to be part of such a well-respected institution” or the “community feeling”.