Creating a BRAND IDENTITY

It is more than a little sad to see the college adopt a corporate approach in trying to "brand" itself. We are not a product, we do not need a brand. Branding simply makes everything look the same, which seems to me to be contrary to the ideals of a university, which should promote new ideas and creative individuality (not to mention diversity). It is unclear why we need a college wide look-and-feel to promote excellence in research and learning. Do we need to spend money to hire a consulting firm to direct us in creating an "image"? Can't we, relatively thoughtful and creative people, create our own image? (Or hire grad students from the departments branding consultant get new hires?) Why does that image have to be so consistent? How exactly will that promote academic excellence?

I'd feel a lot more confident in the direction of the "new" college if we hired more staff and faculty and set some clear performance goals instead of dressing all of our windows in the same way.

I'm of two minds on this.

On the one hand, I do see a need for branding. We can say "oh, we're an ivory tower, not a product," but the students and the state who give us money and they expect to receive goods and/or services in return. In a perfect world, maybe prospective students and their parents would just intuitively know what we do and why we do it well; maybe voters would dilligently research every state-funded agency on a line-item basis; maybe the Air Force would be having bake sales to fund their bombers. I don't think we live in a world that pure, and I don't think pretending that we do helps us, our students, or the state of Minnesota.

Furthermore, I don't feel like the new CEHD has come together as a whole yet. We've all been through a lot of upheaval, and no matter what merits this new structure may have, the fact is we did not choose to be brought together. There's a definite culture shock (for example, I was appalled that our opening celebration used separate-but-equal name tags for faculty and staff). While I certainly can't speak for everyone, I do get the impression that a lot of us now identify primarily with our departments or units rather than with the College as a whole, and it would be great to have a unifying outlook.

On the other hand, I'm not so sure about the effectiveness of branding. From my perspective, General College had one of the strongest identities in the University, and branding was always a major focus of Dean Baugher in the College of Human Ecology. What did it accomplish? Both were absorbed into the "new" College of Education and Human Development without even a name change. Will Little & Company do better for us? What are we hoping to achieve with rebranding? How do we know if we're meeting these goals?

No we are not a corporation. But, yes we do indeed produce a product. Our product is education. It is by, through, and because of the work we do that our product is realized. I actually believe in working in the community and helping people to help themselves. This is work worth educating people to do, in my book. Branding does not have to mean that we "window dress". I think it means that we present ourselves as a whole package. Making it desirable to work with us and be educated by us. How can you educate people in a diverse community and not believe in being diverse? I do not view this as creating a rubber stamp that we all have to conform to. I view this as an opportunity to be a part of something from the ground up. Our brand should reflect the fact that we are all different parts of the same wheel. We have differing views, and various reasons for those views. However, in the end we work together to produce our product.

Another way to look at the term "brand" is as a clear and common language, a way of describing something and making it easier to understand. When a researcher discusses a project, it's important to be clear about that project's goals, its intended impact and benefit. Without a clear language and description it's more difficult for the researcher to get the support of colleagues and funders. Being able to distill the language in a proposal so that its recipient can grasp the essence of the idea quickly and clearly can make all the difference.

Our College is a very complex organization that can be confusing to those outside (and inside) of it. Complexity can be good - in our case it means more: more ideas, more diversity, more options for our students and faculty, etc. But that complexity also means it's very difficult for us to talk about the College in a way that can get those good things out to people who need to know about them. Developing a system that helps us use the tools of consistent language and imagery will provide more clarity and impact for our messages. That can promote academic excellence by drawing more excellent students, faculty, and research to our College.

Consistent doesn't have to mean boring. We're working to develop a system with enough flexibility to provide room for innovation over time and that can grow and change as necessary with the College.

Little & Co. is a company who has been doing the work of distilling organizational messages and working with companies to clearly communicate their goals for almost thirty years. We're confident that partnering with their outside expertise was the right thing to do. It's important for organizations to invest in outside expertise for developing an identity system so that the process is an honest one. Using inside staff or students, while it may seem to save money, can lead to a more problematic and inefficient process. It's also difficult to get the unbiased, fresh perspective needed to create an articulate identity system from those who have been working on the inside. The College communications staff is collaborating with Little & Co. to create the tools for a more effective and efficient system that can be implemented inhouse over the long haul.

It kind of comes down to the fact that the members of this College (and this University) do great, important work, and we want everyone to know about it and find their place in it!

Yes, a "brand" is not a logo and not window dressing. In fact, if it does not reflect an honest and heartfelt sense of who we are and what we're about, it will never work. One thing marketing research tells us about today's students is that they can smell phoniness and they don't like it.
Sometimes the word "essence" is used instead of the word "brand," and as touchy-feely as "essence" might sound, it may come closer to what we're aiming for and make more sense to those not familiar with marketing lingo.
What is the essence of this new college? Some of the dean's messages and speeches might help you to think about that, as well as your own experience and position within this very large institution. Try Anitra's exercise under the posting "Branding Tip: For...it's....that." You'll find it as hard of the rest of us did to keep it to a few very key words! How short can you make it and still get at our "essence?"

I worked for a long time in and for corporations (as both an employee and a consultant) and I worked on projects involving branding. People who sell branding say that it somehow presents the essence of an organization or that it helps give it an identity. While that has happened for some businesses, more often it does not.

Unlike a for-profit business which seeks to increase profits (perhaps by increased revenue), CEHD should have as its goal to increase the quality of its educational offerings and improve its research capabilities. Where is the evidence that CEHD this expenditure is going to help CEHD meet these goals? Talk about essence and image is interesting, but it would be naive to think that a branding effort is going to bring the college together, whatever that means.

Some people familiar with marketing lingo know that the essence of a college is not marketing graphics, text, and stock phrases (which is what branding really is underneath its marketing lingo). A business-model brand will neither reflect or affect the essence of the college, especially one with a positive reputation such as the University of Minnesota .