SURVIVAL OF THE FITTEST? THE REBRANDING OF WEST VIRGINIA HIGHER EDUCATION James M. Owston American Association University Administrators 2008 Assembly.

SURVIVAL OF THE FITTEST? THE REBRANDING OF WEST VIRGINIA

HIGHER EDUCATION

James M. Owston

American Association University Administrators 2008 Assembly

Rebrandings 1996-2005 By percentage

Rank State Percentage Rebranded

1 West Virginia 56.25%

2 Kentucky 49.15%

3 Georgia 42.86%

4 Minnesota 39.29%

5 New Hampshire 32.00%

6 Connecticut 31.71%

7 Montana 28.57%

8 Missouri 28.21%

9 Oregon 25.58%

10 Maryland 25.45%

College-to-University 1996-2005By percentage

Rank State

Percentage of University Rebranded

Schools

1 West Virginia 25.00%

2 Georgia 20.78%

3 Idaho 20.00%

4 Missouri 16.67%

5 Oklahoma 12.82%

6 New Jersey 10.64%

7 Kentucky 10.17%

8 Oregon 9.30%

9 New Hampshire 8.00%

10 Ohio 7.34%

Populations of the study

11 West Virginia Institutions 51 Institutions in and surrounding Appalachia 103 Institutions nationwide (1996-2001) 6 Institutions using a similar brand name -

Allegheny

Method

Mixed method approach Quantitative Qualitative

Historical Naturalistic observation Interviews

Postmodern theoretical perspective Atypical dissertation model

Research Questions & ResultsQuestion 1: What factors precipitated the “college-to-university” change?

Reflect current status Define future mission Institutional prestige

Research Questions & ResultsQuestion 2: What was the administration’s justification for the university designation?

The offering of graduate degrees The university model of structure The international implications of “College”

Research Questions & ResultsQuestion 3: What was the institution’s strategy for the rebranding process?

Strategic planning Instituting a university structure The choice of name

Minor-simple 53% Minor-complex 34% Major 13%

Time commitment – average 22 months

Research Questions & ResultsQuestion 4: What procedures did administration use to implement the change?

Kaikati & Kaikati (2003) – 6 strategies Institutional colors and mascots Funding

Research Questions & ResultsQuestion 5: What influence did regulatory bodies have upon the change?

Accrediting bodies had little influence Legislature –

Influenced public institutions Compared to other states – limited in scope

Research Questions & ResultsQuestion 6: What were reactions of stakeholders to the change?

Numerous stakeholder groups Alumni most vocal stakeholder group Combined stakeholder efforts

Research Questions & ResultsQuestion 7: How did senior administrators perceive the success of the change?

139 Points

90Points

72 Points

35 Points32

Points

17Points

Basis of the Success of Change

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

160

Areas

Points

Clarified Identity

Enhanced Reputation

Enrollment & Recruiting

New Programs

International Issues

All others

Research Questions & ResultsQuestion 7: How did senior administrators perceive the success of the change?

Koku (1997) found no significance in enrollment trends with strategic name changes

103 “College-to-University” changed institutions – significance, but a negative correlation.

Research Questions & ResultsQuestion 8: Did the change produce any indicators of increased prestige?

Carnegie Classification Increase in graduate programs Undergraduate selectivity Tuition – “Chivas Regal” effect

Research Questions & ResultsQuestion 9: What suggestions did administrators provide upon revisiting the change?

Have a good reason to change 147 points Have a defendable name that relates to the

institutional mission 141 points Address stakeholder issues 81 points

Research Questions & ResultsQuestion 10: What methods can institutions use to retain ownership of a brand?

Longevity of brand use Excellent academic reputation Succinct mission Identify fallacious arguments from

contenders Protect your brand at all costs

SURVIVAL OF THE FITTEST? THE REBRANDING OF WEST VIRGINIA

HIGHER EDUCATION

James M. Owston

www.newriver.net