Nebraska Launches Distance Ed Winner

Last week the University of Nebraska (NU) announced an aggressive plan to re-engineer its distance ed programming and greatly expand online courses to capture a larger share of the growing national and international online market and to better serve in-state students.

It’s a program to watch, already getting some attention, and probably the best-engineered “re-launch” of distance education to occur on the national scene in a long, long time.  It’s the result of a 2-year study, system-wide strategic positioning efforts, and a comprehensive series of recommendations by EMG, done in close collaboration with NU System staff.

The effort calls for nothing less than a re-engineering NU’s distance education approach:

1. Strategically positioning distance education as an “Integrated Academic Enterprise” employing the same professors who teach on the campuses
2. Marketing distance ed programs at all campuses under a single brand
3. Leveraging campus support services such as financial aid, call centers help desks
4. Strategic expansion of online programs based on emerging market needs
5. Increased brand marketing initiatives to carefully targeted audience segments
6. Creating a unified website as the entry point for all NU System online courses
7. Restructuring the financial model to spur new program development
8. Increasing tuition in order to provide/support exceptional academic quality

“We offer students what they want,” says NU President J.B. Milliken: “the same professors who teach on campus, exceptional student services, current and relevant curricula and a sense of community. Whether students are in the classroom or online, they are part of the NU community.”

By marketing all distance education programs under a single brand, Milliken says, potential students will be better served and operating costs will be reduced.

NU already offers more than 1,200 courses and more than 70 online degree and certificate programs, ranging from bachelor’s degrees to PhDs.   Aggressive new program expansion will be guided by market needs.  For example, one of the first programs out of the chute will be a bachelor’s degree completion program in business – the first time an NU business degree will be available completely online.

A new brand identity, logo, and the distance ed website, now under development, will debut this fall.   Arnold Bateman, director of NU’s distance education efforts, also plans a more aggressive regional, national and international marketing strategy in support of the effort.

All of this requires investment, and NU has wisely determined to increase and codify tuition so that NU courses are competitively priced, yet still leverage the prestige of the AAU-member NU name for students who want premier quality.

News accounts have reported recent missteps in distance ed initiatives by a few big state universities.  These costly and embarrassing snafus resulted from miscalculations of marketplace needs and lack of understanding of the marketplace itself.  Unlike these efforts, NU’s initiative has been carefully and strategically planned, and aims to put NU into a league with the big boys of distance education – University of Maryland, Penn State, UMass, and for-profits such as the University of Phoenix.

With the strong foundation they’ve begun, we’re betting they’ll succeed handily.

Breaking Your Brand Family’s Back

The intense cost of supporting multiple sub-brands and independent brands came up during last week’s Online KnowledgeBuilder on brand architecture. I thought it was worth a little more discussion.

Our KnowledgeBuilder discussion reinforced that, in most cases, little thought is given to marketing costs when the heads of various units – deans, chairs, directors, vice presidents, etc. – get a wild hair that they want their own brand identity. For some obscure reason, unit directors are convinced that having their own logo and creative identity will somehow make their units more successful. Maybe it’s ego, too.

But rare is the unit director who gives serious consideration to what it will take to actually support their sub-brand or independent identity.

It’s more than just the cost of creative development, although that can be significant on its own. It also involves printing costs; signage; costs for website, microsite, and social networking presence and maintenance; ongoing PR and internal communications; events marketing; and an adequate advertising budget. How about staffing for developing the materials, writing a separate marketing plan, and implementing integrated tactics?

We’ve estimated that each sub-brand you create will cost your institution at a minimum, an additional 65% to 85% of the core marketing budget in order to adequately support it. For example, if you’re investing $1 million annually (including salaries, operating expense, PR, marketing, advertising, and promotions) on the core brand, then each sub-branded unit should be budgeting between $650,000 and $850,000 in annual marketing and communications investment.

Each independent brand will cost your institution even more – between 75% and 100% as much as the core brand marketing budget. (It’s never a good idea to have a sub-brand invest more in marketing than the core brand over an extended period of time, since the risk is that the sub-brand will eventually gain greater equity than the core brand – a calamity.)

For institutions devoted to the public good, and particularly in this difficult economy, such additional marketing requirements can appear extravagant to the point of wasteful.

Regardless, the projected costs for marketing support of sub-brands and independent brands needs to be at the forefront of any discussions about creating unit-based identities. It should be one of the basic criteria for whether or not to create such an identity, and it’s one of the big reasons that we caution brand managers that senior leadership must assume authority and responsibility for approving the institution’s brand architecture.

I invite your further thoughts on this issue, and thanks to all the participants in last week’s KnowledgeBuilder on brand architecture

Brand Architecture: Who’s Really In Charge?

Last week a reader responded by email to a recent post on brand architecture, taking issue with one of my assertions.  Her point of contention concerned who should determine how various units are positioned – as elements of the core brand, as sub-brands, or as independent brands.  I wrote:

“When you don’t have a strong brand architecture in place, we’ve seen such decisions being made – by default – by the communications manager or publications director or even a designer! Little wonder these brands fall apart at the seams.”

The reader felt this was unfair and inaccurate, and responded:

“I think I understand that you are appealing to institutions without a strong brand when you say this. But my experience shows me – that in many colleges and universities – the communications manager, publications director or designer is EXPECTED to be the expert on brand development and management.  The senior leadership delegates to these professional[s]. And it becomes important for these folks to BECOME experts in branding. I, for instance, have been encouraged to understand market data and analysis.   These people (like me) are your audience. Don’t diss them.  Maybe you can hook senior management this way at some institutions – but not at all.  A little more respect-”

I was actually referring to institutions that have already developed a strong brand platform and seek to determine how they should position various high-profile divisions, campuses, colleges, schools, and centers.  But it’s a excellent discussion point, well made, and my thanks to this colleague for bringing it up.

Yet I stand by my assertion that decisions on brand architecture need to be made by senior leadership.  I have two compelling reasons:

1. Positioning decisions go far beyond marketing.  They impact the fundamental mission of both the core brand and the related units, with implications for academic operations, program selection, delivery methods, resource allocations, fundraising, target audiences, staffing, and a host of other management factors.  Marketing issues need to be part of the positioning decision – the marketing staff should give senior leaders well-researched recommendations regarding how units should be positioned – but marketing is only one aspect of these far-reaching decisions, and it’s a mistake to allow marketing be the sole determinant.
2. It can be career-limiting for marketing staff to make unilateral decisions on brand architecture.  Deans and other unit leaders are typically fervent on how their units are positioned, and rightly so, since such decisions impact the health and well-being of their units.  When marketing staff make the call on their own, they often find themselves going toe-to-toe with a dean and/or vice president.  For example, when the marketing team “grants” sub-brand status to a campus, college, or school, it’s akin to opening Pandora’s Box with other deans wanting the same treatment.  It’s politically dangerous for the marketing staff to deny powerful campus leaders.  While senior administrators have both the pay grade and the broad management experience needed to make – and defend – such decisions, marketing staff usually don’t. 

We have incredible respect and admiration for higher ed marketers and brand managers and what they do – after all, that’s what we do, too.  And we agree that marketing experts need to have significant input in the process – in fact, we recommend that the brand manager take the lead role in proposing a comprehensive brand architecture matrix for the entire institution, and then present the rationale to the senior leadership team for discussion, debate, and approval.

But institutional leaders have to own the decisions regarding which units will be part of the core brand, which will be accorded sub-brand status, and which will operate as independent brands.  In order to ensure sustainability and acceptance of the brand architecture, they have to assume sole authority and responsibility for these decisions.  Then they can delegate brand development and management to the marketing experts. 

This is a great debating point, and I hope this reader and other colleagues will join the Online KnowledgeBuilder on brand architecture this Thursday (July 16) at 11:00 MDT for in-depth discussion of this issue and others related to brand architecture.   Look forward to more great discussion!

Brand Architecture

We were in western Pennsylvania last week facilitating the creation of a university sub-brand. The institution’s core brand was launched in late 2007; now the president and senior leadership reconvened to develop a sub-brand platform for the university’s satellite campus.

The day was a great success that accomplished two things: it reinvigorated leaders’ commitment to the core brand platform and it brought the satellite campus administration on board with the overall brand strategy.

It reminded me of how crucial a clear brand architecture is to building brand equity and sustainability. Brand architecture solves two big challenges:

1. Brand Free-for-All: In this scenario, every unit director lobbies for their own unit identity – the result is a weak core brand that is lost in a cacophony of confusing and fragmented unit identities;
2. MegaBrand Complex: Alternately, by trying to have one single identity encompass everything you do – multiple campuses, distance ed, research centers, incubators, etc. – the brand loses meaning and focus, and ends up standing for nothing,

Brand architecture allows you to strategically manage how your organization and its various campuses, centers, schools, colleges, departments, and divisions relate to one another and represent themselves in the marketplace. It’s used to position major product/service categories with their appropriately targeted audience segments. It allows you to protect the integrity of your core brand while you maximize each unit’s effectiveness.

The result is a harmonious family of brands in which the whole is greater than the sum of its parts.

Ask yourself: Which of your units/campuses/schools should be positioned as integral components of the core brand (brand extensions)? Which should be positioned as high-profile sub-brands with their own related-yet-different messaging/personality? Which need to be positioned as independent brands so that they can stand on their own?

When you don’t have a strong brand architecture in place, we’ve seen such decisions being made – by default – by the communications manager or publications director or even a designer! Little wonder these brands fall apart at the seams. Such critical strategy questions need to be the responsibility of the senior leaders, and should be founded on solid marketplace data and analysis.

Sub-brands, for example, should meet three criteria:

1. They should be high-profile and robust enough to create, maintain, and support a branding program of their own;
2. The products/services they provide should be substantially different from those provided by the core brand;
3. The primary target audiences should be different than, or a targetable subset of, those served by the core brand.

If you’re struggling with these or similar brand architecture issues, consider signing up for the July 16 online workshop: Integrating the Impossible – Managing Multiple Brands on Campus.

During the 90-minute workshop, we’ll lay out the basics of brand architecture, then walk through the specific issues facing each one of the attendees. Don’t miss it!