Regarding the comments made about SIUC turning the corner (again) this fall, I had the opportunity to listen to Chancellor Rita Cheng speak at a meeting about a week or so ago and the topic of the marketing firm the university had hired to help with the university's image and brand came up. One of the things that came up during the discussion was that the firm had found the university 1) did not have a strong brand and 2) still has a reputation as a party school.
If this is indeed the case, then the university might want to look at hiring another marketing firm as, if the university still has a reputation as a party school over a decade after it started actively taking steps to quash that image, that is the university's brand image. A brand image is not necessarily something the organization wants to have (would any company in its right mind want the name Enron now), it is how the public perceives it and, if people still view SIUC as a party school, that is the school's brand image, like it or not, and everything the school does will be viewed by the public in the context of that image. Maybe the marketing firm discussed that in its final report, but for Chancellor Cheng to make a point of saying that the report indicated no strong brand image for the university, when the second point the firm made indicates that it does, just not a positive one, makes me wonder about the firm's research and wish I could get a look at the actual report.
If this is indeed the case, then the university might want to look at hiring another marketing firm as, if the university still has a reputation as a party school over a decade after it started actively taking steps to quash that image, that is the university's brand image. A brand image is not necessarily something the organization wants to have (would any company in its right mind want the name Enron now), it is how the public perceives it and, if people still view SIUC as a party school, that is the school's brand image, like it or not, and everything the school does will be viewed by the public in the context of that image. Maybe the marketing firm discussed that in its final report, but for Chancellor Cheng to make a point of saying that the report indicated no strong brand image for the university, when the second point the firm made indicates that it does, just not a positive one, makes me wonder about the firm's research and wish I could get a look at the actual report.
In this context, the chancellor may be using "strong" as a euphemism for "positive."
ReplyDeleteScott, I think you are making a really important point in this posting. The more one runs away from reality, the less one will have control over ones reality... the fact that there is already a strong branding has to be utilized as an opportunity... it just requires some out of the box thinking, which clearly has not been this University's and City's strong suit, as both entities embraced a complete failure in management and shut down one of Carbondale's economic and cultural engines, the annual Halloween celebration. Hint: work hard, play hard... it works for many of the top universities in our nation, whether one will admit that truth it or not is another matter, but as a graduate of our nation's twelfth ranked university (NU), I can attest to that truth, and that students at our nation's fifth ranked university (U of C) both worked and partied twice as hard. Work hard. Play hard. Get with the program, SIUC!
ReplyDeletePeople have a mental association between the letters "SIU" and "party school". Changing the colors and font style of the letters wont eliminating that association. Change the name of the school to the University of Southern Illinois.
ReplyDelete