Understanding the Crucial Role of Brand Image in the Students’ Higher Education Institution Choice: A Review of the Literature of Higher Education Branding

Introduction

Since the medieval era, academia was tremendously competitive as the different education entities doubtfully judged each other. Thereby, the Higher Education (HE) sector had to adopt policies to face the increasingly important competition and thrive a competitive advantage differentiating each institution from the others. This is when branding appeared as an asset to demarcate each of the Higher Education Institutions (HEIs). Branding became a unique feature of the organization even though the product, which is the education offered, might be to some extent similar. The modern most widespread perspective on HE is being considered as a business; in fact, the current paradigm is transforming the “students – HEIs” relationship into a consumer and supplier association. The marketization of HE is criticized by authors who perceive it as the decay of the education’s integrity and independence since the customer satisfaction became its pre-eminent objective. Nonetheless, it’s praised by other writers as a strategic resource for enabling to create a competitive advantage through the emotional link formed between the customer and the HE sector. This dichotomy brings us to question the branding perceived value viewed by the stakeholders, notably the students as being to the fore of the branding line of sight. 

Many if not all the HEIs are attempting to build strong brands for their institutions, with their brand image as the main facade projecting the image that the HEIs try to convey in the mind of students knowing that the first thing perceived about their institution will be this image projected. Yet, the concept of brand image transcends a mere impression experienced by the consumer, compelling them to select a particular brand. It is, unequivocally, a multifaceted notion intricately woven from various factors as much rational as emotional, the congruence of which culminates the perceived image discerned by the student.      

This article aims to elucidate and overview the background and the main concepts of branding in Higher Education Institution, the specificities of the HEI brand image as well as the intertwinement of the brand image with students’ choice of an HEI.

Conceptualization of Branding

The understanding of a theme as complex as branding applied to the educational system must be based on a conceptual decomposition of the key word “branding”. In an attempt to trace branding back to its cradle, it dates to around 1500 BC when hot iron marks were the rudimentary form of branding as they allowed animals to be distinguished from each other, as well as to be identified (Alcott, Giampietro, Mayumi & Polimeni, 2012). Originally, the sole role of branding was displaying a product’s name and demonstrating its prestige. Yet, this conception progressed into the state-of-the-art paradigm based on the symbolization of the consumer’s ideal lifestyle and abstract desires’ satisfaction (Holt, 2002).

Branding is viewed as a vital organizational competency especially when HEIs are in the running for resources (Louro & Cunha, 2001; Veloutsou et al, 2004; Helmsley-Brown & Oplatka, 2006). Admittedly, branding incorporates the pair of rational and emotional components (Le Pla & Parker, 2002); in fact, the brand definition is jointly built upon those two aspects: the emotional and the rational (De Chernatony and Mc William (1990); Caldwell and Freire (2004)). It is perceived as ‘a synthesis of all the physical, aesthetic, rational and emotional elements’ (Hart & Murphy, 1998).

In order to investigate the quintessence of branding, scholars need to question the branding success of some organizations more than others (Urde, 2003). For Kapferer (2001), when it comes to branding, no one is talking about the same thing seeing that it is a subjective notion; this idea was supported by De Chernatony (2010) who reveals that branding dwells in the consumer’s mind. Good brands are defined as strategic resources enabling to develop a competitive advantage; thus, organizations must put greater focus on the development of the brand management as a fundamental institutional ability (Aaker 1996; Louro and Cunha 2001). Caldwell and Coshall (2002) also view brands as being simultaneously a strategic benefit and a source of the competitive advantage. A successful brand is described by De Chernatony and McDonalds (2005) as capable of delivering a sustainable competitive advantage along with superior profitability and market performance.

Brand Image – A Dual Dimension Concept

According to Dobni & Zinkhan (1990), the term “brand image” has been diluted or misused over time leading to a concept that no longer holds its original meaning nor significance. Different researchers have given different definitions and meanings to the term “brand image “.

Table 1: Definitions of Brand Image

Adapted from ‘In search of brand image: a foundation analysis.’ (p.112), by Dobni, D. & Zinkhan, G. M. (1990).

This has led to confusion and inconsistency in understanding what brand image actually means. The meaning and worth of “brand image” have been undermined as a result of its overuse or misapplication (Bullmore, 1984). Yet the perspective based on the emphasis on cognitive or psychological elements reflects a most complete and multidimensional definition. In this regard, brand image as explained by Levy (1978) is made up of both the actual physical product and the thoughts, beliefs, and emotions associated with it. Research has shown that people often buy things based on how they look and what they represent, rather than just how well they work (Dolich 1969). For example, people choose products that make them feel good about themselves or show off their status.

So as to apprehend the impact of the brand image on the student choice of an HEI, it’s imperative to identify the factors involved in the two different perspectives of the brand image, namely, the rational and emotional perspectives as it was synthesized by Angulo, Pergelova, & Rialp (2010).

Table 2: Emotional and rational factors impacting the choice of an HEI

Adapted from Angulo, Pergelova, & Rialp (2010)

 Emotional Factors (Emotional Appeal)

It was believed that emotions are thought to make people weak in their thinking and actions (Evans, 2001) or can be influenced and manipulated by the ‘‘dark arts’’ of marketing and mass communication (Packard, 1991). According to Harris and De Chernatony (2001), obtaining a long-lasting competitive advantage is more feasible through distinctive emotional attributes rather than mere functional characteristics.

Emotional appeal pertains to our emotional and sentimental experiences, encompassing feelings like excitement, fear, love, and self-perception (Cutler and Javalgi, 1993). Emotional appeal strives to generate either positive (e.g., joy, love) or negative emotions (e.g., sorrow, fear) so as to incite individuals’ desire to acquire a product. Feelings greatly influence the reactions and behaviors of customers when it comes to love and preference (Bagozzi et al., 1999; Chaudhuri and Holbrook, 2001; Richins, 1997). Emotional responses, as proposed by Bagozzi (1992), arbitrated the link between cognitive assessments and behavioral intents in a contemporary consumer attitude model. Emotions have consequences for behaviour and goal achievement. Positive emotions are related to the achievement of a (sub)goal that typically results in the decision to stick with the plan. On the other hand, negative emotions are associated with problems with ongoing plans and failures in reaching the objectives set forth.

Rational Factors

The emphasis of rational appeal, as mentioned by Johar and Sirgy (1991), is usually on the practical and utilitarian benefits of a product. Examples of messages could highlight the product’s superiority, money-saving attributes, worthiness, effectiveness, and trustworthiness. The brand’s high quality and distinctiveness capture customers’ attention especially when compared to other brands. In this respect, this measure poses difficulty in constraining the core goal of an effective branding, which revolves around crafting a distinctive brand in comparison to competitors (Keller, 2003). In fact, the distinguishing factor of a brand lies in its ability to outshine others. By possessing its own distinctive and unique qualities, a brand gains substantial sway over the consumers’ mind and significantly contributes to its overall reputation (Boshoff, 2014).

The Acute Competition in the HE Sector and the Advent of Branding

The Higher Education sector is challenged by an increasingly important competition coupled by the heightening financial pressure, amongst others, caused by the central fluctuations that occurred during the last decades (Becher and Trowler, 2001); subsequently, the HEIs are converging into a corporatization model (Brookes 2003; Hemsley-Brown and Goonawardana 2007) by resorting to aggressive marketing practices, notably, branding (Naude and Ivy 1999; Ruch 2001). These constraints are predicted to downgrade the enrollment number; ergo, HEIs are stretching the scope of their target-directed offers by encompassing the international student as a vital component in their new marketing and promotional strategies (Naidoo 2006; Naidoo and Wu 2011).

Other factors such as the quest for differentiation and the students’ fees reinforced the idea of the Higher Education sector marketization; many HEIs are already managed as corporate brands (Whelan and Wohlfeil, 2006). According to Stamp (2004), branding in Higher Education is growingly comprehended by universities. The HEIs’ competition has stimulated and fueled the pursuance of differentiation in the context of the adoption of the market-based model (Becher and Trowler, 2001). Albeit, the products and programs offered by universities lean to congruence (Chris Chapleo, 2015).

Several factors have motivated HEI branding, notably, preventing the enrolment and the retention decline, the exacerbated competition, strengthening the image and reputation, expanding the financial resources, being in alignment with the mission (Cobb 2001; Williams 2012; Williams, Osei, and Omar 2012; Williams and Omar 2014).

For Jevons (2006), branding is a shorthand action that gives a rapid representation and communication for all the criteria that constitute the quality of the HEIs, although Bennett et al. (2007) state that HEIs need strong brands to develop the awareness of their existence while differentiating themselves from the competitors. Besides, branding is decisive in assisting the students’ choice in a more effective way since it offers something of substance upon which the consumers base their choice (Blumenthal and Bergstrom, 2003). Indeed, the success of the HE branding reside in the capacity of the institutions to prevail in the consumer’s mind as a strong educational brand. Dibb and Simkin (1993) present Harvard Business School as a thriving illustration of a strong brand seeing that it succeeded to build and preserve a unequivocal stance in the consumer’s mind. Oxbridge and the Red bricks are shown as having uniquely distinguished positions compared with other universities which depict the efficiency of their branding, concede Dibb and Simkin (1993), albeit, they acknowledge that usually the positioning just happens in an impromptu way throughout the time.

Applicability and Challenges of Branding in the Educational Sector

Admittedly, the preservation of a strong brand is challenging regardless of the sector, although the HE sector presents unique struggles which Bodoh and Mighall (2003) explained from the British vision to the effect that the challenge resides in the sector’s belated aptitude to adopt the branding approaches. Johnston (2001) agreed that in the HE sector much remains to be done before perfectly embodying the branding notion.

The difficulty facing the HE sector is the deficiency of an effective marketing application that isn’t sufficiently developed to be transposed to this industry (Hankinson, 2004). Jevons (2006) believes that the natural convolution of the education sector impedes the transposition of the common branding procedure. While Bulotaite (2003) acknowledges the complex nature of the HE sector but trusts branding to untangle it and support the university’s attraction process. Nevertheless, Sargeant (2005) has a cautioning view about branding in universities insofar as it generates unhealthy competitive attitudes and undertaken expenses that are of uncertain benefits. According to a US study conducted by Brewer et al (2002) discussed by Dill (2003), HEIs lean toward investing in their prestige, notably the consumption services intended for students as the dormitories and facilities. Yet, these investments are a zero-sum game since they have a hypothetically slight impact on the students’ choice (Brewer and al, 2002). An idea that was confirmed in the Norwegian study where the data showed that a greater student’s satisfaction was based on factors associated to the learning and teaching process rather than the university’s prestige and its accommodations (Wiers-Jenssen et al., 2002).

The complexity of the development of a brand principle in HEIs is occasioned by various factors, namely, the different stakeholders and parties involved, the sub-branding by universities, the large variety of programs and majors, the information chasm between the students’ choice considerations and the universities’ publications and the change resistance in the HEI (Birnbaum 1983; Chapleo 2007; Hankinson 2001; Hemsley-Brown and Oplatka 2006).

Brooke (2003) states that branding, as a commercially focused activity, is problematic in the HE perspective seeing that the nature of the sector in which the needs the institution is being mindful to are not exclusively commercial goals. Various brand models amongst which “The Brand Box Model” (De Chernatony and McWilliam, 1990), “The brand Identity Prism” (Kapferer, 1992), “The Integrated Brand Model” (Le Pla and Parker, 2002) and Keller’s model (2003) recognize the significance of a well-defined brand principle, nonetheless, it seems hard to apply for the universities’ brand (Hankinson, 2001) notably due to the diversity of the stakeholders and the products offered as well as the internal organization.

The Subjectivity of the Brand Perception

The concept of perception means how we choose, arrange, and understand information to make sense of the world. A person’s perception greatly impacts their behavior as a consumer. This means that the way an individual sees things is more important to marketers than what is typically seen as reality (Kotler et al. 2019). Our perception of things is shaped not only by our sensory experiences, but also by their interconnectedness with other elements and our individual circumstances.

Brand Perception is a fundamental psychological factor that plays a pivotal role in influencing the consumer behavior through its involvement in the decision-making process. The perception of brands is controlled by consumers, not the brands themselves. What people say or think about your brand is your brand, regardless of your message. Strong brands conquer the prefrontal cortex. Furthermore, it emphasizes the importance of thinking about the entire customer experience (Bian and Moutinho, 2011). Customers form opinions about brands based on several built-in factors. As per Aaker (1991), customers evaluate a product based on its performance, features, adherence to specifications, reliability, durability, possibility of service and finish quality. In the case of a service, Aaker (1991) noted that customers determine its quality based on tangibles, reliability, expertise, responsiveness, and empathy.

It is crucial for today’s marketers to comprehend the concept of perception, as it significantly impacts a customer’s decision to purchase a product based on their perceived product quality. People’s perceptions of reality fluctuate depending on their individual experiences, life histories, and personal situations when perceiving people, products, or brands, as explained by Antonides & Van Raaij (1998). Given this contrast, each person has a subjective perception of reality. This “subjectivity of reality or perception” has a crucial relevance in this field of study since it implies that each consumer has his or her own unique brand mental map (or consumer brand representation).

Student’s Choice and Decision-making Behaviour

The process of the student’s choice of an HEI remains quite complex due to the multitude of factors that are involved, as well as their interrelationships. Krone, Gilly, Zeithaml and Lamb (1981) point out that students refer to multi-attribute models and conceptions when evaluating and choosing an HEI. This allows them to rank options and prioritize the most important and crucial criteria in their decision-making process. We understand that students nowadays want more information in order to make better-informed decisions. This implies that prospective students evaluate a greater number of factors in considerably more complicated ways than in the past (Moogan & Baron, 2003). Chapman (1981) categorized these interfering factors in the student choice into internal and external factors, which are not distinctly separate but impact simultaneously the student decision-making behaviour. This latter concept was addressed by Punj and Staelin (1978) by arguing that ‘little is known about the underlying student buyer behaviour and how they select a college’.

Berry (2000) emphasizes the significance of branding for service companies as it fosters trust among customers who are unable to visually assess the products they are purchasing. A robust brand enables customers to visualize and make sense of things that may be intangible or invisible to them. They help customers feel safer and more comfortable when buying services that are hard to judge before purchasing. Strong brands act as substitutes when the company does not have physical products that can be felt, examined, or tested. Foskett and Hesketh (1997) support the importance of understanding how decisions about choosing an HEI are made, including the variables involved in the student’s choice as an informed consumer looking for the option that best suits their needs. Thus, the main concerns during this process are the career prospects and reaching higher positions (Krone, Gilly, Zeithaml and Lamb, 1981), the courses available and the skills and learning that will be gained (Erdmann, 1983; Saunders, Hamilton and Lancaster 1978), the parents’ influence, the financial support and the cost of the education (Welki and Navratil, 1987), the proximity from the HEI (Kohn, Manski & Mundel, 1976). As stated above, there are two perspectives enabling to classify the factors exerting an influence on the HEI choice, rational and emotional dimensions, yet they must be used in tandem for the sake of grasping the bedrock of the student’s choice.

Conclusion

In summary, the exploration of branding in Higher Education institutions and its role in influencing students’ choices has shown how complex and multidimensional this phenomenon is. We started by investigating the broader concepts of branding, gradually narrowing our focus to the particular use of branding within the educational sector. The context for branding in HE was set in an intense competition, prompting institutions to adopt brand strategies as a means of differentiation.

Our research yielded several important conclusions, one of which being the subjectivity of brand perception. We recognized that students had very personal perceptions of Higher Education brands that are shaped by their own experiences and expectations. The student’s mental image of an HEI brand is a dynamic and constantly evolving construct that differs from one student to another. The investigation then concentrated on the crucial idea of brand image, underlining its two aspects: emotional and rational. The review of existing literature underscored the factors that contribute to each dimension and explained how these components come together to mold an institution’s overall brand image which, in turn, shapes students’ choices. Not only has this thorough analysis clarified these nuances, but it has also laid the groundwork for additional studies.

Bibliography

• Aaker, D.A. (1991). Managing Brand Equity. The Free Press, New York.
• Aaker, D.A. (1996). Measuring Brand Equity across Products and Markets. California Management Review, 38, 102-120.
• Alcott, B., Giampietro, M., Mayumi, K., & Polimeni, J. (2012). “The Jevons paradox and the myth of resource efficiency improvements”. Routledge
• Angulo, F., Pergelova, A., & Rialp, J. (2010). A market segmentation approach for higher education based on rational and emotional factors, Journal of Marketing for Higher Education, 20: 1, 1 — 1
• Antonides, G., & van Raaij, WF. (1998). Consumer Behaviour. A European Perspective. John Wiley & Sons Inc
• Bagozzi, R. P. (1992). The self-regulation of attitudes, intentions, and behavior. Social Psychology Quarterly, 55(2), 178–204
• Bagozzi, R.P., Gopinath, M., & Nyer, P.U. (1999) The Role of Emotions in Marketing. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 27, 184-206
• Becher, T., & Trowler, P.R. (2001). “Academic Tribes and Territories: Intellectual Enquiry and the Cultures”, Open University Press.
• Bennett, J., Lent, P. C., Harris, P. J. C., (2007). Dry season foraging preferences of cattle and sheep in a communal area of South Africa. Afric. J. Range For. Sci., 24 (3): 49-53
• Berry, L.L. (2000) Cultivating Service Brand Equity. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 28, 128-137.
• Birnbaum, R. (1983). “Maintaining diversity in higher education”. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass
• Blumenthal, D., & Bergstrom, A.J. (2003). “Brand Councils That Care: Towards the Convergence of Branding and Corporate Social Responsibility”, Journal of Brand Management 10(4)
• Bodoh J, Mighall R. 2003. Study here because you’re worth it. The Times Higher Education Supplement. March 7. 23
• Boshoff, C. (2014). The influence of “buffering” variables on clients’ willingness to engage in dysfunctional behavior after a service failure, South African Journal of Economic and Management Sciences
• Brewer, D., Gates, S.M., & Goldman, C.A. (2002). “In pursuit of Prestige: Strategy and Competition in US Higher Education”, Transaction Press.
• Brookes, M. (2003). “Higher education: Marketing in a quasi-commercial service industry”, International Journal of Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Marketing, 8 (2)
• Bullmore, J. (1984) The Brand and Its Image Revisited. International Journal of Advertising, 3, 235-238.
• Bulotaite, N. (2003). “University heritage-an institutional tool for branding and marketing”, Higher Education in Europe, 28(4)
• Caldwell, N., & Coshall, J. (2002). “Measuring brand associations for museums and galleries using repertory grid analysis”, Management Decision, Vol. 40 No. 4, pp. 383-392.
• Caldwell, N., Freire, J. (2004). The differences between branding a country, a region and a city: Applying the Brand Box Model. J Brand Manag 12, 50–61
• Chapman, David W. (1981), A Model of Student College Choice, Journal of Higher Education: Volume 52 (5), pp. 490–505
• Chapleo, C. (2007). “Barriers to brand building in UK Universities?”, International Journal of Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Marketing, (February), 12(1)
• Chapleo, C. (2015). “Brands in Higher Education: Challenges and Potential Strategies”, International Studies of Management and Organization.
• Chaudhuri, A. and Holbrook, M.B. (2001) The Chain of Effects from Brand Trust and Brand Affect to Brand Performance: The Role of Brand Loyalty. Journal of Marketing, 65, 81-93.
• Cobb, C. (2001). “The concept of brand identity in relation to students’ intent-to-persist”. Doctoral dissertation, University of Oklahoma
• Cutler, B. D., & Javalgi, R. G. (1993). Analysis of print ad features: Services versus products. Journal of Advertising Research, 33(2), 62–69.
• De Chernatony, L., & McWilliam, G. (1990). “Appreciating Brands as Assets through a Two -Dimensional Model.” Journal of Marketing Management (9)
• De Chernatony, L., & McDonald, M. (2005). “Creating Powerful Brands”, Oxford, UK: Elsevier.
• De Chernatony, L. (2010). “From Brand Vision to Brand Evaluation”, Oxford, UK: Elsevier.
• Dibb, S., & Simkin, L. (1993). “The Strength of Branding and Positioning in Services”, International Journal of Service Industry Management, 4 (1)
• Dill, D. (2003). “Allowing the market to rule: The case of the United States”, Higher Education Quarterly, 57(2)
• Dobni, D. and Zinkhan, G.M. (1990) In Search of Brand Image: A Foundation Analysis. Advances in Consumer Research, 17, 110-119.
• Bian, X., & Moutinho, L. (2011). The role of brand image, product involvement, and knowledge in explaining consumer purchase behaviour of counterfeits: Direct and indirect effects. European Journal of Marketing, 45(1-2), 191–216.
• Dolich, I. J. (1969). Congruence relationships between self images and product brands. Journal of Marketing Research, 6(1), 80–84
• Erdmann, D. G. (1983). An Examination of factors influencing student choice in the college selection process, Journal of College Admissions, part 100, pp 3-6
• Evans, D. (2001). Emotion: The science of sentiment. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
• Foskett, N., & Hesketh, A. J. (1997), “Student Decision-Making and the Post-16 Marketplace”, HEIST. Research Publications.
• Hankinson, G. (2001). “Location Branding: A Study of the Branding Practices of 12 English Cities”, Journal of Brand Management 9(2)
• Hankinson, P. (2004).” The Internal Brand in Leading UK Charities”, Journal of Brand Management 13(2)
• Harris, F., & de Chernatony, L. (2001). Corporate branding and corporate brand performance. European Journal of Marketing, 35(3-4), 441–456
• Hart, S., & J. Murphy, J. (1998), Brands: The New Wealth Creators, Palgrave/ Interbrand., p 61
• Hemsley-Brown, J., & Oplatka, I. (2006). “Universities in a Competitive Marketplace – a Systematic Review of the Literature on Higher Education marketing”, International Journal of Public Sector Management 19 (4)
• Hemsley-Brown, J., & Goonawardana, S. (2007). “Brand harmonisation in the international higher education market”, Journal of Business Research
• Hendon, D.W., & Williams, E.L. (1985). “Winning the Battle For Your Customer.” Journal of Consumer Marketing, 2, 4(Fall), 65-75.
• Herzog, H. (1963). Behavioral Science Concepts for Analyzing the Consumer. In: Bliss, P., Ed., Marketing and the Behavioral Sciences, Allyn and Bacon, Inc., Boston, 76-86.
• Holt Douglas B., Why Do Brands Cause Trouble? A Dialectical Theory of Consumer Culture and Branding, The Journal of Consumer Research, Vol. 29, No. 1, (Jun. 2002), pp. 70-90
• Jevons, C. (2006). “Universities: A Prime Example of Branding Gone Wrong”. Journal of product and brand management 15 (7): 466-467
• Johar, J.S. and Sirgy, M.J. (1991). Value-Expressive versus Utilitarian Advertising Appeals: When and Why to Use Which Appeal. Journal of Advertising, 20, 23-33
• Johnston, A. (2001). “Branding: The Key to Student Recruitment (or Maybe Not)”, Education Marketing
• Kohn, M. & Manski, C. F., & Mundel, D. S., (1976). “An Empirical Investigation of Factors Which Influence College-Going Behavior,” NBER Chapters, in: Annals of Economic and Social Measurement, Volume 5, number 4, pages 391-419, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
• Kapferer, J. N. (1992). “Strategic Brand Management”. London: Kogan Page
• Kapferer, J. N. (2001). “(Re) Inventing the Brand”. London: Kogan Page
• Keller, K. L. (2003). “Strategic Brand Management: Building, Measuring and Managing Brand Equity
• Krone, F., Gilly, M., Zeithaml, V., & Lamb, C. W. (1981). Factors influencing the graduate business schools decision. American marketing service proceedings1, pp. 453–456.
• Kotler, P., Keller, K. L., Manceau, D., & Hemonnet, A. (2019). Marketing Management. Paris: Nouveaux Horizons.
• Le Pla, F. J., & Parker, L.M. (2002). “Integrated Branding”. UK: Kogan Page.
• Levy, S.J., & Glick, I.O. (1973), “Imagery and Symbolism.” Marketing Manager’s Handbook, Stewart H. Britt, Editor (Chicago, II. :Dartnell) 961 -69.
• Levy, S.J. (1978). Marketplace Behavior—Its Meaning for Management. Amacom, New York.
• Louro, M. and Cunha, P. (2001). “Brand Management Paradigms,” Journal of Marketing Management, 17, 7/8: 849-875.
• Naidoo, V. (2006). “International education: A tertiary level industry update”, Journal of Research in International Education, 5 (3)
• Naidoo, V., & Wu, T. (2011). “Marketing strategy implementation in higher education: A mixed approach for model development and testing”, Journal of Marketing Management,
• Naude, P., & Ivy, J. (1999). “The marketing strategies of universities in the United Kingdom”, International Journal of Educational Management
• Packard , V. (1991 ). The hidden persuaders. London : Penguin
• Punj, G.N., & Staelin, R. (November 1978). “The Choice Process for Graduate Business Schools”, Journal of Marketing Research, pp. 588–598.
• Pusser, B. (2002). “Higher education, the emerging market, and the public good”. The knowledge economy and postsecondary education: Report of a workshop
• Richins, M. L. (1997). Measuring emotions in the consumption experience. Journal of Consumer Research, 24(2), 127–146.
• Ruch, R. (2001). “Higher Ed, Inc.: The rise of the for-profit university”, Baltimore, MD: The Johns Hopkins University Press.
• Sargeant, A. (2005). “Marketing Management for Nonprofit Organizations”, Oxford: Oxford University Press.
• Stamp, R (2004), “The new challenge of branding buy-in”, Education News, Winter 2004, Euro RSCG Riley, pp.7.
• Saunders, J. A., Hamilton, S. D., & Lancaster, G.A (1978). A study of variables governing choice of course in Higher Education, Assessment in Higher Education
• Urde, M. (2003), “Core value‐based corporate brand building”, European Journal of Marketing, Vol. 37 No. 7/8, pp. 1017-1040
• Veloutsou et al. (2004) argue that the most important information candidates seek is related to reputation, courses and campus
• Wies-Jenssen, J., Stensaker B., & Grogard J.J. (2002). “Student Satisfaction – Towards an Empirical Decomposition of the Concept”, Quality in Higher Education, 8
• Williams, R. L. Jr. (2012). “Branding through renaming for strategic alignment in service organizations”. Doctoral dissertation thesis, Edinburgh Napier University
• Williams, R. L. Jr., Osei, C., & Omar, M. (2012). “HEI branding as a component of country branding in Ghana: Renaming Kwame Nkrumah University of Science and Technology”. Journal of Marketing for Higher Education, 22 (1)
• Welki, A. M., & Navratil, F. J. (1987). The Role of Applicants’ Perceptions in the Choice of a College, College and University, Volume 62, pp. 147–160.
• Williams Jr., R. L. and Omar, M. (2014) How Branding Process Activities Impact Brand Equity within Higher Education Institutions. Journal of Marketing for Higher Education, 24, 1-10.
• Whelan, S., & Wohlfeil, M. (2006). “Communicating brands through engagement with ‘lived’ experiences”, Journal of Brand Management 13
• Moogan, Y.J., Baron, S., (2003). An analysis of student characteristics within the student decision making process. Journal of Further and Higher Education, 27(3), p. 271-287