Abstract:

Referring to a College or University’s name as a “brand” may still strike some as a bit unorthodox. None-the-less, the term “brand” is regularly connected with extraordinary Schools of Business, many of which use the Young and Rubicam Brand Asset Valuator™ (BAV) model to measure their own brand equity relative to their competitor(s.) This work has four objectives: to (1) assess claims of significant differences between two important rating services’ surrogate measures of brand equity, US News and World Report’s “World’s Best 400 Universities” and Shanghai Ranking Consultancy’s “Academic Ranking of World Universities;” (2) develop a small liberal arts college brand equity model based on BAV’s conceptual framework; (3) determine significant differences between BAV’s four original independent variables/constructs, differentiation, relevance, esteem and knowledge, and our newly developed model; and (4) determine if perceived brand equity differs significantly among four classifications of Catawba applicants: (1) accepted but deposit never paid; (2) accepted, deposit paid, but never enrolled; (3) accepted and matriculating first time full time freshmen; and (4) accepted and matriculating nontraditional evening adult students.

By testing four hypotheses using t-tests, ANOVA, Factor Analysis and Multiple Linear Regression we evaluate the appropriateness and priority of each original BAV construct vis-à-vis one small liberal arts college. Better understanding group brand equity perceptual differences should improve targeted group communication and conversion ratios. This, in turn, should help move students from applicant and deposited applicant status to registered traditional and nontraditional student status.

Keywords:

Marketing Research, Brand Asset Valuator Model, Management, Young and Rubicam, US News, Best Universities, Academic Ranking, Regression, Factor Analysis, ANOVA.