With great fanfare, The University of Delaware has unveiled a new rebranding. The rebranding has at its core this simple phrase:
Dare to Be First.™
They write:
The brand brings our strategic priorities to reality, defining what we stand for and the essence of the UD experience. It highlights our internal strengths–the distinctive values and characteristics of our colleges, programs, people and initiatives–that provide the substance on which our core messages are based. And it takes into account the way external perceptions help to shape and differentiate our identity from that of other institutions.
You can read the rest of the article here.
So here’s the question – is “Dare to be First” actually a brand strategy or is it really a gussied-up tagline?
To help answer that question, here is a little background. A brand strategy needs to meet four simple criteria. There is nothing elusive or arcane about the criteria themselves. The challenge comes in meeting all four. Here are the criteria:
- A brand strategy needs to respond to an established audience desire.
- It needs to distinguish the product or service from the competition.
- It needs to possess a high degree of authenticity.
- It needs to possess “stretch,” providing direction for future growth.
How well do you think the University of Delaware did?
And here is a bonus question – if you believe that the University of Delaware spent significant time and money to end up with something that amounts to a tagline, where do you think they went wrong? That is a more difficult but ultimately more important question, since colleges and universities across the country are devoting major resources to just this sort of project and ending up with just this sort of result.
Mark, my take on this is that, without seeing its internal branding document, UD did create a comprehensive strategy. When I hear that the research phase was supported by a group of faculty and staff, I get concerned that they were focusing on identity and mission, instead of brand. But when they talk about seeing their university through the lens of their constituents, I think that maybe they understood the difference.
Overall, it does sound to me like it is a new direction for UD, changing what was or finally creating a brand direction from what was not. It’s more than a typical tagline process if it surveys internal and external constituents, shapes its idea of brand around that data, and then strategizes (and details) how the university will speak to its various audiences.
In terms of your criteria, I think it fulfills #1 if they did indeed survey their constituencies to see what their brand is.
Your second criterion? Well, that’s a tough one considering just how much all colleges are alike and how it is virtually impossible to differentiate from everyone else. I don’t know if they’re differentiating themselves sufficiently in their market, but after all that work, they should have.
As an outside observer from a large distance away, it appears to me that they are being authentic to who they are and have been. And it’s hard for me to know about #4.
It just seems that this is a comprehensive approach, not just some brainstorming session on taglines, or some tagline generated by a publication company. The extent to which they are truly talking brand instead of mission and identity, they’ve succeeded in understanding better what their brand is.
Rick–Thanks for the thoughtful response. You are definitely right when you say that UDel talks the talk. They do. It’s apparent that they worked with some established higher education consultants. On paper, they did everything right. So why did the results fall short? When you hear a really good brand strategy a little shiver goes up your spine. Reality gets a subtle shift. You realize an organization has said something new, yet obvious, that increases your level of interest. None of this is true with the UDel campaign. I can assure you that alumni are likely to greet the campaign with a raised eye-brow as much as increased enthusiasm.
I suspect problems started at the research stage. If you read the article, you’ll see that the outcomes from the research were self-serving slogans without much bite. At that point, I suspect the organization got happy that they were on the right course when in fact they were working with a hollow foundation. Much higher ed marketing falls short at the research stage because of the costs involved and suspect approaches. We can revisit this one three years from now and see who was right.