BRAND STRATEGY
INITIATIVE
GOAL
UM’s Brand Strategy Task Force works to
build awareness and recognition of UM’s
attributes by developing a comprehensive
brand strategy and marketing plan. Goals
are to increase alumni engagement, receive
more philanthropic and legislative support,
and enhance faculty, staff, and student
recruitment and retention through effective
brand management and marketing.
SCOPE OF PROJECT
Three phases
1. Research, positioning & message development
2. Creative work
3. Marketing plan
PRELIMINARY TIMELINE
Nov. 7
Nov. 23
Jan./Feb.
March
April
May
June
Proposals due
Contract to be awarded
Research & discovery,
positioning statement creation
Message development
Messaging platform delivered
Creative development
Marketing plan development
TASK FORCE MEMBERS
C o - C ha i r s :
Provost Perry Brown and Beth Hammock, UM Foundation Vice President, Strategic
Communications and Marketing
C a m p us R e p r e s e nt at i v e s :
Jen Gursky, President, ASUM
Rick Hughes, Chair, Department of Media Arts
Bill Johnston, Director, Office of Alumni Relations
Rosi Keller, Associate Vice President for Administration and Finance
Peggy Kuhr, Dean, School of Journalism
Jed Liston, Assistant Vice President for Enrollment Services
Jakki Mohr, Regents Professor, Department of Management and Marketing
Jim O’Day, Director, Intercollegiate Athletics
Sharon O’Hare, Executive Director, Office for Student Success
Cary Shimek, Senior News Editor, University Relations
Allison Squires, Staff Senate
Bill Woessner, Regents Professor, Department of Geosciences
Kim Zupan, Carpentry Program, Department of Industrial Technology
C o m m u ni t y / A l umni R e p r e s e nt at i v e s :
Mike McDonough, Retired Telecommunications Executive, UM Foundation Trustee
Ginny Merriam, Public Information/Communications Director, City of Missoula
Tim O’Leary, Co-Founder and CEO, R2C Group, UM Foundation Trustee
Jeremy Sauter, Marketing Consultant
THE CHALLENGE
Average Alumni Annual Giving Rate: National Universities
61%
51%
50 %
4 1%
40 %
39%
39%
39%
39%
37%
37%
36%
35%
35%
35%
34 %
33%
33%
33%
32%
32%
Princet on
Dart m out h
Not re Dam e
Yale
Harvard
Duke
Brow n
U Penn
USC
MIT
Em ory
Colum bia
Johns Hopkins
W ash U
St anford
Rice
U Chicago
A uburn
Brandeis
Lehigh
Cornell
32%
31%
31%
30 %
29%
29%
28%
28%
24 %
24 %
24 %
23%
23%
23%
23%
23%
22%
22%
22%
22%
21%
Source: U.S. News & World Report, 2010 Best Colleges Rankings
W ake Forest
Nort hw est ern
CalTech
U A labam a
Georgia Tech
Calt ech
Georget ow n
Clem son
Vanderbilt
U Tulsa
Tuft s
U Virginia
Bost on College
U Nebraska
Texas Christ ian
U Dayt on
U Nort h Carolina
W &M
Fordham
Yeshiva
Florida St at e
21%
20 %
20 %
20 %
20 %
19%
19%
18%
18%
18%
18%
17%
17%
17%
16%
16%
16%
16%
15%
14 %
14 %
U Oklahom a
Carnegie Mellon
Penn St at e
U Kansas
BYU
Tulane
Case W est ern
UC Sant a Barbara
Syracuse
U Rochest er
U W ashingt on
U Michigan
U Florida
SMU
Rensselaer
U Texas
Purdue
Ohio St at e
Pit t
UCLA
U Illinois
9.1% The University of Montana
SOURCE OF GIFTS TO UM
$15.0
$12.5
Millions
$10.0
$7.5
$5.0
$2.5
$0.0
2002
2003
Alumni
2004
2005
2006
Non-Alumni
2007
2008
Corp/Org
2009
2010
2011
Foundations
THE UNIVERSITY OF TEXAS
AT AUSTIN
“What Starts Here Changes the World”
Source: Carnegie Communications
UNIVERSITY OF TEXAS:
WHY WE NEED A BRAND
 A brand is a set of associations evoked by UT that should be:
 A short cut description of the actual experience
 Tied to UT’s mission, vision, and objectives
 Positive and motivational
 Why we need a brand:






Prospective Students: Creates an “easy choice”
Alumni: Generates loyalty and word-of-mouth recommendations
Parents: Results in payment of higher prices
Media: Insulates from negative situations
Internal Audiences: Directs behavior
Everyone: Enhances UT’s reputation over time
Source: Carnegie Communications
THE UNIVERSITY OF TEXAS
BRAND POSITIONING IDEA
The University of Texas at Austin is
leading the future of higher education.
As a unified community, UT is creating a
new vision of the public university for the
next generation that will have more
impact on changing the world than any
institution of its kind.
Source: Carnegie Communications
RETURN ON INVESTMENT:
BRAND VALUE
 Enrollment Metrics (applications, inquiries, visits,
matriculants, etc.)
 Student Quality Metrics (average test scores, GPA)
 Development Metrics (annual giving, campaign goals,
alumni participation)
 Academic/ Research Quality Metrics (faculty/ admin
recruiting, research funding, publishing)
 Operational efficiencies (unified/ centralized marketing
materials, resources)
 Soft Assets (spirit, loyalty, pride, motivation, state and
national prestige)
Source: Carnegie Communications
IT’S MONTANA’S TURN
Questions? Comments?
Contact me:
beth.hammock@mso.umt.edu or 243-4609