UA rebranding

[LosAngelesZipFan]

Yeah, i agree that "best laid plans" can get horked up by leaks, etc. But clearly they had a plan to, at minimum, add the term as a descriptor-- "Ohio's Polytechnic". My assertion is that this should only have come after aligning the strategy and structure of UA around this organizing principle. After that had been accomplished over a couple of years operationally, then you could have looked at whether/how to use the term "polytechnic".

A better/Monday morning QB roll out would have been:

Early 2015: Major address by Scarborough early in the year to discuss his strategic direction. He talks about all the elements of a "polytechnic". He specifically calls out the benefits of one and how that maps to UA's past and future. Those are the key attributes he will build on for his strategy.

Balance of 2015 and 2016: Consistent roll out of news about UA securing industry partnerships across Ohio and the US (globally if possible). Degrees are changed to add in an experiential component. Service and volunteering become credit opportunities, or maybe even a requirement for graduation. Every major arts organization in NEO should be partnered with (including all the Cleveland institutions). Every major employer in NEO should be tied in. Nurture opportunities for global experience, particularly in China, India, Brazil, and sub-saharan Africa.

Early 2016: NEO's universities hold a public summit and discussion, each carving out a unique way to serve NEO. UA's is based on the polytech criteria.

Q1/2: 2016: Research the term in NEO-- is anyone getting it? Use the data to drive a set of branding decisions such as should we re-name? Should the term polytechnic be used at all? Has the term been infused with any meaning/relevancy over the prior 16 months of public discussion by UA?

Fall 2016: Roll out refreshed branding based on research-- everything on the table, from name to tagline to logo, but decisions are informed by the data.

[Captain Kangaroo]

And it has been a great marketing tool, he said. The largely undergraduate university has no football team but offers numerous research opportunities, with more than half of Cal Poly San Louis Obispo’s research papers having undergraduate authors.

No football team?

Speaking of research...someone obviously didn't do much of it.

[Balsy]

Every major employer in NEO should be tied in. Nurture opportunities for global experience, particularly in China, India, Brazil, and sub-saharan Africa.

Akron's already a Confuscious institute. That's pretty big when it comes to having opportunities for global experience. A standing we hopefully don't stand to lose because of this "Polytechnique" nonsense.

[LZIp]

ASU isn't a polytech. Proof you don't need it to have these partnerships with corps.

[LosAngelesZipFan]

Agreed Lzip-- that's exactly the point. The strategic direction makes sense, but "polytechnic" as a term really doesn't help anything.

[LZIp]

re: law school

http://abovethelaw.com/careers/2015-law-school-rankings/

[a-zip]

Interesting. Is someone scrambling???? http://www.cleveland.com/metro/index.ssf/2015/03/kent_state_university_seeks_a.html

No wonder Dr. Scarborough's peers are upset

Seems a bit hypocritical of Can't's president to criticize http://wcbe.org/post/university-akrons-rebranding-effort-criticized-other-schools

In my opinion, this is part of the reason why our findings, our research, our studies our "TRADE SECRETS" should be kept confidential until the administration is ready to announce. Why would we want to give our intelligence to competitors. It would have been nice to have a fully baked the plan, strategy and then roll it out to everyone….it would have given us a much larger head start and been a smoother rollout.

[zen]

If you work in business, you have to deal with marketing professionals all the time.
If you got inside their head, or were a fly on the wall in the private meeting rooms, you'd realize that these organizations are very insecure about their ability to provide a legitimate product that can perform measurably. Fortunately for them, measuring such effects is no provable science. How do you know what would have happened had you not gone to market with their product?

These people have a real job. Sales. They are salesmen. Their true goal is to convince someone that the money that was spent on them was worth it. To make them believe that what they do makes a significant positive difference. The actual product, that's just the ploy. The real game is selling the contract.

Some agencies and professionals really can make significant difference in the market, with real substantive product. Most are masters of smoke & mirrors, bells & whistles, flash & promise.

[LosAngelesZipFan]

I take it, Zen, that you aren't a marketing guy... I'm sure you've heard the phrase "lipstick on a pig". That's the essence of marketing-- how do you take whatever you've got and make it as interesting, attractive, and sellable as possible, even though everyone knows it's just a pig.

So, now Can't is refreshing its brand. YSU and CSU will each be spending to do that as well to keep up. Between the 4 of them, there will have been $500K+ spent on marketing consultants just for positioning, mostly against each other.

Then each will develop their campaigns, which will be another $750K across the 4. Then they will create advertising and buy media. I'll bet the annual cost of these 4 schools competing with each other is at least $10-15 million. What if that money had gone into scholarships or in keeping tuition down or in hiring better faculty or in aligning resources against kids that are likely to drop out in their first year?

A bunch of foundations need to get together and fund a NEO view of this-- get Knight, Gund, etc. foundations to create a NEO higher ed strategy and really analyze the potential of each U, individually and collectively, and make a reco on how best to propel NEO, in the context of higher ed in general and Ohio in particular.

[skip-zip]

Some good stuff in your post, Zen.

Whether it makes the press or not, positioning yourself for greater success is an ongoing process for any organization.

But, it doesn't mean that a selected path is a good one.

[a-zip]

While I agree there is a "marketing" side to this from the University of Akron's point, I also believe there is more to our strategy than a simple name change. I believe a large part of our strategy will surround the fundamental change of curriculum, changes in programs and options in how courses are delivered (online). I think there will be a focus on investing and developing the programs where we are best. I don't know any of this as fact but there have been statements made along these lines.

It is my opinion that very few schools will be able to offer everything to everyone.

I believe a name change is more of an issue for Can't State because of the shootings….it always has been a cloud over their heads.

Lipstick on a Pig - http://www.kentwired.com/latest_updates/article_4fccf4a2-f1f1-11e4-9764-97d68c895c6d.html They tried to change to Can't a while back didn't they?

Just a thought - if Dr. Scarborough and constituents saw a merger of the NE Ohio schools coming, would our efforts been initiated? I have to believe they are privy to more information than most of us (certainly me).

[Dave in Green]

... Whether it makes the press or not, positioning yourself for greater success is an ongoing process for any organization.

But, it doesn't mean that a selected path is a good one.

True. And it also doesn't mean that a selected path is a bad one. Truth be told, a lot of the time we don't really know for sure whether a selected path is good or bad until we actually try walking down that path. The best estimates are usually made by the smartest people with the best judgment and access to the most comprehensive data. We can only guess how the polytechnic path is going to turn out in the long run. If those making the decision did their homework and intelligently weighed all the pros and cons, that's about all we can ask for.

[skip-zip]

Which doesn't mean that I will stop giving my opinion, both professionally and personally, about how I feel in regards to it's potential effectiveness.

I deal with people every day who are convinced that their business is on the right path. And I wish I had a nickel for every failed marketing strategy I've witnessed.

Dave, let me also add that we may not know for a very long time how this will turn out, in terms of saving the U of A. Maybe we'll never even know if this strategy was the largest contributor to my alma mater's success or failure. But for right now, they still need to deal with the short-term backlash. An overwhelming student/alum population who are against the change, a group of degree recipients over decades who feel alienated by what is perceived as a change in focus away from their obtained education type, current students/parents who are paying bills and appear to be in a "what the heck is this all about" mode, and what appears to be a very long learning curve for everyone to even grasp all of the details and meaning of the proposed change.

[Dave in Green]

Skip, I never expected you or anyone else to stop giving their opinions on a forum where everyone is free to state their opinions. I think we all agree that polytechnic is a hard sell even though UA already fits the definition of a polytechnic university. Maybe we need to get Neil deGrasse Tyson involved. He does a pretty good job of explaining black holes in a plain English way that people without scientific backgrounds can understand. Heck, he even convinced the public that Pluto is not the 9th planet in our solar system but a mere planetoid.

[skip-zip]

Yes, certainly a tough sell. But for more than one reason. Even if a fair amount of people ever understand it well enough, that still doesn't mean that they are going to accept it.

[a-zip]

If it is successful, I would have to think people will accept it. We won't know until we try. I would have to think Can't state following suit AFTER us would lend some credibility to the moves we are making. Their president (after being critical of us) basically started saying the same things as Dr. S did about distinguishing themselves and becoming a "great" university.

One of the reasons I get so frustrated with the leaking of information and the posting of miss-information is because I know how divisive it can be. So many people believe anything they read (whether it is on ZN.o or the ABJ) without investigating or researching (presidents get elected this way ;-) I firmly believe that UA's administration did not want all of this out yet for many reasons. This would have gone much better if they had a chance to finalize the strategy/rollout and been able to calmly present to everyone.

For me, I have read a lot about where education is heading. My son, while in his senior year of H.S., is going to be taking college courses and receiving dual credits. Why would we do this? 1- the "basic" college courses he will take are being offered at a fraction of the cost. 2- it gives him a chance to acclimate to college courses in his home, where I can possibly help. 3- he will likely finish half if not all of what would be his first years college courses. 4 - It looks great on his college application 5 - while taking these courses he may say....wow, this major is not for me and change 6 - statistics show that students taking college courses while in HS are more likely to graduate and more likely to get a graduate degree. To me, this is a no brainer. With the economy being the way it is, I have to think this approach makes sense for a lot of people right now. To be clear, for us, I am only talking about doing this for basic courses, not core courses.

http://classroom.synonym.com/advantages-taking-college-courses-during-high-school-1241.html

http://everydaylife.globalpost.com/advantages-taking-college-courses-during-high-school-4897.html

http://study.com/articles/Should_High_School_Students_Take_College_Classes.html

My opinion, from the UA standpoint, is if they ignore this trend going on, they will lose $$ and possibly students (in my opinion). My opinion is that it would make sense for UA to focus time, energy and money in taking our strongest programs and making them even better. UA and many many other schools have had their budgets cut and we don't bring in millions of dollars from sports revenue. My opinion is the schools that rake in $$$ from sports or have huge endowments are the only ones that will be able to offer the wide range of college degrees.

At this point, I don't know what UA's entire plan is. All I am saying is the vision makes sense to me and I am happy to see us take the lead in NEO.

[skip-zip]

a-zip...

1) Ken+ saying that they are going to "distinguish themselves" to make themselves "great", just like Akron is doing, does not mean that they are following our path. The people at any major University should be spending 365 days a year trying to improve their position. This shouldn't be a surprise.

2) You say that if the new direction for UA is successful, people will accept it? What would define "success"? Survival? For how long? 20-30 years from now? Would people recognize it when it happens? Is it still "successful" if we gain in some areas, and other areas are left behind. Would any part of the success even be measurable in the next several years?

Lots of questions.

[a-zip]

a-zip...

1) Ken+ saying that they are going to "distinguish themselves" to make themselves "great", just like Akron is doing, does not mean that they are following our path. The people at any major University should be spending 365 days a year trying to improve their position. This shouldn't be a surprise.

2) You say that if the new direction for UA is successful, people will accept it? What would define "success"? Survival? For how long? 20-30 years from now? Would people recognize it when it happens? Is it still "successful" if we gain in some areas, and other areas are left behind. Would any part of the success even be measurable in the next several years?

Lots of questions.

1- Yes all schools should be spending 365 doing this. UA has done that and made a decision - created a vision, started a path. It was initially criticized was it not by Can't and the other NEO schools? They appear to be scrambling. My point is, if they thought we were making a bad move, why would they now be spending money on consultants to differentiate themselves. Damn, can't somebody acknowledge that our administration is forward thinking? Maybe smart? Seems like everything on here is negative.

2- Definition of success? Again, I think when the strategy is set, the plan is put in place….the administration will likely outline the expected impacts. I am quite sure they have goals in mind, I don't know what they are.

If schools start folding up shop and we survive, I would say it was a success. If enrollment increases, maybe another success. Higher graduations rates, success. If the prestige of the school increases, success. Ticket sales and school spirit increase, national recognition …success. Profitability increases because of efficiencies, success. You are right…..there are a lot of questions. Who knows.

[Dave in Green]

At the most basic level a university's success can be measured by academic excellence and economic health. Both of those can be measured against other universities. The State of Ohio has its own set of measurements on which it bases economic support for public universities, but that can change with different administrations. Others have assorted measurements so that different schools can claim success by different standards. It's always a moving target. I can tell you one thing for sure. No matter where UA is 5 or 10 years from now there will be different opinions on its level of success right here in this forum as different people cite different measurements to prove their opinions.

[skip-zip]

a-zip...If people are being negative about the decision UA has made to take this path, we are in the overwhelming majority at this point. The students and alums (donors) of this University are their customers. They don't like it. When companies make decisions that their customers don't like, it's not a good thing.

I think I see that you may be applauding the fact that they've simply made a move. I think what you are missing is the fact that these kinds of things are always ongoing. I'd be upset if my alma mater was not continually making moves to makes themselves "great". Everyone else is doing the same thing. But, the only reason this became such a big story is because the "name change" possibility got out to the public.

[a-zip]

a-zip...If people are being negative about the decision UA has made to take this path, we are in the overwhelming majority at this point. The students and alums (donors) of this University are their customers. They don't like it. When companies make decisions that their customers don't like, it's not a good thing.

I think I see that you may be applauding the fact that they've simply made a move. I think what you are missing is the fact that these kinds of things are always ongoing. I'd be upset if my alma mater was not continually making moves to makes themselves "great". Everyone else is doing the same thing. But, the only reason this became such a big story is because the "name change" possibility got out to the public.

Skip - I agree, you all are the majority right now. Trust me, when I first heard the news (as I sipped from my A-Roo mug ;-) my first reaction was…WTF!!!

All I am saying is that I think people should reserve judgement until all the facts and research have been presented…..and I do understand the emotional reaction to the announcement. Unfortunately, I don't think this has initially been presented to the public in an ideal fashion (a leak that had to be addressed).

I am not even saying I agree with anything at this point, I am just saying that based on the research I have done the vision makes sense to me. When the strategy and plan are rolled out, I may say….that's really stupid ;-) Others might hear it and say….that makes a lot of sense. I just don't think we know enough at this point.

I think we can all agree that enrollment has gone down, the academic prestige is not where we would like it to be and the support for our sports teams are not the greatest.

[skip-zip]

I got ya. I haven't made final judgment either. Just my professional and personal opinion at this point. But, I really have wanted to point out that this shouldn't be some great revelation that a major University is taking a stab at a marketing/repositioning/differentiation, or whatever anyone wants to call it. I'd be disappointed if they weren't always examining potential ways to better themselves.

I don't think you are seeing emotional reactions though. I think that people who have received degrees over the preceding decades, and those who are actually paying for degrees right now, have some very legitimate concerns over the value of what they have paid/paying for.

EDIT:

More information in the Beacon today. Interesting part concerns my point above. Finally, a school of some stature, The Univ. of Purdue, is giving this "Polytechnic" designation to their Tech School ONLY. I think this validates the concerns of those outside of the STEM academic areas.

I also found it interesting that a UA vice president acknowledged that this roll out of the definition of "polytechnic" is going to be "a marathon".

[Zip_ME87]

Skip - I agree, you all are the majority right now. Trust me, when I first heard the news (as I sipped from my A-Roo mug ;-) my first reaction was…WTF!!!

All I am saying is that I think people should reserve judgement until all the facts and research have been presented…..and I do understand the emotional reaction to the announcement. Unfortunately, I don't think this has initially been presented to the public in an ideal fashion (a leak that had to be addressed).

I am not even saying I agree with anything at this point, I am just saying that based on the research I have done the vision makes sense to me. When the strategy and plan are rolled out, I may say….that's really stupid ;-) Others might hear it and say….that makes a lot of sense. I just don't think we know enough at this point.

I think we can all agree that enrollment has gone down, the academic prestige is not where we would like it to be and the support for our sports teams are not the greatest.

a-zip, I do understand your perspective, and now that the emotional aspect has calmed down some and I've done more reading, I agree with the wait and see approach on what Dr. Scarborough and company will propose in total. I think when you and I were at UA, the enrollment was higher than it is today even though we didn't have the beautiful, unified campus (Buchtel & Carroll Streets cut through campus), STudent Rec Center, etc. However, i believe when I started at UA, tuition was $37/credit hour...one of the lowest in the state. I'm certain that had much to do with enrollment numbers. I'm certainly not against moves that better position UA to concentrate on its strengths while cutting unnecessary or unsustainable programs that provide little, if any, benefit and are unjustifiable to the State of Ohio. I do remain much more skeptical of the Athletics Department. I still see a LOT of focus on Akron Football at the expense of other sports such as Basketball and Soccer. I wish the best for Akron Football and hope Terry Bowden can turn things around, but I'm tired of seemingly so much money going into a sports program that hasn't amounted to much in the D-1A era.

[ZachTheZip]

http://www.ohio.com/news/local/university-of-akron-not-only-college-going-polytechnic-1.596372

I guess Purdue voted to change the name of its College of Technology to the Purdue Polytechnic Institute. That goes in the face of all the rhetoric of "polytechnic" encompassing a broad range of academic programs.

Also, the president of the Akron chapter of the American Association of University Professors is named John Zipp. Not really related to the discussion at hand, but I thought it should be noted.

[Dave in Green]

The Purdue situation appears to be different from the others with a single college within the university being given the polytechnic name rather than the whole university. Similarly, Virginia Tech is different in being formally known as Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University. I suppose this all fits in with the fact that there is no hard and fast definition of a polytechnic university that perfectly fits all.

Since an institute is not necessarily a university, institute should never be considered for use in any description of UA, which needs to be known as a state university. Americans have their own take on the English language, which of course derives from England, so the confusion of polytechnic with technical, technology, technological, etc., is understandable. Going strictly by American dictionaries, the primary definition of poly is a prefix meaning "many" and the primary definition of technic is "technique." So a literal American translation of polytechnic should clearly be many techniques.

By the way it turns out that Texas Tech is irrelevant to the conversation as it has never in its history been called a polytechnic anything but began life as Texas Technological College. I'm already beginning to feel a little smarter after studying up more on the subject.