INTRODUCTION

In an April 2006 editorial, New York Times columnist Stephan Budiansky recounted his research for a satirical novel set on the campus of a university. ‘The idea was to have a bunch of gags about how colleges prostitute themselves to improve their US News & World Reports’ rankings and keep up a healthy supply of tuition-paying students while wrapping their craven commercialism in high-minded sounding academic blather’. Budiansky continued, ‘One of my best bits, or so I thought, was about how the fictional university … had hired a branding consultant to come up with a new name with the hip, possibility-rich freshness needed to appeal to today's students. Two weeks later, a friend called to say it was on the front page of The Times: “To Woo Students, Colleges Choose Names That Sell” ’ (p. A19).

While listing numerous illustrations of recent college re-brandings, Finder (2005) headlined the aforementioned article with the experience of Pennsylvania's Arcadia University. Within a year following the institution's name change from Beaver College, Arcadia University experienced a 52 percent rise in freshman applications, a 31 percent increase in freshman deposits, a 25-point boost in average SAT scores and a gain exceeding 100 percent in annual giving (O’Neill, 2002). Finder (2005) elaborated, ‘Names have gained increasing importance in the world of higher education’ (p. A1).

PURPOSE OF THE STUDY

From 1996 to 2005, 532 of the 3036 regionally accredited institutions in the United States experienced at least one re-branding. Eighteen of West Virginia's 32 regionally accredited institutions re-branded during this same period. By number alone, West Virginia ranked ninth in the United States; however, by proportion, West Virginia had a larger percentage (56.25 percent) of institutional re-brandings than any other state in the nation.

One specific type of institutional re-brand is the ‘college-to-university’ change. Of the 532 re-branded institutions in America, 151 became universities. In West Virginia, eight of the 32 regionally accredited institutions assumed university status. By number, West Virginia ranked fourth nationally, by percentage, however, West Virginia was the number one ranked state in the country with university re-brands.

This study set out to discover if there were factors unique to West Virginia (for example, demographic, social, economic and so on.) that could explain the proliferation of ‘college-to-university’ re-branding in the state. The increased frequency of this type of institutional re-branding appears to be, as Morphew (2000) reported, on the rise. By analyzing quantitative data within a context of qualitative research, it was hoped that an information-rich document would result. Such a study could be beneficial to administrators considering similar institutional changes.

POPULATIONS

As West Virginia is the only state that lies completely within Appalachia, the study investigated this re-branding strategy in 10 states that contained counties that are designated as being part of Appalachia – with West Virginia being a nested population of the larger region of study. The study also analyzed five distinct variables as they related to the ‘college-to-university’ change at 103 schools that re-branded as universities from 1996 to 2001. Finally, six schools with a similar brand name were compared to study brand confusion, protection, retention and dominance. Hence, four distinct populations exist:

  • A statewide population consisting of 10 West Virginia schools that became universities from 1979 to 2005 and one institution that was in the transition process during the period of data collection. Therefore, a total population of 11 West Virginia institutions was included in the study.

  • A regional population consisting of 51 institutions that re-branded as universities. These schools represented 10 states that contained counties that designated as being part of Appalachia by the Appalachian Regional Commission.

  • A national population that consisted of 103 institutions that became universities from 1996 to 2001. The entire population was studied.

  • Six institutions that utilized the Allegheny brand during 1996–2007. The entire population of schools using this geographic brand was analyzed.

METHODS

A mixed method approach, using both quantitative and a variety of qualitative data collection processes, was employed in this study. Johnson et al (2007) compared mixed method research to a fisherman's having two flawed nets. The holes in the nets represented the weaknesses found in both quantitative and qualitative research methods. By overlapping the nets, the weak areas from one net are compensated by the strength of the other net. Mixed method research, thus, uses overlapping techniques that strengthen the entire research project.

In addition, a post-modern theoretical perspective was used for this study and concentrated largely on administrative decisions. As Reason and Bradbury suggested, the post-modern perspective ‘emphasizes the intimate relationship between knowledge and power, how knowledge-making, supported by various cultural and political forms, creates a reality which favours those who hold power’ (2001, p. 6). The majority of the decisions to re-brand the institutions in this study began as the effort of one individual – usually the institutional president. In Georgia, however, the system chancellor effected the university change at 13 institutions.

Phase one: Initial information gathering

It was necessary for a study of the ‘college-to-university’ phenomenon, and institutional re-branding in general, to construct a list of regionally accredited institutions in the United States that experienced name changes during a 10-year period. Similar to the efforts by Spencer (2005) in his study of institutional name changes, a list of re-branded institutions was generated for period beginning in 1996 and ending in 2005. Unlike Spencer's (2005) list from 1992 to 2001, all schools not regionally accredited at the institutional level were eliminated. The master list was constructed from the HEP Higher Education Directories (1997–2006) and was compared to the membership lists of the six regional accrediting bodies (Rodenhouse, 1997–2002; Burke, 2003–2006).

Phase two: Quantitative processes

A population was constructed from a list of re-branded institutions from states that included counties designated by the Appalachian Regional Commission as part of Appalachia. Of the 13 qualifying states, three were eliminated: West Virginia, because it was further addressed in Phase Three; New York, as the only qualifying institution dropped the ‘university’ designation a few years after its adoption; and Mississippi, because it had no qualifying institutions. Surveys including Likert scales, rankings, checklists and open-ended questions were sent to administrators at all 51 colleges that became universities within the designated region during the years 1996–2005. A series of three mailings produced a return of 34 surveys or 66.67 percent. Quantitative data were analyzed using the SPSS software package for statistics, and qualitative data (that is, responses to open-ended questions) were later incorporated into Phase Three.

As the survey data relied upon individual perceptions, as do all survey data, additional quantifiable measures were sought to determine if significant effects of the re-branding could be documented. A total population of 103 schools (nationwide) that became universities from 1996 to 2001 was studied. Using methods similar to Koku's (1997) study on enrollment at institutions making a strategic name change, data for five variables (that is, enrollment, tuition, Carnegie classifications, the number and types of graduate programs, and undergraduate selectivity) were collected and analyzed using SPSS.

The incremental analysis compared the mean growth/loss in enrollment and tuition 5 years before the name change to 5 years after. As the remaining variables did not change as frequently and information was not available for the 5 years before the name change at a number of institutions, three variables analyzed differences from the year of the change to 5 years after the change. These variables included the number and type of graduate and professional degree programs, Carnegie Foundation Classifications and undergraduate selectivity.

Data were gathered using the HEP Higher Education Directories (1992–2007) for enrollment, tuition and Carnegie Classifications. Institutional catalogs from the change year and 5 years post-change were used to count the number of graduate and professional programs. These programs were prorated by using the hierarchy employed by the US Department of Education for degree and certificate programs. Scores were assigned accordingly by combining numbers and classification rankings for each school. Undergraduate selectivity was also analyzed and data were collected from US News and World Reports: America's Best Colleges (1998–2008). These volumes provided selectivity data from 2 years before the publication dates (that is, the 1998 edition included 1996 data). All data were analyzed using SPSS.

Phase three: Qualitative methods

Using the quantitative results and qualitative responses from the surveys as outlined in Phase Two, questions were developed for the subsequent qualitative portion of the study. Several qualitative methods were employed to provide triangulation. These included observation, historical research and direct interviews with institutional administrators.

The greater portion of the material gathered for this study came from interviewing individuals who were directly and indirectly involved in the administration and/or governance of West Virginia's higher educational institutions. As survey and historical data were being collected, it became evident that certain dynamics not present in West Virginia existed. To gain a further understanding of these areas, interviews with administrators in Georgia and Pennsylvania needed to be conducted. Additionally, representatives from institutions in Kentucky, Pennsylvania, Maryland and Virginia; the six regional accrediting bodies; consortia; and governmental agencies were contacted. Snowball sampling occurred as interview subjects occasionally suggested other knowledgeable parties to be interviewed.

Interviews were twofold: complete interviews and partial (one to three questions) interviews. The longer interviews were conducted with 22 individuals representing institutions, governing boards, consortia and the state legislature. These interviews ranged from 30 to 90 min in length. The shorter interview questions were directed to 48 other individuals who had specific information not known by the longer interview subjects. The number of individuals contributing information to this study (including 32 non-duplicated survey participants) totaled 102.

Synthesis

As materials were gathered, several general themes emerged. Although not all possible themes were investigated, some related to legislation and regulation, such as the semester system change in Georgia and the community college emergence in West Virginia, were necessary to explore as both had an impact on the overall effectiveness of the ‘college-to-university’ change in these states.

Finally, there were no good examples in West Virginia of colleges resisting the current trend to re-brand as universities. In addition, there were no illustrations of institutions successfully protecting their own brand names in the wake of the re-branding of other schools. While conducting background research, the story of Allegheny College (AC) in Meadville, PA emerged several times. It was thought to include this institution's experience within context of this research to explore its successful protection of its own brand identity. Interviews and historical research into Allegheny's four experiences of brand interloping by other institutions produced a study on this one particular brand name.

This study additionally related to the context of the ‘college-to-university’ name change because the focused institution, Allegheny College, was an example of an institution that had no desire of transitioning to university status. According to one AC administrator, ‘I hope we never become a university. I hope like Dartmouth, Williams, Amherst, and Swarthmore have seen fit to keep this very distinctive name “college”, that we’ll be able to do that. There are absolutely no plans to become a university. We haven’t speculated about it. We haven’t considered it’. Three West Virginia institutions (Concord University, Shepherd University and West Liberty University) admitted to weighing the value of remaining colleges; however, all eventually re-branded as universities.

RESEARCH QUESTIONS AND RESULTS

Question 1: What factors precipitated the ‘college-to-university’ change?

For the 34 institutions represented in the surveys, administrators ranked their responses to the primary reasons for making the change. The data categories were collapsed, responses were prorated and point values were assigned to all categories. Of the five most significant categories relating to the reason for the change, ‘to reflect the institution's current status’ had the greatest point value at 140 points. The other top reasons included (a) ‘to define the future mission of the institution’ (78 points); (b) ‘to increase institutional prestige’ (72 points); (c) ‘to increase enrollment’ (40 points); and (d) ‘to enhance the school's international reputation’ (32 points).

Through an analysis of the numbers and types of graduate programs at 103 institutions in the United States, inferences may be drawn to indicate the purpose for these schools’ adoption of the university designation. Because many of these institutions already had graduate programs and then added more within 5 years of the change, it may be inferred that a large number of these schools adopted the university name to reflect their existing status.

With West Virginia's loss in overall population, including the demographic containing traditional, college-aged students, it was assumed that many of the institutions in the state changed names in order to become more competitive. By comparing the number of institutions per capita with surrounding states, it appears that West Virginia is saturated with educational institutions. Although several interview subjects acknowledged these issues, they also indicated that they appeared to have no bearing on the decision to move to university status.

To determine the incentive for seeking university status, Tuzzolino and Armandi's (1981) and Martin's (1976) corporate interpretations of Abraham Maslow's hierarchy of needs were employed as models for categorizing the West Virginia institutions’ re-branding motivations. These factors included survival, security, affiliation and status needs. Only three schools appeared to exhibit survival mode tendencies at the time of the change to university status. Two additional institutions used to the opportunity to transition to what they hoped to eventually become (fulfilling a security need), and the remaining six schools changed names to reflect what they had already become (status need). While two institutions experienced mergers with larger institutions that culminated in re-brandings as universities, these unions were necessary for the smaller institutions’ survival; therefore, these two instances were not characterized as fulfilling an affiliation need but rather as meeting survival needs.

Question 2: What was the administration's justification for the university designation?

For the most part, entry into graduate education was the primary justification for having university status. Several interview subjects admitted that only one graduate or professional degree was necessary to qualify to become a university. Furthermore, the West Virginia Higher Education Policy Commission requires the existence of only one accredited graduate program as part of the qualifications necessary for a public institution to apply for ‘university status’. Unlike New Jersey and Pennsylvania, West Virginia has no specific requirements for private colleges desiring to re-brand as universities.

A secondary reason for university status justification was the implementation of an organizational structure that followed the traditional university pattern. This model included a plurality of schools or colleges under the university's governance. Schools that had neither a graduate degree program nor a university structure justified the university name through a comparison to similar institutions within their regions that already had adopted this designation. These institutions were in a minority.

There were several additional reasons administrators in West Virginia justified their schools being called universities. One of these was to align the school with the current definition of the term ‘university’, and thus conform to what has become an accepted practice. Of the entire membership of the American Association of State Colleges and Universities (2009), 90 percent of the member institutions are already designated as universities. Another justification was to better position the university brand outside of West Virginia. As the term ‘college’ was used for secondary schools in most of the world, the ‘university’ designation would be more attractive to international students. Related to this issue was the tendency for some community colleges in neighboring states to drop the ‘community’ designation and thus appear equal to 4-year colleges. By adopting ‘university’, the name sent a message to prospective students that the 4-year school was of a higher status than the formerly branded community colleges. Finally, it was felt that the ‘university’ designation had the potential to benefit the local economy.

Question 3: What was the institution's strategy for the re-branding process?

Several areas of strategic planning emerged from the survey data and the interviews. These included implementing structural changes related to the university organization, exercising care in the choice of names and calculating accurately the amount of time required for the change. Although not experienced by all institutions that re-branded as universities, one strategy was to align the institution with a university model by establishing several schools or colleges. One danger that The University of Charleston (UC) experienced was an overzealous model that overextended the institution's resources. In conjunction with the name change, UC's organization grew to seven schools each with its own dean. One administrator recalled, ‘We had one dean for every 100 students. It was an incredible bureaucracy … There were terribly high administrative budgets – top heavy’. A smaller and more manageable model would likely have served this institution better.

The most visible aspect of the ‘college-to-university’ change was the choice of name. The majority of the schools (53.06 percent) made a minor-simple change by just replacing ‘college’ with ‘university’. In West Virginia, these included Concord College re-branding as Concord University and Fairmont State College being renamed as Fairmont State University.

The second largest group of schools (34.01 percent) experienced minor-complex changes. This type of change retained the primary identity of the school, but other changes occurred with the addition of the ‘university’ designation. This included the addition or subtraction of words in the name or the reordering word order within the name. Some examples from the survey institutions included North Georgia College becoming North Georgia College and State University and Cumberland College re-branding as the University of the Cumberlands.

Finally, a minority of schools (12.93 percent) abandoned the old brand for a completely new identity. From the list of 103 re-branded universities from 1996 to 2001, examples included Pacific Christian College re-branding as Hope International University and Rosary College's transition to Dominican University.

Some concluded that there was an advantage to retaining the old brand as it required less of a financial commitment than other re-branding strategies. Additionally, inferences were drawn (although not supported by quantitative data) that stakeholder acceptance was greater when the existing institutional identity was retained.

There were times when a complete re-brand was seen as necessary. Stakeholder involvement in the decision aided this type of change in becoming more palatable to the school's constituents. The College of West Virginia's complete re-branding as Mountain State University is an example of the involvement of faculty and staff in the name selection. This was viewed as a positive move, whereas other institutions with little or no stakeholder involvement experienced greater difficulty in this process.

The reported time commitment for the re-branding averaged at 22 months. It was also noted that this time was probably indicative of the actual implementation of the change and not the entire time spent in planning for a proposed change. Where planning data were available, the reported time was considerably shorter than the actual time. This is consistent with actual planning times documented at other institutions – with overall planning at some schools exceeding a decade.

Question 4: What procedures did administration use to implement the change?

As indicated from the survey data and the administrative interviews, brand implementation and its financing emerged as important considerations when planning. Several implementation strategies were employed by West Virginia re-branded institutions. The institutions followed one of the six name-change strategies identified by Kaikati and Kaikati (2003). These included the following strategies: phase in/phase out, combined branding, translucent warning, sudden eradication, counter takeover and retrobranding.

The ‘Phase in/Phase out’ strategy allowed a gentle introduction of the new brand with a concurrent phasing out of the older brand. This was generally the case with Concord University, Fairmont State University, Shepherd University and West Virginia State University.

Merged institutions that fused the original brand to the new brand utilized a ‘Combined Branding’ strategy. Salem-Teikyo University (now Salem International University) and West Virginia University Institute of Technology (WVU Tech) both used this strategy. Two schools, UC and Mountain State University, employed the Translucent Warning strategy where intense promotion preceded a phase in of the new brand. With ‘Sudden Eradication’, Wheeling Jesuit University and Ohio Valley University dropped the old brands in favor of the new brands overnight. Two strategies identified by Kaikati and Kaikati, ‘Counter-Takeover’ and ‘Retrobranding’ were not employed by West Virginia schools.

Two areas that were generally not altered during the re-branding processes included schools’ colors and mascot names. Alumni generally regarded both as sacred territory. Although Georgia's Armstrong Atlantic had changed its mascot to the ‘Stingrays’, it eventually returned to the original mascot name of the ‘Pirates’. Only one school broached this area successfully: Georgia College & State University. While the institution's new name was initially problematic for stakeholders, allowing students to choose the new mascot and school colors was deemed a success. Although alumni responded negatively to the institutional re-branding, they did not protest this change.

In financing the re-branding initiative, most schools indicated that the monetary commitment was minimal at most. Where state institutions re-branded (as with West Virginia and Georgia), no additional funding was provided. Most schools admitted to allowing existing stationery to become exhausted before ordering new, some schools did not immediately change signage.

Question 5: What influence did regulatory bodies have upon the change?

According to information gathered during the interview process and through historical research, regulatory bodies (outside state bodies) had little effect up an institution's decision to implement a ‘college-to-university’ change. Although accrediting bodies and other degree-approving bodies could delay the implementation of graduate programs, these organizations generally did not influence re-branding efforts.

For state institutions, governmental agencies exerted great influence upon the name change. In Georgia, the Chancellor and the Board of Regents imposed name changes upon a number of institutions in 1996 (including 13 new universities). This produced mixed results. At schools where stakeholders responded negatively, the reactions were highly emotional. In West Virginia, the legislature had reservations with allowing Concord, Fairmont State, Shepherd and West Virginia State to be elevated to university status. Although the process was difficult, it required only one legislative session for passage. The legislative process in other states often lasted over a decade.

Question 6: What were reactions of stakeholders to the change?

When institutional re-branding occurs, its success is often judged by the reaction of key stakeholder groups. Historical research, survey results and interviews with administrators noted the level of involvement by key stakeholders. In several instances, stakeholders prevented an intended re-brand from being implemented. For this study, several groups were identified. These included students, institutional governing boards, administration, the community at large, faculty, alumni, former employees and other institutions. Some wielded more influence than others.

Student support

Although a question regarding students’ reaction to the name change was omitted from the institutional survey instrument, historical research and interviews with administrators provided information regarding student reactions. At several schools in Georgia and at Virginia's University of Mary Washington, students visibly opposed the name change by staging protests. In West Virginia, students initially had difficulty in accepting the transition from Morris Harvey College to The University of Charleston. These negative feelings subsided after several months. At Ohio Valley University, the students embraced the change immediately. At most other West Virginia schools, students were not polarized regarding re-branding efforts. Of the stakeholder groups, students did not appear to exert very much influence unless accompanied by other stakeholder groups voicing similar concerns.

Board support

According to the survey results, the area that garnered the most perceived support was the institutional governing board. With a 4-point Likert scale (4=‘strongly agree’; 3=‘agree’; 2=‘disagree’; 1=‘strongly disagree’), responses regarding board support were overwhelmingly positive. The mean score for board acceptance of the change was 3.94 with regard to the statement, ‘[t]he institutional board supported the change’.

Administrators’ responses to this statement were as follows: 93.75 percent strongly agreed and 6.25 percent agreed. No negative perceptions of the board's support of the change were noted. During the qualitative data collection process (both interviews and historical), it appeared that slight issues regarding board support occurred at two West Virginia schools. At UC, a former president serving as an emeritus trustee (and having a considerable amount of influence) could have become a major opponent to the name change measure; however, other board members intervened. Likewise, some board opposition existed at Wheeling Jesuit University until the president and other board members provided solid arguments for proceeding with the change.

Administration support

For the most part, the institution's administration supported the change from a college to a university. From the survey results, the mean score on a 4.00-scale was 3.74. In response to the statement ‘[a]dministration supported the change’, 28 administrators (82.35 percent) strongly agreed, four (11.76 percent) agreed, one (2.94 percent) disagreed and one (2.94 percent) strongly disagreed. At some West Virginia institutions, staffing alterations at the administrative level were necessary to accomplish the name-change initiative; however, the majority of presidents had full support of their administrative staffs for the re-branding agenda.

Community support

Regarding the statement, ‘[t]he community supported the change’, 33 administrators responded in the following manner: 17 (51.51 percent) strongly agreed, 13 (39.39 percent) agreed, two (6.06 percent) disagreed and one (3.03 percent) strongly disagreed. Two of the schools that had problems with the community at large had well-publicized conflicts with a number of stakeholder groups regarding the change. The mean score for community support was 3.39 on a 4.00-scale. Additionally, eight survey respondents listed ‘community sarcasm’ as one of the top five interesting aspects of the name change.

West Virginia institutions received little difficulty with community support with the exception of WVU Tech; most of this occurred much later when plans to move its flagship engineering department to a location 30 miles from the campus were being discussed. At Salem-Teikyo, there were some issues with the community accepting the influx of Japanese students, but this passed in time. In one instance, the community was the primary supporting group when Morris Harvey College transitioned to The University of Charleston.

Faculty support

Regarding the statement ‘[f]aculty supported the change’, 33 administrators responded in the following manner: 13 (39.39 percent) strongly agreed, 13 (39.39 percent) agreed, six (18.18 percent) disagreed and one (3.03 percent) strongly disagreed. The mean score was 3.15 on a 4.00-point scale. In West Virginia, faculty at most institutions supported the change and, in most cases, was engaged in the process. Some faculty resistance occurred at two schools. At UC, faculty members were disgruntled; however, they were not very vocal in their opposition for fear of losing their positions at the school. At Ohio Valley University, several faculty members did not support the change because it required an upgrading of credentials. These individuals either left the institution (some voluntary and some not) or eventually accepted the change as a positive move for the institution.

Alumni support

Regarding the statement ‘[a]lumni supported the change’, 33 administrators responded in the following manner: 11 (33.33 percent) strongly agreed, 13 (39.39 percent) agreed, 5 (15.15 percent) disagreed, 4 (12.12 percent) strongly disagreed. The mean score was 2.94 out of 4.00. This was the only area where the mean score fell below 3.00, an equivalent score for agreeing with the statement. It also was the only area where the ‘strongly agree’ responses were fewer than those who agreed with the statement. While the scores trended positive, there were definite issues with alumni acceptance at several institutions. Most West Virginia schools had few problems with alumni. The only significant opposition occurred at UC, where alumni vehemently opposed the tampering with the former Morris Harvey brand.

Former employee reaction

Only one school experienced difficulties with former employees. When Governor Joe Manchin announced his plans to move WVU Tech's engineering program to another county and to officially reduce the status of this institution, seven women (including five former employees) formed Take Back Tech and mounted a campaign against the proposal. These women canvassed Fayette County, WV and gathered over 7000 signatures in support of the Tech they once knew. The tenacity of these women aided in altering the proposed direction for Tech's engineering department; however, their efforts (including filing a lawsuit) to thwart the forthcoming reduction of WVU Tech from West Virginia University (WVU) regional campus status to a WVU divisional status without local accreditation were unsuccessful. It is highly unlikely than many institutions will experience this type of reaction from former employees who are a subset of the local community at large and not part of another stakeholder group.

The reaction of other institutions

In West Virginia, the reaction of other institutions to a proposed change was experienced four times. When WVU and West Virginia Institute of Technology were planning to merge in 1996, Marshall University (MU) President Wade Gilley cried foul. Some believed that his initial opposition resulted in the legislature's permission for MU to completely absorb the West Virginia Graduate College during the following year. The move by John Carrier, president of West Virginia Institute of Technology (now WVU Tech), to seek affiliation with WVU caused other presidents within the West Virginia State College System to distance themselves from him, lest they be perceived as considering similar moves at their own institutions.

Only one instance resulted in a lawsuit. When The College of West Virginia began a planned change to Mountain State University (MSU), Mountain State College (MSC) in Parkersburg protested. MSU filed suit to challenge MSC's claim to a name they considered an exclusive mark. After 2 years, MSU worked out a settlement with MSC and gained rights without opposition to continue to use the brand (Mountain State University v. Mountain State College, 2002). The only other issue regarding the reaction of other institutions was the lack of synergy and cooperation among the four schools that became universities in 2004. This produced numerous failed attempts by legislators in these institutions’ home districts to enact legislation favoring only one school of the four seeking university status. A combined bill eventually passed both houses near the end of the legislative session. Had these schools worked together initially rather than working independently, they may have had fewer difficulties with the West Virginia legislature.

Correlations

Three sets of data regarding stakeholder support showed statistically significant correlations. When faculty supported the change, there was a corresponding correlation with alumni support. A correlation also existed between alumni and community support, and between the support of the administration and the faculty. No other correlations were found. The support of certain key stakeholders appeared to have a corresponding effect upon other key stakeholder groups.

Question 7: How did senior administrators perceive the success of the change?

General observations

Respondents to the survey indicated five primary areas that they judged as the basis for the success of the name change. In a ranking question, participants were asked to rank predetermined factors and, if necessary, add any additional factors to the list. A total of 14 categories were reported and those that had similar themes were combined. Points were calculated by assigning five points to the number one reason, four points to the number two reason and so forth. The ‘clarification of identity’ ranked number one with a total point value of 139. Other significant reasons included the following: ‘an enhanced institutional reputation’ (90 points), ‘to aid enrollment and recruiting’ (72 points), ‘to add new programs’ (35 points) and ‘international marketing issues’ (recruiting, attractiveness and so on; 32 points). All other responses totaled 17 points.

Enrollment

Most respondents indicated some enrollment growth followed the re-branding as a university. When rating the statement ‘[e]nrollments increased as a result of the name change’, 29.41 percent strongly agreed, 41.18 percent agreed, 14.71 percent disagreed and 14.71 percent strongly disagreed. The mean score was 2.85 on a 4-point scale. It should be noted that while schools indicated enrollment was one of the reasons the change was viewed as successful, it was not one of the top two criteria administrators used to evaluate the institution's overall success in the endeavor. In addition, enrollment was not cited as the major rationale for the change – it ranked fourth.

As survey and interview respondents may be tempted to report favorable results, it was necessary to quantify the effect (if any) that the ‘college-to-university’ change had upon enrollment. By using Paul S. Koku's (1997) model of analyzing the effectiveness of college and university strategic name changes upon enrollment, the mean incremental change in enrollment before the name change was compared to the mean incremental change in enrollment after the name change. The mean incremental change was determined by taking the enrollment of one year (Year A) minus the enrollment of the previous year (Year B) and dividing the difference by the enrollment of the previous year (Year B) – thus creating a percentage of growth or loss from the previous year. The mean incremental change was computed for the 5 years before the change and for 5 years after the change. This was a mathematical average of the percentages of growth or loss in enrollment from these years.

Koku looked at what he considered strategic name changes and found no significance in enrollment after the change. In analyzing all 103 ‘college-to-university’ re-branded schools from 1996 to 2001, the results were different and significance was noted in enrollment growth. The growth, which on average was still occurring, did so at a much slower pace and produced a negative correlation. Thus, an analysis of the data indicated that perhaps the ‘college-to-university’ change had an overall negative effect on the percentage of enrollment growth at these institutions. This is not to say that enrollment growth did not occur, as it did. What it does indicate is that, at most institutions, the growth occurred at significantly slower rate following the name change. This was unlike Koku's results, which indicated that enrollment remained flat. Several independent variables were also analyzed. These included the following: institutional size, institutional type and the type of change.

Concerning institutional size, only one category showed a significant change in enrollment after the re-branding. Institutional size was based upon the school's enrollment during the change year. Medium-sized schools (2000–4999 FTE) experienced the only statistically significant post-change enrollment trends. The rate of incremental enrollment for medium-sized institutions was in the negative figures, meaning the greatest loss in percentage of incremental enrollment growth occurred at medium-sized schools. With exception to having only two proprietary schools (5.41 percent) in this category, the medium-sized schools were heterogeneous with regard to institutional control, as 27.03 percent were private/independent, 32.43 percent were public and 35.14 percent were religious. One state, Georgia, dominated this category of schools; seven of the eight Georgia schools were public institutions that experienced unique recruiting and retention challenges during the years following the name changes. This researcher found no apparent reason why medium-sized schools overall experienced the worst growth rates after a university re-branding.

Next, the independent variable of institutional type was analyzed. Schools were grouped by their control identities as found in the HEP Higher Education Directories. As some schools changed control (including one private becoming a public institution), control was based upon data from the change year. As the HEP Higher Education Directories listed religious-controlled schools by their denomination or controlling body, these were all grouped under a generic ‘religious’ category. The other categories included public, private and proprietary. No significant post-change incremental enrollment could be attributed to the independent variable of institutional type.

In an analysis of the independent variable of the type of name change, three categories were constructed: minor-simple, minor-complex and major. Only one category, the minor-simple name change, indicated significance. Again, the rate of growth had slowed significantly post-change and there is no apparent reason why this occurred. Other variables that were not analyzed (that is, funding, the availability of student aid, the economy, changes in demographics and so on) could have contributed to the slower rate of growth rather than, or in combination with, the change in name.

In at least two states, other variables affected enrollment at re-branded universities. In Georgia, a change from the quarter system to the semester system appears to have affected enrollment at 11 of the 13 new universities. Two years following the re-branding initiative, all of Georgia's public institutions were required to make these changes. Likewise in West Virginia, the separation of the community and technical colleges from their parent institutions affected enrollment at four institutions in the study.

Outside four institutions’ loss of students to their former community college components, most institutions in West Virginia did not have an appreciable gain or loss following the adoption of the university name. The schools that made the change based upon survival reasons had the most difficulty in attracting and retaining students – an indication that a name change alone could not sustain an institution. An institution considering a re-branding strategy would be wise to follow Koku's advice: ‘Using strategic name change as a marketing tool is not a panacea to decreasing enrollment problems; hence higher education administrators who are considering the use of the strategy to boost falling enrollments are advised to proceed with extreme caution’ (Koku, 1997, p. 67).

Question 8: Did the change produce any indicators of increased prestige?

Carnegie Classification

In an analysis of all 103 colleges that became universities from 1996 to 2001, there was a significant change in the Carnegie Classification of Institutions of Higher Education 5 years after an institution re-branded as a university. In addition, the independent variables of institutional size and type of name change also indicated statistical significances in Carnegie Classifications 5 years following the change.

In a further examination of these variables, some insight can be garnered. An analysis of small institutions (0–1999 FTE) indicated a statistical significance at the 0.01 level for post-change Carnegie Classifications, medium-sized schools (2000–4999 FTE) indicated a statistical significance at the 0.05 level. Large schools showed no significance. It appears therefore, that larger schools are less likely to experience changes in Carnegie Classifications following a ‘college-to-university’ re-branding.

An increase in graduate programs

For the population of 103 schools that re-branded as universities from 1996 to 2001, a graduate program score was achieved by counting graduate and professional programs during the year of the institutional change and 5 years following the change. These programs were then classified according to the US Department of Education's National Center for Educational Statistics’ (NCES) degree and certificate ranking schema that was in effect until 2007. The number of programs was then multiplied by the NCES ranking numbers to achieve a graduate program score for the year of the name change and the fifth year after the change. The independent variables of institutional type and accrediting body produced a statistical significance, with the greatest significance attributable to the regional accrediting body variable.

The regional accrediting body variable was further analyzed and institutions under the jurisdiction of three regional accrediting bodies indicated significance. Institutions accredited through the Middles States Association of Colleges and Schools produced significance at the 0.05 level. Schools under the jurisdiction of both the Southern Association of Colleges and Schools and the Higher Learning Commission of the North Central Association produced significance at the 0.01 level.

Because only one school under the jurisdiction of The New England Association of Schools and Colleges was included in the population, an analysis of schools within this region could not be accomplished. In an analysis of the number and type of graduate programs at schools under the jurisdictions of the Northwest Commission on Colleges and Universities and the Western Association of Colleges and Schools, no statistical significance was noted. The reason for the differences that occurred with these two regional accrediting bodies is not currently known. There is a strong indication that the move from a college-to-university generally is accompanied by an increased graduate programmatic focus.

Undergraduate selectivity

An institution's undergraduate selectivity for admission has often been used as a criterion of institutional prestige. As data were not available from the entire population of 103 institutions, a sample of 71 schools was analyzed using the SPSS statistical software program. The 1998 through 2008 issues of US News and World Reports America's Best Colleges (1997–2007) were used to gather the selectivity data of the 71 institutions by comparing both the year of the change and the fifth year after the change. There was no statistical significance in regard to undergraduate selectivity within the entire sample. No statistical significance was noted upon comparing the figures by the independent variables of institutional size, institutional type, type of change and accrediting body.

Tuition increases

To test the ‘Chivas Regal Effect’ (Werth, 1988; Sevier, 2002) of an institution's pricing structure as an indication of prestige, incremental changes in tuition were compared before and following the name change. In a comparison of incremental tuition increases, no significance was indicated 5 years after the change. No significance was noted with an analysis of the various independent variables.

Perception of prestige

When administrators were asked to respond to the statement: ‘The institution is perceived as having a greater prestige’, 13 (38.24 percent) strongly agreed, 16 (47.06 percent) agreed, four (11.76 percent) disagreed and one (2.94 percent) strongly disagreed. This area had a mean score of 3.21 on a 4.00-point scale. Therefore, administrators generally perceived that their institutions increased in prestige with the university designation.

Perception of university culture

Birnbaum (1993) and Hearn (2005) equated ‘university culture’ as a community of scholars generating and promoting new ideas. The attainment of the culture of a university was identified as an indicator of institutional prestige. In relation to this, administrators rated the following statement: ‘The institution currently exhibits the culture of a university’. The following results were noted: 9 (26.47 percent) strongly agreed, 19 (55.88 percent) agreed, 9 (26.47 percent) disagreed and no respondents strongly disagreed. The mean score for this variable was 2.91 on a 4.00-point scale. While generally positive, there is an indication that certain institutions were perceived as still lacking ‘university culture’ by their current administration.

Correlations

When comparing the nine statements on a 4.00-point Likert scale from the survey responses, several areas produced significant positive correlations. There was a correlation between a reported increase in enrollment and a corresponding heightened perception of institutional prestige. Perceptions of institutional prestige and the attainment of university culture also indicated a correlation. In addition, the perception of university culture correlated with two areas of stakeholder support: alumni and community.

The correlation between a rise enrollment and the prestige of an institution may represent administrators’ opinions that an enrollment increase signified prestige, or it may indicate that with an increase in prestige, enrollments may have correspondingly increased. The correlation between institutional prestige and university culture may signify that as an institution is viewed as prestigious, there may be a corresponding opinion that ‘university culture’ is being exhibited. Therefore, when the university mission is viewed successfully, there may be a corresponding attitude that the institution has prestige. With regard to the correlation between university culture and the support of alumni and the local community, two possibilities may exist. First, the perception of university culture may correspond to greater alumni and community support, and second, as these stakeholders supported the change, there was a greater perception that institution had exhibited the culture of a university.

Question 9: What suggestions did administrators provide upon revisiting the change?

Regarding institutional advice, the 34 survey institutions provided a number of key recommendations. With the responses collapsed into workable categories, the number one suggestion was to ‘have a good reason to change’ at 147 points. A close second at 141 points was to ‘have a defendable name that relates to the institutional mission’. The remaining advice included ‘address stakeholder issues’ (81 points), ‘have a marketing plan’ (50 points), ‘calculate actual costs’ (28 points) and ‘divest of the old name’ (8 points).

Most West Virginia administrators had few suggestions regarding the re-branding experience. For those institutions that reflected upon the ‘college-to-university’ change, three broad areas emerged. These were preparation, continuation and integration. The advice in the preparatory phase included involving key stakeholders in the decision process and performing the necessary research in advance of the change. Often these two suggestions were interrelated, as research may dictate how stakeholders will react to a proposed change.

With regard to continuation, several bits of advice emerged. First, allocate enough resources to properly promote the new brand. Second, make sure the mission is focused. It is one thing to call a school a university; however, it something entirely different to be a university. Last, plan the name change at a time for the maximum results. As several administrators suggested that the name change may be more successful if it is scheduled when key stakeholders can be involved.

The advice on integration centered largely on mergers. From the experience with WVU and WVU Tech, it may have been best to have integrated WVU Tech into WVU from the very beginning rather than have endured the slow and painful process that both schools experienced for a decade. While swift integration may be extremely painful initially, this should subside after a couple of years. One administrator suggested assessing the situation immediately and then periodically. Another administrator suggested giving the merged body a little more control over certain areas so that employees may perceive that they have some control over their own destiny.

Question 10: What methods can institutions use to retain ownership of a brand?

While no significant branding struggles have occurred in West Virginia, another school in the Appalachian region has had its brand tested four times in 40 years. AC, located in Meadville, PA, is a prime of example of institutional brand presence and perseverance. This medium-sized liberal arts college has battled much larger entities and won. Even in the face of schools that had a seemingly legitimate claim to the same geographic brand, AC retained its brand dominance.

This dominance can be attributed to a number of factors including the following: (a) the longevity of the brand's usage; (b) a good academic reputation; (c) a succinct mission; (d) an identification of fallacious arguments from branding challengers; and (e) a willingness to protect its institutional identity at all costs. This protection included one lawsuit in which AC, the underdog, was the victor. AC has been so successful that it forced two institutions to limit how they used their brand name choices and forced two other institutions to alter their brand names.

With the Community College of Allegheny County, AC was successful in limiting how the school identifies itself. The school refers to itself only by its full name or by the initials CCAC. When Allegany Community College in Cumberland, Maryland changed its name to Allegany College, AC forced the institution to re-brand a second time as Allegany College of Maryland.

When Allegheny General Hospital in Pittsburgh expanded its mission to health-care education, Allegheny College cried foul at the marketing efforts of Allegheny University of Health Sciences (AUHS) when it identified itself solely as ‘Allegheny University’. At the time, AUHS’ parent organization, the Allegheny Health, Education, and Research Foundation, was Pennsylvania's largest health-care provider. In the legal judgment, AUHS was forced to only use its full name or the AUHS initials in marketing. It was also required to surrender the allegheny.edu domain name and to change its institutional logo (Allegheny College v. Allegheny University, 1997).

In 2006, Penn State McKeesport announced that it would be taking a new name, ‘Penn State Allegheny’, and AC took on the tenth largest university system in the United States. After numerous phone calls, letters and meetings, AC persuaded Penn State to rename the institution. Although a compromise name of Penn State Greater Allegheny resulted, AC effectively changed the direction of these re-branding efforts. Much of AC's success was based on their brand's equity, dominance and perceived quality.

RECOMMENDATIONS

While this study looked at secondary data and changes in variables 5 years following a name change, a re-analysis of the data from the 103 institutions that re-branded as universities from 1996 to 2001 would provide a longitudinal element to the subject. This could be done 10 years following the name change to see if any significant changes occurred after this period in the following areas: enrollment, Carnegie Classifications, numbers and types of graduate programs, tuition, and institutional selectivity.

Although this study was largely centered from an administrator's perspective, a qualitative or mixed method study looking at the West Virginia's re-branded universities from the perspectives of alumni, faculty, administration or institutional board members would provide insight into how specific stakeholder groups viewed the changes. Additionally, an analysis of the re-brandings in another state could provide a broader perspective on this phenomenon.

SUMMARY STATEMENT

Several issues emerged relating to institutional name changes and specifically the re-branding of a college as a university. While many factors contributing to a university's re-branding success or failure were considered, a standard model for re-branding is difficult to construct because of the differences found within each institutional experience. The simultaneous imposed re-branding of 13 Georgia colleges as universities in 1996 provides a glimpse at how the same strategy was received differently at a number of institutions; some schools embraced the change, while others over a decade later still resent it. What may be perceived as successful by one institution may produce entirely different results at another. Even from state to state, experiences varied and West Virginia's re-branded universities did not experience some of the problems that institutions in other jurisdictions had encountered.

Although experiences varied, it was still possible to construct some general hypotheses in regard to a college's re-branding as a university. As a means to an end, the adoption of a university brand alone neither promoted nor sustained institutional enrollment. In fact, enrollment growth slowed following a re-branding as a university. Institutions that embraced graduate education gained prestige, and this focus on graduate programming contributed to higher Carnegie Classifications at these institutions. This specifically was evidenced in small and medium-sized institutions. Additionally, university status neither prompted institutions to become more selective at the undergraduate level, nor did the new status promote institutions to raise tuition rates based on an assumed increased level of prestige.

If choosing to seek university status, administrators will have strategies to consider when making such a change. Much of this occurs in the preparatory phase as finances, timing, name selection and stakeholders’ reactions must be considered. In a majority of cases, alumni tended to be less supportive of re-branding initiatives. Even when alumni supported the name change, the school colors and the sports’ mascot names were considered sacred territory by alumni. Identifying key stakeholders is tantamount to the success of the change, as the greatest difficulty occurred when several stakeholder groups simultaneously reacted negatively to a proposed re-branding.

Finally, as survey respondents noted, the primary reason for re-branding as a university must be considered. Having a defendable reason to re-brand as a university will be more palatable to all constituents. As stakeholders often have emotional ties to brand identities, administrators need to be sensitive to the issues surrounding, as Tadelis (1997) considered, their institution's most valuable asset – its name. AC's successful defense of its brand serves as an illustration that brand names with equity, dominance and perceived quality must be protected at all costs. Even with the temptation to conform to national trends, retaining an existing ‘college’ brand may be of greater value to an institution than adopting the ‘university’ identification.

Much of the success or failure of a ‘college-to-university’ change lies within the realm of the primary change agent. At the majority of institutions in this study, the university president was the responsible party. Outside of Georgia (where Chancellor Stephen Portch led the charge) and a few isolated examples where the board acted as the change agent, the president drove the initiative. In her study of college presidents, Perkins noted that institutions as a whole desired ‘a leader who had vision, who could take the institution to the next level of success, and who could make the big decisions’ (2007, p. 156). Among the characteristics of a successful change agent, as Garvey (2007) explained, was ‘a spirit of entrepreneurialism – a drive to both understand the market and to shape the institution in a way that it could respond quickly to new opportunities’ (p. 103). In the context of re-branding, a leader who can envision the future, rally the troops, initiate important decisions, be able to adapt to the marketplace and have the necessary intuition on when to act should have no problem taking a college to that next level – its new identity as a university.