Subscribe to our RSS feed
EconLife.com connects economics to everyday life, current events and history.

Tag Archives: branding

The ROI From College

It can be tough to represent a college through a logo.

Drake University thought it was saying that it gave students something extra when it added a “+” to its logo. The problem was that the other half of the logo was a “D.” Soon, for many reasons, they realized they did not want their school associated with a D+.

A petition at the University of California pushed the school toward eliminating its new logo when more than 50,000 people said it looked too slick and corporate. Hoping to modernize its 1868 seal, the University had traveled too far from a traditional image of an open book on an intricate background.

NY Times Picture of Old and Rebranded University of California Logo

During 2010, Johns Hopkins faked a rebranding on April Fools Day when it announced that it was eliminating the “S” in Johns because of all the confusion it generated.

And finally, I came across this “Les Misérables” parody from Boston University students. We could say that it rebrands the entire college experience.

Our Bottom Line: Like any business, colleges compete. For many schools, competition means you need a “brand,” an identity to distinguish yourself from others. How you brand yourself could depend on whether your market is an oligopoly where you compete against a small number of schools or monopolistic competition in which there are many.

Sources and Resources: A hat tip to the NY Times for their column on college rebranding, more on the Drake story here, and on Penn’s Wharton School rebranding through a new marketing style that relies on charts, graphs, a “quant” feel. I do recommend reading more about the Johns Hopkins April Fools story in The Washington Post and looking at one person’s list and pictures of the 15 ugliest logos.

Posted by: adminEcon
Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,
Comments (0) Add a Comment

shoes, status signals and property rights

During a panel discussion, my students were told by a business woman not to wear sandals or even open-toed shoes for a job interview. But, does a shoe really send that much of message?

Focusing on the accuracy of the first impression a shoe creates, a University of Kansas study gave some answers. Called an appearance cue, a shoe might convey information about income, gender, age and agreeableness. It could reflect a personality that is agreeable, extroverted, and avoids close relationships. Researchers even thought that the shoes you wear might indicate your political preference.

So, they designed an experiment to test whether the self-described characteristics of shoe owners would be conveyed to people looking at digital images of their shoes. Seeing a colorful, pointy shoe, for example, would you assume that the person was an extrovert? A female? Are people with shoes in good condition worried about what others think and those who display brands more affluent?

Their results confirmed only a few of their hypotheses. Yes, with reasonable accuracy a first impression based on shoes will determine gender, age, income, agreeableness and even attachment anxiety. However, shoes will not reliably convey a first impression about most of your personality traits nor your political affiliation.

Still though, for a job interview, shoes do matter.

To read an overview describing the shoe study, I suggest this Bloomberg article while the original academic paper can be accesssed here. Trying to reconcile some of my skepticism about the study, I then looked at and recommend this paper about luxury goods, conspicuous consumption, and first impressions. Referring to Thorstein Veblen and categorizing people as patricians, parvenues, poseurs and plebs, they explained that a first impression depends on the target audience for your “status signal.” And, by understanding the kinds of status signals people send, luxury brands can increase sales.

Posted by: adminEcon
Tags: , , , , , , , , , , ,
Comments (1) Add a Comment

16562_7.6_000012689719XSmall

Sometimes the wrong people wear the right products. It just happened to Abercrombie & Fitch.

Here is the story:

According to the NY Times, it all began when an employee conveyed to A & F’s CEO the “terrible, terrible news” that Mike “The Situation” Sorrentino had been wearing bright green A & F sweat pants on the previous night’s MTV Jersey Shore episode. A & F’s response?

This press release:

“We are deeply concerned that Mr. Sorrentino’s association with our brand could cause significant damage to our image. We understand that the show is for entertainment purposes, but believe this association is contrary to the aspirational nature of our brand, and may be distressing to many of our fans. We have therefore offered a substantial payment to Michael “The Situation” Sorrentino and the producers of MTV’s The Jersey Shore to have the character wear an alternate brand. We have also extended this offer to other members of the cast, and are urgently waiting a response.”

So funny. Great PR.

The Economic Lesson

Abercrombie & Fitch competes in a monopolistically competitive market. The characteristics of monopolistic competition include many sellers with a similar product, sellers creating an individual, unique identity, and sellers having some control over price. The competitive behavior of beauty salons, supermarkets, and clothing manufacturers is also shaped by a monopolistically competitive market structure. With many sellers having a similar product, Abercrombie can make itself unique through its aspirational identity.

From most competitive to least competitive, the four basic competitive market structures are: perfect competition, monopolistic competition, oligopoly, monopoly.

An Economic Question: Thinking of Abercrombie & Fitch and identifying its competitors, large and small, state how each firm tries to make itself unique.

Posted by: adminEcon
Tags: , , , ,
Comments (0) Add a Comment