Journal of Marketing for Higher Education

ISSN: 0884-1241 (Print) 1540-7144 (Online) Journal homepage: https://www.tandfonline.com/loi/wmhe20

A day at the university fair: ‘hot’ brands, ‘house

of brands’ and promotional tactics in higher
education

Rod Missaghian & Roger Pizarro Milian

To cite this article: Rod Missaghian & Roger Pizarro Milian (2019) A day at the university fair:
‘hot’ brands, ‘house of brands’ and promotional tactics in higher education, Journal of Marketing for
Higher Education, 29:2, 153-172, DOI: 10.1080/08841241.2018.1549183

To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/08841241.2018.1549183

Published online: 01 Dec 2018.

Submit your article to this journal

Article views: 308

View related articles

View Crossmark data

Citing articles: 1 View citing articles

Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at

https://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=wmhe20
JOURNAL OF MARKETING FOR HIGHER EDUCATION
2019, VOL. 29, NO. 2, 153–172
https://doi.org/10.1080/08841241.2018.1549183

A day at the university fair: ‘hot’ brands, ‘house of brands’ and

promotional tactics in higher education
a b
Rod Missaghian and Roger Pizarro Milian
a
Department of Sociology and Legal Studies, University of Waterloo, Waterloo, Canada; bDepartment of
Sociology and Anthropology, Nipissing University, North Bay, Canada

ABSTRACT ARTICLE HISTORY

Research on promotional behavior within higher education has Received 10 December 2017
exploded over the last two decades, spurred on by the Accepted 20 September 2018
intensification of student recruitment. To date, studies have
KEYWORDS
focused on mapping the content of conventional promotional Branding; recruitment; event
texts (e.g. viewbooks, web sites), to identify how institutions marketing; qualitative
depict themselves through them. By comparison, recruitment methods
events, such as exhibitions or fairs, have received limited scholarly
attention. This study aims to ameliorate this gap within the
present literature, using observational methods and collaborative
auto-ethnography to analyze branding strategies and broader
social dynamics within a prominent Canadian university fair. Using
such methods, this study identifies (i) variance in the uptake of
‘house of brands’ and ‘branded house’ strategies, (ii) diverging
degrees of student interest across institutional types, along with
(iii) ‘niche’-oriented marketing tactics across information booths.
Observed patterns are theorized from the standpoint of
contemporary research within the field of organizational sociology
and higher education marketing.

Introduction
Promotional behavior has become ubiquitous within contemporary higher education (HE),
as universities strive to maximize their visibility and appeal across competitive global
student markets (Chapleo, Carrillo Durán, & Castillo Díaz, 2011; Hemsley-Brown &
Oplatka, 2006). It is now common to witness universities being advertised in ways pre-
viously limited to commercial enterprises, with institutional logos being splashed unapo-
logetically across billboards, on the sides of buses, in newsprint ads or television
commercials. Moreover, over the course of a few decades, the business of branding insti-
tutions has evolved from a poorly funded, small-scale and peripheral operation run by
amateurs,1 to a full-fledged professional industry (Tuchman, 2010). Some researchers
(e.g. Pizarro Milian, 2017) have proposed that the intensification of promotional behavior
within HE mirrors the rise of other types of ‘entrepreneurial’ behavior within the system, as
cash-strapped universities struggle to address funding shortfalls through innovative sol-
utions, whether it be by (i) building ‘bridges’ (e.g. collaborative research ventures, execu-
tive education programs) that allow them to tap into funding reservoirs within the

CONTACT Rod Missaghian rod.missaghian@uwaterloo.ca

© 2018 Informa UK Limited, trading as Taylor & Francis Group
154 R. MISSAGHIAN AND R. PIZARRO MILIAN

corporate sector, or (ii) ‘slashing’ operating budgets through efficiency-minded reforms

that cannibalize traditions, such as tenured professors and small classrooms (Davies &
Pizarro Milian, 2016; Davies & Quirke, 2002; Deering & Sá, 2014; Slaughter & Rhoades,
2004). Within the present environment, pressures to strategically position oneself within
international student markets via effective branding are so great that they have incenti-
vized what some deem as unethical tactics, ranging from a mere ‘massaging’ of facts
about institutional characteristics (e.g. student outcomes) to outright deception
(Bradley, Hayter, & Link, 2013).2 These fierce levels of inter-organizational competition
are not likely to diminish in the coming years, with budgetary pressures and interest
groups driving policymakers to divert funds typically earmarked for universities to other
pressing societal concerns, whether it be social assistance (e.g. unemployment insurance),
health care, or national security (Ness & Tandberg, 2013; Tandberg, 2010a, 2010b). Instead,
it appears that the normalization of neo-liberal policies within HE, through which policy-
makers deprive universities of public funds and force them to compete for private
dollars (Davidson, 2015), is poised to render strategic institutional self-promotion an
increasingly vital function to their survival. As Tuchman (2010) notes, branding has
become tantamount to a ‘best practice’ within contemporary HE.
This emergent competitive landscape has piqued the interest of many scholars,
prompting the creation of a rich empirical literature documenting how universities and
other institutional types (e.g. community colleges, departments) portray themselves
through a plethora of mediums. Among the objects of study within this literature are uni-
versity ‘viewbooks’ or prospectuses (Davidson, 2015; Klassen, 2001), mission and vision
statements (Morphew & Hartley, 2006; Morrish & Sauntson, 2010; Seeber, Barberio,
Huisman, & Mampaey, 2017), online promotional profiles and websites (Pizarro Milian,
2016, 2017, 2018; Pizarro Milian & Davidson, 2016; Pizarro Milian & Quirke, 2017; Saichaie
& Morphew, 2014) and, most recently, social media (Bélanger, Bali, & Longden, 2014; Con-
stantinides & Stagno, 2011; Kimmons, Veletsianos, & Woodward, 2017; Veletsianos,
Kimmons, Shaw, Pasquini, & Woodward, 2017). This diverse and international literature
has mapped the use of a myriad of strategies that HE institutions employ to position them-
selves within student markets. Observed tactics include efforts by actors to emphasize (i)
the convenience and expediency of the training they provide (Pizarro Milian & Quirke,
2017), (ii) their ability to provide students with a competitive advantage within labor
markets (e.g. Oplatka, 2002; Pizarro Milian, 2016, 2018), and, especially among higher
status institutions, (iii) the signaling of prestigious characteristics, such as research inten-
siveness or admissions selectivity (see Pizarro Milian, 2017; Pizarro Milian & Davidson,
2016). This evolving literature has mapped the multiple ‘faces’ of the modern university
and ongoing efforts to align them with the dynamic preferences of student markets,
along with changing societal understanding of what it means to be a ‘university.’
However expedient these strides in understandings about HE branding have been in
recent years, the literature suffers from many notable gaps. Chief among them, at the
time of writing, is the paucity of empirical research on promotional behavior as it
occurs through in-person recruitment events, or ‘event marketing,’ as it is referred to
within the business literature (see Close & Lacey, 2006; Sneath, Finney, & Close, 2005).
Though some studies have explored the dynamics of in-house events, such as open
houses or campus tours (Crowther, 2010a; Okerson, 2016), university fairs have generally
escaped the gaze of researchers. Research notes that despite the present craze with
 JOURNAL OF MARKETING FOR HIGHER EDUCATION 155

digital advertising, university administrators continue to believe that the most effective
recruitment tools are ‘events-based and involve direct interaction with potential stu-
dents’ (Hanover Research, 2014, p. 3). Fairs, exhibitions and open houses remain key
tools through which organizations attempt to overcome the impersonality, ‘noise’ and
‘clutter’ of conventional advertising (Crowther, 2010b; Roy & Cornwell, 2004). They are
depicted by branding professionals as vehicles through which universities can make
beneficial ‘emotional’ connections with students which have a stronger impact on pur-
chasing behavior, or in this case, student decision making, than a more passive reading
of ‘second-hand’ media (e.g. brochures, websites) (Whelan & Wohlfeil, 2006, p. 316;
Dibble, 2016; Secore, 2018). In-person recruitment events provide organizations with
the unique opportunity to strategically construct multi-sensory social and physical
spaces to represent their brand, and through which prospective customers can be pro-
vided with a glimpse of what they can expect from the institution (Getz & Page, 2016;
Tafesse, 2016).
In this article, the authors present an exploratory empirical analysis of a prominent
Canadian university fair. The primary focus of attention was on two important elements
of the event. First, to map the visual characteristics of the informational booths of partici-
pating universities to understand how these organizational ‘artefacts’ are used to con-
struct and communicate institutional brand identities. Booths within the fair are
conceptualized as institutional ‘avatars,’ equivalent to other promotional materials (e.g.
viewbooks, web pages), in that they serve as vehicles through which brand identity is com-
municated. Second, and for the first time within the extant literature, to systematically
explore the characteristics of the fair’s broader social environment, along with differen-
tiation in crowd dynamics across university booths. Student flows across the spatial land-
scape of the fair are theorized as potentially reflecting variable brand appeal, and broader
organizational status structures, across the field of HE. The resulting analysis provides
novel data which speaks to consequential aspects of branding within HE, and thus, will
be of interest to both scholars and practitioners.

Branding in higher education

Though branding is now commonplace within HE (Wæraas & Solbakk, 2009), its rise within
the field was not without its obstacles. For most of its existence, universities have lacked a
true commercial focus. Historically, universities have operated within an extreme ‘seller’s
market,’ discriminating against and turning away large swaths of applicants (Karabel,
2005; Schofer & Meyer, 2005). Indeed, admissions selectivity, in non-discriminatory
forms (e.g. gender, race), remains a distinctive feature of venerable institutions, such as
the American Ivy League or British ‘Oxbridge’ (Karabel, 2005). This legacy has had a
strong ‘imprinting’ effect on the system, rendering organizations within it initially unrec-
eptive to discourses of branding. Vestiges of this sentiment, and the idea that universities
should not ‘chase’ students, persist within HE to this day (Chapleo, 2007). Explicit opposi-
tion to the perceived ‘marketization’ of the modern university remains popular among aca-
demics who espouse more ideal-typical ‘democratic’ conceptions of its public role (Bok,
2003; Connell, 2013). For these individuals, pandering to the vocational and non-academic
preferences of contemporary students corrupts the very essence of the university (see
Giroux, 2006; Puddephatt & Nelsen, 2010).
156 R. MISSAGHIAN AND R. PIZARRO MILIAN

Beyond the ideological resistance cited above, the adoption of branding tactics
common within the for-profit sector within HE has been hindered by the complex internal
structures of universities. Chapleo (2015) notes that the cultural diversity and fragmenta-
tion of the university makes it difficult to develop a cohesive brand identity. Often, faculty
disagree on what values the university should espouse, and even on key features of their
mission (Melewar & Akel, 2005; Wæraas & Solbakk, 2009). The absence of a singular vision
(Kerr, 2001) or ‘animating principle’ that internal stakeholders, including quarreling disci-
plines and competing departments, can rally behind, can serve as a barrier to the devel-
opment of cohesive institutional branding efforts (Chapleo, 2010, p. 177). Moreover, where
sub-entities with strong reputations (e.g. business and law schools) exist within univer-
sities, their brands can stand independent of the broader university, causing strain
when inconsistencies between the two exist (Chapleo, 2005, 2007; Dholakia & Acciardo,
2014). Such complexity has paved the way for experimentation with ‘house of brands’
approaches within HE. This branding strategy allows for the existence of multiple
‘stand-alone brands’ across the university, while maximizing their efficacy within particular
market niches (Aaker, 2004, p. 12; Hemsley-Brown & Goonawardana, 2007). This approach
contrasts the ‘branded house’ strategy – the traditional approach within the field – which
emphasizes a monolithic identity, and leverages the appeal of the broader institutional
brand to bestow credibility upon organizational components (Balmer & Gray, 2003; Muzel-
lec & Lambkin, 2009; Pace, 2017). In the words of organizational and economic sociology, it
lends legitimacy to unknown entities through a signaling of their association with estab-
lished actors within the field (Baum & Oliver, 1991; Podolny, 1993, 2001). This approach is
also beneficial in that it reduces the costs of brand development and management across
the organization (VanAuken, 2015).
Branding within HE is further complicated by strong normative pressures and templates
dictating what a university should look like, and how it should behave (Pizarro Milian,
2017). Mampaey and Huisman (2016) and Mampaey, Huisman, and Seeber (2015) have
persuasively argued that universities must actively respond to pressures to differentiate
themselves within competitive markets, while not eschewing acts of conformity which
legitimize their core structures. This view is based on what has been dubbed the ‘strategic
balance’ perspective within organizational sociology and business management (Deep-
house, 1999; Porac, Thomas, Wilson, Paton, & Kanfer, 1995). It rests on the notion that
organizations thrive when they achieve a form of optimal distinctiveness, striking a
balance between conformity and differentiation (Zhao, Fisher, Lounsbury, & Miller, 2017).
Though an array of existing studies have studied branding within HE, as it occurs
through print advertising (Davidson, 2015), television commercials (Harris, 2009; Tobo-
lowsky & Lowery, 2014), social media (Bélanger et al., 2014), web pages (Pizarro Milian,
2017; Saichaie & Morphew, 2014) and a variety of other mediums of communication,
there continues to be a dearth of research on how universities present themselves
through in-person recruitment. Okerson’s (2016) recent examination of campus tours
stands as an exception to this statement. However, it is focused on a traditional ‘in-
house’ event, rather than more novel, externally-staged university fairs. Moreover, it
differs from our study in that it focuses on the experience of students within said tours,
rather than institutional branding. The lack of empirical research on university fairs is pro-
blematic given that, as Pizarro Milian (2016) notes, the promotional tactics employed by
universities differ from one medium to the next. This absence of research on recruitment
 JOURNAL OF MARKETING FOR HIGHER EDUCATION 157

events provides fertile ground upon which to re-examine how universities brand
themselves.

Methods
Research site
Data for this study were gathered during a three-day university fair held annually at a con-
vention center within a metropolitan Canadian city. This fair is over a decade old, and
brings together representatives from over 20 neighboring universities, ranging from glob-
ally-renowned research ‘powerhouses’ to smaller, teaching-oriented universities with
more local reputations. During this fair, universities set up informational booths in a
large conference room with over 600,000 square feet of space. The students are able to
navigate the conference room freely, entering booths as they desire, to gather brochures
or other print materials, and interact directly with recruitment representatives. ‘L’ shaped
booths, along with two lengthy rectangular booths, covered the perimeter of the open-
concept conference room. Meanwhile, the center of the room is populated by square or
rectangular shaped booths (see Appendix). For the most part, booths constituted open
physical structures, with no designated entrances or exits, and no discernable navigational
pathway, thus allowing students to freely wander their layout. In recent years, this fair has
become extremely popular, attracting well over 100,000 students and parents looking to
interact with professors, administrators and student representatives from neighboring uni-
versities. Taking place during the early fall, it precedes the date by which graduating stu-
dents from local high schools are tasked with choosing and ranking their preferred choices
within the centralized provincial application system. The fair is open to the public, requir-
ing no registration process or fees, and thus, serves as an unobstructed fountain of infor-
mation designed to inform student decisions.

Analytical strategy
The mixed methodological approach used within this article is informed by three tra-
ditions within the social sciences: systematic social observation (SSO), naturalistic obser-
vation, and collaborative auto-ethnography. Below, the linkages between each of these
traditions and the employed data gathering and analysis strategy are briefly discussed.

Systematic social observation

Systematic social observation (SSO), a method typically used to map the physical charac-
teristics of neighborhoods (Raudenbush & Sampson, 1999; Sampson & Raudenbush, 1999,
2004), informed procedures employed by the researchers to navigate and observe the fair.
SSO is guided by ‘explicit procedures which permit replication’ (Reiss, 1971, p. 4). Cyr
(2014), for example, walked blocks adjacent to schools in Hamilton, Canada, cataloguing
signs of disorder, such as garbage and graffiti. To ensure internal consistency in this
study, standardized procedures akin to those used in SSO were used to navigate,
observe and compile data from each university booth. This entailed walking their entire
perimeter, then subsequently navigating the entirety of internal spaces. Such an approach
afforded multiple vantage points from which to observe and document booth
158 R. MISSAGHIAN AND R. PIZARRO MILIAN

characteristics, and the ability to holistically map their internal and outward-facing facets.
During this structured walkthrough, the authors stopped to take notes on booths’ (i) basic
physical characteristics (e.g. overall size, distribution of space to different sub-units [e.g.
faculties, campuses]) and their (ii) aesthetic styles (e.g. types of logos employed across
materials, color schemes, staff uniform characteristics). These procedures were devised
to be easily replicable from one booth to the next, and easily reproduced by future
researchers. While having a general sense of what to look for at the booths, the authors
remained sensitive to emergent characteristics that were not foreseeable, experiencing
and documenting them in non-standardized ways. For example, at booths, the giving of
free ‘swag’, such as pens, key chains and other paraphernalia was observed and noted.

Naturalistic observation
The structured approach to navigating and documenting the inanimate characteristics of
booths described above was complemented by a naturalistic observation (Amato, 1989;
Graham, Bernards, Osgood, & Wells, 2006; Satterlund, Antin, Lee, & Moore, 2009) of
crowd dynamics within and around booths. The focus here was explicitly at the group
level, rather than on specific individuals. Graham and Wells (2001) used naturalistic obser-
vation of this sort to examine acts of aggression within bars. In place of replicability and
standardization, naturalistic observation is an unobtrusive method that aims to develop
‘thick’ descriptions of events from the standpoint of the researcher, and to gather ‘as
much detail as possible about what was seen’ (Graham & Wells, 2001, pp. 197–198). Fol-
lowing such logic, during the course of exploring the fair, notes about basic elements of
booth environments were documented by researchers, and comparisons were collabora-
tively made across booths, including their overall crowdedness, popularity of specific sec-
tions (e.g. specific faculties), promotional activities (e.g. giveaways, competitions), rough
estimates of the number of recruitment representatives and the general manner in
which they interacted with prospective students. The approach used here differs from
Okerson’s (2016) in that individuals at this event were not interviewed, nor were their com-
ments recorded in any way. Rather, the focus was exclusively on observing group-level
dynamics in a public setting. This element of the analysis was more open-ended and in
line with grounded theory approaches (Glaser & Strauss, 1967). It serves as a limitation
to the analysis, given that observations are based solely researchers’ perceptions, rather
than participants’. This limitation is addressed further in the limitations section.

Collaborative auto-ethnography
The third method used in this study was a form of collaborative auto-ethnography.
Whereas SSO and naturalistic observation are outward oriented methods, collaborative
auto-ethnography turns the researcher’s attention inward, driving them to develop a
deeper understanding of their social environments via ‘sharing and exploring personal
stories of self and others’ (Bosetti, Kawalilak, & Patterson, 2008, p. 99). The method relies
on self-reflection and experienced-based, collective knowledge co-creation through the
iterative sharing and examination of personal narratives, and strategic reading of theory
and research (Coia & Taylor, 2013, p. 11; Mudge, Kayes, & McPherson, 2015). The
authors traversed each booth, taking roughly 10–15 min, independently writing up
notes and reflecting on their respective experiences, then convening to share and
examine these experiences, returning to their location within the booth to explain
 JOURNAL OF MARKETING FOR HIGHER EDUCATION 159

them. This technique proved effective in allowing the vivid illustration of how particular
impressions of branding strategies were developed. It also proved useful for the
purpose of juxtapositioning distinct aspects of different booths, and isolating differences
between them. Two rounds of data gathering and analysis were performed, as the authors
revisited each university booth. This allowed for the evaluation of earlier observations, the
co-construction of a more nuanced understanding of the distinctive features of booths vis-
à-vis others, and the development of a more refined understanding of overarching trends.
As Holbrook (2005, p. 46) explains, auto-ethnography can draw on photographs to
facilitate self-reflection via photo-elicitation, and to substantiate claims about previous
experiences. To capitalize on this technique, the authors analyzed the content of
photos of the physical features of booths, using those made public on the social media
accounts of the institutions in attendance. Following the initial site visit, 446 photos of
the fair communicated by universities and other associated organizations via their social
media accounts (Twitter, Instagram) were searched and collected using the fair’s
hashtag. 294 photos were not included in the analysis because they did not capture
any discernible facets of the booths. The analysis was based on the remaining 152 photo-
graphs, 41 retrieved from Twitter and 111 from Instagram. Of the universities in attend-
ance, only a single institution did not post a single photograph through social media.
Within the sample of photos, six institutions only posted Instagram photographs, with
the average number of posts equaling 5.3; the average number of tweets per institution
in the sample was significantly less, at almost 2 per institution. This is not surprising
given the use of Instagram as a primarily photo sharing medium (Smith & Sanderson,
2015). These images, along with our field notes, were employed to engage in subsequent
rounds of collaborative and self-reflection over the next week, during which our own
observations were repeatedly probed, grounding and triangulating them using visual
data independent from our own memory and field notes. At times, a side-by-side compari-
son of booth pictures proved useful in allowing us to isolate stylistic distinctions that were
not easily identified in person. Images were also useful throughout the writing of this
manuscript, allowing us to refresh our memory in a way which written notes were
unable to.

Findings
Through a triangulation of observations made via the analysis of the booths’ physical fea-
tures, the social dynamics taking place within them, and the authors’ own experiences,
several notable themes were identified. First, considerable variation in student interest,
as sensed through physical crowdedness, was observed across booths, leading to the
emergence of what the authors dubbed as ‘hot’ and ‘cool’ institutional brands. Second,
through an analysis of the structure and content of booths, variation was found in the
adoption of ideal-typical ‘branded house’ and ‘house of brands’ strategies (Hemsley-
Brown & Goonawardana, 2007), with some institutions communicating ‘monolithic’ iden-
tities and others opting to clearly demarcate and showcase the appealing traits of their
sub-elements (e.g. faculties, professional schools). Lastly, through an analysis of university
booths, a noticeable degree of ‘niche-oriented’ marketing was found to be enacted by
institutions, geared towards emphasizing distinct non-academic features of each insti-
tution – especially their geographical location (Table 1).
160 R. MISSAGHIAN AND R. PIZARRO MILIAN

Table 1. University characteristics.

Pseudonym Brand Architecture Brand Type Prestige Level Color Scheme Location Size
‘Metropolitan U’ BH Hot High Uniform Urban Large
‘Capital U’ HoB Cool Mid Variegated Urban Large
N/A BH Hot Mid Uniform Urban Large
‘Industrial U’ Hybrid Cool Low Uniform Urban Mid
‘Lake U’ Hybrid Cool Low Variegated Rural Small
‘Southwestern’ BH Hot High Uniform Urban Large
N/A Hybrid Cool Low Variegated Mixed Mid
‘Waterford U’ HoB Hot High Variegated Urban Large
‘Agricultural U’ Hybrid Cool Mid Variegated Mixed Large
N/A BH Hot Mid Uniform Urban Large
‘Rural U’ Hybrid Cool Low Variegated Rural Small
N/A BH Cool Mid Uniform Urban Mid
N/A Hybrid Cool Mid Variegated Urban Large
N/A BH Cool Low Uniform Rural Small
‘Northern U’ BH Cool Low Uniform Rural Small
‘Mountain U’ BH Cool Low Uniform Rural Small
N/A HoB Cool Low Variegated Rural Small
N/A BH Cool Low Uniform Urban Small
‘Directional U’ Hybrid Hot High Uniform Mixed Large
N/A BH Cool Low Uniform Mixed Small
N/A BH Hot High Uniform Mixed Large
Note: Prestige is based on position in national rankings (by ‘thirds’ – upper, mid, bottom). Size is based on total full-time
student enrollments (Large = < 20,000, Medium = 10,000–19,000, Small = >9,000). Location by qualitative assessment of
surrounding geography.

‘Hot’ vs. ‘cool’ brands

Observing crowd dynamics across booths revealed variable degrees of interest among
prospective students and their parents in participating universities. After visiting
roughly a dozen booths, a conceptualization of ‘Hot’ to ‘Cool’ brands was organically
developed by the researchers while conversing about the variable crowdedness of
booths. The former was constituted by extremely congested booths, generally repre-
senting more prestigious universities, those that have monopolized the upper rungs of
the national rankings, and routinely place among the ‘Top 100’ in international rank-
ings. ‘Hot’ brands were not exclusively prestigious, however, and also included a
number of less renowned institutions, such as ‘Urban U,’ located in one of Canada’s
most populous metropolitan centers. The high degree of student interest in ‘Hot’
brands made their booths physically impenetrable at peak times, and very difficult
to navigate once one was in them without repeatedly bumping into other individuals.
Indeed, during reflective discussions at the fair, such booths were likened by one of
the researchers to chaotic concert ‘mosh pits’ where it was easy to become disor-
iented. This was evidenced by the several occasions during which the researchers
became separated in the crowd, and eventually had to use their mobile devices to
find one another. Crowdedness shaped internal booth environments in consequential
ways, both negative and positive. First, the ratio of students-to-recruiters was so high
at certain ‘Hot’ brands, that recruiters seemed unable to effectively satisfy the
demands for information placed upon them. Recruiters were routinely observed at
these booths being surrounded on all fronts by eager parents and students, and
simply rotating to each, while standing in the same spot, in order to field queries
from the next grouping.
 JOURNAL OF MARKETING FOR HIGHER EDUCATION 161

The environment described above strongly contrasts that found within the booths of
‘Cool’ brands, those generating lesser degrees of student interest. This second group was
comprised primarily of lower status universities, many of whom focused primarily on under-
graduate teaching, and those located in more remote and northern geographical locations.
While recruiters at ‘Hot’ brands were entirely overwhelmed, unable to keep up with student
queries, and rendered static by the surrounding hoards, those at ‘Cool’ brands had to
actively search for students to engage with. Many were observed patrolling the perimeter
of their booths and attempting to spark conversations with students walking in the adjacent
pathways. This dynamic made recruiters representing ‘Cool’ brands appear more aggressive
vis-a-vis their counterparts. It made them feel more like salespeople pushing a product on
hesitant customers than passive sources of information.3 The less chaotic atmosphere at
these booths did provide their recruiters with some distinct advantages. By virtue of not
being overloaded, representatives were seemingly able to provide prospective students
and their parents with more personalized attention. Once they attracted the attention of
a prospective ‘pod’ (e.g. student, parents), they often shepherded them to sitting areas
where they had what appeared to be less rushed and far more relaxed conversations
than those witnessed elsewhere. Sitting areas such as these provided what appeared to
be far more intimate and homely spaces, akin to a family kitchen table, within the
context of a public setting. They transported family pods away from the chaos of the univer-
sity fair, allowing these representatives to capitalize on what is commonly perceived as the
advantage of recruitment events: establishing a personal and direct attention with prospec-
tive students. Such forms of interaction were logistically unfeasible at ‘Hot’ brands.
These ‘Hot’ and ‘Cool’ brand distinctions are potentially reflective of the fragmented
nature of higher education as a market. Scholars have long identified the consequences
of differentials in institutional prestige, as it pertains to generating student interest. Appli-
cation and acceptance rates have long been known to systematically vary from elite to
non-elite institutions. The United States provides an extreme example of this, with insti-
tutions such as Harvard and Stanford accepting only roughly 5% of an elite international
group of thousands of applicants (U.S. News & World Report, 2017). Meanwhile, others,
such as community colleges and for-profit universities, are near-universal access, accepting
all comers. Students are attracted to elite schools like moths to a bug ‘zapper.’ In the Cana-
dian system, existing research has highlighted that status differentials between institutions
are relatively smaller (Davies & Hammack, 2005; Davies & Zarifa, 2012). Nonetheless, as wit-
nessed through this fair, they still trigger disproportionate levels of student interest. It seems
likely that the booths of ‘Hot’ brands pull students across a broad range of groups, even
those who (i) would likely not gain acceptance or (ii) may not be thinking of applying.
These individuals may venture to these booths to see what all the ‘fuss’ is about. Meanwhile,
‘Cool’ brands, being relatively unknown entities, may be entirely eschewed by those stu-
dents outside of their particular market niche. However, the popularity of ‘Hot’ brands
serves as a double-edged sword, negating them the opportunity to provide the personalized
attention for which recruitment events such as these are designed.

‘Branded house,’ ‘house of brands’ and ‘hybrid’ approaches

The brand architecture of universities participating in this fair, as communicated through
the visual characteristics of their booths, including the many banners, signs and other
162 R. MISSAGHIAN AND R. PIZARRO MILIAN

promotional elements that constituted them, differed considerably. The strategies

employed can be conceptualized along a continuum from the two ideal-typical poles:
‘branded house’ and ‘house of brands.’ The branded house architecture, as mentioned
earlier, consists of a harmonized or monolithic image, which draws on consistent
imagery, color schemes and symbols to represent diverse product or service lines
(Hemsley-Brown & Goonawardana, 2007). This was the most popular (11/21 – 52% of
schools) branding strategy across examined booths, whereby universities would deploy
their traditional crests and color schemes in a relatively consistent fashion across booth
subsections (e.g. tables) representing disparate faculties or programs (e.g. sciences, huma-
nities). Indeed, at ‘Southwestern,’ a relatively higher-status university, the entire facade of
the booth was draped in the school’s signature burgundy color. A singular gold and bur-
gundy colored coat of arms was also used across all materials, providing a degree of con-
sistency that made areas representing different faculties stylistically indistinguishable. A
similar strategy was used at ‘Metropolitan U’, a globally-renowned research institution,
where a blue and white coat of arms was splattered across all materials. This resulted in
a clean and repetitive, though monotonous, look across every other department and
faculty subsection that was represented across the space of the booth. At other booths
employing this branding approach, the color scheme seeped into virtually every object
within its confines, including carpeting, chairs, recruiter uniforms and name badges (e.g.
polo-style shirts, vests). The orchestration of these harmonized color schemes across
booths is not surprising, in that color is a common ‘brand signifier’ (Balmer & Gray,
2003, p. 989). Such consistency made the message conveyed through such booths
clear: the brand being leveraged was that of the university itself.
A small subset of universities (3/21 – 14% of schools) at the fair employed a pure version
of the ‘house of brands’ strategy, allowing their faculties to project differentiated brands
that ostensibly better met the sensibilities of their prospective students. Within the
context of HE, for example, the institutional traits that may appeal to academically
gifted students in the sciences (e.g. cutting-edge laboratory equipment, access to
leading researchers) may do little to spark interest among counterparts interested in
business studies, who may be focused on other factors (e.g. alumni networks, practical
experience, co-op options). As such, when targeting these differentiated markets, it
could make sense for central administrators to allow their faculties and programs to inde-
pendently brand themselves. This approach was observed in its most extreme form, at the
booth of ‘Waterford U,’ a relatively young, high-status institution with a world-class repu-
tation in engineering and technology. Unlike many of its high-status counterparts, who
brought their institutional brand to the forefront, ‘Waterford U’ chose to present a
simple black and white logo above its booth, and then furnished each of its faculty and
departmental subsections, and their dedicated recruiters, with distinct colors and aesthetic
styles. For example, its Faculty of Arts had banners, displays and recruiter uniforms deco-
rated in orange, while the Sciences were differentiated in their usage of blue. In addition,
‘Waterford U’ made available a range of stand-alone, faculty-specific promotional materials
that were not observed across other studied institutions. Another example of this unique
strategy was observed at ‘Capital U,’ a mid-tiered university that designated the location of
each faculty within the booth using lantern-like hanging displays with differentiated
colors. The objects found underneath each of these ‘lanterns,’ ranging from informational
pamphlets to recruiter uniforms, also matched this color scheme. The strategic intent at
 JOURNAL OF MARKETING FOR HIGHER EDUCATION 163

those institutions, as in several others, was to emphasize the strength of these distinct
components, rather than to ‘sell’ the broader institution itself. This differs from alternative
efforts to cast a blanket over all organizational parts, rendering each an indistinguishable
part of the whole.
A third group (7/21–33% of schools) operated using a hybrid branding strategy. This
entailed operating primarily as a ‘Branded House,’ covering its main components with
uniform colors, symbols and imagery, but allowing exemplary offshoots to stand alone.
For example, at ‘Agricultural U,’ a mid-status university, a joint-partnership with a public
college, through which a series of applied degree-diploma programs were offered, was
advertised within a subsection at the edge of their booth. This subsection of ‘Agricultural
U’s’ booth utilized an entirely different color scheme for its tables, walls and recruiter uni-
forms, and a modified institutional logo. Indeed, the initial impression developed by the
researchers from a distance was that this was a standalone booth representing an
entire university. Only upon closer inspection was it recognized that it belonged to the
broader institutional booth. Within the branding literature, it is proposed that tactics
such as these are employed to shelter the main brand from being adversely affected by
the potential failure of exploratory, high-risk ventures. This same strategy, though occupy-
ing far less space, was used by ‘Directional U’ to promote smaller, religiously-affiliated
liberal arts colleges that remained associated with it. These degree granting colleges
were promoted with a different color scheme, including green, blue and white, in place
of the university’s traditional purple and white. The idea, once again, being to present
these entities as distinct from the broader institution.

Marketing through geography

Beyond the key distinctions highlighted above, it was also possible to observe universities
engaging in niche-oriented marketing, especially by leveraging elements of their geo-
graphical location. In this way, universities appear cognizant that, as highlighted by exist-
ing studies (see María Cubillo, Sánchez, & Cerviño, 2006, pp. 9–10; Mazzarol & Soutar,
2002), city or image characteristics serve as a ‘pull’ factor which influences student decision
making. Many schools, particularly those located on the outskirts of urban centers, or in
more remote areas, went out of their way to showcase the physical beauty of their sur-
roundings. For example, ‘Rural U,’ located in the provincial North, surrounded by beautiful
natural landscapes, made this feature the most prominent aspect of their booth displays.
This was done through a large aerial photo of the campus, showing the surrounding
greenery and other scenic landscapes surrounding the campus. ‘Mountain U’ achieved a
similar purpose by showing videos of actual students engaged in outdoor activities (e.g.
canoeing, hiking). ‘Northern U’, as mentioned previously, had parts of its booth decorated
using wood paneling, akin to that traditionally used in rustic cabins. It also placed its logo
above an image of tree branches. ‘Lake U’ also accentuated its remote location by placing
an actual canoe in their booth, which they were raffling off to prospective students. Efforts
to capitalize on this natural imagery strongly contrast more conventional depictions of
campuses across other older universities in the provincial south, which showcased aged
architecture, ivy-covered walls, or more contemporary designs which are constituted by
glass and steel. The former were appealing to an ostensible demand for nature and adven-
ture among students, for an education at the margins of society itself. This is a demand
164 R. MISSAGHIAN AND R. PIZARRO MILIAN

which these remote institutions were well positioned to serve, given their geographical
location.
Interestingly, while some capitalized on their remoteness and proximity to nature,
others attempted to ‘bridge’ the geographical divide between them and major urban
centers. Consider the case of ‘Industrial U,’ a lower-status university located proximate
to the United States border, within an aging industrial city. Lacking access to beautiful
forests and green spaces, it simply chose to inform students that it was not so remote.
To do so, it displayed a large map outlining the location of the institution, along with dis-
tances (in kilometers) and estimated travel times between it and other neighboring cities.
Rather than selling students on adventures in nature, the idea was to illustrate the feasi-
bility for students to easily travel back home during weekends or holidays. To mitigate
their remoteness, and effectively bridge the geographical divide between them and
student markets, institutions such as ‘Industrial U’ also at times employed virtual reality
(VR) technology to virtually transport prospective students to their campus. VR goggles
allow these institutions to offer tours of campus grounds, and produced the effect of phys-
ically being on the campus. This, of course, serves as an extension of existing efforts by
universities to feature videos of their campuses online. However, with VR, these types of
images can be experienced first-hand by the user, thus producing a unique sensory
experience.

Discussion
The empirical trends observed through this exploratory analysis should be of import to HE
scholars and branding professionals across jurisdictions. The data identify both theoretical
and practical issues that require further attention, and whose analysis can advance the
understanding of branding processes within HE. First, the identification of ‘Hot’ and
‘Cool’ brands outlines consequential differences produced by brand prestige, or other
appealing brand characteristics (e.g. in-demand geographical location), during the
student recruitment process. Indeed, it appears as if actors across different strata are
forced to play markedly different games. Hot brands act as magnetic poles, drawing to
them droves of prospective students. However, while this allure guarantees a high quan-
tity of student interest, it has a negative impact on the quality of interactions between
these universities and prospective students. It complicates their ability to cut through
the impersonality of recruitment and to establish more meaningful points of contact
with students – the raison d’être of these recruitment events. ‘Cool’ brands, by virtue of
attracting less student interest, are able to provide a degree of personalized and unrushed
attention, and ostensibly, establish more meaningful connections. The atmosphere they
provide sharply contrasts the impersonal dispatching of information by overwhelmed
representatives at ‘Hot’ brands. Such variable status-related dynamics in student recruit-
ment mirror previous HE research outlining the alternative competitive strategies
enacted by differentially stratified actors (see Pizarro Milian, 2018; Pizarro Milian & David-
son, 2016; Pizarro Milian & Quirke, 2017). Further empirical work, of course, is needed to
better understand how status influences recruitment processes. Stevens (2009), for
example, has conducted ethnographic work at an admissions office in an elite liberal
arts college, outlining the organizational dynamics behind admission decisions. Work of
this sort within recruitment or marketing offices could prove invaluable to charting the
 JOURNAL OF MARKETING FOR HIGHER EDUCATION 165

alternative competitive landscapes in which universities at opposite ends of the status

hierarchy operate.
Second, by charting the branding strategies employed across participating universities,
some evidence of field fragmentation was observed. Rather than operating in lockstep
with their peers, trapped in some form of ‘iron cage’ of conformity (DiMaggio & Powell,
1983), notable differences in the manner in which universities construct their brands
were observed. While the majority of universities enacted the conventional ‘branded
house’ strategy, others eschewed this mold, skillfully deploying ‘house of brands’ or
hybrid approaches. The former strategy was particularly advantageous for high-status uni-
versities, who strategically blanketed their faculties and sub-components with uniform
symbols and color palettes, leveraging the prestige of their institutional brand. Across
the periphery of the field, however, among relatively lower status universities, there was
divergence from this model, with some actors allowing their strong sub-components to
stand independently on their own merits. Stylistically, this fragmented the visual identity
of these institutions, but ostensibly allowed these actors to maximize their performance
across particular market segments. This observed variance in branding tactics highlights
the presence of strong normative standards by which some actors abide, projecting
more monolithic identities, but at the same time, provides some evidence of actors stra-
tegically stepping out of the box. In doing so, it is consistent with existing work within
economic and organizational sociology, which highlights the ‘patchiness’ of organizational
fields (Quirke, 2013), and the ability for peripheral field members to eschew field norms
(Han, 1994; Phillips & Zuckerman, 2001). Through mapping these dynamics, this article
contributes to an evolving cluster of studies attempting to understand the frictions
caused by competitive and institutional pressures in HE (Mampaey, 2016; Mampaey
et al., 2015). Further work, of course, is needed to understand the decision-making pro-
cesses which prompt the enactment of these alternative strategies. Moreover, an empirical
effort needs to be made to understand the influence of brand architecture on recruitment
outcomes and organizational performance.
Beyond divergences in brand architecture or form, as discussed above, the authors
observed differentiation in the content of displays and signs across university booths.
Through such materials, the authors identify what was interpreted as ‘niche’-oriented strat-
egies. For example, it was witnessed that geographical location was an important theme
that universities dealt with in contrasting ways, drawing on alternative rhetorical or
framing tactics. Among universities situated in the northern parts of the province, for
example, it was noted that many emphasized the beauty of their physical surroundings
and natural landscapes – depicting themselves as remote sites offering the opportunity
for adventure. On the other hand, some southern universities located outside of major
urban centers, rather than attempting to capitalize on their spatial marginality, empha-
sized their relative proximity to nearby cities – effectively labeling themselves as ‘not so
distant.’ These alternative ways of packaging and selling their geographical location to stu-
dents provide much food for thought, especially if one considers they are likely targeted at
particular student market segments whom administrators believe these messages will res-
onate with. Within Canada, it is known that students are averse to traveling long distances
to attend a HE institution (Frenette, 2004, 2006, 2009; Pizarro Milian & Rizk, 2017; Zarifa,
Hango, & Pizarro Milian, 2018). As such, the appeals made by southern universities, empha-
sizing proximity, are not entirely surprising. However, promises of adventure made by
166 R. MISSAGHIAN AND R. PIZARRO MILIAN

northern counterparts appear more novel. Overall, efforts by universities to cater to the
more consumerist tendencies of students through promotional materials, along with
the role which these non-academic factors play in institutional selection, require additional
attention.

Conclusion
To our knowledge, this constitutes the first attempt within the extant HE literature to
empirically examine university fairs, including both the characteristics of booths and
the broader social dynamics therein. Empirically, it thus fills a notable gap within the
literature, which has thus far focused on how universities communicate their brand
identity through conventional promotional mediums, such as viewbooks, television
commercials and web pages. An examination of this new terrain, and the novel types
of data which it contains, proves beneficial in that it allows us to shed light on important
dynamics, ranging from differentials generated by brand prestige to variation in brand
architecture. Perhaps most importantly, this novel study raises a series of critical ques-
tions, discussed in the subsequent section, that scholars should examine to develop a
more holistic understanding of branding within HE. Combined, the abovementioned
contributions advance the current state of the academic literature in important and
thus far unexamined ways. This study also has consequential implications for HE man-
agement. First, our theorizing on the impact of status differentials on branding architec-
tures can provide food for thought for managers who want to tailor their event
marketing strategies. Those at the helm of ‘Hot’ brands may wish to consider ways in
which to better meet the information demands placed on their recruiters, either
through innovative technologies that dispatch information directly to prospective stu-
dents, or through providing additional human resources (e.g. more recruiters). At the
very least, they may wish to evaluate their current practices to ensure that prospective
students are not frustrated by the crowdedness of their booths and delays in making
contact with recruiters. Meanwhile, those at ‘Cool’ brands may wish to consider ways
to generate additional interest in their booths, through raffles or other activities. Our
observations can help HE managers reflect on their practices, and calibrate their
approach based on their brand characteristics.

Limitations & future research

While making several contributions, there are, of course, several important limitations to
the research design that readers should keep in mind. Many of these outline areas for
future work. First, only a single case of a university fair was investigated in a particular
national context. While focusing on a single case allowed the authors to hone in on a mul-
titude of branding features that were present at this fair, a single case-study does not allow
for generalizations to be made about branding in HE as a whole. A second important limit-
ation of the research stems from its location within a highly distinct national HE system. As
several scholars have acknowledged, Canadian HE is much smaller, and has a ‘flatter’ status
hierarchy than its American or British counterparts (Davies & Hammack, 2005; Davies &
Zarifa, 2012). Among Canadian universities, the difference between leaders such as the
University of Toronto or McGill University and lower ranked counterparts pales relative
 JOURNAL OF MARKETING FOR HIGHER EDUCATION 167

to that between Harvard or Cambridge and lower ranked universities within their
countries’ systems. This means that observed status differences within the study could
be far more pronounced, had the target been a university fair within one of these
larger and more stratified systems. Future researchers should thus aim to examine recruit-
ment events within these countries, with larger booth samples, and with a view towards
better understanding how recruitment dynamics vary.
Third, it is very difficult for two researchers to capture everything that goes on in such
populated events. The authors had originally envisioned developing detailed measures,
including counting the number of recruiters present in each booth, to provide some
descriptive statistics about the human resources employed at each institution. This
proved unfeasible, given that some booths had dozens of recruiters sprawled across
large crowds. Similar difficulty was experienced with other measures that we wished to
gather systematically. Future researchers, equipped with more resources, could employ
a team of research assistants or drone technology to better capture this data which we
were unable to record.
Fourth, the authors opted for an unobtrusive data gathering strategy, which allowed for
the observation of broader social dynamics, but not for the mapping of ‘sense-making’
processes (Weick, 1995) vital to understanding the perceptions of individuals within this
fair. Future work should seek to employ an interview-based design, speaking to both stu-
dents/parents, recruiters and other branding professionals involved with the fair. Speaking
to students and parents would be key to understanding how they perceived different
types of brands, and their interactions with them. How did they interpret the crowdedness
of ‘Hot’ brands, and the difficulties in accessing recruiters? Did they view this favorably, as a
sign of high demand and institutional quality? Or, did they perceive it as a sign of future
impersonal treatment by the university? Moreover, how did they perceive the personal-
ized treatment at ‘Cool’ brands? Did they view it favorably, or as a sign of desperation?
These are critical questions for understanding the interface between students and univer-
sities. Lastly, there is a need to better examine how universities portray themselves
through social media during these events. Our sample was too small to conduct an in-
depth analysis of this data source. Future research should aim to more thoroughly
examine this issue, and further, to examine how prospective students themselves interact
with university brands online during university fairs.

Notes
1. See Woodrow (1988) for an early view of marketing operations within HE.
2. Indeed, impression management strategies have even led some universities to provide inac-
curate or misleading data to ranking publications, in an effort to improve their performance in
such publications (Cloud & Shepherd, 2012; Murray, 2012).
3. Of course, not all recruiters at “Cool” brands behaved in this aggressive manner. At each of
these booths, one could count on finding at least a few less entrepreneurial or apathetic
recruiters. These individuals could be observed passing the time casually conversing with
each other, as they waited for students to enter their area of the booth.

Disclosure statement
No potential conflict of interest was reported by the authors.
168 R. MISSAGHIAN AND R. PIZARRO MILIAN

ORCID
Rod Missaghian http://orcid.org/0000-0002-3771-3712
Roger Pizarro Milian http://orcid.org/0000-0001-5493-7040

References
Aaker, D. (2004). Leveraging the corporate brand. California Management Review, 46(3), 6–18.
Amato, P. R. (1989). Who cares for children in public places? Naturalistic observation of male and
female caretakers. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 51, 981–990.
Balmer, J. M. T., & Gray, E. R. (2003). Corporate brands: What are they? What of them? European
Journal of Marketing, 37(7/8), 972–997.
Baum, J. A., & Oliver, C. (1991). Institutional linkages and organizational mortality. Administrative
Science Quarterly, 36, 187–218. doi:10.2307/2393353
Bélanger, C. H., Bali, S., & Longden, B. (2014). How Canadian universities use social media to brand
themselves. Tertiary Education and Management, 20(1), 14–29.
Bok, D. C. (2003). Universities in the marketplace: The commercialization of higher education. Princeton:
Princeton University Press.
Bosetti, L., Kawalilak, C., & Patterson, P. (2008). Betwixt and between: Academic women in transition.
The Canadian Journal of Higher Education, 38(2), 95.
Bradley, S. R., Hayter, C. S., & Link, A. N. (2013). Models and methods of university technology transfer.
Foundations and Trends® in Entrepreneurship, 9(6), 571–650.
Chapleo, C. (2005). Do universities have “successful” brands? International Journal of Educational
Advancement, 6(1), 54–64.
Chapleo, C. (2007). Barriers to brand building in UK universities? International Journal of Nonprofit and
Voluntary Sector Marketing, 12, 23–32.
Chapleo, C. (2010). What defines “successful” university brands? International Journal of Public Sector
Management, 23(2), 169–183. doi:10.1108/09513551011022519
Chapleo, C. (2015). Brands in higher education. International Studies of Management & Organization,
45(2), 150–163.
Chapleo, C., Carrillo Durán, M. V., & Castillo Díaz, A. (2011). Do UK universities communicate their
brands effectively through their websites? Journal of Marketing for Higher Education, 21(1), 25–46.
Close, A., & Lacey, R. (2006). Engaging the consumer through event marketing: Linking attendees
with the sponsor, community, and brand. Journal of Advertising Research, 46(4), 420–433.
Cloud, M., & Shepherd, G. (2012). Law deans in jail? Legal studies research paper series, Emory
University School of Law No. 12-199.
Coia, L., & Taylor, M. (2013). Uncovering our feminist pedagogy: A co/autoethnography. Studying
Teacher Education, 9(1), 3–17.
Connell, R. (2013). The neoliberal cascade and education: An essay on the market agenda and its con-
sequences. Critical Studies in Education, 54(2), 99–112.
Constantinides, E., & Stagno, M. C. Z. (2011). Potential of the social media as instruments of higher
education marketing: A segmentation study. Journal of Marketing for Higher Education, 21(1), 7–
24. doi:10.1080/08841241.2011.573593
Crowther, P. (2010a). Marketing space: A conceptual framework for marketing events. The Marketing
Review, 10(4), 369–383. doi:10.1362/146934710X541339
Crowther, P. (2010b). Strategic application of events. International Journal of Hospitality Management,
29(2), 227–235.
Cyr, D. (2014). Physical graffiti and school ecologies: A new look at ‘disorder’, neighbourhood effects and
school outcomes (Doctoral dissertation). Retrieved from http://hdl.handle.net/11375/16461
Davidson, C. (2015). The university corporatization shift: A longitudinal analysis of university admis-
sion handbooks, 1980 to 2010. Canadian Journal of Higher Education, 45(2), 193–214.
Davies, S., & Hammack, F. M. (2005). The channeling of student competition in higher education:
Comparing Canada and the U.S. The Journal of Higher Education, 76(1), 89–106.
 JOURNAL OF MARKETING FOR HIGHER EDUCATION 169

Davies, S., & Pizarro Milian, R. (2016). Maintaining status in times of change: The interplay of insti-
tutional forces and stratification among Anglo-American Universities. In The handbook of sociology
of higher education. New York, NY: Routledge.
Davies, S., & Quirke, L. (2002). The new entrepreneurship in higher education: The impact of tuition
increases at an Ontario University. The Canadian Journal of Higher Education, XXXII(3), 85–109.
Davies, S., & Zarifa, D. (2012). The stratification of universities: Structural inequality in Canada and the
United States. Research in Social Stratification and Mobility, 30(2), 143–158.
Deephouse, D. L. (1999). To be different, or to be the same? It’s a question (and theory) of strategic
balance. Strategic Management Journal, 20(April 1998), 147–166. doi:10.1002/(sici)1097-0266
(199902)20:2<147::aid-smj11>3.0.co;2-q
Deering, D., & Sá, C. M. (2014). Financial management of Canadian universities: Adaptive strategies to
fiscal constraints. Tertiary Education and Management, 20(3), 207–224.
Dholakia, R. R., & Acciardo, L. A. (2014). Branding a state university: Doing it right. Journal of Marketing
for Higher Education, 24(1), 144–163.
Dibble, D. (2016). Adopting and experiential marketing approach to University Open Days [Blog
post]. Retrieved from http://blog.betterthanten.com/higher-education/adopting-an-experiential-
approach-to-open-days/
DiMaggio, P., & Powell, W. W. (1983). The iron cage revisited: Collective rationality and institutional
isomorphism in organizational fields. American Sociological Review, 48(2), 147–160.
Frenette, M. (2004). Access to college and university: Does distance to school matter? Canadian Public
Policy, 30(4), 427–442. doi:10.2307/3552523
Frenette, M. (2006). Too far to go on? Distance to school and university participation. Education
Economics, 14(1), 31–58. doi:10.1080/09645290500481865
Frenette, M. (2009). Do universities benefit local youth? Evidence from the creation of new univer-
sities. Economics of Education Review, 28(3), 318–328. doi:10.1016/j.econedurev.2008.04.004
Getz, D., & Page, S. J. (2016). Event studies: Theory, research and policy for planned events. Events man-
agement series. New York: Routledge.
Giroux, H. A. (2006). America on the edge: Henry Giroux on politics, culture, and education. Palgrave.
doi:10.1057/9781403984364
Glaser, B., & Strauss, A. (1967). Grounded theory: The discovery of grounded theory. Sociology the
Journal of The British Sociological Association, 12, 27–49.
Graham, K., Bernards, S., Osgood, D. W., & Wells, S. (2006). Bad nights or bad bars? Multi-level analysis
of environmental predictors of aggression in late-night large-capacity bars and clubs. Addiction,
101(11), 1569–1580.
Graham, K., & Wells, S. (2001). Aggression among young adults in the social context of the bar.
Addiction Research & Theory, 9(3), 193–219.
Han, S. K. (1994). Mimetic isomorphism and its effect on the audit services market. Social Forces, 73(2),
637–664.
Hanover Research. (2014). Trends in higher education marketing, recruitment and technology.
Retrieved from hanoverresearch.com. https://www.hanoverresearch.com/media/Trends-in-
Higher-Education-Marketing-Recruitment-and-Technology-2.pdf
Harris, M. S. (2009). Message in a bottle: University advertising during bowl games. Innovative Higher
Education, 33(5), 285–296. doi:10.1007/s10755-008-9085-9
Hemsley-Brown, J., & Goonawardana, S. (2007). Brand harmonization in the international higher edu-
cation market. Journal of Business Research, 60(9), 942–948.
Hemsley-Brown, J., & Oplatka, I. (2006). Universities in a competitive global marketplace. International
Journal of Public Sector Management, 19(4), 316–338.
Holbrook, M. B. (2005). Customer value and autoethnography: Subjective personal introspection and
the meanings of a photograph collection. Journal of Business Research, 58(1), 45–61.
Karabel, J. (2005). How affirmative action took hold at Harvard, Yale, and Princeton. The Journal of
Blacks in Higher Education, 48, 58–77.
Kerr, C. (2001). The uses of the university. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.
Kimmons, R., Veletsianos, G., & Woodward, S. (2017). Institutional uses of Twitter in U.S. higher edu-
cation. Innovative Higher Education, 42(2), 97–111. doi:10.1007/s10755-016-9375-6
170 R. MISSAGHIAN AND R. PIZARRO MILIAN

Klassen, M. L. (2001). Lots of fun, not much work, and no hassles: Marketing images of higher edu-
cation. Journal of Marketing for Higher Education, 10(2), 11–26.
Mampaey, J. (2016). Are higher education institutions trapped in conformity? A translation perspec-
tive. Studies in Higher Education, 43(7), 1241–1253.
Mampaey, J., & Huisman, J. (2016). Defensive stakeholder management in European universities: An
institutional logics perspective. Studies in Higher Education, 41(12), 2218–2231. doi:10.1080/
03075079.2015.1029904
Mampaey, J., Huisman, J., & Seeber, M. (2015). Branding of Flemish higher education institutions: A
strategic balance perspective. Higher Education Research & Development, 34(6), 1178–1191.
María Cubillo, J., Sánchez, J., & Cerviño, J. (2006). International students’ decision-making process.
International Journal of Educational Management, 20(2), 101–115.
Mazzarol, T., & Soutar, G. (2002). “Push-pull” factors influencing international student destination
choice. International Journal of Educational Management, 16(2), 82–90.
Melewar, T. C., & Akel, S. (2005). The role of corporate identity in the higher education sector: A case
study. Corporate Communications: An International Journal, 10(1), 41–57. doi:10.1108/
13563280510578196
Morphew, C. C., & Hartley, M. (2006). Mission statements: A thematic analysis of rhetoric across insti-
tutional type. The Journal of Higher Education, 77(3), 456–471.
Morrish, L., & Sauntson, H. (2010). Vision, values and international excellence: The ‘products’ that uni-
versity mission statements sell to students. In M. Molesworth, R. Scullion, & E. Nixon (Eds.), The mar-
ketisation of higher education and the student as consumer (pp. 73–85). London: Routledge.
Mudge, S., Kayes, N., & McPherson, K. (2015). Who is in control? Clinicians’ view on their role in self-
management approaches: A qualitative metasynthesis. BMJ Open, 5(5), e007413–e007413.
Murray, J. F. (2012). Professional dishonesty: Do US law schools that report false or misleading
employment statistics violate consumer protection laws?
Muzellec, L., & Lambkin, M. C. (2009). Corporate branding and brand architecture: A conceptual fra-
mework. Marketing Theory, 9(1), 39–54.
Ness, E. C., & Tandberg, D. A. (2013). The determinants of state spending on higher education: How
capital project funding differs from general fund appropriations. The Journal of Higher Education,
84(3), 329–362. doi:10.1353/jhe.2013.0016
Okerson, J. R. (2016). Beyond the campus tour: College choice and the campus visit (Doctoral
Dissertation). Retrieved from W&M ScholarWorks. (Accession number 1463413085)
Oplatka, I. (2002). The emergence of educational marketing: Lessons from the experiences of Israeli
principals. Comparative Education Review, 46(2), 211–233.
Pace, S. (2017). Shaping corporate brands: From product features to corporate mission. International
Studies of Management & Organization, 47(2), 197–205.
Phillips, D. J., & Zuckerman, E. W. (2001). Middle-status conformity: Theoretical restatement and
empirical demonstration in two markets. American Journal of Sociology, 107(2), 379–429.
Pizarro Milian, R. (2016). Modern campuses, local connections and unconventional symbols:
Promotional practices in the Canadian community college sector. Tertiary Education and
Management, 22(3), 218–230. doi:10.1080/13583883.2016.1193764
Pizarro Milian, R. (2017). What’s for sale at Canadian universities? A mixed-methods analysis of pro-
motional strategies. Higher Education Quarterly, 71(1), 53–74. doi:10.1111/hequ.12108
Pizarro Milian, R. (2018). Legitimacy at the ‘margins’: Promotional strategies in the Canadian for-profit
college sector. Canadian Journal of Higher Education, 48(1), 60–81.
Pizarro Milian, R., & Davidson, C. (2016). Symbolic resources and marketing strategies in Ontario
higher education: A comparative analysis. Journal of Further and Higher Education, 42(2), 143–
157. doi:10.1080/0309877X.2016.1206859
Pizarro Milian, R., & Quirke, L. (2017). Alternative pathways to legitimacy: Promotional practices in the
Ontario for-profit college sector. Journal of Marketing for Higher Education, 27(1), 77–98. doi:10.
1080/08841241.2016.1212450
Pizarro Milian, R., & Rizk, J. (2017). Marketing Catholic higher education: Holistic self-actualization,
personalized learning, and wholesome goodness. Higher Education, 76(1), 51–66. doi:10.1007/
s10734-017-0193-2
 JOURNAL OF MARKETING FOR HIGHER EDUCATION 171

Podolny, J. M. (1993). A status-based model of market competition. American Journal of Sociology, 98,
829–872. doi:10.1086/230091
Podolny, J. M. (2001). Networks as the pipes and prisms of the market. American Journal of Sociology,
107(1), 33–60. doi:10.1086/323038
Porac, J. F., Thomas, H., Wilson, F., Paton, D., & Kanfer, A. (1995). Rivalry and the industry model of
Scottish knitwear producers. Administrative Science Quarterly, 40(2), 203.
Puddephatt, A., & Nelsen, R. W. (2010). The promise of a sociology degree in Canadian higher edu-
cation. Canadian Review of Sociology, 47(4), 405–430.
Quirke, L. (2013). Rogue resistance: Sidestepping isomorphic pressures in a patchy institutional field.
Organization Studies, 34(11), 1675–1699.
Raudenbush, S. W., & Sampson, R. J. (1999). 1. Ecometrics: Toward a science of assessing ecological
settings, with application to the systematic social observation of neighborhoods. Sociological
Methodology, 29(1), 1–41.
Reiss, A. J. (1971). Systematic observation of natural social phenomena. Sociological Methodology, 3,
3–33.
Roy, D. P., & Cornwell, T. B. (2004). The effects of consumer knowledge on responses to event spon-
sorships. Psychology and Marketing, 21(3), 185–207. doi:10.1002/mar.20001
Saichaie, K., & Morphew, C. C. (2014). What college and university websites reveal about the purposes
of higher education. The Journal of Higher Education, 85(4), 499–530.
Sampson, R. J., & Raudenbush, S. W. (1999). Systematic social observation of public spaces: A new
look at disorder in urban neighborhoods. American Journal of Sociology, 105(3), 603–651. doi:10.
1086/210356
Sampson, R. J., & Raudenbush, S. W. (2004). Seeing disorder: Neighborhood stigma and the social
construction of “broken windows”. Social Psychology Quarterly, 67(4), 319–342.
Satterlund, T. D., Antin, T. M., Lee, J. P., & Moore, R. S. (2009). Cultural factors related to smoking in
San Francisco’s Irish bars. Journal of Drug Education, 39(2), 181–193.
Schofer, E., & Meyer, J. W. (2005). The worldwide expansion of higher education in the twentieth
century. American Sociological Review, 70(6), 898–920.
Secore, S. (2018). The significance of campus visitations to college choice and strategic enrollment
management. Strategic Enrollment Management Quarterly, 5(4), 150–158.
Seeber, M., Barberio, V., Huisman, J., & Mampaey, J. (2017). Factors affecting the content of univer-
sities’ mission statements: An analysis of the United Kingdom higher education system. Studies
in Higher Education, 0(0), 1–15. doi:10.1080/03075079.2017.1349743
Slaughter, S., & Rhoades, G. (2004). Academic capitalism and the new economy: Markets, state, and
higher education. Baltimore: John Hopkins Press.
Smith, L. R., & Sanderson, J. (2015). I’m going to Instagram it! An analysis of athlete self-presentation
on Instagram. Journal of Broadcasting and Electronic Media, 59(2), 342–358.
Sneath, J. Z., Finney, R. Z., & Close, A. G. (2005). An IMC approach to event marketing: The effects of
sponsorship and experience on customer attitudes. Journal of Advertising Research, 45(4), 373–381.
Stevens, M. L. (2009). Creating a class. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.
Tafesse, W. (2016). Conceptualization of brand experience in an event marketing context. Journal of
Promotion Management, 22(1), 34–48.
Tandberg, D. A. (2010b). Politics, interest groups and state funding of public higher education.
Research in Higher Education, 51(5), 416–450. doi:10.1007/s11162-010-9164-5
Tandberg, D. (2010a). Interest groups and governmental institutions. Educational Policy, 24(5), 735–
778. doi:10.1177/0895904809339163
Tobolowsky, B. F., & Lowery, J. W. (2014). Selling college: A longitudinal study of American college
football bowl game public service announcements. Journal of Marketing for Higher Education,
24(1), 75–98. doi:10.1080/08841241.2014.911790
Tuchman, G. (2010). The future of Wannabe U. Chronicle of Higher Education, 57(9), B7–B8.
U.S. News & World Report. (2017). Top 100- lowest acceptance rates [Blog post]. Retrieved from
https://www.usnews.com/best-colleges/rankings/lowest-acceptance-rate
VanAuken, K. (2015). Using social media to improve customer engagement and promote products
and services. Journal of Airport Management, 9(2), 109–117.
172 R. MISSAGHIAN AND R. PIZARRO MILIAN

Veletsianos, G., Kimmons, R., Shaw, A., Pasquini, L., & Woodward, S. (2017). Selective openness, brand-
ing, broadcasting, and promotion: Twitter use in Canada’s public universities. Educational Media
International, 54(1), 1–19.
Wæraas, A., & Solbakk, M. N. (2009). Defining the essence of a university: Lessons from higher edu-
cation branding. Higher Education, 57(4), 449–462.
Weick, K. E. (1995). Sensemaking in organizations (Vol. 3). Thousand Oaks: Sage.
Whelan, S., & Wohlfeil, M. (2006). Communicating brands through engagement with ‘lived’ experi-
ences. Journal of Brand Management, 13(4–5), 313–329.
Woodrow, J. I. (1988). The Advertising Nemesis: Nobody Wants It, Nobody Can Afford It, Yet It Works.
Journal of Marketing for Higher Education, 1(1), 83–95.
Zarifa, D., Hango, D., & Pizarro Milian, R. (2018). Proximity, prosperity, and participation: Examining
access to postsecondary education among youth in Canada’s Provincial North. Rural Sociology,
83(2), 270–314.
Zhao, E. Y., Fisher, G., Lounsbury, M., & Miller, D. (2017). Optimal distinctiveness: Broadening the inter-
face between institutional theory and strategic management. Strategic Management Journal, 38,
93–113. doi:10.1002/smj.2589

Appendix 1. Snapshot of floor plan – university fair

Note: This is not a representation of the entire floorplan. It is a modified representation of a section of
the plan, reflective of different booth shapes, sizes and locations.