Ral Revised Alvin Thesis

Brand Image and Student Satisfaction in a Private School in Tanauan: Basis
for Marketing Strategy
A Thesis Submitted to the Faculty of Graduate School

Lyceum of the Philippines University-Batangas

In Partial Fulfilment of the Requirements for the Degree

Master in Business Administration
April, 2018.
Lyceum of the Philippines University Graduate School Page ii
APPROVAL SHEET
In partial fulfilment of the requirements for the degree Master in Business

Administration, this Thesis entitled “Brand Image and Student Satisfaction in a
Private School in Tanauan: Basis for Marketing Strategy” has been prepared by
Saracho for approval and acceptance.
DR.
JOY C. ASHIPAOLOYE
Thesis
Adviser
PANEL OF REACTORS
Accepted and approved in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the Degree
Master in Business Administration with a grade of ____________.
DR. FLORA V. JAVIER

Chairman
____________________ ___________________
Member Member
Accepted and approved in partial fulfilment of the requirements for the Degree
Master in Business Administration.
Comprehensive Examination _____________ Date: _______________
Dr. FRANCIS KAYODE ASHIPAOLOYE

Dean, Graduate School.
Lyceum of the Philippines University Graduate School Page iii
Abstract
Title: Brand Image and Student Satisfaction in a Private
School in Tanauan: Basis for Marketing Strategy.
Author: Alvin Siman Saracho
Degree: Master in Business Administration
School: Lyceum of the Philippines University- Batangas
School Year: 2016-2018
Adviser: Dr. Joy C. Ashipaoloye
With the progress of corporate brands in the Philippines and their
participation in international markets, brands have turned from business circles to
the educational world, and the era of educational brand operations has arrived.
Universities and colleges have gradually become business operations with their
students as the customers. Student satisfaction has thus become important in
academia.
The major purpose of this study is to set DMMC Institute of Health Sciences
on a specific course in marketing specifically in terms of introducing to the
community the quality of education which the institution is offering to its clienteles.
This study would also like to bridge the gaps related to goals of marketing generally
align with broader clear and strategic objectives. DMMC Institute of Health
Sciences looks to grow, as a well-established educational institution, that is why

Lyceum of the Philippines University Graduate School Page iv
through this research, a marketing plan that emphasizes strategies to increase
customer base will be proposed at the end of this study.
Descriptive method of research was utilized. Participants were the 100
Grade 11 and 12 students for assessing brand image (expectation) and 100 college
students for evaluating student satisfaction (perception). The participants of the
research were randomly selected irrespective or their rank and/or file. The
researcher used G*Power 3.1.9 to determine the sample size. Using an effect size
of 0.5, confidence interval of of 95% and power size of 95%, the computed sample
size is 178 for all the group.
Significant result revealed majority of the incoming college students were
between 18 years old and below, while for the college students, majority were 19 –
21 years old, mostly female and both incoming and college students were divided
equally in terms of educational attainment. In terms of employment of parents,
mostly were employed followed by unemployed and OFW.
Responsiveness and empathy got the highest rank for expectation while
assurance and tangibles were the top rankers for perception. Tangibles and
assurance occupied the lowest rank for expectation while reliability and empathy
were the lowest in terms of perception.
There is no significant difference in assessment on brand image
(expectation) in terms of tangibles, reliability, responsiveness, assurance and
empathy when grouped to age, sex, educational attainment and employment of
parent. There is significant difference in assessment on brand image (expectation)

Lyceum of the Philippines University Graduate School Page v
in terms of tangibles, reliability, responsiveness, assurance and empathy when
grouped to educational level.
There is no significant difference in difference in assessment on customer
satisfaction (perception) in terms of tangibles, reliability, responsiveness, assurance
and empathy when grouped to age, sex and employment of parent. There is
significant difference in assessment on student satisfaction (expectation) in terms of
tangibles, reliability, responsiveness, assurance and empathy when grouped to
educational level.
It is important for the school brand managers that they should think
strategically regarding how they can improve and strengthen identification of their
brands which will lead to student/customer satisfaction. School brand managers
therefore should monitor continuously the potential and existing concerns and
needs of students in order to understand their interests and necessities, developing
suitable services in order to improve the brand equity.
To sustain the brand image, school leaders need to recruit, and retain
trained faculty and provide infrastructure facilities. The school can also utilize social
media for continuous communication toward strategic brand enhancement. The
school needs to continue researching on brand image and student satisfaction and
others so as to be aware of the factors which influences the market in any giving
time and place, this continuity will help gather more information and therefore
position the school in a good and sound position to judge and strategize when
planning.
Lyceum of the Philippines University Graduate School Page vi
There is a need to improve and develop a marketing plan which will focus on
strengthening reliability and empathy in order to win student satisfaction and further
enhance factors related to tangibles, assurance and responsiveness. In terms of
brand image, a marketing plan should also focus on maintaining strategically
planned programs on responsiveness and empathy since these factors sustain the
positive image of the school.
Additional research is needed to fully understand how satisfaction arises
among all students. Different groups of people might have different opinions on the
service quality of the educational units. Therefore, it is crucial to understand the
differences among the different groups that are involved in the service-delivering
process. Thus, considerably more work is required to explore the factors used to
judge brand image and service quality.
Keywords: brand image, student, customer satisfaction, marketing
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
Lyceum of the Philippines University Graduate School Page vii
The author first and foremost, would like to thank God, his Family and
friends, and his professors, Dr. Joy C. Ashipaoloye his Thesis Adviser and
Members of the Panel especially Dr. Flora V. Javier.
DEDICATION
Lyceum of the Philippines University Graduate School Page viii
This Thesis is dedicated to God, my wife, my family and DMMCIHS.
Saracho
Lyceum of the Philippines University Graduate School Page ix
Table of Contents
Title Page
Title Page………………………………………………………...………..
Approval Sheet……………………………………………………………
Abstract……………………………………………………………………
Acknowledgement………………………………………………………
Dedication…………………………………………………………………
Table of Contents…………………………………………………………
List of Tables………………………………………………………………
List of Appendices………………………………………………………
Chapter 1
Introduction ………………………………………………………
Objectives of the Study ………………………………………
Literature Review………………………………………………
Chapter 2
Method …………………………………………………………
Research Design………………………………………………
Participants of Study…………………………………………
Data Gathering Instrument……………………………………
Data Gathering Procedure……………………………………
Data Analysis…………………………………………………
Chapter 3
Results and Discussion………………………………………
Conclusion………………………………………………………
Recommendation………………………………………………
References………………………………………………………
Appendices
Lyceum of the Philippines University Graduate School Page x
List of Figures
Figures Title Page
1 Profile of respondents (Graduating Senior High) in terms of age
2 Profile of respondents (College students) in terms of age
3 Profile of respondents (Graduating Senior High) in terms of gender
4 Profile of respondents (College students) in terms of gender
5 Profile of respondents (Graduating Senior High) in terms of educational

level
6 Profile of respondents (College students) in terms of program
7 Profile of respondents (Graduating Senior High) in terms of employment

of parents
8 Profile of respondents (Graduating Senior High) in terms of age
9 Profile of respondents (College students) in terms of employment of

parents.
List of Tables
Lyceum of the Philippines University Graduate School Page xi
Tables Title Page
1 Reliability analysis
2 Assessment on brand image (Expectation) in terms of tangibles
3 Assessment on brand image (Expectation) in terms of reliability
4 Assessment on brand image (Expectation) in terms of
responsiveness
5 Assessment on brand image (Expectation) in terms of assurance
6 Assessment on brand image (Expectation) in terms of empathy
7 Summary table for the assessment on brand image (Expectation)
8 Assessment on student satisfaction (Perception) in terms of tangibles
9 Assessment on student satisfaction (Perception) in terms of reliability
10 Assessment on student satisfaction (Perception) in terms of
responsiveness
11 Assessment on student satisfaction (Perception) in terms of assurance
12 Assessment on student satisfaction (Perception) in terms of empathy
13 Summary table for the assessment on student satisfaction (Perception)
14 Differences in the assessment on brand image and student satisfaction
in terms of tangibles when grouped into profile variables
in terms of reliability when grouped into profile variables
in terms of responsiveness when grouped into profile variables

Lyceum of the Philippines University Graduate School Page xii
in terms of assurance when grouped into profile variables
in terms of empathy when grouped into profile variables
19 Relationship between assessment on brand image and students
satisfaction
List of Appendices
Lyceum of the Philippines University Graduate School Page xiii
Appendix
A Questionnaire
B Statistical Output
C Curriculum Vitae
Lyceum of the Philippines University Graduate School Page 1
INTRODUCTION
With the progress of corporate brands in the Philippines and their
participation in international markets, brands have turned from business circles
to the educational world, and the era of educational brand operations has
arrived. Universities and colleges have gradually become business operations
with their students as the customers. Student customers’ satisfaction has thus
become important in academia. Universities have to pay attention to student
satisfaction (Elliott & Shin, 2012). Brand is the quality constructed by long-term
efforts and scientific exploration, and it has become the key to acquiring
customer loyalty as well as long-term survival and development for firms.
Educational institutions are no exception. Corporate brand image is the
indicator of the enhancement potential of the original customers’ intention to
approach organizations (Mazzarol, 2010). Brand is the important connection
between firms and consumers and it significantly influences customers’
purchase decision-making and judgment. In the current competitive market of
school recruitment, for schools, brands are the external symbols. In university
education in the Philippines, in order to enhance competitiveness and with
limited educational resources, institutes are now based on the concept of
business operations, and they use value marketing and performance to
establish a brand image and attract more prominent students. Successful
corporate brands can lead to outputs for firms. High-quality school brands will
enhance the material and human resources of schools. For universities, brand
image is critical. The brand image of public universities is superior to that of

private universities; however, in the Philippines, there are more private
universities than public universities. Students tend to study in public universities
with a better brand image. In recent years, the number of higher education
institutes in the country has increased; however, the number of freshmen has
decreased. Also, the biggest drop in enrollment occurs during the freshman
year, most universities find it essential to focus retention efforts on first year
students (Tompson & Brownlee, 2013). Students in universities are becoming
more consumer oriented than ever before. Private universities with inferior
brand images are encountering the challenge of a competitive market. The
students are the most important focus in a school, and how to strengthen
students’ intention to study is an important issue for higher education institutes.
When school operating conditions are similar, people will not distinguish
schools through their external characteristics. A unique brand image is what
schools need to convey to student customers. Educational brand image thus
influences the selection of students, parents and society.
The DMMC Institute of Health Sciences is an institution of higher
learning located in the City of Tanauan, Province of Batangas. It was founded
in August 2002 and was originally named Health Educators Incorporated to
address the need for a learning institution devoted to training new allied health
professionals. After filing for a change of name with the Philippine SEC it is now
known as DMMC Institute of Health Sciences. The institute first offered
Caregiver Course and later added B.S. Nursing Program in 2003. It gradually
increase the number of courses offer by starting to offer BEEd and BSEd in
2004, Bio-Medical Equipment Technology, B.S. Physical Therapy, Radiologic
Technology & Occupational Therapy in 2006, Psychology and Business
Administration in 2009. Moreover, it was originally located at the Estella
Mercado Medical Plaza of the Daniel O. Mercado Medical Center in 2004. It
has moved to its current campus is located at 143 Narra St. Mt. View Subd.,
Tanauan City, Batangas in 2007.
The major purpose of this study is to set DMMC Institute of Health
Sciences on a specific course in marketing specifically in terms of introducing
to the community the quality of education which the institution is offering to its
clienteles. This study would also like to bridge the gaps related to goals of
marketing generally align with broader clear and strategic objectives. DMMC
Institute of Health Sciences looks to grow, as a well-established educational
institution, that is why through this research, a marketing plan that emphasizes
strategies to increase customer base will be proposed at the end of this study.
Objectives of the Research
This study describes Brand Image and Student Satisfaction in a Private
School in Tanauan: Basis for Marketing Strategy.
More specifically, it describes the profile variables of respondent in terms
of age, gender, educational level and employment profile of parents. It
determines Brand image (expectation) in terms of tangibles, reliability,
responsiveness, assurance and empathy. Also to determine the student
satisfaction (perception) in terms of tangibles, reliability, responsiveness,

assurance and empathy. Furthermore, to determine the difference between
Brand Image and Customer Satisfaction when grouped to profile variables. To
test the relationship between brand image and student satisfaction when
grouped into profile variables. Lastly a proposed marketing program to further
boost enrollment and marketing aspect was tabled.
REVIEW OF LITERATURE
Brand Image
Brand image is the key in marketing. Brand image is treated as the clue
of information. By brand image, consumers predict product quality, develop
purchase behavior and save it in their memory. Likewise, in an educational
system, the brand image established by schools is an important factor when
students select a school. With a positive school brand image, students can
recognize the differences among schools and develop their selection intention.
Based on different consumers’ benefits, Park, Jaworski, and MacInnis (2010)
developed three brand concept-images. The functional brand image is used to
solve consumers’ external consumption demands. It means the products or
services provided by the schools can satisfy the customers’ functional needs
and solve the problems related to consumption. It is the image perception of
materials such as building facilities, environmental resources and instruction of
the curriculum. The symbolic brand image aims to connect individuals with
specific groups, roles or self-images. It means the school brand can satisfy the
consumers’ upgrading of self-value, enhancement of social roles, harmony in

group relationships and identification with self-image. It is a social image
perception related to social reputation, instructional characteristics and
characteristics of human resources. The experiential brand image aims to
satisfy consumers’ internal pursuit of excitement and diverse needs. It
emphasizes the satisfaction with the school brand and the stimulation effect of
cognition. It refers to the image perception related to the learning experience,
educational experience and life experience. According to past scholars’ views
of brand image, brand image is in the consumers’ memory and is the
association with the brand. It is adopted to infer or maintain the perceived
quality of products, and it represents all the information of a product. Thus, for
different brand images, consumers infer various kinds of perceived quality;
however, they mostly mention functional, symbolic and experiential brand
images. Thus, this study measured brand image according to the suggestion of
Park, Jaworski, and MacInnis (2010), who divided student customers’
perceived brand image into functional, symbolic and experiential brand images.
The brand itself is not just a product with a sign or symbol; the brand is
rather an idea that for example turns the product into something of value
(Haltch, 2013). It provides uniqueness, and it is the identifiable factors that one
can link to the specific brand. The brand exists to a large extent due to
customers, in particular loyal customers - it is not only the organization that
makes up a brand. This is agreed by Jacoby et. al (2015) who states that the
brand is defined by the customers’ point of view and that the brand always
needs to deliver value. It is therefore pivotal that the organization realizes the
customer’s perception of its brand.
Furthermore, in order to have a strong brand, brand awareness is of
high importance. Students must feel that the school should always at their back
not only in terms of academics but in terms of their holistic development.
School should let the students feel that there is a compassion and
understanding in times that they need assistance in all forms of curricular and
extra-curricular endeavors. (Kotler et. al, 2010). Brand awareness is created by
the familiarity of the brand, meaning that the consumer should be exposed to it
repeatedly through, for example, advertisement campaigns. However, it is
important to note that a brand develops over time, and can be divided into
levels of progress (Gray e. al., 2013). For newly established schools, there are
three levels particularly interesting. At the first level, the brand owner seeks to
express its identity; in the form of different labels that can be associated with
the institution. At the second level, the brand owner aims to provide the
customers with a point of differentiation. The brand seeks to establish a desired
perception in the mind of it’s the customers. Finally, at the third level, the brand
want to establish an emotional connection with its customers to become a
distinguished alternative.
Curtis e. al. (2010) argue that an educational organization with a strong
brand, clearly associated with specific benefits, can attract high-quality
personnel. This is agreed in the article of Cornut et. al. (2012) where it is stated
that a strong brand does not only benefit a school through attracting students.
In a market where schools are competing over students it can also have the
potential of attracting the best students available.
According to Cheung et. al. (2012), a strong brand is valuable for a
school since it can provide the institution with benefits such as clear school
wide focus, higher margins, deep students’ loyalty and a higher success rate
with new product and services launches. One need to realize the importance of
having a clear focus throughout the organization and make sure that focus is
not only centered at the top management, but also that it is congruent in the
different levels of the educational organization. Otherwise, the management’s
view of the brand will lose its focus in the other parts of the organization and
the institution might not communicate it congruently to the students. Hence, the
identity of the brand will not be the same throughout the school.
Richins (2017) states that a brand helps the students to distinguish one
offer from another. A brand is what the school creates for the students, and it is
what the students want to see and expect from the school. Looking at the brand
from these two perspectives, researcher within the area have divided it into two
major perspectives: brand identity and brand image, which are two closely
related concepts, and Oliver (2017) states that this can cause them to be mixed
up. The difference between them is that brand identity refers to how the brand
owner wants the brand to be perceived, and brand image is how customers
perceive the brand. Since these to concepts are central, they will be explained
individually below.
Brand image in a school set up can consist of traits, benefits, values,
differentiation, and personality; it can be seen as everything the brand owner
wants the students’ to associate with the brand (Pate, 2017). According to
Swan et. al. (2017) brand identity is what the brand stands for, what gives it
meaning, and what makes it unique; it is the brand’s fingerprint. Jevons (2016)
agrees with the previous researchers and also emphasizes that brand identity
is to be seen as the foundation for a brand and that it should reflect the brand’s
core values. Therefore, brand identity includes factors such as vision, aim, and
point of differentiation, values and sign of recognition. Aaker (2016) provides
another aspect of brand identity and explains how it can be both the core of the
school but also how it can be extended to include value adding perspectives.
The brand image symbolizes the basic characteristics that will be carried with
the brand over time. However, he further argues that brand identity should not
be considered static, but should be open to change if needed. It should reflect
its desired associations, but also its permanent qualities and benefits,
prominent or not. According to Aaker (2016), physical equipment and facilities
were mainly trademarks of one’s school brand image. It really captured the
visual attraction of the students the reason why there will appreciate and enroll
in a particular school. When they see any collaterals or brochures which
markets the school, they visually appreciate the institution based on the
appearance or uniform of both employees and students particularly the actual
presence of the facilities.

The brand image in academe consists of two parts; the core identity and
the extended identity (Brown et. al., 2016). The core identity is highly important
for both the meaning and success of the brand. It is the brand’s soul and
should comprise the fundamentals making the brand valuable and unique. The
core identity of a strong brand remains unchanged over time, regardless of
changes in the brand positioning and communication strategies. As opposed to
the core identity, the extended identity is less persistent to change; if
necessary, it can and should be changed. It should be recognized though, that
just because it can be altered it is not of less importance for the brand than the
core identity. The extended identity contains the brand personality, which adds
on the details revealing what the brand stand for, and provides the brand with
texture and completeness. The Identity Structure Model brought forward by
Bansal et. al. (2016) is introduced in order to provide two different dimensions
of brand image of a school.
The brand image in school can be explained as how the students
perceive the brand. It is the key of how learners make their choices after
gathering information about the particular brand and the alternatives
(Alessendri, 2013). Brand image in school is formed through three different
inductive processes: marketing communication, consumption experience and
social influence. Due to increased competitions of school, it is becoming
challenging for marketers to maintain a strong connection between the students
and the brand (Bruyn et. al., 2017). Some causes of the aforementioned can be
the students’ ever-increasing demand on the brand, that the learners are not
loyal, and/or that the benefits of a specific brand are not clear to the students.
Furthermore, massive space in media channels is given to advertising, making
it hard for the brands to develop strategies for effectively reaching the students.
For a school brand to be able to grow strong despite the addressed
problems, the brand identity and brand image needs to be integrated, in order
to build a lasting bond between the brand and the students (Chapleo, 2010).
Davis (2017) agrees and states that the brand owner should strive to make the
brand image mirroring the brand identity. If the brand image and brand identity
are not congruent it implies that there is a problem and that the school need to
consider and adjust it. It is crucial to identify any gap between the two and
close it by integrating them. Failure to do this successfully could cause a major
setback for the school in their market and hurt the brand in a way that might be
difficult to repair; for example losing their loyal students. (Cornelissen et. al.,
2017).
If a brand suffers from poor brand image and weak brand identity it is
considered a ‘Lame horse’, which will meet failure in the market (Davis, 2017).
In order to solve the problem, the school might need to return to their starting
point and find alternatives in the way they communicate their brand identity, in
order for brand identity as well as brand image to be strong.
An excellent brand image but a weak brand identity results in the brand
being a ‘Dark horse’. The ‘Dark horse’ has acceptance and potential but needs
to communicate extensively with the consumers, exploiting their excellent
brand image in order to get rid of the weak brand identity (De Chernatony,
2012). A brand with strong brand identity but a poor brand image is referred to
as a ‘Blind horse’. This is not a favorable position for long-run survival and
success (Dobson, 2010). The school needs to further communicate the brand
identity in order to build credibility in the minds of their students; they need to
create trust. If a brand has excellent brand image and strong brand identity it is
a ‘Jackpot’. Here, a high level of trust exists between the students and the
school organization (Dobson, 2010). Therefore, a school that is considered to
be a ‘Jackpot’ has great potential to successfully expand, in terms of for
example service and product range and differentiation. Hence, the focus should
be placed on keeping and strengthening their brand position. (Sobel, 2012)
Brand image reflects students’ perceptions of a brand’s characteristics
and can be determined by their associations. The image refers to the way in
which students’ interpret all of the signals coming from the products, services
and communication covered by the brand. Brand images needs to carry its
product into its distinctive positioning and benefits. (Fornel and Larcker, 2010).
A positive and well-known image is an asset to all schools because the image
is a powerful purchase influencer that affects the consumers’ perception of the
company and its communication. A brand has several brand images. First is to
look for the image which is powerful and incorporate it into communication.
(Robertson, 2016) Brand image has four purposes; brand image communicates
expectations, it influences the perception of a school activities, brand image is
a result of students’ experiences as well as their expectations and it affects the
school internally. (Flowerdew, 2014)

Brand image communicates expectations through marketing campaigns
such as advertisement, personal sales and word-of-mouth communication. This
way image directly affects market communication. A positive image makes it
easier for schools to communicate more efficiently and makes the students
more susceptible to positive word-of mouth. (Wirtz and Chew, 2012). Brand
image influences the perception of a schools’ activities through technical and
functional quality. If the image is good, occasional problems become less
fateful and the image functions as a protection. But this protection can have an
opposite effect. When the image is negative an increasing dissatisfaction
occurs among the students. When students create expectations and
experience technical and functional quality the experienced quality may change
the image. (Jarvis, 2011) If the experienced quality is equivalent to the image,
or exceeds it, the image will be strengthen or improved. But if the school does
not succeed to deliver the experienced image the effect will be the opposite. If
the image is indistinct it will gain decipherability through students’ experiences.
(Eriksson et. al., 2010)
When the image is unclear it affects students’ attitudes towards the
school and the whole school organization. This can lead to a negative impact
on students’ choice of school and their contribution which affects quality and
their relationship with the other students. A positive and legible image will
strengthen students’ positive attitudes for their school. Image is created on the
basis of two variables, personal and indirect experiences. The school should be
reliable enough when they deal with students, they should do what they say,
stick religiously with what is implemented or imposed and tell accurate
information at all times (Baron and Kenny, 2016) Personal experiences arise
through direct contact with the school while indirect experiences occur through
communication with the environment, such as rumours and media. For the
latter, selective perception plays an important role. Selective perception refers
to how every individual choose and interpret information in order to create their
own image of a certain element. Selective perception is related to the way
expectations affect perception. In other words, we choose what we want to see
and hear.
The most important aspect of the brand image trap is that there is a
clear difference between a brand image and a brand identity and they have to
be distinguished from one another. A brand image means the public’s
conception of the brand, or in other words, how students and the public
perceive the brand. A brand image can provide useful and important
information when a company is developing a brand identity. (Baker and Balmer,
2013)
As Balmer (2013) suggests, brand image is a blending expression that
has a various meaning. In fact there is a distinction corporate identity and social
stating that organizational identity is a system of shared meaning while social
identity refers to internalized knowledge. As for brand image, it is seen equal to
a projected image of a school organization. Its focus is mainly on external,
symbolic dimensions of image. Social image, on the other hand, is defined as
involving a mental framework and internal identity processes of individuals

within an organization, and organizational identity as a combination of internal
and external aspects of identity.
Corporate identity and brand is been investigating its attributes in
commercial organization, but Chapleo (2010) says that in terms of higher
education there has been a limited academic attention in corporate. Pinar et al.
(2011) stated that in order to create stronger profile, branding effort should not
be limited to customer product only. This study was supported by Balmer and
Gray (2013) and de Chernatony (2012) saying that corporate level brand will
also available even to non-commercial body.
According to Balmer and Gray (2013), the need for corporate branding
might not be very strong within some parts of the public sector, but in others,
including universities, it most certainly is. Curtis et al. (2010) give highlight into
the importance of brand and distinctive identity in higher education, in fact as to
them intangibility and inseparability plays crucial in the field of education
service. Bulotaite (2013) suggests that in terms of complexity, universities and
colleges must have the characteristic like this and it can be simplify by the help
of branding. This is supported by Jevons (2016) who maintains that for the
benefit of existing and potential students and staff, universities should develop
meaningfully differentiated brands to communicate their strengths.
Branding higher education can be incorporated into a wider trend of
marketing and branding entities that are non-commercial by their very nature
(Fairclough 2010). Fairclough (2010) notes a profound transformation in public
services and institutions: they have begun to resemble commodities. Along with
this shift, public institutions such as universities have moved closer to the
economy. As a result, promotional discourse has been colonizing public
domains which were previously unrelated to the economy. During the past
decades, branding research has witnessed an increasing amount of studies
focusing on branding such entities as countries, regions, cities and public
institutions (Balmer and Gray 2013). Fairclough (2012) believes that the recent
changes affecting higher education are a typical example of the processes of
marketization in the public sector.
As a part of this shift, branding has become a strategic managerial issue
for universities. The vast number of universities are competing for the same
students, and the marketization may be regarded even necessary for the
institutions to promote their programs. (Osman 2010) According to Argenti
(2010), the good thing in all universities that having a good brand is that it can
decrease crisis and can attract best faculty. Bulotaite (2013) believes that
university brands actually have the potential to create stronger feelings than
most brands. The key to success in this, as Bulotaite (2013) suggests, is to
create a “unique communicative identity”.
Among the factors that have influenced higher education branding are
the school rankings which have recently become a special tool for attracting
students (Bunzel 2017). Business school rankings, originated in the US in the
late 1970s, have gained an important position among the schools, and top
rankings are readily employed when marketing schools to prospective students.

As emphasized by Argenti (2010), rankings have affected business schools
and their marketing orientation more than any other industry.
According to Wolverton (2016), differentiation of a university
organization has to do with how universities identify themselves and the
audiences they choose to serve. Schools should be responsive enough when it
comes to student concerns and query because it will let the students feel that
they are in the center of the school’s academic and social service at all times,
regardless of the student’s profile in school. Brand image stakeholders involve
special constituencies in the university setting. Internal stakeholders of a
university include current students, faculty and staff; external stakeholders, on
the other hand, comprise prospective students and faculty, companies and
recruiters, alumni, media, donors and local community. (Melewar and Akel,
2016)
The stakeholder groups may, however, hold different levels of
importance for a university. As research and teaching may be considered the
basic responsibilities of a university, students and faculty are without doubt
among the most crucial stakeholders. Pinar et al. (2011) regard the student
learning experience as the driving force for all value creation networks in
university branding, and therefore, students are seen as the most important
constituency of a university. Teaching and research represent the core value
creation activities for students’ learning experience. Further, supporting value
creation activities include student life, sports, and community activities. As

suggested by the authors, each of these activities contributes to a student’s
overall university experience and brand perception. (Pinar et al. 2011)
As Hatch and Schultz (2013) emphasize, corporate branding importantly
concerns the sense of belonging. In order for the students to feel that they
belong to group, the school must always guarantee and assure them that all
the school’s organizational undertakings will put them in the center of their
service. According to Balmer and Liao (2013) by means of award of a degree, it
can provide a life-long membership of students in a university. (Balmer and
Liao 2013) Furthermore, a strong corporate brand is likely to provide
employees with identification to the corporate culture and values. The role of
employees in delivering the brand values to various stakeholders is therefore
crucial, and several studies emphasize the importance of internal branding and
employees’ engagement in the branding process. (Whisman, 2010)
Brands in the university setting have characteristics of both product and
corporate branding. As Pinar et al. (2011) suggest, a university might be seen
providing students with a range of educational products and services. Following
this, students may be regarded as customers whose experience is in the core
of the branding (Pinar et al. 2011). Other studies, on the contrary, see the
school name and values communicated at the corporate level the most
determining aspect of attraction towards a university. With this, university brand
is not just only upon orientation of the students but also by managing the whole
institution. In addition (Whisman, 2010) the university mentality forgot to look
the overall reputation and adaption of corporate level branding strategy.

Student Satisfaction
Oliver’s (2017) views that “satisfaction is the emotional reaction following
a disconfirmation experience”. Levine (2017) states that “satisfaction is a
psychological experience of a consumer after confirmation-disconfirmation of
expectations of a specific transaction”.
According to Pate (2017), university students’ satisfaction with schools
during their study will influence their intention to recommend the schools to
others and their intention to have advanced study or donation in the same
schools. When students evaluate satisfaction, they will reflect on their
experience on campus. Schools can analyze and improve their service quality
according to the investigation results. Schools are organizations, and effective
schools should fulfill their educational functions. At the stage of higher
education, they should properly enhance their educational quality, value the
instructional process, appropriately use instructional resources, establish
complete curriculum planning and increase the students’ learning interest.
When the upgrading of school instructional quality matches the students’ and
parents’ expectations, the students’ potential and competitiveness will be
shown. Students who match the job market will be cultivated, and this will
enhance the students’ satisfaction with the schools. Davis and Ellison (2017)
suggested that if students are familiar with the campus, including academic
knowledge, services and facilities, their satisfaction will the schools will
increase. Thus, students can perceive the campus and reconsider the service
content of the schools. In this study, satisfaction with schools referred to the
students’ subjective assessment of service efficiency, curriculum quality and
facilities.
Gelb and Sundaram (2012) suggest that satisfaction can be either
specific for a part of a process or overall for the whole school organization.
Satisfaction can be expressed through compliments or loyalty to the service
provider. In the extreme customers will express dissatisfaction by switching to
the competitors. The major reasons why a student would want to switch are the
failure of the core service provided or behavioral issues like uncaring staff and
teachers.
According to Gruen et.al. (2016) “Student satisfaction is generally
accepted as a short-term attitude resulting from an evaluation of a student’s
educational experience. Student satisfaction results when actual performance
meets or exceeds the student’s expectations.” The two definitions between
customer satisfaction in general and student satisfaction are very similar
because they refer to short-term nature of specific transaction events. Other
researchers in this area have not attempted to separate the two. (Hemsley-
Brown & Goonawardana, 2017)
Student customer satisfaction is important because it has an effect on
financial performance of a firm as evidenced by some studies of financial
services that indicated that there was a positive correlation between the
proportion or percentage of business done with a customer and that customer’s
satisfaction (Hu & Bentler, 2015). Most experts agree that there is a
relationship between service quality and customer satisfaction but they do not
agree on the direction of the relationship as some suggest that service quality
comes before satisfaction while others say it is the other way (Jöreskog &
Sörbom, 2012). Service quality is among the factors that determine customer
satisfaction and customer satisfaction can lead to customer loyalty (Hemsley-
Brown & Goonawardana, 2017). Customer loyalty has a positive impact on the
financial performance of a firm (Richins, 2017). This can happen because of
referrals, cost savings, and increased business from existing customers. Evans
(2011) cites an example of one US University where the implementation of
quality programs lead to increased student satisfaction. As a result, 90% of the
undergraduate students and alumni said that if they could do it all over again
they would enrol in the same university.
According to Bateson and Hoffman (2014), most experts agree that
student satisfaction is a short term transaction specific measure while service
quality is an attitude formed over a long term evaluation of performance. Elliott
& Healy (2011) define student satisfaction as short-term attitude resulting from
an evaluation of a student’s educational experience. There is not much
difference between the two terms because the student is just another kind of
customer who is a consumer of the education service and therefore most of the
literature on service marketing will apply.
There is a general agreement among experts that there is a relationship
between service quality and customer satisfaction but what is not clear is the
direction of this relationship as some like Parasuraman et al. (2010) says that
service quality comes before customer satisfaction. On the contrary according

to Biggs (2011) customer satisfaction comes before service quality. Some
recent studies in this area have also supported the view that service quality
leads to customer satisfaction. A study carried out by Spreng et. al., (2013) on
Jordanian banks revealed that the five dimensions of service quality have an
effect on level of customer satisfaction. Another study conducted in United Arab
Emirates on branch campuses of some international universities found that
qualified lecturers, technology and other resources had an effect on student
satisfaction (Wiers et.al., 2012). However, student satisfaction levels seemed to
vary with nationalities and programs. The researchers explained that this could
probably be because of the different cultures and backgrounds that the
students come from. They therefore recommended further research in other
parts of the world as their conclusions could not be generalized.
Education is one of the key drivers of economic growth. Higher
education competitive market is increased and that is why it is important to
increase also the student satisfaction to attract and retain high achievers. They
can help to uplift the reputation of any university and that is if the students are
satisfied. First of all, it is necessary to define the notion of satisfaction and
especially student‟ satisfaction. Satisfaction - a fulfillment of need or desire, the
pleasure obtained by such fulfillment. “Satisfaction is the feeling of pleasure or
disappointment attained from comparing a product’s perceived performance
(outcome) in relation to his or her expectations. If the school performance was
failed base on the student expectation it is obviously that the students are not
satisfied and vice versa. If the performance exceeds expectations, the

customer is highly satisfied or delighted”. Student’ satisfaction is defined by
Wiers-Jenssen, Stensaker and Grogaard (2012) stated that satisfaction is by
means of assessment in all of services that the university will provide. Due to
repeated interaction, the student satisfaction in higher education environment is
continually changing construct (Elliott and Shin, 2012). It is a dynamic process
that requires clear and effective action as a result of an institution listening to its
students. Student satisfaction is a complex construct influenced by a variety of
characteristics of students and institutions (Thomas and Galambos, 2014).
Student satisfaction is an overall response not only to the learning experience
of a student (WiersJenssen et al. 2012).
The literature on student‟ satisfaction and their perception of the
educational experience is very complex. Views of the authors on the concept of
student‟ satisfaction is quite diverse. Each author has their own perspective
regarding the needs of students in the university. Some authors support the so
called “managerial dimension” of student‟ satisfaction: the university is an
enterprise and the students are the customers. Therefore in order to satisfy
students, the customer approach should be applied in the universities.
The most controversial point of view is that of students being a customer
of the university, due to the fact that universities are becoming more business-
like. For example Elliott and Shin (2012) mean that globalized competition has
stressed the strategic importance of satisfaction and quality in the battle for
winning consumer preferences and maintaining sustainable competitive
advantages. Hill (2015) suggests that the primary customers of the universities
are the students, and so Higher Education is increasingly recognizing that it is a
service industry and is placing greater emphasis on meeting the expectations
and needs of students. One thing that helps in any university to adjust the
student’s needs is to give priority to their satisfaction by means of creating a
system that monitors if the university meets student’s needs. (Elliott and Shin,
2012). Furthermore some researcher said that in order for the university to
become effective they need to translate in a relationship level. (Helfert et al.
2012). According to Seymour (2013),the primary goal of higher education is to
make their customers happy and satisfied whether they are parents,
employees, students and alumni . Thus, focusing on enhancing the customer
satisfaction at colleges and universities is crucial in developing customer value
(Seymour, 2013). Students can be regarded as customers of the universities.
Therefore, it is important for the university to focus on its customers, and to
meet their expectations by providing quality education. Lincoln (2015)
completed a study and pointed out some factors that would attract students.
These included library facilities, laboratory facilities and internship assistance
as some of the key factors for student satisfaction. Higher education institutions
can attract students designing world class libraries, classrooms, computer
laboratories, and other facilities. Students spend a considerable amount of their
time using these university facilities, thus providing potential opportunities to
influence student satisfaction.
A study done by Haque et al. (2011) brings out some factors that offer
by the university that somehow affects the satisfaction of the students. Example
of this are student research facilities, quality of teaching, spacefor group
discussion and etc. According to Spreng (2013) most prior satisfaction research
has not included performance as a direct antecedent of satisfaction. Service
performance has become a central construct in marketing research, especially
in combination with service quality. Professors and course content are the two
factors that affect to service performance. (Mont and Plepys 2013) said that
tangible and intangible attributes depends on subject measurement. The
intangible nature of higher education makes it difficult for students to effectively
evaluate factors such as the quality of teaching and learning, as well as the
quality of student servicing. The tangible elements associated with the
“education”- service include educational technology and computers,
classrooms, and library facilities.
In the article “Student satisfaction and quality of service in Italian
universities”, Petruzzellis, D‟Uggento, Romanazzi (2016) also regarded
students as customers of universities and made the conclusion that universities
need to adopt a customer centric approach. They analyzed common factors
such as: lecture halls, laboratories, equipment, library, dining hall, dormitories,
leisure activities, language courses, scholarships, internet access, exam
booking, and contacts with teachers, administrative services, tutoring,
counseling, internship, international relationship and placement.
Students have increasingly begun to see themselves as consumers or
customers of a service organization, and linked with this is the high
expectations of standards and efficiency from the educational institutions.

Therefore, customer satisfaction is becoming increasingly important.
Occasionally, expectations of international students are not met by universities
(East 2011), which may have attracted these students by overstated and
zealous marketing techniques. Bless et. al. (2015) found that a lack of
satisfaction was associated with poorer adaptation in international students.
They suggest that the difference between expectations and experiences is
associated with overall adaptation: the bigger the discrepancies, the poorer the
psychological and socio-cultural adaptation. Research shows that international
students have lower perceptions of services offered by their universities than
their domestic counterparts (Sherry, Bhat, Beaver, and Ling 2014).
Student satisfaction is a complex construct with various antecedent and
that is why some authors address several perspective but tnis is not the same
in the actual student satisfaction model. (Elliott and Shin 2012). Bless et. al.
(2015) formulates a student integration theory of persistence or retention based
on the relationships between students and institutions. He argues that retention
involves two commitments on the part of the student. The first commitment is
the goal to obtain a college degree; and the second one is the decision to
obtain that degree at a particular institution (institutional commitment). Overall,
the combination of the student‟s goal and institutional commitment affects
retention at a particular institution. Under this perspective, it is important to
match the student‟s motivation and academic ability and the institution‟s ability
to meet the student expectations (Kara and De Shields 2014).

To grasp the complexity of the learning experience, it is important to
understand the factors that contribute to student satisfaction. For many
students, “the process of studying not only represents acquisition of certain
skills and theoretical knowledge; it is also related to personal growth and social
development (Wiers-Jenssen et al. 2012). By turning the focus towards the
course content, the subject quality will be one of highest priority (Scott 2010).
According to Elliott and Shin (2012) “a university‟s product is more than its
academic program. It is the sum of the student‟s academic, social, physical,
and even spiritual experiences”. Furthermore, satisfaction is positively
influenced when there is positive perception of the quality (Anderson, Fornell
and Lehmann 2014). Finaly-Neumann (2014) ascertains that dominant
predictors of instructional satisfaction include clarity of instructional tasks,
professor feedback and identity of instructional tasks. Biggs (2011) state that by
focusing in high quality instruction and when the university provides the
curriculum that meets the expectation of the students the high satisfaction can
be gain.
Tertiary education involves adjustments to new academic and social
environments. Such demands are often more complex for international
students, who have to adapt to a new culture, language, academic, and social
environment (Mori 2010). When reviewing literature on student‟ satisfaction it is
possible to notice that some authors also support both dimensions: social and
academic. For example, Wiers-Jenssen et al. (2012) underline that there are
some reasons to be cautious when applying the satisfaction approach in higher

education (Wiers-Jenssen et al. 2012). Due to the theoretical discussion,
satisfaction is explained in different ways: feelings and emotions are not
completely taken into account as variables in the satisfaction process (Wirtz
and Chew 2012). There is a difference between institutions and subject-fields
concerning the most important student satisfaction factors (Wiers-Jenssen et
al. 2012). The product is the sum of the student’s academic, social, physical
and spiritual experiences; research in this field does not show a consistent
pattern for student satisfaction (Wiers-Jenssen et al. 2012). They found that the
important factors are close to teaching and social climate. In other words,
students “require experience with the product to determine how satisfied they
are with it; and it is based not only on current experience but also all past
experience, as well as future or anticipated experiences” (Anderson, Fornell
and Lehmann, 2014). Besides academic quality, Wiers-Jenssen, 2012) assert
the quality of university support facilities is very important in achieving student’s
satisfaction. They examine how overall student satisfaction in Norway can be
broken down into component assessments, referring to broader aspects of the
student‟ learning experience. They see student satisfaction as students‟
assessments of the services provided by universities and colleges. They broke
the concept down into several sub-categories, such as: 1. Quality of teaching
(academic and pedagogic). 2. Quality of supervision and feedback from
academic staff. 3. Composition, content and relevance of curriculum. 4.
Balance between different forms of organized teaching activities and self-

tuition. 5. Quality of support facilities. 6. Quality of physical infrastructure 7.
Quality and access to leisure activities. 8. Social climate.
In more detail, Guolla (2010) states that “a student’s satisfaction may be
influenced by poor classroom facilities of which an instructor may have limited
resources to change”. So, the campus environment can be seen as a web of
connected happenings that influence student satisfaction (Elliott and Shin
2012). Therefore, it is necessary to enhance “the perceived value by providing
services or service attributes not provided by the competition” (Claycomb and
Martin 2011). Researchers (Wiers-Jenssen et al. 2012) when it comes to
student satisfaction, small institution have high percentage of student
satisfaction rather that larger institution.
Thomas and Galambos (2014) investigated alternative measures of
general students‟ satisfaction, using multiple regression and decision tree
analysis with the chi-squared automatic interaction detector algorithm. Student‟
satisfaction with university has individual, institutional and social benefits. From
an institutional point of view, satisfied students are more likely to continue in
their studies and succeed academically, and this is likely to enhance the
financial position and reputation of the institution. Successful universities
realize that it is very important to retain enrolled students rather than
concentrate on attracting new ones. One reason for this is because a
competitive advantage can be gained through student satisfaction (Elliott and
Shin 2012) and they can be marketed in the university’s marketing tools.
Satisfied students make effective public relations agents.” Highly satisfied

students “engage in favorable word-of mouth publicity”. Word-of-mouth from
satisfied students lowers the cost of attracting new customers for the university
and enhances the university’s overall reputation, while that of dissatisfied
students has the opposite effect (Fornell et. al., 2010). Also, they can return as
graduate students, recruit prospective students or regularly donate as alumni.
The most mentioned relationship-building practices are referrals, testimonials,
and visits to customers‟ sites by potential customers.” Understanding the
underlying dimensions of student satisfaction and the factors that contribute to
student satisfaction has several potential benefits and applications for
institutions, students, and society.
As mentioned above, the literature on student‟ satisfaction and student‟
perception of academic experience is very complex. Two threads of
perspectives are apparent: the academic and the social. The authors
supporting one or the other perspective mention the factors that can affect
students‟ satisfaction with their university. Many authors underline the
importance of the same factors (Harvey, 2015) and Hill (2015). They both
mention library services, accommodation services, course content, teaching
quality, catering service, academic workload and so on. In addition in 2001
UCC Student Services Evaluation Report analyzed student‟ satisfaction using
the following categories: general climate, admissions/records, academic
advising, financial aid and awards, counseling, assessment center, athletics,
health clinic, computer labs, library, bookstore.

METHODS
Research Design
The descriptive method of research was used to gather the needed
information on brand image and student satisfaction in a Private School in
Tanauan in order to propose a marketing strategy which will increase the
number of enrollment of the chosen local of the study.
Participants of Study
SHS Student College Student

Respondent 514 368
Sample Size ≥ 88 ≥ 88
Actual Size 100 100
Participants were the 100 Grade 11 and 12 students for assessing brand
image (expectation) and 100 college students for evaluating student
satisfaction (perception). For the college students, there were six courses
engaged in the study namely Business Administration, Education, Psychology,
Medical Technology, Radiologic Technology and Physical Therapy.
The participants of the research were randomly selected irrespective or
their rank and/or file. The researcher used G*Power 3.1.9 to determine the
sample size. Using an effect size of 0.5, confidence interval of of 95% and
power size of 95%, the computed sample size is 178 for all group.
The above pie charts showed the profile of the respondents in terms of
age. For the graduating high school students, the result revealed that the age
bracket of 18 years old and below had the most number of respondents with a
frequency of 94 with a percentage of 94%. On the other hand, the age bracket
of 19 – 21 years old had the least number with a frequency of 6 with a
percentage of 6%.
Meanwhile for the college students, the age 19 – 21 years old had the
most number of respondents with a frequency of 71 and percentage of 71%. It
was followed by the age 18 years old and below with a frequency of 17 and
percentage of 17%, and 22 – 24 years old with a frequency of 7 and
percentage of 7%. The age bracket of 25 years old and above had the least
number of respondents with a frequency of 5 and percentage of 5%.
The above data was related to the study conducted by Andrews (2012),
the relationship between age and variables measuring satisfactions with
specific domains related to brand image and student satisfaction. The results
showed an increase in satisfaction of both female and male respondents with
age ranging from 18 – 21 years old. Various explanations for the relationship
were tested by multiple regression procedures, using two national surveys.
Higher religiosity of the aged, increased desire to respond in a socially
acceptable manner, and a lessening of change in life conditions appear to
contribute to higher satisfaction. Although these factors individually represent
only partial explanations, a combination of them accounts for a substantial part
of the relationship.
The above pie charts presented the profile of the respondents in terms
of sex. For the graduating high school students, the result revealed that the
most number of respondents were mainly female with a frequency of 81 and
percentage of 81%. Male respondents had a frequency of 19 and percentage of
19%.
For the college students, it was also female respondents who had the
most number with the frequency of 76 and percentage of 76%. There were 24
male respondents equivalent to 24%.

The above data was supported by the research conducted by “The Pew
Global Attitudes Project (Pew Research Center, 2003) that surveyed 38,000
men and women across 44 countries lends insight into the disparities between
male and female satisfaction of service rendered and their views regarding
brand image. Overall, women scored themselves as more satisfied with their
lives than men. Moreover, women from certain countries, including Pakistan,
Japan and Argentina, appeared significantly satisfied and had a very clear view
of what brand image is for them. The differences between what affects men
and women's levels of satisfaction and perception about brand image and
explains this slight gender gap. Women, for instance, tend to focus on the
benefits of the service and its possible impact after availing the service, while
men concern themselves more with how the service will be availed and after
which, they do not care at all whether they are satisfied or not. Moreover, men
do not care and not very particular whether the brand is known or not for as
long as it will give the kind of service which they are looking for.
This variation in values is also reflected in how the recent recession has
affected people's happiness. According to a Nielson Happiness Survey
(Nielsen, Company, 2010) conducted in 51 countries, men's happiness and
satisfaction has not weathered the economic storm well since they attach more
importance to financial success than women. On the other hand, the women
surveyed indicated they appreciated quality relationships and service rendered
above all.
The above pie charts exhibited the profile of the respondents in terms of
educational level. For the graduating high school students, both Grade 11 and
Grade 12 had a frequency of 50 and a percentage of 50%.
For the college students, there were six courses found in the answers of
the respondents. Business Administration, Education, Psychology and Medical
Technology courses had a frequency of 20 and a percentage of 20%. A
frequency of 10 and a percentage of 10% was obtained by the courses under
Radiologic Technology and Physical Therapy.

The above pie charts displayed the profile of the respondents in terms of
employment of parents. For the graduating high school students, 56 or 56%
were employed locally, 17 or 17% were unemployed, 15 or 15% were OFW, 11
or 11% were entrepreneur and 1 or 1% was retired.
For the college students, the employed locally had the most number of
respondents equivalent to 46 or 46% followed by unemployed with 20 or 20%.
There were also 17 or 17% OFW, 13 or 13% entrepreneur and lastly 4 or 4%
were retired.
According to Balamuth (2015), 60% of parents who were able to send
their children in school were those parents whose work was just near to their
children’s school or university. They chose to work and be employed locally
since they would also like to look after the condition of their child or children.
They preferred to work in the place where they can still monitor the academic
performance of their child or children and they can also prevent any behavior or
instances which can affect their schooling.
Data Gathering Instrument

The researcher has used three main data gathering instruments:
Part 1 was based on the self-made questionnaire made by the
researcher. It contained the profile of the respondents which includes the age,
gender, educational level and employment profile of the respondents.
Part 2 was a standardized questionnaire by Parasuraman as cited by
Qadri UA (2015) Measuring Service Quality Expectation and Perception using
servqual, which deals with opinions of incoming college students specifically
Grade 11 and 12. Respondents showed the extent to which they think colleges
should possess the features which they were expecting from a college or
university.
Part 3 was a standardized questionnaire which deals with current
college student’s perception regarding student satisfaction with regards to the
overall service which their school is giving them.
Table 1
Reliability Analysis
Number
Cronbach
of Interpretation
alpha value
items
Highly
Brand Image (Expectation) 0.90 22
Acceptable
Student Satisfaction Highly
0.93 22
(Perception) Acceptable
As seen from the table above, the questionnaire for Brand Image
(Expectation) and Student Satisfaction (Perception) were both highly
acceptable with 0.90 and 0.93 Cronbach alpha value.
Data Gathering Procedures
Questionnaire was used to gather information on the Brand Image
(Expectation) and Student Satisfaction (Perception). The researcher validated
the questionnaire through a trained statistician. The researcher sought the help
of the school leaders such as the principal and dean of each colleges to
distribute and retrieve the questionnaires.
Data Analysis
The researcher tallied, tabulated, encoded and analyzed the result using
the following tools: Frequency Distribution and Percentage, Weighted
Mean, T-Test and ANOVA. The researcher also used the following Likert
Scale:
Scale Verbal Interpretation

4 Strongly Agree
3 Agree
2 Disagree
1 Strongly Disagree
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

Table 2.1
Assessment on Brand Image (Expectation) in terms of Tangibles
Tangibles WM VI Rank
1. Private schools/colleges will have modern
3.36 Agree 2
looking equipment.
2. The physical facilities at private colleges will be
3.34 Agree 3
visually appealing.
3. Employees at private colleges will be neat in
3.46 Agree 1
their appearance.
4. Materials associated with the service (pamphlets
or statements) will be visually appealing at an 3.31 Agree 4
private colleges.
Composite Mean 3.37 Agree
Legend: 3.50 – 4.00 –Strongly Agree; 2.50 – 3.49 – Agree; 1.50 – 2.49 –
Disagree; 1.00 – 1.49 – Strongly Disagree
Table 2.1 showed the assessment of the respondents on brand image
(expectation) in terms of tangibles. The composite mean of 3.37 and a verbal
interpretation of “Agree” clearly indicated that the given indicators were really
the factors which the respondents were looking forward in a college or school.
Findings revealed that the indicator which had the most response was
“Employees at private colleges will be neat in their appearance.” with a
weighted mean of 3.46 and a verbal interpretation of “Agree”. This was followed
by the indicator “Private schools/colleges will have modern looking equipment.”
with a weighted mean of 3.36 and a verbal interpretation of “Agree” as well.
On the other hand, the indicator with the least number of response was
“Materials associated with the service (pamphlets or statements) will be visually
appealing at an private college.” with a weighted mean of 3.31 and a verbal
interpretation of “Agree”.
The above result was related to the idea of Pate (2017) saying that
brand image in a school set up can consist of traits, benefits, values,
wants the students’ to associate with the brand.
Furthermore, Jevons (2016) agrees with the previous researchers and
also emphasizes that brand identity is to be seen as the foundation for a brand
and that it should reflect the brand’s core values. Therefore, brand identity
includes factors such as vision, aim, and point of differentiation, values and
sign of recognition. Aaker (2016) provides another aspect of brand identity and
explains how it can be both the core of the school but also how it can be
extended to include value adding perspectives. The brand image symbolizes
the basic characteristics that will be carried with the brand over time. However,
he further argues that brand identity should not be considered static, but should
be open to change if needed. It should reflect its desired associations, but also
its permanent qualities and benefits, prominent or not. According to Aaker
(2016), physical equipment and facilities were mainly trademarks of one’s
school brand image. It really captured the visual attraction of the students the
reason why there will appreciate and enroll in a particular school. When they
see any collaterals or brochures which markets the school, they visually
appreciate the institution based on the appearance or uniform of both
employees and students particularly the actual presence of the facilities.
Table 2.2
Assessment on Brand Image (Expectation) in terms of Reliability
Reliability WM VI Rank
1. When private colleges promise to do
3.42 Agree 2
something by a certain time, they do.
2. When a customer has a problem, private
colleges will show a sincere interest in 3.39 Agree 4
solving it.
3. Private colleges will perform the service
3.40 Agree 3
right the first time.
4. Private colleges will provide the service at Strongly
3.50 1
the time they promise to do so. Agree
5. Private colleges will insist on error free
3.24 Agree 5
records.
Table 2.2 showed that assessment on brand image (expectation) in
terms of reliability. Of the listed indicators, “Private colleges will provide the
service at the time they promise to do so.” had the most number of response
with a weighted mean of 3.50 and a verbal interpretation of “Strongly Agree”. It
was followed by the indicator “When private colleges promise to do something
by a certain time, they do.” with a weighted mean of 3.42 and a verbal
interpretation of “Agree” and “Private colleges will perform the service right the
first time.” with a weighted mean of 3.40 and a verbal interpretation of “Agree”.
Meanwhile, the indicator with the least answer was “Private colleges will
insist on error free records.” with a weighted mean of 3.24 and a verbal
interpretation “Agree”. The composite mean of 3.39 (Agree) evidently pointed
out that the school should be reliable enough in the delivery of their service in
order for them to continuously attract students and to have a high retention rate
as well.
The above result about reliability can be related to the notion of
Wirtz and Chew, 2012. Brand image influences the perception of a schools’
activities through technical and functional quality. If the image is good,
occasional problems become less fateful and the image functions as a
protection. But this protection can have an opposite effect.
According to Jarvis (2011), when the image is negative an increasing
dissatisfaction occurs among the students. When students create expectations
and experience technical and functional quality the experienced quality may
change the image. Meanwhile, Eriksson et. al., (2010) said that if the
experienced quality is equivalent to the image, or exceeds it, the image will be
strengthened or improved. But if the school does not succeed to deliver the
experienced image the effect will be the opposite. If the image is indistinct it will
gain decipherability through students’ experiences.
When the image is unclear it affects students’ attitudes towards the
school and the whole school organization. This can lead to a negative impact
on students’ choice of school and their contribution which affects quality and
their relationship with the other students. A positive and legible image will
strengthen students’ positive attitudes for their school. Image is created on the
basis of two variables, personal and indirect experiences. The school should be
reliable enough when they deal with students, they should do what they say,
stick religiously with what is implemented or imposed and tell accurate
information at all times. (Baron and Kenny, 2016)
Table 2.3
Assessment on Brand Image (Expectation) in terms of

Responsiveness
Responsiveness WM VI Rank
1. The employees of private colleges will
understand the specific needs of their 3.34 Agree 4
customers.
2. Employees of private colleges will give prompt
3.36 Agree 3
service to customers.
3. Employees of private colleges will always be Strongly
3.58 1
willing to help customers. Agree
4. Employees of private colleges will never be too
3.41 Agree 2
busy to respond to customers' requests.
Table 2.3 showed the respondent’s assessment on brand image
(expectation) in terms of responsiveness. The foregoing discussion showed a
composite mean of 3.42 with a verbal interpretation of “Agree” which visibly
indicated that the school attends or responds accordingly to the needs and
inquiries of the students. Of the listed indicators, “Employees of private colleges
will always be willing to help customers.” got the most number of responses
with a weighted mean of 3.58 and a verbal interpretation of “Strongly Agree”. It
was followed by the indicator “Employees of private colleges will never be too
busy to respond to customers' requests.” with a weighted mean of 3.41 and a
verbal interpretation of “Agree”.
On the other hand, “The employees of private colleges will understand
the specific needs of their customers.” was the indicator which received the
least number of response with a weighted mean of 3.34 and a verbal
According to Wolverton (2016), differentiation of a university
organization has to do with how universities identify themselves and the
audiences they choose to serve. Schools should be responsive enough when it
comes to student concerns and query because it will let the students feel that
they are in the center of the school’s academic and social service at all times,
regardless of the student’s profile in school. Brand image stakeholders involve
special constituencies in the university setting. Internal stakeholders of a
university include current students, faculty and staff; external stakeholders, on
the other hand, comprise prospective students and faculty, companies and
recruiters, alumni, media, donors and local community. (Melewar and Akel,
2016)
The stakeholder groups may, however, hold different levels of
importance for a university. As research and teaching may be considered the
basic responsibilities of a university, students and faculty are without doubt
among the most crucial stakeholders. Pinar et al. (2011) regard the student
learning experience as the driving force for all value creation networks in
university branding, and therefore, students are seen as the most important
constituency of a university. Teaching and research represent the core value
creation activities for students’ learning experience. Further, supporting value
creation activities include student life, sports, and community activities. As
suggested by the authors, each of these activities contributes to a student’s
overall university experience and brand perception. (Pinar et al. 2011)

Table 2.4
Assessment on Brand Image (Expectation) in terms of Assurance
Assurance WM VI Rank
1. The behavior of employees in private colleges will
3.36 Agree 3
instill confidence in customers
2. Customers of private colleges will feel safe in
3.36 Agree 3
transactions.
3. Employees of private colleges will be consistently
3.38 Agree 2
courteous with customers.
4. Employees of private colleges will have the
3.45 Agree 1
knowledge to answer customers' questions.
The above table presented the assessment of the respondents on brand
image (expectation) in terms of assurance. The composite mean of 3.39 and
verbal interpretation of “Agree” undoubtedly indicated that the school should
guarantee and assure the students of whatever they tell or implement in the
institution. The indicator which acquired the highest weighted mean was
“Employees of private colleges will have the knowledge to answer customers'
questions.” equivalent 3.45 and a verbal interpretation of “Agree”. It was
followed by the indicator “Employees of private colleges will be consistently
courteous with customers.” With a weighted mean of 3.38 and a verbal
“The behavior of employees in excellent colleges will instill confidence in
customers” and “Customers of private colleges will feel safe in transactions.”
received the least response and both obtained the same weighted mean of
3.36 and a verbal interpretation of “Agree”.

Hatch and Schultz (2013) highlight corporate branding importantly
concerns the sense of belonging. In order for the students to feel that they
belong to group, the school must always guarantee and assure them that all
the school’s organizational undertakings will put them in the center of their
service. According to Balmer and Liao (2013), the award of a degree may
provide a student with a life-long membership to a university and a sense of
identification with the corporate identity and brand. As they suggest, the
identification to a university can be a means of self-definition even after
graduation. (Balmer and Liao 2013) Furthermore, a strong corporate brand is
likely to provide employees with identification to the corporate culture and
values. The role of employees in delivering the brand values to various
stakeholders is therefore crucial, and several studies emphasize the
importance of internal branding and employees’ engagement in the branding
process. (Whisman, 2010)
determining aspect of attraction towards a university. In this regard, branding a
university not only touches upon the student orientation but rather concerns
managing the brand of the institution as a whole. (Whisman, 2010) As noted by

Whisman (2010), the marketing mentality in universities, focusing merely on
short-term marketing to specific constituencies, has failed to look at the overall
reputation and to adopt corporate-level branding strategies.
Table 2.5
Assessment on Brand Image (Expectation) in terms of Empathy
Empathy WM VI Rank
1. Private colleges will give customers individual
3.46 Agree 1
attention.
2. Private colleges will have operating hours
3.36 Agree 4
convenient to all their customers.
3. Private colleges will have employees who give
3.35 Agree 5
customers personal service.
4. Privatecolleges will have their customers' best
3.42 Agree 2.5
interest at heart.
5. The employees of private colleges will understand
3.42 Agree 2.5
the specific needs of their customers.
Table 2.5 showed the assessment on brand image (expectation) in
terms of empathy. It was very evident that schools and colleges should
commiserate and understand every student during their stay in school. This
was supported by the composite mean of 3.40 with a verbal interpretation of
“Agree”.
Of the itemized indicators, the item which acquired that most number of
response was “Private colleges will give customers individual attention.” with a
weighted mean of 3.46 and a verbal interpretation of “Agree”. Both statements
“Private colleges will have their customers' best interest at heart.” and “The
employees of private colleges will understand the specific needs of their

customers.” had the same weighted mean of 3.42 with a verbal interpretation of
“Agree” as well.
Meanwhile, the indicator “Private colleges will have employees who give
customers personal service.” got the least number of answers from the
respondents with a weighted mean of 3.35 and a verbal interpretation of
“Agree”.
Additionally, according to Kotler et. Al. (2010), in order to have a strong
brand, brand awareness is of high importance. Students must feel that the
school should always at their back not only in terms of academics but in terms
of their holistic development. School should let the students feel that there is a
compassion and understanding in times that they need assistance in all forms
of curricular and extra-curricular endeavors.
Curtis e. al. (2010) argue that an educational organization with a strong
brand, clearly associated with specific benefits, can attract high-quality
personnel. This is agreed in the article of Cornut et. al. (2012) where it is stated
that a strong brand does not only benefit a school through attracting students.
In a market where schools are competing over students it can also have the
potential of attracting the best students available.
Table 2.6
Summary Table for the Assessment on Brand Image (Expectation)
Expectation WM VI Rank
Tangibles 3.37 Agree 5
Reliability 3.39 Agree 3
Responsiveness 3.42 Agree 1
Assurance 3.39 Agree 4
Empathy 3.40 Agree 2

Over-all Mean 3.39 Agree
Table 2.6 showed the summary for the assessment on brand image
(expectation) in terms of tangibles, reliability, responsiveness, assurance and
empathy. Based on the overall findings, responsiveness obtained the highest
mean of 3.42 (Agree) followed by empathy with the weighted mean of 3.40
(Agree) and reliability with a weighted mean of 3.39 (Agree)
On the other hand, the least among the list of indicators was tangibles
with a weighted mean of 3.37 (Agree). Generally, an overall mean of 3.39
(Agree) which means that the respondents agreed to the given indicators
regarding brand image as they consider the features of the school which they
were intended to enroll.
Brand image is the key in marketing. Brand image is treated as the clue
of information. By brand image, consumers predict product quality, develop
purchase behavior and save it in their memory. Likewise, in an educational
system, the brand image established by schools is an important factor when
students select a school. With a positive school brand image, students can
recognize the differences among schools and develop their selection intention.
Based on different consumers’ benefits, Park, Jaworski, and MacInnis (2010)
developed three brand concept-images. The functional brand image is used to
solve consumers’ external consumption demands. It means the products or
services provided by the schools can satisfy the customers’ functional needs
and solve the problems related to consumption. It is the image perception of
materials such as building facilities, environmental resources and instruction of
the curriculum. The symbolic brand image aims to connect individuals with
specific groups, roles or self-images. It means the school brand can satisfy the
consumers’ upgrading of self-value, enhancement of social roles, harmony in
group relationships and identification with self-image. It is a social image
perception related to social reputation, instructional characteristics and
characteristics of human resources. The experiential brand image aims to
satisfy consumers’ internal pursuit of excitement and diverse needs. It
emphasizes the satisfaction with the school brand and the stimulation effect of
cognition. It refers to the image perception related to the learning experience,
educational experience and life experience. According to past scholars’ views
of brand image, brand image is in the consumers’ memory and is the
association with the brand. It is adopted to infer or maintain the perceived
quality of products, and it represents all the information of a product. Thus, for
different brand images, consumers infer various kinds of perceived quality;
however, they mostly mention functional, symbolic and experiential brand
images. Thus, this study measured brand image according to the suggestion of
Park, Jaworski, and MacInnis (2010), who divided student customers’
perceived brand image into functional, symbolic and experiential brand images.
The brand itself is not just a product with a sign or symbol; the brand is
rather an idea that for example turns the product into something of value
(Haltch, 2013). It provides uniqueness, and it is the identifiable factors that one
can link to the specific brand. The brand exists to a large extent due to
customers, in particular loyal customers - it is not only the organization that
makes up a brand. This is agreed by Jacoby et. al (2015) who states that the
brand is defined by the customers’ point of view and that the brand always
needs to deliver value. It is therefore pivotal that the organization realizes the
customer’s perception of its brand.
Based on future perspective, it can be gleaned that “responsiveness”
definitely attract students to enroll in a school since most of the students
nowadays prefer a school which hears or listens accordingly and promptly to all
student concerns and needs. For them, a responsive school to all students
concerns make students feel that they are placed in the center of the school
service. On the other hand, the school should improve the physical facilities
and equipment since students also look forward for all the tangibles present in
school. Tangibles also encourage students to enroll. An excellent learning
facility is also an indication that the school also offers excellent and quality of
education.
Table 3.1
Assessment on Students Satisfaction (Perception) in terms of
Tangibles
Tangibles WM VI Rank
1. My college/ school has modern equipment. 2.86 Agree 3

2. The physical facilities in my college/school will
2.82 Agree 4
be visually appealing.
3. Employees at my college/school are neat in
3.24 Agree 1
their appearance.
4. Materials associated with in my college/school
(pamphlets or statements) are visually 2.98 Agree 2
appealing.
The table above showed the assessment of the respondents on student
satisfaction (perception) in terms of tangibles. The composite mean of 2.98
(Agree) visibly indicated that the respondents were satisfied with the physical
and perceptible aspects which they found in the school were they enrolled in.
Based on the itemized indicators, “Employees at my college/school are
neat in their appearance.” received the highest weighted mean of 3.24 (Agree).
It was followed by “Materials associated with in my college/school (pamphlets
or statements) are visually appealing.” with a weighted mean of 2.98 (Agree).
On the other hand, the indicator with the least response was “The
physical facilities in my college/school will be visually appealing.” with a
weighted mean of 2.82 (Agree).
The above finding was supported by the idea of Ellison (2017)
suggested that if students are familiar with the campus, including academic
knowledge, services and facilities, their satisfaction will the schools will
increase. Thus, students can perceive the campus and reconsider the service
content of the schools. In this study, satisfaction with schools referred to the
students’ subjective assessment of service efficiency, curriculum quality and
facilities.
Lincoln (2015) completed a study and pointed out some factors that
would attract students. These included library facilities, laboratory facilities and
internship assistance as some of the key factors for student satisfaction. Higher
education institutions can attract students designing world class libraries,
classrooms, computer laboratories, and other facilities. Students spend a
considerable amount of their time using these university facilities, thus
providing potential opportunities to influence student satisfaction.
A study done by Haque et al. (2011) identified independent factors that
can affect student satisfaction based on services offered by universities. These
include quality of teaching, student research facilities, library book collections
and services, campus infrastructure, canteen facilities, space for group
discussions, sport programs, ICT (PC and Internet) facilities etc. According to
Spreng (2013) most prior satisfaction research has not included performance
as a direct antecedent of satisfaction. Service performance has become a
central construct in marketing research, especially in combination with service
quality. In the context of higher education, service performance which includes
implicit quality is especially influenced by two factors: professors and course
content. In the service context, quality is a subjective measurement and
depends on tangible and intangible attributes (Mont and Plepys 2013). The
intangible nature of higher education makes it difficult for students to effectively

evaluate factors such as the quality of teaching and learning, as well as the
quality of student servicing. The tangible elements associated with the
“education”- service include educational technology and computers,
classrooms, and library facilities.
Table 3.2
Assessment on Student Satisfaction (Perception) in terms of
Reliability
Reliability WM VI Rank
1. When my college/school promised to do
2.60 Agree 5
2. When a customer has a problem, my
college/school shows a sincere interest in 2.76 Agree 3
solving it.
3. My college/school perform the service right the
2.86 Agree 1
first time.
4. My college/school provides the service at the
2.71 Agree 4
time they promise to do so.
5. My college/school promotes an error free
2.78 Agree 2
records.
Table 3.2 showed the assessment of the respondents on student
satisfaction (perception) in terms of reliability. The composite mean of 2.74
(Agree) noticeably indicated that the respondents were satisfied in relation to
school consistency and trustworthiness when it comes to assisting them with
their needs.
Based on the enumerated indicators, “My college/school perform the
service right the first time.” received the highest weighted mean of 2.86
(Agree). It was followed by “My college/school promotes an error free records.”
with a weighted mean of 2.78 (Agree).
The indicator with the least response was “When my college/school
promised to do something by a certain time, they do.” with a weighted mean of
2.60 (Agree).
The above finding was supported by the idea of Gruen et.al. (2016).
According to him “Student satisfaction is generally accepted as a short-term
attitude resulting from an evaluation of a student’s educational experience.
Student satisfaction results when actual performance meets or exceeds the
student’s expectations.” The two definitions between customer satisfaction in
general and student satisfaction are very similar because they refer to short-
term nature of specific transaction events. Other researchers in this area have
not attempted to separate the two. (Hemsley-Brown & Goonawardana, 2017)
Table 3.3
Responsiveness
Responsiveness WM VI Rank
1. The employees in my college/school tells
customer exactly when services will be 2.82 Agree 3
performed.
2. Employees in college/school give prompt service
2.90 Agree 2
to customers.
3. Employees in my college/school are always willing
2.96 Agree 1
to help customers.
4. Employees in my college/school are never be too
2.60 Agree 4
busy to respond to customers' requests.
satisfaction (perception) in terms of responsiveness. The composite mean of
2.82 (Agree) noticeably indicated that the respondents were satisfied in the way
the school attend to their concerns and needs quickly and rapidly.
Based on the enumerated indicators, “Employees in my college/school
are always willing to help customers.” received the highest weighted mean of
2.96 (Agree). It was followed by “Employees in college/school give prompt
service to customers.” with a weighted mean of 2.90 (Agree).
The indicator with the least response was “The employees in my
college/school tells customer exactly when services will be performed.” with a
The above finding was related to the impression that student satisfaction
is a continually changing construct in the Higher Education environment due to
repeated interactions (Elliott and Shin, 2012). It is a dynamic process that
requires clear and effective action as a result of an institution listening to its
students. Student satisfaction is a complex construct influenced by a variety of
characteristics of students and institutions (Thomas and Galambos, 2014).
Student satisfaction is an overall response not only to the learning experience
of a student (WiersJenssen et al. 2012).

The literature on student‟ satisfaction and their perception of the
educational experience is very complex. Views of the authors on the concept of
student‟ satisfaction is quite diverse. Each author has their own perspective
regarding the needs of students in the university. Some authors support the so
called “managerial dimension” of student‟ satisfaction: the university is an
enterprise and the students are the customers. Therefore, in order to satisfy
students, the customer approach should be applied in the universities.
Table 3.4
Assurance
Assurance WM VI Rank
1. The behavior of employees in my college/school
3.09 Agree 2
instill confidence in customers
2. Customers in my college/school are safe in
2.95 Agree 3
transactions.
3. Employees in my college/school are consistently
2.74 Agree 4
4. Employees in my college/school have the
3.20 Agree 1
satisfaction (perception) in terms of assurance. The composite mean of 3.00

(Agree) markedly indicated that the respondents were satisfied in the way the
school give them the guarantee and assertion of the benefits which they will
and they can get in school.
Based on the counted indicators, “Employees in my college/school have
the knowledge to answer customers' questions.” received the highest weighted
mean of 3.20 (Agree). It was followed by “The behavior of employees in my
college/school instill confidence in customers” with a weighted mean of 3.09
(Agree).
The indicator with the least response was “Employees in my
college/school are consistently courteous with customers.” with a weighted
mean of 2.74 (Agree).
The above finding was associated to the idea of Elliott and Shin (2012)
mean that globalized competition has stressed the strategic importance of
satisfaction and quality in the battle for winning consumer preferences and
maintaining sustainable competitive advantages. Hill (2015) suggests that the
primary customers of the universities are the students, and so Higher
Education is increasingly recognizing that it is a service industry and is placing
greater emphasis on meeting the expectations and needs of students.
Moreover, focusing on student satisfaction not only enables universities to
reengineer their organizations to adapt to student needs, but also allows them
to develop a system for continuous monitoring of how effectively they meet or
exceed student needs (Elliott and Shin, 2012). Furthermore, researchers argue
“that relationships are important and that the overall market orientation of
organizations needs to be translated to a relationship level in order to be
effective” (Helfert et al. 2012). According to Seymour (2013), developing many
happy satisfied customers, whether they are students, parents of students,
alumni, or industry employer, should be a primary goal of higher education.
Thus, focusing on enhancing the customer satisfaction at colleges and
universities is crucial in developing customer value (Seymour, 2013). Students
can be regarded as customers of the universities. Therefore, it is important for
the university to focus on its customers, and to meet their expectations by
providing quality education.
Table 3.5
Empathy
Empathy WM VI Rank
1. My college/school gives customers individual
2.84 Agree 2
attention.
2. My college/school has operating hours convenient
2.91 Agree 1
to all customers.
3. My college/school has employees who give
2.83 Agree 3
4. My college/school has their customers' best
2.75 Agree 4
interest at heart.
5. The employees in my college/school understand
2.74 Agree 5
satisfaction (perception) in terms of empathy. The composite mean of 2.81
(Agree) distinctly indicated that the respondents were satisfied in the way the
school understand and sympathize to their concerns and inquiry.
Based on the tallied indicators, “My college/school has operating hours
convenient to all customers.” received the highest weighted mean of 2.91
(Agree). It was followed by “My college/school gives customers individual
attention.” with a weighted mean of 2.84 (Agree).
The indicator with the least response was “The employees in my
college/school understand the specific needs of their customers.” with a
The above finding was linked to the indication of the article “Student
satisfaction and quality of service in Italian universities”, Petruzzellis,
D‟Uggento, Romanazzi (2016) also regarded students as customers of
universities and made the conclusion that universities need to adopt a
customer centric approach. They analyzed common factors such as: lecture
halls, laboratories, equipment, library, dining hall, dormitories, leisure activities,
language courses, scholarships, internet access, exam booking, and contacts
with teachers, administrative services, tutoring, counseling, internship,
international relationship and placement.
Students have increasingly begun to see themselves as consumers or
customers of a service organization, and linked with this is the high

expectations of standards and efficiency from the educational institutions.
Therefore, customer satisfaction is becoming increasingly important.
Occasionally, expectations of international students are not met by universities
(East 2011), which may have attracted these students by overstated and
zealous marketing techniques. Bless et. al. (2015) found that a lack of
satisfaction was associated with poorer adaptation in international students.
They suggest that the difference between expectations and experiences is
associated with overall adaptation: the bigger the discrepancies, the poorer the
psychological and socio-cultural adaptation. Research shows that international
students have lower perceptions of services offered by their universities than
their domestic counterparts (Sherry, Bhat, Beaver, and Ling 2014).
Some authors address several perspectives of students` satisfaction,
because student satisfaction is a complex construct with various antecedents,
and these are not the same as in the actual customer satisfaction models
(Elliott and Shin 2012). Bless et. al. (2015) formulates a student integration
theory of persistence or retention based on the relationships between students
and institutions. He argues that retention involves two commitments on the part
of the student. The first commitment is the goal to obtain a college degree; and
the second one is the decision to obtain that degree at a particular institution
(institutional commitment). Overall, the combination of the student’s goal and
institutional commitment affects retention at a particular institution. Under this
perspective, it is important to match the student’s motivation and academic

ability and the institution’s ability to meet the student expectations (Kara and De
Shields 2014).
Table 3.6
Summary Table for the Assessment on Student Satisfaction
(Perception)
Satisfaction WM VI Rank
Tangibles 2.98 Agree 2
Reliability 2.74 Agree 5
Responsiveness 2.82 Agree 3
Assurance 3.00 Agree 1
Empathy 2.81 Agree 4
Over-all Mean 3.39 Agree
Table 3.6 showed the summary for the assessment on student
assurance and empathy. Based on the overall findings, assurance obtained the
highest mean of 3.00 (Agree) followed by tangibles with the weighted mean of
2.98 (Agree) and responsiveness with a weighted mean of 2.82 (Agree)
On the other hand, the least among the list of indicators was reliability
with a weighted mean of 2.74 (Agree). Generally, an overall mean of 3.39
(Agree) which means that the respondents were satisfied by the given
indicators regarding customer satisfaction as they consider the features of the
school which they were enrolled in.
To grasp the complexity of the learning experience, it is important to
understand the factors that contribute to student satisfaction. For many
students, “the process of studying not only represents acquisition of certain

skills and theoretical knowledge; it is also related to personal growth and social
development (Wiers-Jenssen et al. 2012). By turning the focus towards the
course content, the subject quality will be one of highest priority (Scott 2010).
According to Elliott and Shin (2012) “a university‟s product is more than its
academic program. It is the sum of the student‟s academic, social, physical,
and even spiritual experiences”. Furthermore, satisfaction is positively
influenced when there is positive perception of the quality (Anderson, Fornell
and Lehmann 2014). Finaly-Neumann (2014) ascertains that dominant
predictors of instructional satisfaction include clarity of instructional tasks,
professor feedback and identity of instructional tasks. Biggs (2011) states that
higher satisfaction ratings can be gained when the students are provided with a
curriculum that meets their expectations and needs, especially through
focusing on high quality instruction and opportunities to develop their skills.
Based on the above findings, the school should further maintain the
assurance given to the students since it occupied the most number of response
from the respondents. Assurance made the students satisfied during their stay
in the school. On the other hand, the school should look in to the aspect of
reliability. The school should find out why the aforementioned area got the
weakest point among respondent’s answers. Various activities and service
audits should be conducted to know the reason why students were not so
satisfied when it comes to service reliability.

Table 4.1
As presented from the table above, there is no significant difference in
assessment on brand image (expectation) in terms of tangibles when grouped
to age, sex, educational attainment and employment of parent since the
computed p values are greater than 0.05 level of significance. This suggests
that assessment on brand image (expectation) in terms of tangibles is not
affected by age, sex, educational attainment and employment of parent.
Moreover, there is significant difference in difference in assessment on
student satisfaction (perception) in terms of tangibles when grouped to
educational level since the computed p value is less than 0.05 level of
significance. Thus, assessment on student satisfaction (perception) in terms of
tangibles is affected by educational level. However, there is no significant

difference in difference in assessment on student satisfaction (perception) in
terms of tangibles when grouped to age, sex and employment of parent since
the computed p values are greater than 0.05 level of significance. Therefore,
assessment on student satisfaction (perception) in terms of tangibles is not
affected by age, sex and employment of parent.
Brand image in a school set up can consist of traits, benefits, values,
wants the students’ to associate with the brand (Pate, 2017). According to
Swan et. al. (2017) brand identity is what the brand stands for, what gives it
meaning, and what makes it unique; it is the brand’s fingerprint. Jevons (2016)
agrees with the previous researchers and also emphasizes that brand identity
is to be seen as the foundation for a brand and that it should reflect the brand’s
core values. Therefore, brand identity includes factors such as vision, aim, and
point of differentiation, values and sign of recognition. Aaker (2016) provides
another aspect of brand identity and explains how it can be both the core of the
school but also how it can be extended to include value adding perspectives.
The brand image symbolizes the basic characteristics that will be carried with
the brand over time. However, he further argues that brand identity should not
be considered static, but should be open to change if needed. It should reflect
its desired associations, but also its permanent qualities and benefits,
prominent or not.
Ellison (2017) suggested that if students are familiar with the campus,
including academic knowledge, services and facilities, their satisfaction will the
schools will increase. Thus, students can perceive the campus and reconsider
the service content of the schools. In this study, satisfaction with schools
referred to the students’ subjective assessment of service efficiency, curriculum
quality and facilities.
Haque et al. (2011) identified independent factors that can affect student
satisfaction based on services offered by universities. These include quality of
teaching, student research facilities, library book collections and services,
campus infrastructure, canteen facilities, space for group discussions, sport
programs, ICT (PC and Internet) facilities
Table 4.2
As shown from the table above, there is no significant difference in
assessment on brand image (expectation) in terms of reliability when grouped
to age, sex, educational attainment and employment of parent since the
computed p values are greater than 0.05 level of significance. This implies that
assessment on brand image (expectation) in terms of reliability is not affected
by age, sex, educational attainment and employment of parent.
student satisfaction (perception) in terms of reliability when grouped to

reliability is affected by educational level. However, there is no significant
difference in difference in assessment on student satisfaction (perception) in
terms of reliability when grouped to age, sex and employment of parent since
the computed p values are greater than 0.05 level of significance. Therefore,
assessment on student satisfaction (perception) in terms of reliability is not
affected by age, sex and employment of parent.
Some authors address several perspectives of students` satisfaction,
because student satisfaction is a complex construct with various antecedents,
and these are not the same as in the actual customer satisfaction models
(Elliott and Shin 2012). Bless et. Al. (2015) formulates a student integration
theory of persistence or retention based on the relationships between students
and institutions. He argues that retention involves two commitments on the part
of the student. The first commitment is the goal to obtain a college degree; and
the second one is the decision to obtain that degree at a particular institution
(institutional commitment). Overall, the combination of the student’s goal and
institutional commitment affects retention at a particular institution. Under this
perspective, it is important to match the student‟s motivation and academic
ability and the institution‟s ability to meet the student expectations (Kara and
De Shields 2014).
Table 4.3
As indicated from the table above, there is no significant difference in
assessment on brand image (expectation) in terms of responsiveness when
grouped to age, sex, educational attainment and employment of parent since
the computed p values are greater than 0.05 level of significance. This implies
that assessment on brand image (expectation) in terms of responsiveness is
not affected by age, sex, educational attainment and employment of parent.
student satisfaction (perception) in terms of responsiveness when grouped to
responsiveness is affected by educational level. However, there is no
significant difference in difference in assessment on strudent satisfaction
(perception) in terms of responsiveness when grouped to age, sex and

employment of parent since the computed p values are greater than 0.05 level
of significance. Therefore, assessment on student satisfaction (perception) in
terms of responsiveness is not affected by age, sex and employment of parent.
Tertiary education involves adjustment to new academic and social
environments. The demands of these new environments can create stressors
that may strain interpersonal relationships, undermine self-esteem and
jeopardize academic performance (Khawaja and Dempsey 2010). Such
demands are often more complex for international students, who have to adapt
to a new culture, language, academic, and social environment (Mori 2010).
When reviewing literature on student‟ satisfaction it is possible to notice that
some authors also support both dimensions: social and academic. For
example, Wiers-Jenssen et al. (2012) underline that there are some reasons to
be cautious when applying the satisfaction approach in higher education
(Wiers-Jenssen et al. 2012).
Table 4.4
As exhibited from the table above, here is no significant difference in
assessment on brand image (expectation) and student satisfaction (perception)
in terms of assurance when grouped to age, sex, educational attainment and
of significance. This implies that assessment on brand image (expectation) and
student satisfaction (perception) in terms of assurance is not affected by age,
sex, educational attainment and employment of parent.
Hatch and Schultz (2013) emphasize, corporate branding importantly
concerns the sense of belonging. According to Balmer and Liao (2013), the
award of a degree may provide a student with a life-long membership to a
university and a sense of identification with the corporate identity and brand. As
they suggest, the identification to a university can be a means of self-definition
even after graduation. (Balmer and Liao 2013) Furthermore, a strong corporate
brand is likely to provide employees with identification to the corporate culture
and values. The role of employees in delivering the brand values to various
stakeholders is therefore crucial, and several studies emphasize the
importance of internal branding and employees’ engagement in the branding
process. (Whisman, 2010)

determining aspect of attraction towards a university. In this regard, branding a
university not only touches upon the student orientation but rather concerns
managing the brand of the institution as a whole. (Whisman, 2010) As noted by
Whisman (2010), the marketing mentality in universities, focusing merely on
short-term marketing to specific constituencies, has failed to look at the overall
reputation and to adopt corporate-level branding strategies.
Table 4.5
As revealed from the table above, there is no significant difference in
assessment on brand image (expectation) and student satisfaction (perception)
in terms of empathy when grouped to age, sex, educational attainment and
of significance. This suggest that assessment on brand image (expectation)
and student satisfaction (perception) in terms of empathy is not affected by
age, sex, educational attainment and employment of parent.
Gelb and Sundaram (2012) suggest that satisfaction can be either
specific for a part of a process or overall for the whole school organization.
Satisfaction can be expressed through compliments or loyalty to the service
provider. In the extreme customers will express dissatisfaction by switching to
the competitors. The major reasons why a student would want to switch are the
failure of the core service provided or behavioral issues like uncaring staff and
teachers.
According to Gruen et.al. (2016) “Student satisfaction is generally
accepted as a short-term attitude resulting from an evaluation of a student’s
educational experience. Student satisfaction results when actual performance
meets or exceeds the student’s expectations.” The two definitions between
customer satisfaction in general and student satisfaction are very similar
because they refer to short-term nature of specific transaction events. Other
researchers in this area have not attempted to separate the two. (Hemsley-
Brown & Goonawardana, 2017)
Table 5.1
Table 5.2
As can be grasped from the table above, there is no significant
relationship between assessment on brand image (expectation) and student
assurance and empathy since the computed p values are greater than 0.05
level of significance. This implies that assessment on brand image
(expectation) do not affect the student satisfaction (perception) in terms of
tangibles, reliability, responsiveness, assurance and empathy.
Based on the research purposes and the above findings, the author
proposed suggestions regarding the proposed marketing strategy of
universities and future research. Brand image significantly influences the
construction of students’ loyalty and satisfaction. University managers should
properly cultivate the brand image and reputation of the school and enhance
the brand image so as for the students to achieve the satisfaction which they
are looking forward to. This will not only attract students but also easily
construct student loyalty. In addition, enhancing the positive quality of campus
service has become a critical issue and should be given consideration. The
interaction between service personnel in the school administration and student
customers particularly influences the students’ views toward the school and
their attitude toward the brand. According to the findings of this study, students’
satisfaction with schools relatively influences their loyalty. Therefore, university
administrators should not only enhance their external brand image but also pay
attention to satisfaction with internal service equality, such as the administration
personnel’s service attitude, the quality of the curriculum and the facilities, in
order to develop a friendly campus and construct positive campus service
quality.
Conclusions
1. Significant result revealed majority of the incoming college students
were between 18 years old and below, while for the college students,
majority were 19 – 21 years old, mostly female and both incoming and
college students were divided equally in terms of educational attainment.
In terms of employment of parents, mostly were employed followed by
unemployed and OFW.
2. Responsiveness and empathy got the highest rank for expectation while
assurance and tangibles were the top rankers for perception. Tangibles
and assurance occupied the lowest rank for expectation while reliability
and empathy were the lowest in terms of perception.
3. There is no significant difference in assessment on brand image
(expectation) in terms of tangibles, reliability, responsiveness, assurance
and empathy when grouped to age, sex, educational attainment and
employment of parent.
4. There is significant difference in assessment on brand image
and empathy when grouped to educational level.
5. There is no significant difference in difference in assessment on student
assurance and empathy when grouped to age, sex and employment of
parent.
6. There is significant difference in assessment on student satisfaction
and empathy when grouped to educational level.
Proposed Plan for the basis of marketing strategy
Rationale: This proposed plan for the basis marketing strategy was
based on the significant findings of this paper.

Proposed Plan for Marketing Program for Service Enhancement
KRA PROGRAM ACTIVITIES PERSON

INVOLVED
• Designing and Marketing Officer,
EXPECTATION Customer launching a school Guidance
relationship website aimed at Counsellor, Internal,
1. Responsive management enhancing External and
ness educational Academic Student
activities, and Affairs Officer s,
collaboration with faculty members, IT
the school’s officers
constituency
• Putting a
suggestion and/or
freedom of
expression box
which will give
students the
freedom to express
their thoughts,
opinions and
suggestions
regarding school-
related concerns.
• Circulating and
Distributing weekly
school newsletters
• Evaluating all
communications to
determine how they
support school’s
mission and vision
Giving prompt • Developing a Marketing Officer,

service to customers systematic, organize Guidance
support in response and state-of-the-art Counsellor, Internal,
to requests payment cue system External and
• Partnering with Academic Student
various payment Affairs Officer s,
centers and financial faculty members,
institutions for quick Accounting Officer,
and easy payment IT Officers
activity
• Developing a
software which will

give students a
quick and easy
access to library and
other school learning
laboratories even
though they are at
home or outside the
school premises
through internet
access.
• Informing students
and parents about
student’s academic
progress (grades)
through via school-
designed electronic
software. In the
same way, it will
also inform and
update the students
and parents about
the latest school
activities and
undertakings.
Willingness to help • Implement a All Departments

customers “SMILE AT ME AT All School
ALL TIMES Staff/Personnel
PROGRAM”
promoting positive,
accommodating and
excellent customer
service for all school
departments and
school personnel. All
school employee will
wear a badge with
the programs
“smiley logo” to
remind the advocacy
of the program at all
times
Marketing Officer,
PERCEPTION Making sure that all • Conducting weekly Guidance
concerns are town hall and/or Counsellor, Internal,
2. Reliability addressed employee, student External and
accordingly and and parent meeting Academic Student
given appropriate to find out whether Affairs Officer s,
action all concerns and faculty members, IT
issues are officers
addressed
accordingly and
given appropriate
action.
• Circulating and
Distributing weekly
school newsletters
with returned
feedback forms.
Promising to do • Implementing a Marketing Officer,

something by a program with a clear Guidance
certain time and black and white copy Counsellor, Internal,
doing what is being of time-frame and External and
told to the customers accomplishment Academic Student
report. Affairs Officer s,
faculty members,
• Strengthening the Accounting and
schools’ guidance Registrar Officer, IT
program focusing on Officers
guidance and
counselling activities
for both the students
and parents to feel
that the school will
always be at their
back at all times
• Implementing a
weekly customer
service survey
Promoting an error • Establishing and/or All Departments

free records organizing a school All School
committee who will Staff/Personnel
conduct thorough
and keen reading of
various school
academic forms
prior to its
distribution or
dissemination to the
students and
parents.
EXPECTATION/ Giving customers • Focusing and All Departments

PERCEPTION individual attention strengthening All School
and personalized “individualism” in all Staff/Personnel
3. Empathy service. school services. In
this way, each
student and parent
will be given special
and personalized
services rather than
attending to different
students and
parents at the same

time.
• Implementing a
“NO NOON BREAK”
policy even though
the school is a
private institution
• Distributing
monthly parent
involvement form
educating parents
about the specific
lessons to be
discussed per
grading including
activities and other
school-related
undertakings.
Recommendations
1. It is important for the school brand managers that they should think
strategically regarding how they can improve and strengthen
identification of their brands which will lead to student satisfaction.
2. School brand managers therefore should monitor continuously the
potential and existing concerns and needs of students in order to
understand their interests and necessities, developing suitable services
in order to improve the brand equity.
3. To sustain the brand image, school leaders need to recruit, and retain
trained faculty and provide infrastructure facilities. The school can also
utilize social media for continuous communication toward strategic brand
enhancement.
4. The school needs to continue researching on brand image and customer
satisfaction and others so as to be aware of the factors which influences
the market in any giving time and place, this continuity will help gather
more information and therefore position the school in a good and sound
position to judge and strategize when planning.
5. There is a need to improve and develop a marketing plan which will
focus on strengthening reliability and empathy in order to win customer
satisfaction and further enhance factors related to tangibles, assurance
and responsiveness. In terms of brand image, a marketing plan should
also focus on maintaining strategically planned programs on
responsiveness and empathy since these factors sustain the positive
image of the school.
6. Additional research is needed to fully understand how satisfaction arises
among all students. Different groups of people might have different
opinions on the service quality of the educational units. Therefore, it is
crucial to understand the differences among the different groups that are
involved in the service-delivering process. Thus, considerably more work
is required to explore the factors used to judge brand image and service
quality.
References
Aaker, D. A. (2016). Building strong brands. Simon and Schuster.
Alessandri, S.W. (2013). Modeling corporate identity: a concept explication

and theoretical explanation. Corporate Communications: An
International Journal. Vol. 6, No. 4, 173–182.
Anderson, E.W., Fornell, C., Lehmann, D.R. (2014). Customer Satisfaction,

Market Share, and Profitability: Findings from Sweden. Journal of
Marketing vol. 58, 53-66.

cles/Anderson %201994.pdf. Accessed 16.10.2011.
Anderson, J. C., & Gerbing, D. W. (2010). Structural equation modeling in

practice: A review and recommended two-step approach.
Psychological Bulletin, 103(3), 411-423.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.103.3.411
Andrews, F. M. , and S. B. Withey (2012) Development and measurement

of
social indicators, Spring 1972-Summer 1973 [machine-readable
data file; first ICPSR edition, 1975]. Ann Arbor, MI: Survey
Research Center, Institute for Social Research. (Distributed by
Inter-University Consortium for Political and Social Research, Ann
Arbor, Michigan.)
Argenti, P. (2010). Branding B-Schools: Reputation Management for MBA

Programs. Corporate Reputation Review. Vol. 3, No. 2, 171–178.
Baker, M.J. & Balmer, J.M.T. (2013). Visual identity: trappings of substance.
European Journal of Marketing. Vol. 31 Iss. 5, 366–382.
Balamuth, E. (2015) Capacity and Ability of Parents of Sending Children to

School. National Center for Health Statistics, Series 2, No. 7.
Washington, DC: Government Printing Office.
Balmer, J.M.T. & Gray, E.R. (2013). Corporate brands: what are they? What
of them? European Journal of Marketing. Vol. 37, No. 7/8, 972–
997.
Balmer, J.M.T. & Liao G.. (2013). Corporate brands: what are they? What of
them? European Journal of Marketing. Vol. 37, No. 7/8, 972–
997.Bagozzi, R. P., & Yi, Y. (1988). On the evaluation of structural
equationmodels. Journal ofthe Academy of Marketing Science,
16(1), 74-94. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/BF02723327
Bansal, H. S., & Voyer, P. A. (2016). Word-of-mouth processes within a

services purchase decision context. Journal of Service Research,
3(2), 166-177. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/109467050032005
Baron, R. M., & Kenny, D. A. (2016). The moderator-mediator variable

distinction in social psychological research: Conceptual, strategic,
and statistical considerations. Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology, 51, 1173-1182.
Bateson, Phillips, & Hoffman Jørgensen, M. (2014). Discourse analysis as

Theory and Method. London: SAGE.
Biggs, J. (2011). Teaching International Students. Teaching for quality

learning at university. What the student does. Buckingham: Open
University Press, 121-140.
Bless, C., Higson- Smith, C. (2015). Fundamentals of social research

methods. An African perspective (2nd ed). Cape Town: Juta and
Co, Ltd.
Brown, T., Dacin, P., Pratt, M. & Whetten, D. (2016). Identity, intended
image, construed image, and reputation: an interdisciplinary
framework and suggested methodology. Journal of the Academy
of
Marketing Science. 34, 95–106.
Bruyn, A., & Lilien, G. L. (2008). A multi-stage model of word-of-mouth

influence through viral marketing. International Journal of
Research
in Marketing, 25(3), 151-163.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ijresmar.2008.03.004
Bulotaite,N. (2013).University heritage:an institutional tool for branding and

marketing.Higher Education in Europe,Vol. XXVIII No.4,449–454.
Bunzel, D.L. (2017). Universities sell their brands. Journal of Product &
Brand
Management. Vol. 16, Iss. 2, 152–153.
Chapleo, C. (2010). What defines “successful” university brands?

International Journal of Public Sector Management. Vol. 23, Iss. 2,
169–183.
Cheung, G. W., & Lau, R. S. (2010). Testing mediation and suppression

effects of latent variables. Organizational Research Methods,
11(2),
296-365. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/1094428107300343
Claycomb, C., Martin, C.L. (2011). Building customer relationships: an

inventory of service providers´ objectives and practices. Marketing
Intelligence & Planning vol. 19, 385-399.
Cornelissen, J.P., Haslam, S.A. & Balmer, J.M.T. (2017). Social Identity,
Organizational Identity and Corporate Identity. Towards an
Integrated Understanding of Processes, Patternings and Products.
British Journal of Management. Vol. 18, S1–S16.
Cornut, F., Giroux, H., & Langly, A. (2012). The strategic plan as a genre.
Discourse & Communication, 6, 21–54.
Curtis, T., Abratt, R. & Minor, W. (2010). Corporate brand management in

higher education: the case of ERAU. Journal of Product & Brand
Management. Vol. 18, Iss. 6, 404–413.
Davis, T. M., & Ellison, L. (2017). Improving the quality of schools: Ask the
Clients？School organization, 15, 5-12.
De Chernatony, L. (2012). Would a brand smell any sweeter by a corporate

name? Corporate Reputation Review, Vol. 5, No. 2/3, 114–132.
Dobson, I. (2010). Finland: Merger fever hits universities. University World

News, 20 April 2008. Read on November 22, 2012 on
http://www.universityworldnews.com
East, J., (2011). “Students as customers: International student perceptions

of
educational services at La Trobe University” Master thesis, La
Trobe University, University of New England.
Elliot, Vaara, E. & Healy, Sorsa, V. (2011). Strategy as text and discursive
practice: a genre-based approach to strategizing in city
administration. Discourse & Communication. Vol. 3, No. 3, 303–
318.
Elliott, K. M., & Shin, D. (2012). Student satisfaction: An alternative

approach
to assessing this important concept. Journal of Higher Education
Policy and Management, 24(2), 197-209.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/1360080022000013518
Eriksson, P. & Kovalainen, A. (2010). Qualitative Methods in Business

Research. SAGE Publications.
Eskola, J. & Suoranta, J. (2008). Johdatus laadulliseen tutkimukseen. 8th

Edition. Vastapaino.
Evans, J. & Wetherell, M. (2011). Discourse and Social Psychology. Beyond

Attitudes and Behaviour. London: SAGE.
Fairclough, N. (2012). Discourse and Social Change. Cambridge: Polity
Press.
Finaly-Neumann, E. (2014). Course work characteristics and students´

satisfaction with instruction. Journal of Instructional Psychology
vol.
21, 14-22. http://psycnetapa.org/psycinfo/1994-39255-001.
Accessed 16.10.2011.
Flowerdew, J. (2014). The discursive construction of a world-class city.

Discourse & Society. Vol. 15, 579–605.
Fornell, C., & Larcker, D. F. (2010). Evaluating structural equation models

with unobservable variables and measurement error. Journal of
Marketing Research, 18(1), 39-50.
http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/3151312
Gelb, B. D., & Sundaram, S. (2012). Adapting to “word of mouse”. Business

Horizons, 45(4), 21-25.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0007- 6813(02)00222-7
Gray, B.J., Fan, K.S. & Llanes, V.A. (2013). Branding universities in Asian
markets. Journal of Product & Brand Management. Vol. 12, No.
2/3,
108–112.
Guolla, M. (2010). Assessing the teaching quality to student satisfaction

relationship: applied customer satisfaction research in the
classroom. Journal of Marketing Theory & Practice vol. 7, 87-96.
http://www.jstor.org/pss/40469971. Accessed 16.10.2011.
Gruen, T. W., Osmonbekov, T., & Czaplewski, A. J. (2016). EWOM: The

impact of customer-to-customer online know-how exchange on
customer value and loyalty. Journal of Business Research, 59(4),
449-456. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2005.10.004
Haque, J. H. M., Das D., Farzana, R., (2011). Satisfaction of Student

Services in Tertiary Level: Perspective Bangladesh, European
Journal of Social Sciences vol. 19, 286
www.eurojournals.com/EJSS_19_2_12.pdf. Accessed 07.11.2011.
Harvey, L. (2015). Student satisfaction. The New Review of Academic

Librarianship vol.1, 161-73.
Hatch, M.J. & Schultz, M. (2013). Bringing the corporation into corporate
branding. European Journal of Marketing. Vol. 37, No. 7/8, 1041–
1064.
Helfert, G., Ritter, T., Walter, A. (2012). Redefining market orientation from
a
relationship perspective - Theoretical considerations and empirical
results. European Journal of Marketing vol. 36, 1119-1139.
Hemsley-Brown, J. & Goonawardana, S. (2017). Brand harmonization in the

international higher education market. Journal of Business
Research. Vol. 60, No. 9, 942–948.
Hill, F.M. (2015). Managing service quality in Higher Education: the role of
the student as primary consumer. Quality Assurance in Education
vol. 3, 10-21.
Hu, L. T., & Bentler, P. M. (2015). Evaluating Model Fit. In R. H. Hoyle (Ed.).
Structural Equation Modeling: Concepts, Issues, and Applications
(pp. 76-99). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Jacoby, J., & Chestnut, R. W. (2015). Brand loyalty: Measurement and

Management. New York: John Wiley & Sons.
Jarvis, P. (2011). Universities and Corporate Universities: the Higher

Learning Industry in Global Society. London: Kogan Page.
Jevons, C. (2016). Universities: a prime example of branding going wrong.

Journal of Product & Brand Management. Vol. 15, No. 7, 466–467.
Jöreskog, K. G., & Sörbom, D. (2012). LISREL: A Guide to the Program and
Applications (3rd ed.). Chicago: Scientific Software International,
Inc.
Kara, A., De Shields O.W., (2014). Business Student Satisfaction, Intentions

and Retention in Higher Education: An Empirical Investigation.
Marketing Education Quarterly vol.3, 1-25.
Khawaja, N. G, Dempsey J., (2010). A Comparison of International and

Domestic Tertiary Students in Australia, Queensland University of
Technology, Australia, Australian Journal of Guidance &
Counselling vol. 18, 30–46.
Kotler, P. & Armstrong, G. (2010). Principles of Marketing. 13th Edition.

Prentice Hall, Upper Saddle River, NJ
Levine, A. (2017). Higher education becomes a mature industry. About

Campus. Vol. 2, No. 3, 31–32.
Lincoln, Y. S., Guba, E. G. (2015). Naturalistic inquiry. Beverly Hills, CA:

Sage.
Mazzarol, T. (2010). Critical success factors for international education

marketing. The International Journal of Educational Management,
12(4), 163-175. http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/09513549810220623
Melewar, T.C., Bassett, K. & Simões, C. (2016). The role of communication

and visual identity in modern organisations. Corporate
Communications: An International Journal. Vol. 11, No. 2, 138–
147
Mont, O, Plepys, A. (2013). Customer satisfaction: review of literature and

application to the product–service systems. International Institute
for Industrial Environmental Economics, Lund University, Lund.
Mori, S. (2010). Addressing the mental health concerns of international

students. Journal of Counseling and Development vol. 78, 137–
144.
http://aca.metapress.com/openurl.asp?genre=article&eissn=1556-
6676&volume=78&issue=2&spage=137. Accessed 16.10.2011.
Nielsen Company (2010). Global Satisfaction and Happiness Survey.

Chicago, Illinois, United States of America
Oliver, R. L. (2017). Whence consumer loyalty? Journal of Marketing, 63

(Special Issue), 33-44.
Osman, H. (2010). Re-branding academic institutions with corporate

advertising: a genre perspective. Discourse & Communication.
Vol.
2, No. 1, 57–77.
Palacio, A. B., Meneses, G. D., & Perez, J. P. (2012). The configuration of

the university image and its relationship with the satisfaction of
students. Journal of Educational Administration, 40(5), 486-505.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/09578230210440311
Parasuraman, A., Zeithaml, V.A., Berry, L.L. (2010). A multiple-item scale

for
measuring consumer perceptions of service quality. Journal of
Retailing vol. 64, 12-40.
Park, W. C., Jaworski, B. J., & MacInnis, J. D. (2010). Strategic brand

concept-image management. Journal of Marketing, 50(10), 62-78.
Pate, W. S. (2017). Modeling consumer satisfaction, determinants of

satisfaction, andpost purchase actions among, consumers of
undergraduate higher education (Unpublished doctoral
dissertation). University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill.
Petruzzellis L., D‟Uggento, A.M., Romanazzi, S., (2016). Student

satisfaction
and quality of service in Italian universities. Managing Service
Quality vol. 16, 349-364. www.emeraldinsight.com/0960-4529.htm.
Pew Research Center (2003). The Pew Global Attitudes Project.

Washington
D.C. United States of America
Pinar, M., Trapp, P., Girard, T. & Boyt, T.E. (2011). Utilizing the brand
ecosystem framework in designing branding strategies for higher
education. International Journal of Educational Management. Vol.
25, No. 7, 724–739.
Punjaisri, K., & Wilson, A. (2017). The role of internal branding in the
delivery
of employee brand promise. Journal of Brand Management, 15(1),
57-70. http://dx.doi.org/10.1057/palgrave.bm.2550110
Richins, M. L. (2017). Negative word-of-mouth by dissatisfied consumers: A

pilot study. Journal of Marketing, 47(1), 68-78.
http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/3203428
Robertson, J. S. (2016). Low-commitment consumer behavior. Journal of

Advertising Research, 16, 19-24.
Scott, S.V. (2010). The academic as service provider: is the customer

“always right”? Journal of Higher Education Policy and
Management vol. 21, 193-202.
http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/1360080990210206.
Seymour, D. T., (2013). Causing Quality in Higher Education, Phoenix. AZ:

Orxy Press.
Sherry, C., Bhat, R., Beaver, B., Ling, A. (2014). Students as customers: the
expectations and perceptions of local and international students.
HERDSA Conference http://www.herdsa.org.au/wp-
content/uploads/conference/2004/PDF/P017-jt.pdf. Accessed
16.10.2011.
Sobel, M. E. (2012). Asymptotic confidence intervals for indirect effects in

structural equation models. Sociological Methodology, 13, 290-
312.
http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/270723
Spreng, R.A., MacKenzie, S.B., Olshavsky, R.W. (2013). A re-examination

of
the determinants of consumer satisfaction. Journal of Marketing
vol.
60, 15-32.
Swan, J. E., & Oliver, R. L. (2017). Post-purchase communications by

consumers. Journal of Retailing, 65(4), 516-533.
Thomas, E. H., Galambos, N., (2014). What satisfies students? Mining

Student-Opinion Data with Regression and Decision Tree
Analysis.
Research in Higher Education vol. 45, 251-269.
Tompson, H., & Brownlee, A. (2013). The First Year Experience for
Business
Students: A Model for Design and Implementation to Improve
Student Retention. Journal of the Academy of Business Education,
14(2), 57-88.
Whisman, R. (2010). Internal branding: a university’s most valuable

intangible asset. Journal of Product & Brand Management. Vol.
18,
No. 5, 367–370.
Wiers-Jenssen, J., Stensaker, B., Grogaard, J.B. (2012). Student

Satisfaction: towards an empirical deconstruction of the concept.
Quality in Higher Education vol. 8, 183-195.
Wirtz, J., & Chew, P. (2012). The effects of incentives, deal proneness,
satisfaction and tie strength on word-of-mouthbehaviour.
International Journal of Service Industry Management, 13(2), 141-
162. http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/09564230210425340
Wolverton, M. (2016). Three Georgias in Atlanta: Lessons from business

schools about finding your identity. International Journal of
Educational Management. Vol. 20 Iss. 7, 507– 519.
SURVEY QUESTIONNAIRE
The Survey The questionnaire below is in two sections. The first

section asks you to rank all colleges according to your
expectations i.e. what you expect all colleges to provide.
The second section asks you to rank the college you
chose for the survey according to your experiences and
perceptions.
PART 1 - Profile of the Respondents

Direction: Kindly put a check on the answer that correspond to your answer.
Age:
( ) 18 years old and below
( ) 19 - 21 years old
( ) 22 - 24 years old
( ) 25 years old - above
Gender:
( ) Male
( ) Female
Educational Level
( ) Grade 11 College Course:

( ) Grade 12 ( ) Radiologic Technology
( ) Medical Technology
( ) Physical Therapy
( ) Psychology
( ) Business Administration
( ) Education
Employment Profile of Parents
( ) employed locally ( ) in between jobs/unemployed

( ) employed overseas/OFW
( ) retired
( ) entrepreneur
PART EXPECTATIONS
2A
This section of the survey deals with your opinions of colleges.
Please show the extent to which you think colleges should possess
the following features. What we are interested in here is a number
that best shows you expectations about institutions offering
educational services.
You should rank each statement as follows:
4 – Strongly Agree 3 – Agree 2 – Disagree 1 – Strongly Disagree
Statement Score
1. Private schools/colleges will have modern looking

equipment.
2. The physical facilities at private colleges will be

visually appealing.
Statement Score
3. Private at excellent colleges will be neat in their

appearance.
4. Materials associated with the service (pamphlets or

statements) will be visually appealing at an private
colleges.
5. When private colleges promise to do something by

a certain time, they do.
6. When a customer has a problem, private colleges

will show a sincere interest in solving it.
7. Private colleges will perform the service right the

1. first time.
Employees of private colleges will give prompt
service to customers.
8. Private colleges will provide the service at the time
2. they promiseof
Employees toprivate
do so. colleges will always be willing
to help customers.
9. Private colleges will insist on error free records.
3. Employees of private colleges will never be too
10.The
busyemployees
to respondoftoprivate colleges
customers' will understand
requests.
4. The behaviour of employees in private colleges will
instil confidence in customers
5. Customers of private colleges will feel safe in

transactions.
6. Employees of private colleges will be consistently

7. Employees of private colleges will have the

8. Private colleges will give customers individual

attention.
9. Private colleges will have operating hours

10. Private colleges will have employees who give

11. Private colleges will have their customers' best

interest at heart.
12. The employees of private colleges will understand

PART 2B PERCEPTIONS
The following statements relate to your feelings about the

particular college you have chosen. Please show the extent to
which you believe this college has the feature described in the
statement. Here, we are interested in a number from 1 to 4 that
shows your perceptions about the college.
You should rank each statement as follows:
4 – Strongly Agree 3 – Agree 2 – Disagree 1 – Strongly Disagree
Score
Statement
1. My colleges/school has modern looking

equipment
2. The physical facilities in my college are

visually appealing.
3. Employees in my college/university are

neat in their appearance.
4. Materials associated with the service

(pamphlets or statements) are visually
appealing at my colleges/school.
5. When my college/university promise to do

6. When a customer has a problem, my

college/school shows a sincere interest in
solving it.
7. My college/school perform the service right

the first time.
8. My colleges/school provide the service at

the time they promise to do so.
9. My college/school insist on error free

records.
10. Employees in my colleges/school tell

customers exactly when services will be
performed.
11. Employees in my colleges/school gives

prompt service to customers
12. Employees in my college/school are always

be willing to help customers.
13. Employees in my colleges/school are never

be too busy to respond to customers'
requests.
14. The behaviour of employees in my

colleges/school are instil confidence in
customers
15. Customers of my colleges/school are feel

safe in transactions
16. Employees in my colleges/school are

consistently courteous with customers
17. Employees in my colleges/school has the

18. My colleges/school gives customers

individual attention.
19. My colleges/school has operating hours

20. My colleges/school has employees who

give customers personal service.
21. My colleges/school has their customers'

best interest at heart.
22. The employees in my colleges/school are

understand the specific needs of their
customers
Questionnaire
Dear Student,
I am student of Lyceum of the Philippines University-Laguna taking

Master in Business Administration and currently working on a research entitled
“Brand Image and Customer Satisfaction among college Students in Tanauan:
Basis for Marketing Strategy”. You have been chosen as one of my research
participant. Kindly answer the questions below with full sincerity and rest
assured that the personal information voluntarily provided will be treated with
utmost confidentiality. Your willingness to cooperate in this matter will be
gratefully appreciated.
Thank you and God bless.
Alvin S. Saracho
Reasercher
Noted by:
Dr.Joy Comia- Ashipaoloye
Thesis Adviser
To:Ms. Ma. Soledad V. Mercado,
President
DMMC Institute of Health Sciences
Date: February 26, 2018
Dear Ms. Mercado
A pleasant day to you. I am Alvin S. Saracho, Marketing Manager of

DMMCIHS, and now MBA candidate of Lyceum of the Philippines-Laguna. I am
writing this letter to seek for your approval to conduct a survey for my thesis
about Brand Image and Customer Satisfaction among college students in
Tanauan: Basis for Marketing Strategy. I wish to distribute and collect my
questionnaire within the week. Rest assure that all the information I will be able
to gather will be treated with utmost confidentiality and shall be solely use for
this study only. The institution will be given a copy of my thesis. Your generous
support and approval would be greatly appreciated.
Alvin S. Saracho
Researcher/ Marketing Manager- DMMCIHS
Dr. Joy Comia- Ashipaoloye
Thesis Adviser
Statistical Outputs

Ral Revised Alvin Thesis

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Ral Revised Alvin Thesis

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Brand Image and Student Satisfaction in a Private School in Tanauan: Basis

for Marketing Strategy

A Thesis Submitted to the Faculty of Graduate School

In Partial Fulfilment of the Requirements for the Degree

In partial fulfilment of the requirements for the degree Master in Business

DR. FLORA V. JAVIER

Comprehensive Examination _____________ Date: _______________

Dr. FRANCIS KAYODE ASHIPAOLOYE

Title: Brand Image and Student Satisfaction in a Private

School in Tanauan: Basis for Marketing Strategy.

Author: Alvin Siman Saracho

Degree: Master in Business Administration

School: Lyceum of the Philippines University- Batangas

School Year: 2016-2018

Adviser: Dr. Joy C. Ashipaoloye

With the progress of corporate brands in the Philippines and their

participation in international markets, brands have turned from business circles to

students as the customers. Student satisfaction has thus become important in

on a specific course in marketing specifically in terms of introducing to the

Sciences looks to grow, as a well-established educational institution, that is why

through this research, a marketing plan that emphasizes strategies to increase

customer base will be proposed at the end of this study.

Descriptive method of research was utilized. Participants were the 100

students for evaluating student satisfaction (perception). The participants of the

size is 178 for all the group.

Significant result revealed majority of the incoming college students were

equally in terms of educational attainment. In terms of employment of parents,

mostly were employed followed by unemployed and OFW.

were the lowest in terms of perception.

There is no significant difference in assessment on brand image

(expectation) in terms of tangibles, reliability, responsiveness, assurance and

empathy when grouped to age, sex, educational attainment and employment of

parent. There is significant difference in assessment on brand image (expectation)

in terms of tangibles, reliability, responsiveness, assurance and empathy when

grouped to educational level.

There is no significant difference in difference in assessment on customer

satisfaction (perception) in terms of tangibles, reliability, responsiveness, assurance

significant difference in assessment on student satisfaction (expectation) in terms of

tangibles, reliability, responsiveness, assurance and empathy when grouped to

brands which will lead to student/customer satisfaction. School brand managers

needs of students in order to understand their interests and necessities, developing

suitable services in order to improve the brand equity.

media for continuous communication toward strategic brand enhancement. The

enhance factors related to tangibles, assurance and responsiveness. In terms of

brand image, a marketing plan should also focus on maintaining strategically

positive image of the school.

Additional research is needed to fully understand how satisfaction arises

service quality of the educational units. Therefore, it is crucial to understand the

judge brand image and service quality.

Keywords: brand image, student, customer satisfaction, marketing

Members of the Panel especially Dr. Flora V. Javier.

This Thesis is dedicated to God, my wife, my family and DMMCIHS.

Figures Title Page

1 Profile of respondents (Graduating Senior High) in terms of age

2 Profile of respondents (College students) in terms of age

3 Profile of respondents (Graduating Senior High) in terms of gender

4 Profile of respondents (College students) in terms of gender

5 Profile of respondents (Graduating Senior High) in terms of educational

6 Profile of respondents (College students) in terms of program

7 Profile of respondents (Graduating Senior High) in terms of employment

8 Profile of respondents (Graduating Senior High) in terms of age

9 Profile of respondents (College students) in terms of employment of

Tables Title Page

2 Assessment on brand image (Expectation) in terms of tangibles

Comprehensive Examination _ Date: ___