University Advertising and Universality in

Messaging

Stan R. Diel & Stephen Katsinas

Innovative Higher Education

ISSN 0742-5627
Volume 43
Number 3

Innov High Educ (2018) 43:171-183

DOI 10.1007/s10755-018-9421-7

1 23
Your article is protected by copyright and
all rights are held exclusively by Springer
Science+Business Media, LLC, part of
Springer Nature. This e-offprint is for personal
use only and shall not be self-archived in
electronic repositories. If you wish to self-
archive your article, please use the accepted
manuscript version for posting on your own
website. You may further deposit the accepted
manuscript version in any repository,
provided it is only made publicly available 12
months after official publication or later and
provided acknowledgement is given to the
original source of publication and a link is
inserted to the published article on Springer's
website. The link must be accompanied by
the following text: "The final publication is
available at link.springer.com”.

1 23
 Author's personal copy
Innov High Educ (2018) 43:171–183
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10755-018-9421-7

University Advertising and Universality in Messaging

Stan R. Diel 1 & Stephen Katsinas 2

Published online: 20 January 2018

# Springer Science+Business Media, LLC, part of Springer Nature 2018

Abstract University and college institutional advertisements, which typically are broadcast as
public service announcements during the halftime of football games, were the subject of a
quantitative analysis focused on commonality in messaging and employment of the semiotic
theory of brand advertising. Findings indicate advertisements focus on students’ social lives at
the expense of depictions related to an academic focus and that, at statistically significant levels,
smaller universities are more likely than large ones to depict their research as having an impact
beyond their own campus. Findings suggest that institutions recruit out-of-state students in
pursuit of revenue rather than using the advertisements in service of efforts to raise funds.

Keywords Advertising . Public service announcements . Higher education

A little more than a decade ago, colleges and universities eschewed brand advertising. Students
knew where they wanted to attend college and followed a predictable path. However, an
enrollment explosion that began in the 1990s when a college degree replaced a high school
diploma as the standard employment credential was not accompanied by a similar increase in
funding (Anderson & Douglas-Gabriel, 2016). State funding, in particular, decreased concom-
itantly. As a result universities faced a greater need to attract tuition-paying students, and many
turned to advertising to do so.

Stan Diel received his Ph.D. from The University of Alabama, his M.A. from The University of Alabama at
Birmingham, and a B.A. and B.S. from The University of Kansas. He is Assistant Professor of Mass
Communication at Francis Marion University. He researches the credibility of news disseminated via new media.
Stephen Katsinas received his Ph.D. and M.A. from Southern Illinois University and his B.A. from the
University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign. He is Director of the Education Policy Center and a Professor of
Higher Education Administration and Political Science at The University of Alabama. He directs research and
analysis that informs state and national policy on education issues including access, degree success, finance, and
Pell Grants.

* Stan R. Diel
sdiel@fmarion.edu

1
Francis Marion University, Florence, SC 29502, USA
2
University of Alabama, Tuscaloosa, AL 35487, USA
 Author's personal copy
172 Innov High Educ (2018) 43:171–183

Research related to college and university advertising has focused largely on how institu-
tions set themselves apart as they compete for the best students, faculty members, and
administrators and has found that they depend largely on emotional appeal. In a 2012 analysis
of 115 public service announcements, Clayton et al. identified the most common themes and
found consistent use of elements that might elicit an emotional reaction. Among the 10 most
common elements depicted were scenic beauty, performance arts, graduation ceremonies, a
sense of belonging, and nostalgic imagery. The growing body of relevant literature suggests
that institutions now consistently use advertising to build or support an image of prestige
(Tobolowsky & Lowery, 2014). By focusing on the manner in which institutions sell them-
selves, researchers have paid less attention to the manner in which they sell their product:
education. In an attempt to understand both the specificity and universality of the messages, we
examined the message institutions send in their advertising through the lens of perhaps their
highest-profile broadcast product, the 30-second institutional commercial that is run in prime-
time, typically at halftime of football games.

Literature Review and Theoretical Framework

Total enrollment in U.S. colleges, universities, and other post-secondary institutions increased
45% from 1997 to 2011, and it is expected to rise another 14% by 2022 (Hussar & Bailey,
2014). If one narrows the field to full-time students at degree-granting institutions, the rise is
even more dramatic. The number of enrolled full-time students has risen 54% in just 15 years.
Meanwhile, state spending on higher education has fallen steadily since the turn of the century,
dropping from about $7000 per student per year in 2000 to about $4200 in 2014 (Pew
Charitable Trusts, 2015). With demand rising swiftly and budgets not keeping pace, colleges
and universities have adopted a number of strategies in bids to narrow the budgetary gap,
including recruiting more out-of-state students, who typically pay considerably more in tuition.
In 2014, 86% of the nation’s flagship state universities enrolled more out-of-state freshmen
than they had a decade earlier (Anderson & Douglas-Gabriel, 2016). At The University of
Alabama, for example, where state funding represents 12.5% of revenue, enrollment has
grown 58% since 2006; and out-of-state students represent 57% of the student body
(Pappano, 2016).
To attract these new out-of-state students, institutions increasingly have leaned on a tool
common to consumer product advertising: brand advertising. Brand advertising, by its nature,
sells an experience rather than a product (Moore, 2004); and it is meant to publicize rather than
persuade (Ehrenberg, Barnard, Kennedy, & Bloom, 2002). Ehrenberg et al. identified seven
ways a brand campaign publicizes a brand: (a) proclaiming the brand, (b) making the brand an
example of the product, (c) providing information, (d) establishing distinctiveness, (e) appeal-
ing to emotion, (f) providing a reason, and (g) pitching the product. A commercial for a Jeep
Wrangler, for example, does not sell Jeeps. It sells the experience of being in the outdoors, of
going places others cannot go to see beauty or enjoy adventure that is exclusive to the owner of
the vehicle. The pitch appeals to emotion as it tries to make the brand synonymous with the
experience; and, to the extent that the word BJeep^ has become generic English for four-wheel-
drive vehicles, it has succeeded (McAlexander, Schouten, & Koenig, 2002). Such advertise-
ments are overt emotional appeals, despite the hard sell that may come at the end.
This transition from product to experience is perhaps best explained by the marketing
theory of semiotics, which holds that a product evolves—or is semiotized—into a brand
 Author's personal copy
Innov High Educ (2018) 43:171–183 173

through the encoding of subtexts that connect it to culture (Danesi, 2013). Common tools for
such purposes are an entity’s name, logo, slogan, and advertising texts, all of which play roles
in college and university advertising. Done well, brand advertising can capitalize on human
emotion to achieve remarkable ends. By design it allows consumers to project themselves into
their own mental image of the product being advertised, while conveniently setting aside
complicating factors, such as price (Bishop, 2000). Danesi (2013) explained:
A modern day ad can be defined semiotically as a text that does not simply present a
product for what it is, but, rather, for what subconscious desire, need, or emotion it can
fulfill, as embedded in its connotata. An ad hides an implicit promise—namely, by using
a product practical or magical results will ensue (p. 472).
This wave of institutional advertising, little studied before 2003, has to a significant
degree followed the same template (Clayton, Cavanagh, & Hettche, 2012; Tobolowsky &
Lowery, 2014). An analysis of 115 institutional advertisements, commonly called Bspots^
or public service announcements (PSAs), from 111 universities and colleges found that the
commercials typically use emotional appeal, followed by a combination of emotional
appeal and appeal to reason (Clayton et al., 2012). In their quantitative analysis, Clayton
et al. studied 51 variables in commercials from 2010, found few unique messages, and
questioned their effectiveness because of low production value. They determined that these
advertisements were typically documentary in style and Banti-ethical to the highly-
produced ads that adolescents are accustomed to seeing on television^ (p. 183). A smaller,
qualitative study examined spots from 43 colleges and universities in six major athletic
conferences—the study focused on commercials broadcast during football bowl games—
and determined that they focused on Bprivate benefits^ to the extent that they commodified
higher education. Harris (2009) determined that the commercials used the framework of
brand advertising by communicating mostly the social aspects of college and university
life, at the expense of the academic experience. Harris found that the ads mostly told
students that college is Bfun^ and that they were evidence of a self-perpetuating cycle of
consumerism that created a national arms race for student amenities. This arms race, in the
name of which institutions have spent millions of dollars on everything from climbing walls
to sushi bars (Vedder et al., 2010), is extolled in advertising that speaks to its audience
because the image of an institution has been shown to be the top criteron for students’
decisions about where to go to school (Judson, Aurand, Gorchels, & Gordon, 2008).
Among the most cited analyses of college and university advertising is Tobolowsky and
Lowery’s (2014) qualitative analysis of spots broadcast during 28 football bowl games over
seven years. Tobolowsky and Lowery reached conclusions similar to those of Harris (2009),
Judson et al. (2008), and others, finding that the commercials connected with viewers
emotionally and effectively merged the academic and social aspects of college. This union
of academic and social aspects is accomplished through the process of semiotics (Danesi,
2013); but Tobolowsky and Lowery also concluded that, to some degree, the college and
university commercials served to brand academia in general. This conclusion, that college and
university advertising communicates a universal message about a specific institution, or about
higher education in general, remains largely unexplored, which led us to articulate the
following research questions.

RQ1: To what degree are institutional advertisements consistent, and to what degree are
they different?
 Author's personal copy
174 Innov High Educ (2018) 43:171–183

RQ2: To what degree do institutional advertisements have universal messages, and to

what degree are their messages specific to the institution?

The Study

Data Source and Sample

A total of 81 institutional advertisements from colleges and universities that participate in

the National Collegiate Athletic Association’s Division 1 Football Bowl Subdivision
(FBS) were acquired from the universities’ official YouTube channels between February
22, 2016 and March 11, 2016. The advertisements we sampled were limited to 30-second
commercials, and the most recent commercial was chosen in instances in which multiple
institutional commercials were available from the same institution. Institutions often
produce longer versions, typically 2 to 5 minutes, for social media and other distribution,
and 30-second spots for television broadcast, often during televised football and men’s
basketball games. Because there is no one repository for the 30-second commercials—the
NCAA does not maintain a database and television networks were unresponsive—the
sample likely included an undetermined number of spots that were not broadcast on
television.
However, these spots are especially relevant for analysis because of the size of the audience
they reach upon broadcast. Despite a decline in viewership attributed to lopsided matchups and
quirks of scheduling (Associated Press, 2016), top-tier football bowl games, during which 30-
second spots often are run, routinely attracted more than 7 million viewers each in the 2015–16
season. Even among lesser bowls, viewership was significant. For example, the Birmingham
Bowl game matched Auburn University (6–6) and the University of Memphis (9–4), on
December 29 in a contest that drew 2.4 million viewers (Sports Media Watch, 2016). The
2015 Music City Bowl game, a decidedly second-tier bowl game featuring the University of
Louisville and Texas A&M University the following day, drew an audience of 5.4 million
despite the schools’ identical 8–5 records.
We limited the sample to NCAA, Division I FBS colleges and universities in order to
ensure, broadly, similarity of institutional resources. The year of production of the commercials
ranged from 2007 to 2016, with a significant majority (73%) produced in or later than 2014.
The institutions we sampled ranged in size from the United States Air Force Academy (3952
students) to Penn State University (97,494); and the conferences represented include the
American Athletic Conference, the Atlantic Coast Conference, the Big 12 Conference, the
Big Ten Conference, Conference USA, the Mid-American Conference, the Mountain West
Conference, the Pac-12 Conference, the Southeastern Conference, and the Sunbelt Conference
as well as two well-known, top-tier independent institutions in the FBS: Brigham Young
University and the University of Notre Dame, which have their own network or network
contracts.

Units of Analysis

The commercial is the unit of analysis. We chose a random number using the random.org
random number generator, with every seventh commercial chosen to calculate intercoder
 Author's personal copy
Innov High Educ (2018) 43:171–183 175

reliability based on Cohen’s kappa, a common measure for content analyses. The primary
researcher and a research assistant coded the resulting 12 commercials, or approximately
15% of all the commercials we had collected and reviewed, to determine intercoder
reliability. Reliability for analyzed variables ranged from .625 to 1.00, with the value for
the variables analyzed almost always exceeding the generally accepted minimum
reliability coefficient of .700 for content analyses (Lombard, Snyder-Duch, & Bracken,
2002).

Measured Nominal, Independent Variables

Enrollment is defined as the total enrollment figure reported by the institution for the most
recent available academic year, 2014–2015. Total enrollment was categorized in quartiles: 0–
20,999; 21,000–27,999; 28,000–35,999, and 36,000 or more for the purposes of this analysis.
University (or college) conference is defined as an affiliation with a BPower Five^ athletic
conference. The Power Five conferences include the Atlantic Coast Conference, Big Ten
Conference, Big 12 Conference, Pac-12 Conference, and the Southeastern Conference (see
Table 1). We coded universities that are not members of Power Five conferences as B0^ and
coded universities that are members of the Power Five as B1.^ Intercoder reliability for the
conference variable was 1.00.
Basic Carnegie classification is defined as the doctoral-level research classification of
the institution, as determined by The Center for Postsecondary Research at Indiana
University (see Table 1). Institutions that award at least 20 research/scholarship doctorates
are classified as Bhighest,^ Bhigher,^ or Bmoderate^ in terms of research activity based on
research expenditures and degrees awarded in a variety of fields (Carnegie, 2016). We
coded institutions classified as Bhighest^ as B3,^ institutions classified as Bhigher^ as B2,^
and Bmoderate^ institutions as B1.^ We identified institutions not classified because their
level of research was insufficient by a lack of notation. Intercoder reliability for the
Carnegie classification variable was 1.00.

Table 1 Conferences’ size, Carnegie classification, and average enrollment

Conference Members In Carnegie Carnegie Carnegie Average

(number) sample highest higher moderate enrollment

Big Ten Conference 14 8 14 0 0 47,248

Pac-12 12 7 12 0 0 35,293
Southeastern Conference 14 12 11 3 0 31,956
Big 12 10 9 7 3 0 28,590
American Athletic 12 7 7 4 0 27,914
Conference
Mid-American 12 8 1 10 1 24,589
Conference USA 14 13 4 6 2 23,741
Mountain West 12 8 3 5 2 23,663
Atlantic Coast Conference 15 2 14 1 0 23,288
Sun Belt Conference 14 5 2 5 3 19,348
Total 129 79 75 37 8 28,563

Bold denotes Power Five Conference

 Author's personal copy
176 Innov High Educ (2018) 43:171–183

Measured Nominal, Dependent Variables

Scenic beauty is defined as the use of images of a lush campus, such as green or open spaces,
trees, fountains or water features, or other park-like scenery. This definition is drawn from
Clayton et al. (2012) and Tobolowsky and Lowery (2014). We coded commercials that did not
use images of scenic beauty as B0^ and coded commercials that did use such images as B1.^
Intercoder reliability for the scenic beauty variable was 1.00.
Allusions to the past is defined as the use of images, text, or other content with historic
undertones. This may include images of classic architecture including columns, clock towers,
steeples, or other historic images or textual or other references to an institution’s history. This
definition is also drawn from Clayton et al. (2012) and Tobolowsky and Lowery (2014). We
coded commercials that did not exhibit links to the past as B0^ and coded commercials that did
exhibit links to the past as B1.^ Intercoder reliability for the allusions to the past variable was .833.
Portrayals of studying is defined as the use of images, text, or audio to represent students
reading or otherwise reviewing material using a book or electronic device in a library,
residence, or a campus setting conducive to the practice. This definition is drawn from Credé
and Kuncel (2008). We coded commercials that did not exhibit studying as B0^ and coded
commercials that did exhibit studying as B1.^ Intercoder reliability for the portrayals of
studying variable was .625.
Classroom or library is defined as the use of images of the interior of classrooms, lecture
halls, or libraries. We coded commercials that did not include images of classrooms or libraries
as B0^ and coded thoses that did include such images as B1.^ Intercoder reliability for the
classroom or library variable was 1.00.
Laboratory is defined as the use of images of the interiors of laboratories, including earth
sciences, chemistry, technology, or other spaces portrayed as providing hands-on experiences
for students. We coded commercials that did not include images of laboratories as B0^ and
coded commercials including such images as B1.^ Intercoder reliability for the laboratory
variable was 1.00.
Universal laboratory is defined as images of laboratories that do not include school-
specific, identifying information or that are generic in nature. We coded commercials that
included laboratory images specific to the represented institution as B1,^ those including
laboratory images that were universal or generic in nature as B2,^ and those with laboratory
images both specific to the institution and universal in nature or the nature of which was
unclear as B3.^ Intercoder reliability for the universal laboratory variable was .611.
Research is defined as images, text, or audio representing the presence or strength of an
institution’s academic research. We coded commercials that did not include representations of
research as B0^ and those that included such representations as B1.^ Intercoder reliability for
the research variable was 1.00.
Universal research is defined as representations of research that do not include school-
specific, identifying information and that are universal in nature. We coded commercials that
included representations specific to the institution as B1,^ commercials including representa-
tions that were universal as B2,^ and those with both or unclear representations as B3.^
Intercoder reliability for the universal laboratory variable was 1.00.
Graduation is defined as images, text, or audio representing a commencement or gradua-
tion ceremony. We coded commercials that did not include such representations as B0^ and
commercials that did include such representations as B1.^ Intercoder reliability for the grad-
uation variable was 1.00.
 Author's personal copy
Innov High Educ (2018) 43:171–183 177

Ranking is defined as images, text, or audio that represent an institution’s academic ranking
or the ranking of its colleges or programs. We coded commercials that did not include
references to an academic ranking as B0^ and those that included references to a ranking as
B1.^ Intercoder reliability for the ranking variable was 1.00.
Alumni is defined as images, text, or audio that portray a successful or well-known graduate
of the institution. For example, a commercial might include an accomplished scientist or
professional athlete who attended the institution. We coded commercials that did not include
representations of well-known or successful alumni as B0^ and coded those that included such
representations as B1.^ Intercoder reliability for the alumni variable was 1.00.
Tagline is defined as a short, declarative statement in text or audio at or near the end of a
commercial. For example, a phrase such as BBoise State University: Education for Life^ at
the end of a commercial is a tagline. We coded commercials that did not use taglines as B0^
and coded those that did use taglines as B1.^ Intercoder reliability for the tagline variable
was .625.
Universal tagline is defined as a tagline that is universal in nature or that does not include a
reference to the institution represented in the commercial. For example, the phrase BEducation
for Life^ without a reference to the institution is a universal tagline. We coded taglines that
were specific to the institution as B1^ and those that were universal in nature as B2.^ Intercoder
reliability for the universal tagline variable was .615.
Social life is defined as representations in images, text, or audio of students socializing,
dining in restaurants or residence halls, attending sporting events, participating in intramural
athletics, attending or participating in the arts, or taking part in other activities not directly
related to the academic experience. We coded commercials that did not exhibit images or other
content representing campus life as B0^ and coded those that did exhibit such images or
content as B1.^ Intercoder reliability for the social life variable was .833.
Universal social life is defined as depictions of social life that are not specific to the
institution, but are universal in nature. For example, video of students dancing in a nightclub
where the school’s name or logo does not appear would be universal in nature. Intercoder
reliability for the universal social life variable was 1.00.
Logo is defined as the presence of a college or university logo or representative graphic
element. We coded commercials that did not use a logo as B0^ and coded those that did use a
logo as B1.^ Intercoder reliability for the logo variable was 1.00.
Business or economic impact is defined as references in images, text, or audio to the
institution as a generator of jobs, economic benefits, or benefits to the business community. We
coded commercials that made no such references as B0^ and coded commercials that made such
references as B1.^ Intercoder reliability for the business or economic impact variable was .625.

Results

Our first research question asked to what degree institutional advertisements are consistent and
to what degree they are different. The elements most consistently found in the commercials
were those elements typically associated with emotional appeal in brand advertising, and the
elements that set commercials apart from one another were most often those associated with
rational appeal. Scenes of campus beauty were used in 64 of the 81 commercials (79%),
depictions of laboratories—often exciting video—were used in 57 ads (70%), taglines were
used in 49 commercials (61%), and video or images of students taking part in social activities
 Author's personal copy
178 Innov High Educ (2018) 43:171–183

appeared in 43 commercials (53%). Research—without regard to whether it was presented as

having impact beyond campus—was depicted in or strength of academic research referenced
in 36 commercials (44%), with, as might be expected, research most likely to be referenced by
larger institutions. Conference membership, as a proxy for the size of an institution, was found
to be a predictor of references to research. Four of the Power Five conferences are the top four
FBS conferences in terms of average enrollment (see Table 1). We calculated a chi-square test
of independence comparing large conference membership and frequency of references to
research and found a significant relationship (χ2 (1) = 5.245, p < .05) (see Table 2).
Sixty-one percent of research references appeared in commercials for Power Five confer-
ence institutions, while those colleges and universities represent just 47% of the sample.
Similarly, 61.1% of references to research occurred in commercials for institutions in the top
Carnegie classification, while those institutions represented just 53% of the sample; and more
than 56% of commercials that included references to research were produced by colleges and
universities in the top 50% as measured by enrollment.
Most typically, the 81 commercials followed the same template, opening with depictions of
a lush, green campus before showing smiling, engaged students and faculty members
interacting in a lab and students engaging in social activities ranging from dancing to kayaking
and rock climbing. The commercials then most typically closed with the use of a tagline, such
as the line BBe Boulder,^ which closes a commercial for the University of Colorado, located in
Boulder, Colorado.
The 81 commercials also were consistent in what they did not show. Images of the
interiors of classrooms or libraries appeared in just 31 commercials (38%) (See, Table 3).
Images of what many might consider to be a primary activity in college—studying—were
rarer still. Just 10 commercials (12%) depicted students studying. The commercials were
roughly four times more likely to show students taking part in social activities than
studying. A commercial for Florida Atlantic University, for example, includes video of a
student surfing. Smaller institutions, in particular, were considerably more likely to depict
students studying and to show the insides of classrooms than were larger institutions.
Broadly, the commercials consistently portrayed students having fun taking part in

Table 2 Conference size and references to research

References

None Present Total

Conference Size Smaller Count 29 14 43

Percent within conference size 67% 33% 100%
Percent within research 64% 39% 53%
Percent of total 36% 17% 53%
Larger Count 16 22 38
Percent within conference size 42% 58% 100%
Percent within research 36% 61% 47%
Percent of total 20% 27% 47%
Total Count 45 36 81
Percent within conference size 56% 44% 100%
Percent within research 100% 100% 100%
Percent of total 56% 44% 100%

(χ2 (1) = 5.245, p < .05)

 Author's personal copy
Innov High Educ (2018) 43:171–183 179

Table 3 Most frequently depicted elements

Ad element Frequency of use

Scenic campus beauty 79%

Laboratory 70%
Tagline 61%
Social activity 53%
Research 44%
Classroom 38%
Alumni testimonial 16%
Academic ranking 14%
Students studying 12%
Economic impact 10%

activities unrelated to the academic experience, interacting directly with faculty in labs or
exciting lab-like settings, and interacting with one another on park-like campuses. The
commercials that were not consistent with this theme used testimonials from successful
and or famous alumni (16% of commercials), listed academic program or similar rankings
(14% of commercials), and made references to the institution as a driver of business
development or economic development (10% of commercials).
The second research question asked to what degree institutional advertisements have
universal messages and to what degree their messages are specific to the institution. To
explore this question, portrayals of research impact, campus scenery, classrooms, labs,
students studying, graduation ceremonies, social life, and use of taglines were analyzed
with universality of messaging in mind. Of the 64 commercials that included images or
video of campus scenery, 59 (82%) used imagery that was specific to the institution being
advertised, usually images of a campus quad or similar location. Of the 36 commercials that
included allusions to the past, 32 (89%) were specific to the institution. Use of taglines
followed a similar pattern, with 42 of 49 (86%) including specific references to the
institution, as opposed to making statements about the value of education or referencing
other more universal themes. Many, such as the University of Wyoming tagline BGo for
Gold,^ are universal when viewed alone, but in the commercial they appeared next to an
institution’s name or logo.
We found visual depictions of students studying or of classrooms, labs, and graduation
ceremonies to be largely universal or generic in nature, however; and one could use them
interchangeably without the viewer noticing. Of the 10 depictions of students studying, we
found eight (80%) to be universal or generic. Of the 31 depictions of the insides of classrooms,
we found 29 (94%) to be universal or generic. Of 57 depictions of laboratories, we found 47
(82%) to be universal or generic. Of the 21 graduation ceremonies depicted, we found 16
(76%) to be universal or generic.
Of the 36 commercials that included references to research or strength of research, we
found that 21 (58%) referred to research in universal terms. A University of Missouri
commercial, for example, showed faculty members in labs and on campus as they look into
the camera lens and say the university will Bshare breakthroughs with the rest of the world.^ Of
the 21 universal references to research, we found 13 (61.9%) to be in commercials for
universities in smaller conferences. We calculated a chi-square test of independence comparing
conference size and presence or lack of universal references to research and found a significant
relationship (χ2 (1) = 11.234, p < .05) (see Table 4.)
 Author's personal copy
180 Innov High Educ (2018) 43:171–183

Table 4 Conference size and universal references to research

Universal References

None Present Total

Conference Size Smaller Count 1 13 14

Percent within conference size 7% 93% 100%
Percent within universal research 6% 62% 39%
Percent of total 3% 36% 39%
Larger Count 14 8 22
Percent within conference size 64% 36% 100%
Percent within universal research 93% 38% 61%
Percent of total 39% 22% 61%
Total Count 15 21 36
Percent within conference size 42% 58% 100%
Percent within universal research 100% 100% 100%
Percent of total 42% 58% 100%

(χ2 (1) = 11.234, p < .05)

Similarly, of the 21 references to universal research benefits identified in the sample, we

found 10 (48%) to be in commercials for the top half of colleges and universities measured
by enrollment; and 11 (52%) to be in commercials for the bottom half. Despite these
findings, however, we found 50% (11) of the universal references to research to be in
commercials for Bhighest^ Carnegie classification institutions, 41% (9) to be in spots for
Bhigh^ classification institutions and 9% (2) to be in commercials for Bmoderate^ classi-
fication institutions.

Discussion

The purpose of this analysis was to determine the ways in which institutional advertising is
consistent and the ways in which it is inconsistent and to determine whether colleges and
universities are communicating universal messages or individual, fractured ones. Based on
these findings there is indeed consistency in messaging in that institutions consistently
communicate to potential students that they offer beautiful, park-like environments, where
students will spend far more time socializing than studying. Commercials also likely leave
potential students with the impression that most of their time spent on academic work will be
in hands-on laboratories—or perhaps scuba diving—rather than in traditional classrooms and
that they can expect to have close relationships with faculty members. Regarding universality
of messaging, while the commercials have much in common and many follow nearly identical
templates, most also seem designed to set the institution apart from others. Even with regard to
messages about research, institutions that likely conduct more research are not more likely—at
statistically significant levels—to use it as a vehicle for universal messaging. In fact, this
analysis suggests that smaller institutions, which perhaps need to do more to differentiate
themselves, are more likely to make universal claims about research. This bid to create
distinction is consistent with the nature of consumer product brand advertising (Ehrenberg
et al., 2002), which semiotizes products by connecting them to culture, with the ultimate aim of
creating brand awareness (Danesi, 2013). The small institution advertisements that follow
scenes of campus beauty and socializing with universal claims regarding research are
 Author's personal copy
Innov High Educ (2018) 43:171–183 181

following the template of brand advertising campaigns, which often deliver two messages, one
emotional, and one rational. Yet like the spots created for their larger competitors, the
emotional appeal remains dominant. Colleges and universities, in other words, are not selling
education, they are selling the idea of an experience that is not broadly consistent with the
reality students likely will face on campus. We found the 81 commercials we analyzed, for
example, to typically portray student interaction with faculty members as intimate in nature,
with interaction most often occurring in laboratory settings with small groups of students. We
found few images of more typical, real-world classroom settings, in which average class size at
U.S. universities is 37.4 students (Common Data Set Initiative, 2017).
While this model may benefit individual colleges and universities, it does little to advance any
sort of universal message about the value of these institutions in general or the value of higher
education; and it comes during a time in which many state governments are cutting funding to
public institutions, which amounted to 93% of our sampled colleges and universities. In this
regard, the findings of this analysis are similar to the findings of previous research. More broadly,
however, this analysis suggests that college’ and universities’ 30-second commercials do little to
communicate the institutions’ importance as generators of quality human capital and economic or
social worth. What they are likely to do, regardless of an institution’s size, is communicate to
prospective students that a great social experience, in a beautiful setting, awaits them if they enroll.
While the past several decades have seen a steep decline in higher education funding from
governmental entities, spending per student has remained virtually unchanged. Most recently,
higher education revenue from state and local governments fell 21% from 2007 to 2012, from
$8314 per student to $6538. But over the same period, spending per student remained flat,
falling from $13,685 in 2007 to $13,608 in 2012 (Desrochers & Hurlburt, 2016). Preliminary
data suggests that, on balance, state funding may have increased slightly in fiscal 2017, but the
downward trend remains inescapable (Armstrong, Carlson, & Laderman, 2017).
Further, shifting attitudes toward higher education suggest that, unless institutions change the
way they are perceived, it likely will become even more difficult for them to secure government
funding. Fifty-eight percent of Republicans and right-leaning independents now believe that
colleges and universities have a negative effect on the country, up from 45% in just one year
(Pew, 2017). By comparison, just 28% of Democrats and left-leaning independents hold the same
negative view of colleges and universities. Though troubling in isolation, that lack of faith in the
value of higher education by conservatives is especially ominous at a time when Republicans
control most state legislatures, where college and university funding originates. The Republican
Party now controls both houses of the state legislature and the governor’s office in 25 states, while
Democrats have similar dominance in just five (Ballotpedia, 2017). Political antipathy toward
education is, of course, not new. Katherine Stewart, author of The Good News Club: The Christian
Right’s Stealth Assault on America’s Children (2012), traces its roots from reconstruction, to the
South of the 1960s when the phrase Bgovernment schools^ was shorthand for integration, to its
libertarianism-driven contemporary resurgence. BIn certain (modern) conservative circles, the
phrase ‘government schools’ has become as ubiquitous as it is contemptuous^ (Stewart, 2017,
p. A17). Further, some critics of government’s retreat from historical levels of support (Giroux,
2006) see an orchestrated effort to blunt the power of academia in favor of a Bpatriotic correctness^
(p. 3) proffered by a co-opted administration beholden to Beconomic Darwinism^ (Giroux, 2014).
Reliably conservative states such as Louisiana and Alabama have led the country in state
appropriations cuts in the operating budgets of public higher education institutions, to the point
that some leading commentators are concerned that, if cuts continue at their current rates, states
will, effectively, one day be out of the public higher education business altogether (McLendon,
 Author's personal copy
182 Innov High Educ (2018) 43:171–183

Hearn, & Mokher, 2009). If the situation is to be reversed, common messaging across
institutional sectors will likely be needed, along the lines of the seven strategies designed to
elevate public higher education as a state investment priority as recommended by the Amer-
ican Association of State Colleges and Universities Task Force (2013):

& Align messaging with the state agenda. (p. 34)

& Communicate the public good of public higher education. (p. 36)
& Encourage others to speak for higher education. (p. 37)
& Utilize a strategic institutional state relations program. (p. 38)
& Create a public engagement master plan. (p. 38)
& Champion the vital role of public comprehensive universities. (p. 39)
& Emphasize collaboration and cooperation among education sectors. (p. 41)

Conclusion

This analysis set out to determine the degree to which one common mode of institutional messaging
is consistent and the degree to which it communicates themes that reach beyond the individual
campus. The results show that, at a time when the dominant political party is increasingly skeptical
of the value of higher education, colleges and universities consistently use their 30-second,
institutional ads to portray college as a social experience, not as vehicles to educate the public as
to why additional state appropriations are needed. We found students depicted in classroom settings
in just 12% of the analyzed spots and far more likely to be portrayed in pursuits such as rock
climbing, dancing, or dining. This emotion-driven, brand advertising strategy may well be having
the desired effect, as universities reach across state lines to attract students who will pay out-of-state
tuition and make up for losses in state funding. However, by focusing on emotional appeal it is
possible that public institutions, in particular, forgo an opportunity to communicate their value as
generators of economic worth and social capital to a conservative, or at least politically diverse,
audience. Larger institutions might take a page from the playbook of their smaller competitors,
which we found to be more likely, at statistically significant levels, to portray themselves as
benefitting society at large. Rather than using depictions of students’ social lives in a bid to make
up for lost government funding by boosting tuition revenue, colleges and universities might do as
the AASCU Task Force suggests, and Bmake the case for public higher education as a public good
that yields broad economic and social returns on state investment^ (2013, p. 36).

References

American Association of State Colleges and Universities Task Force (2013). Creating a new compact between
states and public higher education. New York, NY: American Association of State Colleges and
Universities. Retrieved from http://www.aascu.org/policy/P5/newcompact/fullreport.pdf
Anderson, N., & Douglas-Gabriel, D. (2016, January 30). Nation’s prominent public universities are shifting to
out-of-state students. The Washington Post. Retrieved from https://www.washingtonpost.com/
Armstrong, J., Carlson, A., & Laderman, S. (2017). The state imperative: Aligning tuition policies with strategies
for affordability. Retrieved from the State Higher Education Executive Officers Association website:
http://www.sheeo.org/projects/state-tuition-fees-and-financial-assistance/2017-report
Associated Press (2016, January 1). Ratings plunge for new year's eve college football playoff. USA Today.
Retrieved from http://www.usatoday.com
 Author's personal copy
Innov High Educ (2018) 43:171–183 183

Ballotpedia (2017). Gubernatorial and legislative party control of state government. Retrieved from
https://ballotpedia.org/Gubernatorial_and_legislative_party_control_of_state_government
Bishop, J. D. (2000). Is self-identity image advertising ethical? Business Ethics Quarterly, 10, 371–398.
https://doi.org/10.2307/3857882
Carnegie Classification of Institutions of Higher Education (2016). Retrieved from: http://carnegieclassifications.iu.edu/
Clayton, M. J., Cavanagh, K. V., & Hettche, M. (2012). Institutional branding: A content analysis of public
service announcements from American universities. Journal for Marketing for Higher Education, 22, 182–
205. https://doi.org/10.1080/08841241.2012.737869
Common Data Set Initiative (2017). Common Data Set Initiative, a collaborative effort between publishers and
the educational community [Data file and code book]. Retrieved from http://www.commondataset.org
Credé, M., & Kuncel, N. R. (2008). Study habits, skills, and attitudes: The third pillar supporting collegiate
academic performance. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 3, 425–453. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1745-
6924.2008.00089.x
Danesi, M. (2013). Semiotizing a product into a brand. Social Semiotics, 23, 464–476. https://doi.org/10.1080
/10350330.2013.799003
Desrochers, D., & Hurlburt, S. (2016). Trends in college spending: 2003–2013. Washington, DC: American
Institutes for Research. Retrieved from http://www.deltacostproject.org/sites/default/files/products/15-4626
%20Final01%20Delta%20Cost%20Project%20College%20Spending%2011131.406.P0.02.001%20....pdf
Ehrenberg, A., Barnard, N., Kennedy, R., & Bloom, H. (2002). Brand advertising as creative publicity. Journal of
Advertising Research, 42, 7–18. https://doi.org/10.2501/JAR-42-4-7-18
Giroux, H. A. (2006). Academic freedom under fire: The case for critical pedagogy. College Literature, 33(4), 1–
42. https://doi.org/10.1353/lit.2006.0051
Giroux, H. A. (2014). Neoliberalism's war on higher education. Chicago, IL: Haymarket Books.
Harris, M. S. (2009). Message in a bottle: University advertising during bowl games. Innovative Higher
Education, 33, 285–296. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10755-008-9085-9
Hussar, W., & Bailey, T. (2014). Projections of education statistics to 2022 (41st edition). Retrieved from the
National Center for Education Statistics website: https://nces.ed.gov/pubs2014/2014051.pdf
Judson, K. M., Aurand, T. W., Gorchels, L., & Gordon, G. L. (2008). Building a university brand from within:
University administrators' perspectives of internal branding. Services Marketing Quarterly, 30, 54–68.
https://doi.org/10.1080/15332960802467722
Lombard, M., Snyder-Duch, J., & Bracken, C. C. (2002). Content analysis in mass communication:
Assessment and reporting of intercoder reliability. Human Communication Research, 28, 587–604.
https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-2958.2002.tb00826.x
McAlexander, J. H., Schouten, J. W., & Koenig, H. F. (2002). Building brand community. Journal of Marketing,
66(1), 38–54. https://doi.org/10.1509/jmkg.66.1.38.18451
McLendon, M. K., Hearn, J. C., & Mokher, C. G. (2009). Partisans, professionals, and power: The role of
political factors in state higher education funding. The Journal of Higher Education, 80, 686–713.
https://doi.org/10.1080/00221546.2009.11779040
Moore, R. M. (2004). The rising tide: BBranding^ in the academic marketplace. Change: The Magazine of
Higher Learning, 36(3), 56–61.
Pappano, L. (2016, November 3). How the University of Alabama became a national player. The New York
Times, p. ED12. Retrieved from https://www.nytimes.com
Pew Charitable Trusts (2015). Federal and state funding of higher education, a changing landscape. Retrieved
from Pew Charitable Trusts, Research & Analysis website: http://www.pewtrusts.org/en/research-and-
analysis/issue-briefs/2015/06/federal-and-state-funding-of-higher-education
Pew Research Center (2017). Sharp partisan divisions in views of national institutions. Retrieved from Pew
Research Center, U.S. Politics & Policy website: http://www.people-press.org/2017/07/10/sharp-partisan-
divisions-in-views-of-national-institutions/
Sports Media Watch (2016). College football TV ratings. Retrieved from http://www.sportsmediawatch.
com/college-football-tv-ratings/
Stewart, K. (2012). The Good News Club: The Christian right's stealth assault on America's children. New York
City, NY: Public Affairs.
Stewart, K. (2017, July 31). What the Bgovernment schools^ critics really mean. The New York Times, p. A17.
Tobolowsky, B. F., & Lowery, J. W. (2014). Selling college: A longitudinal study of American college football
bowl game public service announcements. Journal of Marketing for Higher Education, 24, 75–98.
https://doi.org/10.1080/08841241.2014.911790
Vedder, R., Gillen, A., Bennett, D., Denhart, M., Robe, J., Holbrook, T., ... & Myers, L. (2010). 25 ways to
reduce the cost of college. Retrieved from Center for College Affordability and Productivity website:
http://www.centerforcollegeaffordability.org/uploads/25Ways_to_Reduce_the_Cost_of_College.pdf