|
Lock Haven University: A Study in Visual Identity
The Visual Identity (VI) of any organization carries the burden of communicating its strength and viability to both an internal and external audience. The graphic symbol must be a concise representation of the organization and convey a strong, positive, reassuring impression to the observer. It is one of the most visible components of an organization’s corporate image. It is a symbolic cornerstone that sustains, enhances, and underscores all other forms of monitoring the overall viability of an organization with its targeted audience.
The purpose of this study is
to measure the effectiveness of the symbols used by
This study reveals the
thoughts and perceptions of LHU prospective students, current
students, faculty, staff, and alumni and the effectiveness of its VI
through an analysis of data collected through survey instruments
administered to each of these groups of stakeholders.
What is visual identity and why is it important to the well-being of
an organization? Olins (1989) and Bernstein (1986) take a broader approach to the importance of visual identity. Olins suggests that a symbol, when used as part of organizational change, can serve as a focus for members of the organization. Bernstein writes that a symbol can become a type of shorthand for the personality of the company and its values. He also points out that it is what the symbol represents which has value and not the symbol itself. Logos and symbols are important because they are used as badges of identification (Dowling, 1994) and also as a mark of quality. Van Riel (1995) notes that a powerful corporate symbol may evoke an emotional response, but also make the task of formal corporate communications easier. Color research indicates that it can elicit different responses from people (Miner, 1992). Jenkins (1991) states that color is an expressive tool in visual identity and lends itself to two different considerations: the association with natural phenomena and with received cultural references. Other visual identity components include the typeface. Over time, the type itself can become distinctive enough that it can appear on its own without a symbol, such as Coca-Cola and Kellogg’s. The importance of visual identity is emphasized by Kapferer (1992) who argues that a change in logo can signal a fresh outlook on the part of the institution and its brand. Well-established organizations often draw on their emblem when reclaiming their original identity since the symbol can encapsulate the organization's historical roots and original aggressiveness. These components help explain why visual identity is often the most prominent aspect of an organization's change of identity and why it tends to detract from other parts of the corporate identity mix in branding an institution (Baker and Balmer, 1997). The symbol, type, color, and name are the tangible components of the corporate identity mix. Standardizing the visual identity of an organization is understood to have a positive effect on customers’ awareness of advertising, recruitment, and their familiarity with the organization and its products, services, goodwill, sales, market share, and the receptivity of the local community to its operations in a particular area (Melewar & Saunders, 1998). Visual identity provides visibility and recognition (Balmer & Gray, 2000) by symbolically representing an organization or brand. Brands help customers to reduce their anxiety when purchasing products or services, and they also help shape the identity of consumers (Ind, 2001; Kapferer, 1994). Its importance to an organization is usually viewed in the relationship between corporate identity, image, and reputation. Organizations depend on their image and reputation among relevant stakeholders (van den Bosch, 2005). ( Back to Contents ) One academic study defines the Corporate Identity of an institution as “the symbols an organization uses to identify itself to people" (Dowling, 1994). Others define it in broader terms, arguing that corporate identity is defining "what the organization is" (Balmer, 1995; van Rekom, 1993). Confusion related to the nature, definition, and role of Visual Identity comes from the intermingling of the term with Corporate Identity. Both are often used interchangeably to describe a symbol or icon, with or without a name and, on occasion, with an accompanying statement or phrase. The symbol and phrase summarize the mission, purpose or positioning of the organization, product, or service. "Coca-Cola, it's the real thing" or "Burger King – have it your way" are well-known examples. While both visual and corporate identity are closely linked, they describe two specifically different functions of a larger concept. The misconception is illustrated in the range of interpretations discovered regarding the nature of corporate identity. In a 1995 European study conducted among senior managers by Market and Opinion Research International for the identity consultant group Herion, Ludlow and Schmidt, 44 per cent of British managers surveyed equated corporate identity with visual presentation and logotype and just 4 percent with an expression of culture, values and philosophy. Their counterparts in Germany revealed 40 percent of managers indicated corporate identity is concerned with the expression of culture, values, and philosophy, while 33 percent with visual presentation and logotype (Schmidt, 1995). Because the terms visual and corporate identity are often used interchangeably, one study suggests corporate identity has been too narrowly interpreted (van Riel, 1995). Researchers (Balmer, 1995; King, 1991) on the subject suggest that it refers to the elements that make an organization distinct and the many ways in which an organization communicates (the concept of "total corporate communication”). Balmer and King propose that, unlike product brands, corporate branding involves understanding and identifying all of an organization's stakeholders and the entire corporate communication. This is based on the concept that everything an organization makes, speaks, and does will "communicate" what it represents as an institution – positively or negatively. The importance of corporate communications (Gray, 1995) is that it is the combination of sources, messages, and media which the corporation uses to convey its uniqueness to its audiences. Research also focuses attention on the internal environment and the role personnel hold in communicating what the organization is (its identity), pointing to their importance in creating the corporate perception (Kennedy, 1977).
Kennedy’s paper describes the development of a corporate identity
program that took place at a British university (Strathclyde) and
its journey to adopt a new visual identity. The university's
strategy was reviewed and resulted in a move away from a branded
system of identification, which gave prominence to individual
programs and departments, to a monolithic system, where the
university itself became the primary visual focus. It emphasized the
value of a visual audit as a research tool and underscored the
importance that VI can make in formulating strategy and revealing
symbolism to be an important factor in the corporate identity
equation. As institutions, universities appear to have a clearly
defined and well understood role: to communicate through teaching
and add new knowledge through research and its preservation (Baker,
1997).
(
Back to Contents
) Visual identity is defined as those elements that include the company's name, its logo or symbol, the color scheme, and typography (Dowling, 1994). Logos and symbols are important as badges of identification and act as a mark of quality (Dowling, 1994). In his assessment, Van Riel notes that a powerful corporate symbol can evoke an emotional response, but also simplifies the task of formal corporate communications (Van Riel, 1995). Research has shown that color is important as well. It can also elicit different responses from people (Miner, 1992). Typography plays a key role in distinguishing an organization's visual identity. Familiar examples include IBM, Coca-Cola, and NASA. Over time, the name and its type become so established, they can appear on their own and still be recognized.
Some argue that a change in a logo can create a fresh look on the
part of the organization, its brand, and people’s perception of it.
Established organizations will sometimes These examples help to explain why visual identity is often the most prominent aspect of an organization's change of identity and why it tends to detract from other parts of the corporate identity mix. The
visual schools of corporate identity, described by Balmer (1995),
emphasize Visual identity is a part of the deeper identity of the group, the outward sign of the inward commitment, serving to remind all of its real purpose (Abratt 1989). Olins (1989) provides examples of the strategic use of symbols in companies like Shell Oil and Yves Saint Laurent, companies that make strong and consistent use of their corporate name, logo, and colors to create a monolithic identity for their organization. In a 1978 study, Olins theorized that graphic symbols have grown from their original purpose of increasing organizational visibility to a role in communicating corporate strategy. Olins classified visual identity into three concepts: monolithic brands for organizations which have a single, overall symbol, a branded identity in which different symbols are developed for parts of the organization or for different product lines, and an endorsed identity with different symbols which are visually connected or tied to each other (Olins, 1989). Various researchers have drawn the distinction between corporate and visual identity (Bernstein, 1986; Birkight, 1986; Olins, 1978; Pilditch, 1970; van Reil, 1995). However, most do agree that visual identity is an integral part of the corporate identity mix (Balmer, 1995). Writers on this subject provide four purposes to the corporate identity mix: first, it represents a change in corporate strategy; second, it reflects a change in organization behavior and culture; third, it solidifies the corporate communications strategy of the company; and fourth, it shows that the organization is aware of its appropriate use of graphic design.
Some writers take a more global approach to viewing the importance
of visual identity. Olins (1989) argues that, used as part of
organizational change, a symbol can serve as a focus for members of
the organization. Others support that a symbol can visually embody
the personality Academic studies have produced important insights in the area of visual and corporate identity, including Larcon and Rietter (1979), Albert and Whetten (1985), Wiedmann (1988), Abratt (1989), Ramanantsoa (1989), van Rekom (1993), van Riel (1995), and Balmer (1994, 1995). Many of these scholars conclude that the management of an organization's identity is strategically important and requires a multidisciplinary approach. They maintain that corporate leadership can bridge the divide between corporate reality as it exists and the desired corporate identity through proper management (communications, symbolism, and behavior).
The corporate image is the stakeholder's perception of the way an
organization presents itself, either through the corporation’s
planned marketing, advertising, and public relations or
unintentionally, through media coverage or observation of personnel
attitudes. Images develop through interaction with the various
characteristics of an organization based on the overall result of
the interaction of all the experiences, beliefs, feelings, knowledge
and impressions that each stakeholder has about an organization
(Margulies, 1977; Bernstein, 1984). Corporate image is what
stakeholders perceive the organization to be.
(
Back to Contents
) Service Organizations and Non-Profits There are variables to be considered when examining visual identity in the context of service and/or non-profit organizations. LHU can be considered a service provider and a non-profit, since it derives a portion of its operational budget from the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania and tuition is assigned accordingly.
What service organizations offer in
tangibles can usually only be assessed in retrospect. Visual identity for profit-making relates to the ability of an organization to distinguish itself from their competitors. However, it can be just as important for non-profits with no competing service provider. Non-profits may not have to work for every new customer, but they still need to be recognized as a viable and necessary commodity to maintain their funding source. More non-profits are being seen as brands -- even if the brand just presents a promise of performance (Ind, 2001). Between profit and non-profit organizations, visual identity standards were perceived to be much more consistent in profit-making organizations. Van den Bosch’s study speculated that profit-making organizations try harder and put more instruments in place to improve their visual identity. Non-profit organizations may not feel the same need to invest in these instruments. In the same study, non-profit organizations were perceived to be more open and operate in a more dynamic environment (influenced by environment more than competition). In the research, organizations primarily dedicated to public service made up this group (van den Bosch, 2006). ( Back to Contents )
Visual History of Lock Haven University The Normal School Act of 1857 established regional teacher training institutions throughout the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania. Originally named the Central Normal School, Lock Haven University and other similar institutions trace their visual identification roots to the Commonwealth’s seal. The symbols used by the institutions were created by using the Pennsylvania Commonwealth seal and encircling it with each school’s name. The School Code of 1911 called for the Commonwealth purchase of all normal schools, and by 1921 the current configuration of 14 state-owned universities was established. The original normal schools evolved into state teachers colleges and then on to state colleges. All of the institutions continued to use the Commonwealth seal encircled by the school name as their official logo, changing the name to reflect the current affiliation (Normal Schools to State Teachers Colleges, to State Colleges, to State Universities). On November 12, 1982, Act 188 was signed into law, designating July 1, 1983 as the establishment of the 13 former state colleges and Indiana University of Pennsylvania as the Pennsylvania State System of Higher Education. It was shortly before the fourteen institutions became sister universities and members of the Pennsylvania State System of Higher Education that Lock Haven sought its own unique symbol to represent the institution in its admissions literature. In the early 1990s, the public relations department contracted with The Lorish Company, a graphic design firm in Reading, Pa., to create a new logo. A university committee was formed to discuss and select a symbol to represent the university. The symbol chosen is the logo the University continues to use today (See Figure 3, p. 14). Even with its selection, there were those on the university logo selection committee who were not convinced that the new symbol adequately addressed the academic qualities of the university. This quality can be difficult to incorporate and represent graphically. The logo designer’s concept of the current symbol speaks to the university’s physical setting – the Bald Eagle Mountains and the Susquehanna River. The sun burst on the horizon represents a bright future and the positive attributes of pursuing education and preparation at Lock Haven University in attaining that goal. With a better understanding of the significance of VI to an organization and its role in the corporate identity mix, the purpose of the LHU study becomes more apparent. Each of the existing symbols has been used for over a decade and assessments of their perceived value among a target audience will prove to be beneficial. None of the current symbols has ever been formally assessed among a large target audience. The results of this survey can help the University compare the perceptions that the audience has of the current symbols and if the symbols elicit the kinds of thoughts and feelings the university administration and community would like to convey. ( Back to Contents )
Prospective Students: individuals who are considering post-secondary educational studies at LHU during the summer and fall of 2006. This would include students still in high school, transfer students from community colleges or other four year institutions, and individuals out of high school considering enrollment at LHU. LHU Faculty/Staff/Current Students: current faculty, staff, and administration as well as full, part-time, and online/distance education undergraduate and graduate students on the LHU main and Clearfield campuses. LHU
Alumni: any individual with a completed degree, whether an
associate, baccalaureate Visual Identity: for this study “the symbols an organization uses to identify itself to people" (Dowling, 1994).
External audiences: study participants: students (prospective)
considering enrollment at Internal audiences: study participants: LHU students, faculty, and staff. ( Back to Contents )
All organizations should make
an on-going effort to assess their relationship with stakeholders.
The
purpose of the LHU Visual Identity Study is to assess the
perceptions of the three symbols:
the seal, logo, and eagle (see Figure 1) that
LHU uses to identify itself to vested individuals; identified as
prospective students, current students, faculty, staff, and alumni.
With the results of this study, the LHU administration
can make a determination if the current visual identity symbols
convey an image that the University would like to maintain.
(
Back to Contents
) Figure 1. Three Official Symbols of Lock Haven University
RQ4: Do the current LHU VI symbols convey an institutional image that the LHU core leadership would like to sustain according to the existing strategic plan? ( Back to Contents ) At the time of this study, LHU was using three primary symbols that were considered the basis of the institution’s Visual Identity. The LHU seal, logo, and eagle – the latter primarily identified with the athletic program (see Figure 1). The adaptation of the 2004 Kansas University Visual Identity Study survey instrument for a LHU VI Study was ideal because the questions presented to the target group elicited the overall descriptions and feelings needed to make a determination about what the LHU symbols represent to its own internal and external audiences. In the KU study, researchers were looking to determine what qualities were represented in the current symbols, with the idea of possibly changing the symbols based on the responses. The goal of this study was to collect feedback from an internal and external audience to determine if the current images incorporate what the core LHU leadership envisions with its current strategic plan, and if not, to provide some data to assist in determining a course of action.
Timing and technique affect response
rates to surveys. Documented, successful survey methods have
included the use of pre-contact and follow-up correspondence,
incentives, personalization, and sponsorship (Kanuk & Berenson,
1975; Ratneshwar & Stewart, 1990).
Based on these findings,
I used email as a pre-contact tool
to explain the survey and why the individual receiving it was
selected for participation. After the explanation and statement of
purpose, the recipient could voluntarily select the hyperlink to
participate in the Web survey. After approximately three weeks from
the initial contact, I followed up with another email, anticipating
an increase in participation before the survey deadline. Frick,
Baechtinger, and Reips (1999) conducted an experiment on the effect
of incentives on response. They concluded that an opportunity to win
prizes in a drawing resulted in higher participation and completion
of surveys with lower survey drop-out rates before survey submission
then when no prize drawing entry was offered. Based on this
information, participants were invited to participate in a In addition, the survey was designed to be simple and straight-forward, understanding that too many open-ended questions (Knapp, 1999), pull-down menus, graphically-complex, or unclear directions can inhibit a respondent’s willingness to participate or complete a survey (Dillman, et al., 1998). Selection of the survey population was based on the nature of the survey – what type of respondent would be most likely be interested in and be willing to share feedback. This was decided understanding that respondents are presumed to have more interest in the topic than nonrespondents (Baur, 1947; Suchman & McCandless, 1940; Mayer & Pratt, 1966; Armstrong & Overton 1977).
Email was my preferred method of
contacting participants for several reasons. First, I knew Once these decisions were made, the survey instrument questions in the KU study were adapted specifically to LHU. The LHU instruments incorporated three visual identity symbols versus the two that KU was using at the time they conducted their research. In the KU study, representative feedback was sought from audiences deemed vested in the institution and its long term viability. Those same audiences were determined to be the ideal subjects for the LHU study. This resulted in adapting survey instruments to target external audiences (prospective students and alumni) and internal audiences (current students, faculty, and staff). The survey population of this study was comprised of the following categories. Prospective students were defined as those individuals considering post-secondary education at LHU – high school, transfer, and returning students already out of high school (non-traditional). Current students were those individuals matriculated full-time at the University (12 credits and higher in a given semester). The faculty component was made up of full and adjunct educators teaching at the time of the survey at the main and Clearfield campuses. Staff included support personnel and administration currently working full or part-time at both campuses. Alumni consisted of those who had graduated from Lock Haven State Teachers College, Lock Haven State College, Lock Haven University, or the LHU Clearfield Campus.
For the sample population, I utilized
valid email information available from various LHU administrative
areas. The admissions department provided the number of prospective
student inquiries The LHU Visual Identity Study survey instruments (see Appendix C) were intended to be short in order to stimulate response. Therefore, minimal information about the respondent was gathered. The survey instruments were created with Microsoft FrontPage software and housed on the University Web server. The instruments were created as online forms and converted to .asp files. The .asp files specifically allowed the data submitted online to be collected into a group database file. At the end of the survey, the data was extracted for analysis using both Microsoft Access and Excel software. The survey instruments were presented to the LHU Internal Review Board (IRB) for an expedited review. The survey was comprised of 18 un-prompted, prompted, Likert scale, and short answer questions. With minor word revisions and re-submission to the IRB committee, the survey instruments were approved.
The investigator established an internal
group of administrative professionals to provide information and
guidance for the LHU Visual Identity Study project. This group was
involved in all key aspects of the project including establishment
of the research objectives, final decision-making with regard to the
research methodologies, and guidance on the survey instruments In addition to the panel of experts, fifteen students from an advertising class at LHU participated in a pilot study of the survey instrument. As a result of the pilot study, the following suggestions resulted in adjustments to the survey instruments: 1) Wording in the question asking for the class year of prospective students was changed to include “not in high school” as the final option to be inclusive of transfer and non-traditional returning student opinion; 2) The question referring to the number of years affiliated with LHU was adjusted between selection options to reflect perceptions of short, middle, and long term employees of the institution; 3) Several respondents commented on the lack of room to answer several of the short answer questions. All of the form fields in each of the instruments were expanded to accommodate longer answers; 4) Based on pilot testing feedback, the directions suggesting that the survey would take approximately five minutes to complete was adjusted to ten minutes. With those changes made to the survey instruments, the official study opened with an electronic mailing, announcing the study and requesting survey participation, to all LHU faculty and staff on Wednesday, October 11, 2006. As an LHU employee, I have access to the university global email system. Within minutes, a return email notified me that in the registration field for “email address” in the drawing entry form did not allow for enough letter spaces to fill in the whole email address. This was fixed immediately with no harm to the data collection. Within half an hour, the LHU Alumni Department sent out 5,287 emails to current alumni addresses. On Thursday, October 12th, the LHU Admissions Department sent the email survey announcement to a current list of 7,468 prospective students. On Wednesday, October 18th, an email announcement was sent via the LHU email address network to all currently enrolled students. One week before the Wednesday, November 1, 2006 deadline, a second email was sent to the target group reminding them that the opportunity to participate in the LHU VI Study was available until November 1, 2006. Because survey responses continued to come in when the reminder went out, there is no definitive way to determine the effect the follow up email had on the overall participation rate. As identified in all email correspondence and in the online survey instruments, the data collection for the study ended on Wednesday, November 1, 2006. The database files compiling the results on the LHU Web server were copied and transferred to begin analyzing the data. The survey instruments can be found online: (prospective students) www.lhup.edu/visual-identity/prospective.asp ; (current students, faculty, staff) www.lhup.edu/visual-identity/faculty.asp ; and (alumni) www.lhup.edu/visual-identity/alumni.asp . Copies of these instruments are included in the appendices of this study (see pages 53-68). The participants were invited to take part in the study by email on two occasions. The first was sent Wednesday, October 11, 2006 and the second one a week before the close of the official survey. At the end of the survey deadline, all of those choosing to participant in the drawing were placed on individual labels, placed in a container , and the winner was selected by Ms. Sherri Brooks, LHU Public Relations Department in a random, anonymous drawing (winner: Ms. Jodie Nesta, a 1999 graduate of LHU). Of the 18,542 emails sent for this study, 130 emails were undeliverable and 1,610 completed surveys were returned for processing electronically. This represents an overall 8.7% response rate. While this appears to be below the accepted standard for study return-rates, it should be noted that the response rate percentages varied among the five target audiences. Examined independently of each other, the five survey group response rates were as follows: prospective students, 4.097 percent; current students, 8.9 percent; alumni, 13.6 percent; faculty, 23.1 percent; and staff, 22.1 percent. Participants in the study were determined by the number of viable email addresses available among the survey population. Broken down into the five survey groups, the following statistics are provided: prospective students (N = 7,468) were emailed, 1% (45) were undeliverable and 4.09% (n = 306) completed the survey; current students (N = 5,175) were emailed, all were deliverable and just under 9% (n = 459) completed the survey; alumni (N = 5,287) were emailed, 1% (85) were undeliverable and 13.6% (n = 709) completed the survey; faculty (N = 285) were contacted, all emails were delivered and 23.1% (n = 66) completed the online survey; and staff (N = 317) were emailed, all were deliverable and 21.1% (n = 70) filled out the survey. The data were analyzed using simple descriptive statistics.
Over sixty-five percent of the
respondents among faculty and staff have been employed at LHU for
ten years and under. Ninety-nine percent of the respondents
identified themselves with the main LHU campus with the other one
percent from the LHU Clearfield campus.
(
Back to Contents
) Table 9. Respondent Years of Employment at LHU
Years as LHU
Faculty Staff Less than 5 years 22 34 25 36 5 to 10 years 22 33 23 33 11 to 15 years 2 3 4 6
More than 15 years 20
30 17 25 Total # of respondents n = 66 100% n = 69 100% ( Back to Contents ) Limitations included the population information and lists provided by LHU for prospective students, current students, faculty, staff, and alumni; as well as accurate email addresses. The method of surveying the survey sample; using email and a Web-based survey, could have impacted the results of this study. The individuals inclined to use and feel comfortable with these electronic mediums may have a different perception or outlook that varies from a population that would fill out a paper survey (this type of survey might garner responses from individuals that are and are not familiar with the technology and therefore would not impact their willingness to participate).
Limitations of this study were related to
the method of data collection. The surveys were conducted online,
which could have posed some challenges with regard to the images
under consideration. For some respondents, the images of the seal,
logo, and eagle may not have loaded The following information was collected as a result of the survey responses. Survey participants were given the opportunity to respond to the images of the seal, logo, and eagle in an open-ended, unprompted manner. Participants were asked, “What three words or short phrases would you use to describe what this image communicates to you about Lock Haven University.” The top 10 most frequently occurring responses were compiled and are shown by audience and image (see Table 1). Starting with an unprompted question related to words and phrases to describe the image of the seal (see Figure 2), after “other comments,” the most common responses among the respondents of the survey included “PA/commonwealth,” “tradition,” “established,” “university,” and “seal.” At least 25 percent of respondents in each of the five groups cited these terms in their responses. The highest percentage (43%) was among faculty, the lowest (25%) among staff. ( Back to Contents )
Table 1. Unprompted Words and Phrases - LHU Seal
Prospective Students Alumni other comments 390 42 other comments 1027 48
PA/commonwealth 111
12 established
175 8 old 56 6 old 110 5 pride 51 6 official 110 5 tradition 44 5 historic 107 5 strong 37 4 seal 97 5 prestigious 28 3 pride 87 4 reputation 23 3 university 55 3 quality 21 2 education 55 3 Total n = 918 100% Total n = 2,133 100% Current Students Faculty Description Frequency Percent Description Frequency Percent other comments 636 47 other comments 39 19
PA/commonwealth 113
8 tradition
27 13 old 85 6 university 19 10 university 80 6 old 19 10 prestigious 74 5 prestigious 17 9 pride 69 5 historic 13 7 education 45 3 official 8 4 historic 44 3 academic 8 4 strong 42 3 boring 7 4 Total n = 1,377 100% Total n = 198 100% Staff Description Frequency Percent
other comments 130 61 PA/commonwealth 9 4 official 8 4 old 8 4 stately 6 3 prestigious 6 3 boring 4 2
formal 4 2
In the same unprompted question about
words and phrases to describe the logo (see
Figure 3), after “other comments,”
the most frequently cited term from all audiences was “new
beginning/horizons.” Other top words used to describe the logo
included “path to future/success,” “river,” “sunrise/sunshine,” and
“beautiful” (see Table 2). Combining each of these responses from
each group, they accounted for the highest percentage among alumni
(45%) and the lowest (34%) among staff. Table 2. Unprompted Words and Phrases - LHU Logo
Prospective Students
Alumni
other comments 397
41 other comments
951 44 beauty 52 6 sunrise/shine 109 7 peaceful 51 5 peaceful 104 5
river 40
4 beauty
97 5 scenic 32 3 mountains 76 4 mountains 29 3 opportunity 64 3
rural 26
3 rural
61 3
Current Students
Faculty
other comments 654
46 other comments
68 33 river 86 6 peaceful 14 7 sunrise/shine 70 5 beauty 13 7 peaceful 64 5 rural 13 7 scenic 53 4 nature 12 6 mountains 51 4 sunrise/shine 11 6 rural 36 3 hope 10 5
opportunity 31
2 modern
7 4
Staff
other comments 96 43 mountains 14 6 sunrise/shine 13 6 peaceful 13 6 beauty 10 4 valley 10 4 rural 9 4
welcoming 8 3
In the identical unprompted question
asking for words and phrases to describe the
Prospective Students
Alumni
other comments 387
42 other comments
844 40 soar/action 49 5 mascot/symbol 145 7 freedom 44 5 proud 138 6 mascot/symbol 37 4 aggressive/fierce 137 6 aggressive/fierce 36 4 soar/action 96 5 tradition 24 3 majestic 55 3 eagle 20 2 tradition 43 2
patriotic 20
2 freedom
40 2
Current Students
Faculty other comments 603 43 other comments 62 32
powerful/strong 123
9 athletics/sports
32 17 aggressive/fierce 106 8 mascot/symbol 16 8 athletics/sports 83 6 eagle 12 6 soar/action 68 5 predatory 11 5
mascot/symbol 55
4 soar/action
5 2 freedom 36 3 majestic 3 1
fearless/brave 35
3 American
3 1
Staff
other comments 66 32 aggressive/fierce 18 9 proud 18 9 soar/action 7 3 eagle 6 3 majestic 5 2 competition 4 2
bold/confident 3 1
In the next set of questions, each respondent was given a list of eighteen descriptive words (the top ten from each survey group are listed below) and asked to identify which best described the seal symbol (see Figure 2). All five groups chose “traditional” as their top choice. Other top selections among all five groups included “scholarly,” “academic quality,” “formal,” and “prestigious.” Among these five terms in each group, the highest percentage was among current students (90%) and the lowest (75%) among prospective students (see Table 4).
Table 4. Prompted Words and Phrases - LHU Seal
Prospective Students Alumni
traditional 178
18 traditional
519 24 formal 115 12 formal 304 14 prestigious 119 12 prestigious 258 12 pride 105 11 pride 155 7 attractive 27 3 unattractive 61 3 athletics 17 2 athletics 19 1 approachable 22 2 international 18 1 forward-thinking 20 2 approachable 14 1
none selected 38
5 none selected
0 5
Current Students
Faculty
traditional 296
20 traditional
57 30 formal 202 14 academic quality 16 8 prestigious 185 13 prestigious 15 8 pride 113 8 unattractive 9 5 unattractive 34 2 pride 7 4 attractive 28 2 off-putting 6 3 approachable 17 1 confusing 4 2 forward-thinking 13 1 attractive 1 1
none selected 63
6 none selected
12 2
Staff
traditional 50 23 academic quality 31 15 scholarly 28 13 pride 8 4 unattractive 4 2 off-putting 3 2 attractive 3 1 modern 2 1
none selected 0 0
When these same five audiences were asked which words best described the logo (see Figure 3), four of the five groups top choice was “attractive” while staff chose “informal” as their top pick. Other top responses included “forward-thinking,” “approachable,” and “modern” (see Table 5). Adding the percentages of these common responses across all five groups, the highest was among current students (60%) and the lowest (57%) among staff (see Table 5).
Table 5. Prompted Words and Phrases - LHU Logo
Prospective Students Alumni
attractive 181
20 attractive
345 16 modern 72 8 approachable 225 10 fun 71 8 informal 171 8 energetic 71 8 energetic 137 6 pride 48 5 fun 123 6 informal 40 4 confusing 118 6 traditional 35 4 pride 57 3 academic quality 28 3 academic quality 33 2
none selected
103 11 none
selected 397 19
Current Students
Faculty
attractive 241
17 attractive
35 19 modern 127 9 informal 18 9 energetic 119 8 energetic 13 7 fun 97 7 modern 12 6 informal 92 7 fun 11 6 pride 62 5 confusing 9 5 academic quality 37 3 pride 5 3 confusing 35 3 scholarly 2 1
none selected
198 14 none
selected 46 22
Staff
informal 29
14 modern 22 10 confusing 19 9 approachable 17 8 fun 7 3 unattractive 7 3 pride 6 3
energetic 5
2
The same question asked of the five groups; faculty, staff, and alumni chose “athletics” as their top choice to describe the eagle symbol (see Figure 4), while both prospective and current students chose “pride.” Other top choices included “traditional,” “energetic,” and “prestigious” (see Table 6). Combining these descriptors into percentages among each of the five survey groups, the highest percentage was among staff (71%) while the lowest was with faculty (52%).
Table 6. Prompted Words and Phrases - LHU Eagle
Prospective Students Alumni
pride 208
22 athletics
487 23 prestigious 75 8 energetic 183 8 energetic 66 7 prestigious 108 6 scholarly 62 6 unattractive 56 2 academic quality 56 6 attractive 48 2 attractive 40 4 off-putting 44 2 fun 34 4 fun 42 2 formal 30 3 confusing 37 2
none selected 79
12 none selected
499 24
Current students
Faculty
pride 328
24 athletics
48 23 traditional 109 8 traditional 12 6 attractive 72 5 unattractive 10 5 prestigious 70 5 off-putting 10 5 fun 50 4 confusing 5 3 academic quality 46 3 prestigious 5 3 scholarly 42 3 formal 4 2 off-putting 25 2 informal 3 2
none selected 215
15 none selected
63 31
Staff
athletics 52
25 traditional 16 8 prestigious 9 5 attractive 7 3
unattractive 5 2 academic quality 3 1 off-putting 3 1
none selected 45 21
All audiences were asked to rate how each image made them feel about Lock Haven University. Participants rated the seal, logo, and eagle (see Figure 1) on a numerical Likert scale (1 through 5). Overall, audiences felt most positive toward the image of the seal, with an overall mean of 3.86 compared to an overall mean of 3.82 for the logo and 3.44 for the eagle. Faculty had the most significant difference between ratings among the symbols compared to current students who felt the least difference between all three. Staff rated the seal the highest with a 4.0 with faculty rating it the lowest at 3.6. The logo was rated the highest by prospective students at 4.2 and lowest by staff at 3.3. Prospective students rated the eagle highest at 3.9 while faculty rated it lowest at 2.6. The mean for the image of the seal are fairly consistent ranging only four tenths of a point where as audiences differed much more when rating the both the logo and eagle (see Table 7).
Table 7. How Do These Images Make You Feel About LHU
Seal
Logo Eagle Overall 3.86 0.152 3.82 0.342 3.44 0.498 NOTE: 1 = negative through 5 = positive ( Back to Contents )
Just faculty, staff, and current students were invited to select from a list of 14 assets/traits and asked which should characterize a new visual identity/logo used for academic research and non-athletic purposes (see Table 8). The most frequently cited term among all three being “academic quality.” Other top responses among all groups included “pride,” “forward-thinking,” “attractive,” “forward-thinking,” and “scholarly.” Taking these five terms as percentages across all groups, the highest combined percentage was among faculty (60%) and the lowest among current students (54%).
Current Students
Faculty
academic quality 243
13 academic quality
50 21 scholarly 191 10 attractive 26 11 forward-thinking 149 8 approachable 21 9 prestigious 145 8 pride 19 8 approachable 129 7 international 11 5 energetic 117 6 traditional 13 5 traditional 113 6 prestigious 10 4 modern 113 6 modern 10 4
fun 108
6 energetic
8 3
formal 55
3 other
5 2
Staff
academic quality 47 19
attractive 25 10 approachable 16 6 modern 15 6 tradition 15 6 energetic 11 4
formal 10 4
Faculty and staff were questioned about
their current practices in using various symbols for academic
research and other non-athletic uses (see Figure 2). These audiences
were shown the following images and asked to identify which they use
most often.
The two groups most frequently cited the logo as the symbol they use in most circumstances. “Lock Haven University” in type was cited as being used second-most often (see Table 9).
Table 9. LHU Symbol Used Most Frequently by Faculty and Staff
Faculty Staff
Total n = 62
100% n = 69 100% logo 25 40 23 34 eagle 0 0 3 4 typeface 16 26 23 33 other 10 16 6 9 ( Back to Contents )
Alumni were asked to indicate what landmarks and which traditions they remember most fondly while attending LHU (see Table 10). The Fredericks Family Carillon was cited most frequently by 8% of alumni while the Stevenson Library, Rogers Gymnasium, and the Susquehanna River were all tied for second.
Table 10. LHU Landmarks Remembered Among Alumni (un-prompted) Landmark Frequency Percent Responding
Other
1678 58 Stevenson Library 130 4 Rogers Gymnasium 129 4 Susquehanna River 122 4 Bentley Dining Hall 101 3 Steps/The Hill 99 3 Parsons Union Building 94 3 Hubert Jack Stadium 92 3 Thomas Fieldhouse 80 2 Russell Hall 58 2 Price Performance Center 52 2 View from Jack Stadium 45 1 Ivy Lane 43 1 Old Bell 42 1 The Campus 41 1 total n = 3,361 100% ( Back to Contents )
Homecoming was the overwhelming choice for fondest tradition/memory cited by alumni with 19% of all participants including it as one of their responses (see Table 11). Attending athletic events was also a popular response, with 12% citing this tradition.
Table 11. LHU Traditions/Memories among Alumni (un-prompted) Traditions/Memories Frequency Percent Responding
Other
1069 50 Athletic Events 259 12 Greek Activities 128 6 Graduation 65 3 Campus Activities 45 2 Friendships 37 2 Dorms/Residence Life 34 2 GDI Olympics 32 2 Concerts 27 1 Intramural Sports 23 1 Total n = 2,128 100% ( Back to Contents )
All audiences were asked which formal
name they preferred for the institution from among “Lock Haven
University,” “Lock Haven University of Pennsylvania,” “Lock Haven,”
“LHU,” and “The Haven.” “Lock Haven University” was preferred by
the largest percentage of all groups with almost half of all
audiences preferring this name. “Lock Haven University of
Pennsylvania” was the top choice for current students. Table 12. Formal University Reference
Prospective Students Alumni
Lock Haven Univ. 151
48 Lock Haven Univ.
400 58
Current Students
Faculty
LHU of Pa. 204
44 Lock Haven Univ.
34 51
Staff
Lock Haven Univ. 19 50
LHU 2 5
Among audiences asked which common name they preferred between “Lock Haven University,” “Lock Haven University of Pennsylvania,” “Lock Haven,” “LHU,” and “The Haven” the name preferred in formal reference does not correspond to the name commonly used.
The most popular overall common name for
the institution was divided between
Prospective Students Alumni Lock Haven 216 71 Lock Haven 315 42
Lock Haven Univ. 38
12 Lock Haven Univ.
185 25
Current students
Faculty Lock Haven 203 48 Lock Haven Univ. 23 35
LHU 145
35 LHU
21 32
Staff
Lock Haven Univ. 25 38
This study was undertaken to determine the efficacy of the visual identity symbols currently in place at Lock Haven University among its most vested individuals. In the review of the literature, we discovered that visual identity involves specific elements related to image, color, typeface, etc. (Dowling, 1994). Perhaps a more telling conclusion is that those elements fit into a larger consideration of corporate identity, of which visual identity plays a specific role. Corporate identity broadens the overall theory to consider both the visual identity elements and their relationship to the audience it is intended to reach. Internal groups, perhaps even more so than external groups, acceptance of the projected identity of the organization will either enhance or inhibit the external audience’s buy-in to the image an organization is trying to project. A visual symbol can embody and convey an imaged identity an organization would like to project – however, the image alone cannot sustain a long-term vested interest in the organization. It is necessary for those who manage the organization to articulate and identify what the organization “is” and work effectively to solidify those concepts among two important constituents: those who work for the organization, and those who have an interest in the organization’s services, products, and/or long-term viability. The following conclusions can be drawn from the analysis of the survey data received through this LHU Visual Identity survey and literature review.
The
literature review suggests that all organizations need to assess
their internal (at LHU: current students, faculty, and staff) and
external constituencies (at LHU: alumni and prospective students)
attitudes toward the current visual identity symbols. The survey
analysis indicates that, overall, there are no wide-ranging negative
opinions among these five audiences toward the visual identity
elements and what they project for higher education. In fact,
according to the overall survey responses, all groups articulated an
above average positive feeling toward all three current LHU visual
symbols. The analysis of data appears to indicate that the seal identifies with an audience that places its strongest emphasis on a more traditional academic identification – however, the analysis of data shows an almost equal favorable opinion of the current logo, as it was selected far more often as the preferred symbol in academic and non-athletic usage over the eagle and seal. A strong case can be made from looking at the overall data collected that the results of the survey show that the logo (Figure 3) speaks to the significance those vested in the institution place on the importance of the physical environment and its inviting atmosphere among internal and external audiences as an important attribute and niche for the university. The data indicates that a majority of the surveyed audience values this distinction over a purely academic identity, embodied in the LHU seal. Both symbols serve a distinct and viable purpose. The overall responses also suggest how the respondents identify with the University through its visual elements. The overall responses from both internal and external survey groups indicate that the LHU seal (Figure 2) projects an image of “traditional,” “established,” “academic quality,” “scholarly,” and “formal.” These five terms account for an average 82% of all responses among all five groups. These attributes appear to validate the seal as an image that is intended to evoke this type of perception.
The LHU logo
(Figure 3) elicited the highest
responses of “attractive,” “informal,” “forward-thinking,”
“approachable,” and “modern.” These descriptions account for an
average of The LHU eagle (Figure 4) overall response included descriptions of “powerful/strong,” “athletic/sports,” “proud,” “aggressive/fierce,” “energetic,” and “traditional.” This appears to successfully project an image that is meant for the athletic program of the University – a strong, aggressive, and athletic-related in a traditional sense. The total sample group percentages correlating with the five most cited responses, which averaged 64%. Survey responses among all groups asked to rate the three symbols on a positive/negative scale reveals that all three images average above 3 on a Likert scale of 5 to 1 (5 being positive through 1 being negative) among every survey group. This would indicate that, overall, the current visual identity symbols are viewed favorably. The LHU seal (3.86) and logo’s (3.82) percentages were almost identical, with the former receiving the highest positive percentage. Of the three visual identity symbols, the eagle received the lowest rating overall according to the survey data. However, it was still on a favorable side of the Likert scale (3.44 out of a 1 through 5 scale). Interestingly, the logo received the lowest overall percentage of favorable responses among staff and both the eagle and seal were lowest among faculty. Among prospective students, the LHU Visual Identity symbols were rated highest overall among internal and external audiences (seal 3.9, logo 4.2, and eagle 3.9).
Alumni impressions of the LHU Visual
Identity symbols reported that this target group liked the seal the
most (3.9), followed by the logo (3.7) and the eagle (3.5). It appears that younger respondents (prospective and current students) have a consistently positive impression of the LHU Visual Symbols while older respondents (faculty, staff, and alumni) also indicate an overall positive impression of the symbols, however, variations between the symbols are greater. Examining the results overall, the existing LHU Visual Identity symbols give a positive impression of the University among all of the target groups. For those seeking direction from the results of this survey; the data suggests that all three current symbols rate above average in evoking a positive image of LHU with each of the targeted constituents. Each LHU symbol appears to satisfy a different identity with the respondents. Among all responses from both internal and external survey groups, the LHU seal projects an image of “traditional,” “established,” “academic quality,” “scholarly,” and “formal” which equates with high educational standards, a sense of academic quality, and continuity. The seal appears to satisfy the target groups’ relationship to a solid academic identification.
The LHU logo elicited responses such as
“a new beginning/horizon,” “a path to the future,” “attractive,”
“informal,” “forward-thinking,” “approachable,” and “modern.” This
would appear to successfully convey positive feelings toward LHU for
its physical environment, the sense of community; an inviting and
friendly place and people. It suggests that LHU is a foundation to a
bright future. At Lock Haven University, the current symbols and the overall responses they evoked through the VI study appear to project an institution that is modern and inviting, aesthetically pleasing, with a beautiful physical setting. The university’s mission of existing as a public institution dedicated to providing an accessible, affordable, quality education to anyone desiring to pursue higher education appears to have been accomplished in the symbolism of the current logo based on an analysis of the overall thoughts and perceptions of a vested internal and external sample population. ( Back to Contents )
To capitalize on the effectiveness of the use of the LHU symbols, branding the University, and to familiarize the campus community with the LHU symbols and their usage, the official institutional style guide should be distributed among internal constituencies. As a result of this study, the LHU Public Relations Department has created the first official LHU Visual & Editorial Style Guide. With final approval pending from the LHU Vice President for University Advancement, the guides will be distributed to all departments in paper format, on CD Rom, and readily accessible in a prominent location on the University Web site. Because of a long-standing University departmental structure, there has been no central marketing or publications department. Consequently, the University community is not aware of, or unsure of where to seek guidance for departmental print, Web, and advertisng/marketing materials. It is essential that the LHU core leadership designate a centralized department that is responsible for articulating both the proper use of the University symbol, graphic, and printing standards. This will improve institutional branding; produce significant cost savings through resource management, and increase overall consistency of visual representation of the institution in all of its varied forms. In the summer of 2006, the LHU Admissions office embarked on a branding campaign using “The Haven” in its student recruitment marketing efforts. Based on the results of this study, it will be an “uphill” sell to both internal (current students, faculty, and staff) as well as external audiences (prospective students and alumni). This can be verified by studying the survey responses related to the formal and informal institutional name usage (Tables 12, 13; pg. 42, 43). Along this line, the LHU core leadership should study these same responses to see that LHUP does not resonate with internal and external audiences. It is doubtful one will ever hear people shouting “Go LHUP” at an athletic or alumni event. This insistence on referring to the institution as LHUP is perpetuated by the LHU Division of Facilities, Administration, and Technology, its departments, and personnel. It doesn’t appear to have caught on much outside of that division (Tables 12, 13; pg. 42, 43). In closing, LHU should remain committed to a monolithic branding approach (Olins, 1989) with its logo, discouraging the adaptation of individual departmental or program symbols that would work against the relationship an internal and external audience builds in its perception of Lock Haven University as a whole and its continuing efforts to identify itself with them. ( Back to Contents ) Abratt, R. (1989). A new approach to the corporate image management process. Journal of Marketing Management, 5/1, 63-76. Albert, S., & Whetten, D.A. (1985). Organizational identity. In L.L. Cummings and B.M. Staw (eds.), Research in organizational behaviour, 7, 263-295. Greenwich, CT: JAI Press. Armstrong, J. S. & Overton, T. S. (1977). Estimating nonresponse bias in mail surveys. Journal of Marketing Research, 16 (August), 396-402. Baker, Michael J., & Balmer, John M.T. (1997). Visual identity: trappings or substance? European Journal of Marketing, 31, 5 – 6, 366 - 382. Balmer, J.M.T. (1995). Corporate identity: the power and the paradox. Design Management Journal, Winter, 39-44. Balmer, J.M.T. (1995). Corporate branding and connoisseurship. Journal of General Management, 21, 1, 22-46. Balmer, John M.T., & Wilson, Alan (1998). Corporate identity: there is more to it than meets the eye. International Studies of Management & Organization. 28, 3, 12. Balmer, J.M.T., & Gray, E. R. (2000). Corporate identity and corporate communications: creating a competitive advantage. Industrial and Commercial Training, 32, 7, 256-262. Batinic, B., & Bosnjak, M. (1997). Fragebogenuntersuchungen im Internet [Questionnaire studies on the Internet]. In B. Batinic (Ed.), Internet for psychologists. Gaettingen: Hogrefe. Baur, E. J. (1947-1948). Response bias in a mail survey. Public Opinion Quarterly, (Winter), 594-600. Bernstein, D. (1986). Company image & reality: a critique of corporate communications. Eastbourne, UK: Holt, Rinehart and Winston. Birkigt, K., & Stadler, M. M. (1995). Corporate identity als unternehmerische Aufgabe. In K. Birkigt, M.M. Stadler, and R. Funck (eds.), Corporate Identity, 19-63. Grundlagen, Funktionem, Fallbeispiele, (8th ed.) Lansberg/Lech: Verlag, Moderne Industrie. Chaiken, S. (1980). Heuristic versus systematic information processing and the use of source message cues in persuasion. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 39, 752-766. Chaiken, S. (1987). The heuristic model of persuasion. In M. P. Zanna, J. M. Olson, & C. P. Herman (Eds.), Social influence: The Ontario symposium. Vol. 5 (3-39). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum. Dillman, D. A. (2000). Mail and Internet surveys: The tailored design method. New York, NY: Wiley. Dillman, D., Totora, R. D., Conradt, J., & Bowker, D. (1998). Influence of plain versus fancy design on response rates for web surveys. Paper presented at annual meeting of the American Statistical Association, Dallas, TX. Dowling, G.R. (1993). Developing your image into a corporate asset. Long Range Planning, 26, 2, 101-110. Dowling, G.R. (1994). Corporate reputations, strategies for developing the corporate brand. London: Kogan Page. Frick, A., Baechtinger, M. T., & Reips, U-D.(1999). Financial incentives, personal information and drop-out rate in online studies. In U-D. Reips et al.(Eds.), Current Internet science: Trends, techniques, results. Available: http://www.dgof.de/tband99/pdfs/a_h/frick.pdf Gray, E. (1995). Corporate image as a strategic concept. Paper given at the 13th Annual Conference of the Association of Management, Vancouver, 13(1), 250-257. Groves, R. M., Cialdini, R. B., & Couper, M. P. (1992). Understanding the decision to participate in a survey. Public Opinion Quarterly, 56, 475-495. Hatch, Mary Jo & Schultz, Maijken (1997). Relations between organizational culture, identity and image. European Journal of Marketing, 31(5-6), 356-365. Ind, N. (2001). Living the brand. London: Kogan Page. Jenkins, N. (1991). The business of image. London: Kogan Page. Kanuk, L., & Berenson, C. (1975). Mail surveys and response rates: A literature review. Journal of Marketing Research, 12 (November), 440-453. Kapferer, J.N. (1994). Strategic brand management. London: Kogan Page. Kennedy, S.H. (1977). Nurturing corporate images: Total communications or ego trip? European Journal of Marketing, 11(3), 120-64. King, S. (1991). Brand building in the 1990s. Journal of Marketing Management, 7, 3-13. Knapp, F., & Heidingsfelder, M. (1999). Drop-out analyse: Wirkungen des untersuchungsdesigns [Drop-out analysis: The effect of research design]. In U-D. Reips et al. (Eds.), Current Internet science. Trends, techniques, results. Available: http://www.dgof.de/tband99/pdfs/i_p/knapp.pdf Larcon, J.P. & Reitter, R. (1979). Structures de pouvoir et identite de l'entreprise. Paris: Editions Nathan. Margulies, W.P. (1977). Make the most of your corporate image. Harvard Business Review, 55(July/August), 66-74. Mayer, C., & Pratt, R. (1966). A note on nonresponse in a mail survey. Public Opinion Quarterly, 30, 667-646. Melewar, T.C., & Saunders, John (1999). International corporate visual identity: Standardization or localization? Journal of International Business Studies, 30(3), 583-598. Melewar, T. C. & Storrie, Tim (2001). Corporate identity in the service sector. Public Relations Quarterly, 46. Miner in Dowling, G. (Ed.) (1994). Corporate reputations: Strategies for developing the corporate brand, 135. London: Kogan Page. Olins, W. (1978). The corporate personality: An inquiry into the nature of corporate identity. London: Design Council. Olins, W. (1989). Corporate identity; Making business strategy visible through design. London: Thames & Hudson. Petty, R. E., & Cacioppo, J. T. (1984). The effects of involvement on response to argument quantity and quality. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 46, 69-81. Petty, R. E., & Cacioppo, J. T. (1986). Communication and persuasion: Central and peripheral routes to attitude change. New York: Springer-Verlag. Pilditch, J. (1970). Communication by design: A study in corporate identity. Maidenhead, UK: McGraw-Hill. Ramanantsoa, B. (1989). Histoire et identite de l'entreprise. Revue Francaise de Gestion, Janvier/Fevrier, 107-118. Ratneshwar, S., & Stewart, D. (1990). Nonresponse in mail surveys: An integrative review. Applied Marketing Research, 29 (3), 37-46. Rekom, van J. (1993). Corporate identity - Its measurement and use in corporate communications. Proceedings of the European Marketing Association Conference, 1497-1514. Ries, A. and Trout, J. (1981). Positioning: the battle for the mind. Warner Books, New York, NY. Suchman, E., & McCandless, B. (1940). Who answers questionnaires? Journal of Applied Psychology, 24 (December), 758-769. van den Bosch, A. L. M., de Jong, M. D. T., & Elving, W. J. L. (2005). How corporate visual identity supports reputation. Corporate Communications: An International Journal, 10 (2), 108-116. van Riel, C.B.M. (1995). Principles of Corporate Communication. Hemel Hempstead, UK: Prentice-Hall. van Riel, Cees B. M., & Balmer, John M. T. (1997). Corporate identity: The concept, its measurement and management. European Journal of Marketing, 31(5-6), 340-355. Wiedmann, K.P. (1988). Corporate identity als unternehmensstrategie, wist, 5, 236-278.
Copy of the original email sent to survey participants:
Copy of the Web survey for prospective students: This study and
survey instrument is adapted from research conducted by Carnegie
Communications for the University of Kansas in 2004.
Copy of the Web survey for current
students, faculty, and staff:
|
