- Email: [email protected]
Can your institution’s name influence constituent response? An initial assessment of consumer response to college names
Public Relations Review 29 (2003) 185–197
Can your institution’s name influence constituent response? An initial assessment of consumer response to college names夽 D.F. Treadwell∗ Westfield State College, 577 Western Avenue, Westfield, MA 01086-1630, USA Received 18 February 2002; received in revised form 1 October 2002; accepted 1 February 2003
Abstract Naming is a significant part of image building or positioning for products and corporations. Organizations less frequently engage in name changing, but, if first impressions count, institutional names may need to be taken seriously. In this study, names of college and universities unfamiliar to potential students were presented for evaluation. One cluster of respondents had a clear preference for geographic or aspirational names while a second cluster had a preference for proper names. There was an overall preference for proper names. Cluster members differed on age, gender and level of exposure to higher education. © 2003 Elsevier Science Inc. All rights reserved.
1. What’s in a name? If you are a parent, plenty. Children’s names are a complex product of religion, family history, culture past and present, and individual preferences. The intent with such naming may be more to capture a tradition than to influence a future, but “each name has a life of its own that endures long after the original reasons have disappeared or are even known to members of a group.”1 There is intuitive, anecdotal and empirical evidence that names vary widely in their connotations and images, and have some intrinsic quality that may inherently predispose a reader’s or listener’s response.2,3 夽
This paper was first printed in the supplemental Proceedings of the 15th Annual International Conference of the Association of Management (AoM), Vol. 15, No. 2, 1997, and is reprinted with permission. ∗ Tel.: +1-413-572-5751; fax: +1-413-572-5612. E-mail address: [email protected] (D.F. Treadwell). 0363-8111/03/$ – see front matter © 2003 Elsevier Science Inc. All rights reserved. doi:10.1016/S0363-8111(03)00014-6
186
D.F. Treadwell / Public Relations Review 29 (2003) 185–197
This proposition lies at the heart of product and organizational naming where considerable effort may be invested in developing product names that will trigger both a positive consumer response and a favorable image of the manufacturer or service provider. The link between image and behavior may not be as close as marketers would wish; nonetheless a specialized industry works with organizations to name them and their products and services. Naming typically involves analysis of competing products or organizations and seeks to establish a name that uniquely identifies, differentiates or positions the product or organization. In some respects coming up with a new name is not difficult. Intuition, serendipity, dictionary and computer searches, computer-generated names, and focus groups may all produce new names. The question is whether any such name will be “successful.” For example, is the name already in use? Does it actually convey an image of the product or organization? Does it lend itself to visual interpretation? Can it successfully cross cultural or language boundaries? Every year large corporations change their name, typically at great expense. For example, the change from Esso to EXXON cost US$200 million; the change from International Harvester to Navistar cost US$13 to US$16 million just to redo signs and stationery. The 1990s economic boom transformed the business of naming into a competitive industry driven by corporate egos with a money-no-object attitude to acquiring an identity, a genuine need to differentiate in the marketplace and legally driven name changes as a result of mergers, acquisitions, divestitures and bankruptcies. The market is seemingly glutted with professional namers, each with its own methodology— “a signature “naming module” that distinguishes it from its competition.”4 “Their techniques include analysis of such linguistic properties as” “speechstream visibility” (will a consumer read the name properly?), “phonetic transparency” (is it spelled as it sounds?), and “multilingual functionality” (is it as intelligible in Dubai as in Dubuque?)5 Historically, corporate names meant something, e.g., Ford Motor Company. The most notable recent product of the naming industry arguably has been a proliferation of pseudo-Latinate names such as the HP spinoff Agilent, Philip Morris’ move to Altria, Minnesota Power’s move to Allete and Bell Atlantic’s Verizon. There is for some observers a vast similarity of names to the point where typographic embellishment has now become an additional necessity for name differentiation. Colleges and universities do not get frequent opportunities for name changes or to assess the effects of an institutional name change. Nonetheless they do happen. The College of New Jersey was renamed after the town of its location (Princeton). Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute opted for “Rensselaer.” Glassboro State College, New Jersey, after a US$100-million pledge, changed its name to Rowan College of New Jersey in honor of the donors, Henry and Betty Rowan.6 Queens College, New Jersey was founded in 1766 and renamed Rutgers in 1825 to honor Col. Henry Rutgers, a Revolutionary War hero and trustee. The institution’s official name is Rutgers, the State University of New Jersey. The President of the New Jersey Senate, sensitive to the fact that everything after the comma tends to get lost proposed dropping everything before the comma. Some students and alumni argued that changing the name would diminish prestige, erase national name recognition, and wipe out over 200 years of the school’s history. Others argued that most students don’t even know who Henry Rutgers was, and that the basic school spirit would not change with a name change.7
D.F. Treadwell / Public Relations Review 29 (2003) 185–197
187
More recently, Western Maryland College became McDaniel College. Campus officials changed the name of the private institution because the old name wrongly implied that the college was state run and because the college is in central, not western Maryland. The new name, picked from 418 suggestions, pays tribute to a 1880s graduate who became treasurer, president and trustee. Some alumni argue that the new name still doesn’t indicate the college’s location and dislike the overtones of receiving a “McDegree” from McDaniel.8 It is difficult to assess the effects of a name change when the product itself is unclear. Ultimately, higher education is an abstraction and institutions face the difficulty of finding an appropriate name for an abstraction that will differentiate it from other abstractions. But does a name or name change have any effect? We have little published research on academic institutions, but a number of studies have attempted to answer this question for public companies. Howe regards a name as a potentially important dimension of a company’s image and argues that a clever name may have a positive influence on individuals’ perceptions of the company. Because adopting a new name can be costly, he infers that companies place a positive value on the choice of a new name. Howe examined the effect of corporate name changes on the value of the common stock of those companies. He found that financial institutions were the most frequent type of organizations to change names and that the most frequent reason for a name change was the broadening or diversification of the company’s activities or products. Because management always initiates the name change, the latter may be thought of as a signal from management. He found however that there was no significant relationship between name change and pre- or post-stock prices and concluded that a name change is a “financially neutral” event. A name change does not signal financial change and there is no net benefit to changing a corporation’s name.9 However, a name change may also signal a regrouping after a disaster or a restructuring and be driven by events rather than presaging them. For example, Valujet became Airtran after a tragic crash, the beleaguered Enron is proposing to change its name to “OpCo Energy Company” as part of restructuring, and restructuring is precipitating name changes in major consulting firms as they spin off from their affiliated accounting companies. After Anderson Consulting split off from Arthur Andersen, Arthur Andersen insisted that the former change its name, which it did—to Accenture–and as a result appears free of the public’s associating them with the current wave of corporate bankruptcies and shady accounting practices. Ernst and Young consulting was sold to Cap Gemini; the new Cap Gemini Ernst and Young must change its name by 2004 as part of the deal. KPMG announced in early 2002 its plans to accelerate the name change process and in October that year became “BearingPoint.”10 In mid 2002, Price Waterhouse Coopers consulting became—Monday! The US$110 million name change and demerger appears to have been lauded by a small minority of employees as a fresh start and at least avoiding Latin roots. A majority appear to regard it as an expensive joke and impractical to boot. The 18 million “Google” hits on “Monday” and the stressed receptionists having to greet callers with “Hello, this is Monday” five days a week are but two problems employees have identified (at no cost to the company). The downside is that ill-thought-out new names along with structural changes such as buyouts and divestitures and corporate catastrophes mean that often companies have to back track on a name or lose naming rights to programs or facilities they have sponsored.
188
D.F. Treadwell / Public Relations Review 29 (2003) 185–197
In March 2002, The Enron Federal Credit Union dropped the Enron name and changed its name to StarTrust FCU having had, apparently the foresight to include the possibility of a name change in its strategic plan.11 In a continuing series of such changes, the New England Patriots dropped a US$114 million stadium naming deal with the Internet provider CMGI in favor of a relationship with Gillette.12 In June 2002, baseball’s Houston Astros signed a deal to rename Enron Field as Minute Maid Park. Football’s Baltimore Ravens had to replace PSINet as the sponsor for their stadium, as the St. Louis Rams had to do with former airline TWA. Great Britain’s postal service the Royal Mail became Consignia, a name which simply didn’t work. In 2004, it will be the Royal Mail again. Naming and renaming presuppose some executive faith in the idea that a new name will have some positive effect. About ten years ago Houston Natural Gas and InterNorth merged to produce Enron. Stock went up over 1000% in that period. Who seeing a connection then wouldn’t want to get into the name game? But, is there a connection?13 Horsky and Swyngedouw propose two ways of thinking of a name—first, it is a utility with value—that is the name per se can influence values, second, the name has no intrinsic value but signals a change in the company that stakeholders may see to be of value. They tested the effect of corporate name changes on stock returns for companies and found an association between name change and enhanced performance of the firm. This was independent of whether the name change itself was radical or minor, implying that the name change is really a signal to the market that other changes are afoot. They conclude that the name change per se is not inherently of value—rather that it signals other changes that will bear favorably on the future (profits) of the company.14 Ferris attempted a similar analysis but also considered the nature of the names themselves. He found that name changes using a “high-tech” suffix such as “onics,” “ex,” and “ix” approached significance with respect to a related change in companies’ mean abnormal returns. He found that the market was able to discriminate between those companies whose name change reflected a change in performance or potential and those whose name change was merely cosmetic. He found that name changes are not necessarily simply putting “old wine in new bottles.” Name changes do signal activities with significance for shareholders, but the form or characteristics of the name itself have no significant effect on investors’ perceptions of the firm.15 Bosch and Hirschey noted that mergers, acquisitions and divestitures are the most frequent reasons for name changes, followed by image creation. Given the often-substantial costs, a name change may be regarded as an investment in capital. Over time there is a tendency for new corporate names to become shorter and to be replaced by less descriptive acronyms. Bosch and Hirschey investigated the valuation effects of a name change and found that overall the market response to a name change is positive but weak unless a firm has previously undergone major restructuring in which case the effect is large and positive. They concluded that overall the effects of name changes are modest and transitory.16 Morris and Reyes note that most corporate name changes come from acquisitions and mergers, with only about 17% being “pure” name changes—those attributed to changes in strategic direction and to changes in communication efforts. “Pure” name changes may occur if the name limits a firm’s growth, lacks distinctiveness, elicits a negative image, impedes communication, is difficult to remember or fails to create a visual effect of the company’s
D.F. Treadwell / Public Relations Review 29 (2003) 185–197
189
activities. They found that a name change occurs sometimes before it is officially announced; sometimes afterwards.17 They suggest that a firm’s name has two qualities—image and function. Image helps the firm establish a distinctive picture of what it does; function means the name is readily comprehensible and easy to spell and pronounce without unfavorable connotations in other languages. They suggest that the best names are short with one to three syllables, have a potential for strong graphics, are easy to spell, describe the company with enough flexibility to allow expansion of activities, elicit positive connotations, and are free of geographic limitations such as “NorthWestern.” Consonants because of the extra mental processing required may be remembered more readily and therefore work better in corporate names. Morris and Reyes studied corporate names in light of the above criteria and found that name changes had little effect on an experimental group in terms of how their images changed; neither new nor old names were preferred based on image appeal. One factor—distinctiveness, a functionality component, had a significant effect. Distinctive names avoid “generics” such as “allied,” “national,” “general,” “united.” Kohli and Hemnes criticize the assumption that name change is a sharp sudden event rather than occurring over a period of time. They examined the names of companies to determine how the names changed. They concluded from these changes that names should be short and not include products in the company name. “Hometown” names or even national names should be removed. They quote Robert Crandall, ex-president of American Airlines that American’s biggest handicap in expanding into international markets is its own name.18 They also recommend that generalities such as “general,” “united,” and “national” be dropped because the company name will inevitably contract to the generic first name and will lose distinctiveness. Acronyms are not recommended, but coined words may not be a bad choice—they provide stronger identity, better legal protection, and unrestricted expansion opportunities, though they may not be well accepted initially. In summary, research on corporate names suggests that minimally a name change can flag the attention of stakeholders in a positive way. This paper addresses the question of college and university names and the reaction of prospective members (students) to those names. Relative to the corporate world, college and university name changes are less frequent and precipitated by a smaller range of events. Starting from scratch, a major donation, a merger or an upgrade from college to university status are typical reasons. Name change as a result of legal settlement or disaster would seem rare. Occasionally, the original name becomes inaccurate, fails to cross cultural or language boundaries successfully or develops overtones that can be jettisoned only by moving to a new name. US institutions marketing themselves overseas, for example, need to be sensitive to the different connotations “college” and “polytechnic” may have in other countries. Unfortunate connotations precipitated a name change for Beaver College, now Arcadia University, Pennsylvania. The university changed its name to improve enrollment and to shed a name that had made it the butt of jokes ranging from television shows to female body parts. A year after the college became Arcadia University, enrollment and application numbers are up, and prospective students hail from 48 states, 13 more than last year.
190
D.F. Treadwell / Public Relations Review 29 (2003) 185–197
“The name just didn’t sound academic to people,” said Arcadia’s director of enrollment management.19 All things being equal might a college name affect an application decision? Apparently. Is there an inherent quality or image in college names that influences response to the organization? This study is a preliminary attempt at answering that question.
2. Methodology For an initial assessment of student response to college and university names, 159 nonduplicated college or university names from advertisements in an issue of the Chronicle of Higher Education were presented to a convenience sample of two classes of student participants. Participants were asked to delete from the list any institution they had heard of or felt that they had heard of. From the compiled responses, a total of 134 institutions were deleted, leaving a set of 25 names to which students by self-report had had no prior exposure. Inspection and assessment of all names in the above periodical determined four main categories of institutional names: Aspirational—suggesting some type of goal or level of performance Geographic—suggesting a location or geographic feature Governmental or public—suggesting a state, federal or municipal institution Proper names—the names of specific individuals. Four fictitious names of each type were generated to add to the original list as follows: Aspirational: (Aspiration University, Performance College, University of Higher Education, Citizen College); geographic: (Skyview College, Mountain College, Oceanic University, River Valley University); governmental or “public”: (Midcity College, County College, Interstate University, Metropolis University); proper names: (Abigail Andrews, Michael Maybee, Helen Anderson, Saul Smith). The new total of 41 names, real and fictitious, were then used to construct a 41-item Q-sort— a set of cards—each of which contained one of the 41 names. This set of 41 questions represents an experimental typology of four name types. As the pre-test determined that each of the names had no association for the participants, we can assume that subjective responses to these names can be attributed to some inherent quality in the name more than to any tangible associations with a known institution. The name cards were then presented to 24 student respondents to sort into order of appeal. Although not a large group from a survey research point of view, the basic objective of the study was to assess differences and patterns in the subjective outlook of participants rather than to make generalizations to a wider population. Respondents were each given a deck of 41 cards, and were asked to sort the cards into seven categories or piles, each containing a specific number of cards. The frequency distribution for the 41-item sort was 3–5–7–11–7–5–3. Respondents were asked to place the three cards containing names of the college they saw as providing the best education in category seven, the three considered to provide the worst education in category one, and to assign the remaining cards to the intermediate categories according to their perceived implications about quality of education. Respondents thus had to
D.F. Treadwell / Public Relations Review 29 (2003) 185–197
191
decide a relative ranking for each institution based on its perceived ability to provide the best education. Scale values from 1 to 7 were then assigned to each item, depending on the category in which each was placed.20 Further questions determined age, gender and religion of the participants. Participants were also asked the number of colleges they had applied to in the course of their college search, the number of family members who had or were attending college or university, and the likelihood that respondents would attend graduate school. These latter three questions were used to operationalize general background awareness of educational institutions.
3. Results Using the SPSS “Cluster” routine, and based on the scores assigned to each name by each participant as a result of sorting, two clusters of students, one of five and one of 19 participants were identified by inspection of the cluster structure and agglomeration coefficients.21 The clusters’ memberships were compared based on their ratings for each college and on demographic attributes. 3.1. College rankings The two clusters have quite different ranking of colleges if we compare the ten top-rated institutions for each cluster. Tables 1 and 2 clearly show that cluster one has a heavy preference for geographic and/or aspirational names. Seven of the ten top names preferred by cluster one are fictitious. On the other hand, cluster two showed a distinct preference for proper names and put only one fictitious institution in its top ten. There were no geographic or aspirational names in the top ten for this cluster. Both clusters put two non-fictitious, proper-name institutions in their top ten (Roosevelt and McMurray Universities). The contrast in rankings is such that three of cluster one’s top ten (Mountain, Aspiration and University of Higher Education) feature in cluster two’s bottom ten. One (Grinnell) of cluster two’s top ten features in cluster one’s bottom ten. In the bottom-ten rankings, cluster one has only three fictitious institutions versus eight for cluster two. Cluster one places proper names predominantly in its bottom ten whereas cluster two has predominantly aspirational or geographic names. In summary, cluster one prefers geographic/aspirational/fictitious names; cluster two prefers proper, non fictitious names. 3.2. Differences between clusters Cluster one was predominantly male (60%) whereas cluster two was predominantly female (72.2%). Cluster one had no black respondents; cluster two had one. Both clusters were predominantly Catholic (cluster one 60%; cluster two 68.4%). Cluster one students were all in the 19–24 age bracket; cluster two had 10.5% in the 25–34 age bracket. Cluster one members had at most three family members and an average of 2.2, (SD = 0.84) attending college; cluster two had up to 12 and an average of 3.5 (SD = 3.53), attending.
192
D.F. Treadwell / Public Relations Review 29 (2003) 185–197
Table 1 Top-rated colleges for education Meana
SD
Institution
Cluster one (N = 5) 6.00 5.80 5.60 5.60 5.40 5.20 5.20 5.20 5.00 5.00
1.00 0.84 1.52 1.14 1.52 1.30 1.30 1.30 1.58 1.00
Oceanic Universityb Mountain Collegeb Aspiration Universityb University of Higher Educationb GrantValley State College River Valley Universityb Skyview Collegeb Performance Collegeb Roosevelt University McMurray University
Cluster two (N = 19) 6.26 6.00 5.79 5.79 5.32 5.26 5.16 5.11 4.95 4.89
0.87 1.37 0.92 1.18 1.60 1.24 1.38 1.10 1.22 1.56
Roosevelt University Lewis-Clark State University Ross University Grinnell University College of Saint Benedict Johnson C. Smith College Culver-Stockton College Abigail Andrews Universityb McMurray University Mannes College of Music
a b
7: best education; 1: worst education. Fictitious institution.
Forty percent of cluster one had not looked at another college before selecting their current one; only 26.3% of cluster two had not looked at another college. However, cluster one members had looked at more schools on average (6.00, SD = 5.61) before selecting their current one than had cluster two (3.79, SD = 3.65). Cluster one had 40% of respondents planning to attend graduate school versus 52.6% for cluster two. None of the above differences were statistically significant but cluster one, which preferred fictitious organizations with geographic or aspirational names, was predominately male and somewhat younger than cluster two, on average was more likely to have looked at another college before their current one and had a maximum of three family members attending/ed college. Cluster two had more older students, was predominantly female, on average had looked at relatively fewer colleges before attending their current one, was more likely to be planning for graduate school and had more than three family members with a college experience. Overall, a younger, predominantly male cluster appears more likely to pick names that are geographic, aspirational and fictitious. A somewhat older, predominantly female cluster is more likely to pick proper and non-fictitious names. This latter cluster also may have more exposure to college names as operationalized by plans to attend graduate school and having more than three family members attending or attended college. Examining the institutional names per se, “University” does not appear inherently more attractive than “College” as both appear with approximate equal frequency in the top ten
D.F. Treadwell / Public Relations Review 29 (2003) 185–197
193
Table 2 Bottom-rated colleges for education Meana
SD
Institution
Cluster one (N = 5) 3.20 3.20 3.20 2.80 2.80 2.80 2.60 2.20 1.40 1.20
0.84 1.10 0.84 1.64 1.48 0.84 1.95 1.30 0.55 0.45
Helen Anderson Collegeb Sul Ross State University Hiram College Midcity Collegeb Shorter College Doane College Grinnell University Viterbo College Yavapai College Michael Maybee Collegeb
Cluster two (N = 19) 2.95 2.89 2.89 2.89 2.68 2.63 2.53 2.47 2.37 1.79
1.43 1.37 1.29 1.05 1.25 1.74 1.31 1.07 1.50 1.13
Mountain Collegeb Michael Maybee Collegeb Viterbo College Interstate Universityb Aspiration Universityb University of Higher Educationb Midcity Collegeb County Collegeb Citizen Collegeb Shorter College
a b
7: best education; 1: worst education. Fictitious institution.
of both groups. Landform names are preferred over “government” names in that “Oceanic,” “River,” and “Skyview” clearly are preferred over “Midcity,” “Interstate,” or “County” (although “Mountain College” is rated very low by cluster two). As noted, cluster one has a preference for aspirational names; cluster two has a much greater preference for proper names. To examine name preferences overall a second ranking was computed for all 24 respondents as shown in Table 3. Proper names were preferred over any other kind and eight of the top ten were non fictitious. Governmental names do not feature highly in any analysis.
4. Discussion Participants overall prefer proper names, but aspirational name preferences separate the two clusters. Cluster one has a preference for aspirational names such as “Aspiration” or “Performance.” Cluster two has a greater preference for proper names—the majority of them non-fictitious. The overall preferences may reflect an assumption that aspirational, geographic and proper names are private institutions whereas “Interstate University” and the like may be interpreted to be state or city institutions. Cluster two’s preference for proper names may reflect a greater exposure to the education sector, as operationalized by a greater number of family members
194
D.F. Treadwell / Public Relations Review 29 (2003) 185–197
Table 3 Top- and bottom-rated colleges for education (all respondents) Meana
SD
Institution
Top-rated colleges 6.00 5.75 5.54 5.17 5.13 5.12 5.04 4.96 4.88 4.71
1.14 1.45 1.06 1.31 1.51 1.87 1.12 1.16 1.45 1.16
Roosevelt University Lewis-Clark State University Ross University Johnson C. Smith College College of Saint Benedict Grinnell University Abigail Andrews Universityb McMurray University Culver-Stockton College River Valley Universityb
Bottom-rated colleges 3.25 3.12 3.00 2.96 2.75 2.71 2.67 2.58 2.54 2.00
2.03 1.03 1.59 1.08 1.29 1.27 1.61 1.35 1.41 1.25
University of Higher Educationb Clinch Valley College Yavapai College Interstate Universityb Viterbo College County Collegeb Citizen Collegeb Midcity Collegeb Michael Maybee Collegeb Shorter College
a b
7: best education; 1: worst education. Fictitious institution.
attending college, and possibly the assumption that these names appear more realistic than generic names such as “Skyview.” However, none of the names used in the study were identified by participants as familiar to them. Morris and Reyes suggest that a name has two qualities—image and function. Image helps the firm establish a distinctive picture of what it does; function means the name is readily comprehensible and easy to spell and pronounce without unfavorable connotations in other languages. The preference of respondents overall is clearly for proper names such as Roosevelt and Lewis-Clark, which have no inherent indication of what the institution is about even though the names are familiar and have connotations in US history. In fact none of the institutional names selected indicate explicitly what the institution does specifically other than the “college” versus “university” terminology. The thought that the “picture quality” of a name has an effect is not supported in this study. Functionality as defined by Morris and Reyes was not assessed formally. Most names appear comprehensible and easy to spell and pronounce with the possible exception of such names as “Mannes,” “Montreat-Anderson,” and “Yavapai.” Such names tend not to be the most preferred and it may be that a perceived inability to process the name accurately in terms of spelling and/or pronunciation does have some effect. Individuals that are less exposed to the education sector appear to prefer names that are geographic (though not location specific) or aspirational, whereas those with more exposure prefer proper names even though the nature of the institution is in a sense less apparent.
D.F. Treadwell / Public Relations Review 29 (2003) 185–197
195
Morris and Reyes say that the best names are short with one to three syllables, have a potential for strong graphics, are easy to spell, describe the company with enough flexibility to allow expansion of activities, elicit positive connotations, and are free of geographic limitations. In this study, the ten most-preferred names overall have somewhat more syllables (7.9 average) than the ten least-preferred names (6.0 average) suggesting that longer names are preferred, but it seems more likely that name content and association have a greater effect than length per se. The names preferred overall are proper names, which are potentially more difficult in terms of graphic potential. Cluster one, which preferred geographic and aspirational names to proper names, may be attracted to these names because they are more readily visualized than the proper names they tend to reject. The caution of both Morris and Reyes and Kohli and Hemnes that names ought not to have hometown or national names or use acronyms could not be tested with this data set. Some limited conclusions can be drawn from this study. It seems that geographic or aspirational names resonate more with those who may have less exposure to higher education. Preferred names overall are somewhat longer than the rejected names but this finding needs to be treated with caution in that there is also a content difference between preferred and rejected names. The specific criteria that make for an effective institutional name remain unclear, given that the suggestions emerging from private enterprise studies may not apply to educational institutions. It is difficult to imagine a private enterprise type outbreak of synthetic Latinate morphemes sweeping academia. The overall preference for personal names emerging from this study suggests that there may be some anthropomorphic effect at work. It may be that potential students are intuitively more able to relate to institutions when they have a personal name, a suggestion that makes some sense in light of the fact that most incoming students are committing to a four-year relationship or longer with the institution. The finding has some implications for naming distance education, web-based programs in that hi-tech terminology may not be the ideal choice for capturing student interest. A major strategic question is to which public a college name should most appeal. It would seem logical that potential students ought to be the primary focus of any name change as a marketing device, but in terms of generating institutional support it may be that the name should be most appealing to alumni or legislators. Unlike private enterprise, the effect of any name change can be tested in only a limited fashion in terms of, for instance, alumni support or enrollment. Even then, specific returns such as increasing alumni contributions or a change in the quality or number of entering students is a change that can be tied to name change per se only with difficulty. Unlike private enterprise, a tangible return such as a major endowment on a name change is more likely to precede the name change rather than follow it, which is the preferred assumption of a business name change. The natural experiment of Beaver College’s name change suggests that name changes can have a productive effect. Unfortunately, we may never know which of Arcadia or University had the greater effect. This study was not designed to assess what percentages of a potential student population might be predisposed to one kind of name or another but rather to assess patterns of thinking about names. It does suggest that aspirational and proper names do resonate with students. Such names may or may not resonate with alumni.
196
D.F. Treadwell / Public Relations Review 29 (2003) 185–197
It is unlikely that any name per se has any major effect as students become more informed of programs, costs, financial aid and amenities, become members and move on through an academic career to become alumni. On the other hand major “name” universities have a reserve of good affect to draw on, and lapses and issues such as use of research funding or grade inflation probably have little impact on any individual’s subjective response to such organizations. Where naming may be expected to have some effect is on the predispositions of potential students with no specific awareness of colleges. Clearly further studies could explore this more thoroughly. It would be interesting, for example, to track high school students over time as their thoughts turn to college and the search process starts through to the end of the search process. It remains to be examined whether the morphemes in common use in industry have potential in higher education. In conclusion, the literature suggests that a well-chosen name can have a positive effect. This study suggests that institutions may wish to consider proper or aspirational names but are well advised to tread cautiously when adopting high profile donor names at institutional level. Just ask those Arthur Andersen and Enron professors.
References [1] Stanley Lieberson, Eleanor O. Bell, Children’s first names: an empirical study of social taste, American Journal of Sociology 98 (3) (1992), pp. 511–554. [2] E.D. Lawson, Personal Names and Naming: An Annotated Bibliography, Greenwood Press, Westport, CT, 1987. [3] Stanley Lieberson, What’s in a name? . . . Some sociolinguistic possibilities, International Journal of the Sociology of Language 45 (1984), pp. 77–87. [4] Ruth Shalit, The name game, Salon (November 20, 1999), http://www.salon.com/media/col/shal/1999/11/30/ naming/index1.html. [5] Josh Rittenberg, How to invent a brand name, New York Times Sunday Magazine (April 8, 2001), http://www.wordlab.com/articles/inventbrand.cfm. [6] Joye Mercer, A gift transforms a college, Chronicle of Higher Education 42 (15) (December 8, 1995), pp. A29– A31. [7] Kimberly J. McLarin, Rutgers seems to like its stately, shapeless image, Metro Section (L), New York Times (February 20, 1994), p. 45. [8] “McDegree”, Anyone? Chronicle of Higher Education 48 (45) (July 19, 2002), p. A7. [9] John S. Howe, A rose by any other name? A note on corporate name changes, The Financial Review 17 (4) (1982), pp. 271–278. [10] J. Bonasia, Enron scandal speeds trend of separating big five’s businesses, Investor’s Business Daily (March 25, 2002), http://www.us.cgey.com/news/independence/IBD 032502.pdf. [11] Mary S. Gilbert, Re-named, re-charged, Credit Union Management (April 2002), http://www.cues.org/fyi/ 502renamedrecharged.htm. [12] CMGI fumbles name of patriots’ stadium, eBusiness (August 6, 2002), http://zdnet.com.com/2100-1106948555.html. [13] Lee Clifford, What’s in a (hip, new) name? Fortune (April 16, 2001), http://www.wordlab.com/articles/ whatsinaname.cfm. [14] Dan Horsky, Patrick Swyngedouw, Does it pay to change your company’s name? A stock market perspective, Marketing Science 6 (4) (1987), pp. 320–335. [15] Stephen P. Ferris, The effect of corporate name changes on shareholder wealth, The Journal of Applied Business Research 4 (3) (1988), pp. 40–49.
D.F. Treadwell / Public Relations Review 29 (2003) 185–197
197
[16] Jean-Claude Bosch, Mark Hirschey, The valuation effects of corporate name changes, Financial Management 18 (4) (Winter 1989), pp. 64–73. [17] Linda J. Morris, Mario G. Reyes, Corporate name changes: the association between functional name characteristics and stock performance, Journal of Applied Business Research 8 (1) (1992), pp. 110–117. [18] Chiranjeev Kohli, Thomas M. Hemnes, A corporation by any other name . . . ? Business Horizons 38 (6) (1995), pp. 29–33. [19] Courtney Lowery, The name game: new moniker pays off, Chronicle of Higher Education (June 28, 2002), http://chronicle.com. [20] Q-sort technique and its application to assessing the public image of organizations is further discussed in, for example, Stephenson William, Public images of public utilities, Journal of Advertising Research 31 (1963), pp. 34–39. [21] Mark S. Aldenderfer, Roger K. Blatchfield, Cluster Analysis. Sage University Paper Series on Quantitative Applications in the Social Sciences, 07-044, Sage, Beverly Hills, 1984.
Can your institution’s name influence constituent response? An initial assessment of consumer response to college names夽 D.F. Treadwell∗ Westfield State College, 577 Western Avenue, Westfield, MA 01086-1630, USA Received 18 February 2002; received in revised form 1 October 2002; accepted 1 February 2003
Abstract Naming is a significant part of image building or positioning for products and corporations. Organizations less frequently engage in name changing, but, if first impressions count, institutional names may need to be taken seriously. In this study, names of college and universities unfamiliar to potential students were presented for evaluation. One cluster of respondents had a clear preference for geographic or aspirational names while a second cluster had a preference for proper names. There was an overall preference for proper names. Cluster members differed on age, gender and level of exposure to higher education. © 2003 Elsevier Science Inc. All rights reserved.
1. What’s in a name? If you are a parent, plenty. Children’s names are a complex product of religion, family history, culture past and present, and individual preferences. The intent with such naming may be more to capture a tradition than to influence a future, but “each name has a life of its own that endures long after the original reasons have disappeared or are even known to members of a group.”1 There is intuitive, anecdotal and empirical evidence that names vary widely in their connotations and images, and have some intrinsic quality that may inherently predispose a reader’s or listener’s response.2,3 夽
This paper was first printed in the supplemental Proceedings of the 15th Annual International Conference of the Association of Management (AoM), Vol. 15, No. 2, 1997, and is reprinted with permission. ∗ Tel.: +1-413-572-5751; fax: +1-413-572-5612. E-mail address: [email protected] (D.F. Treadwell). 0363-8111/03/$ – see front matter © 2003 Elsevier Science Inc. All rights reserved. doi:10.1016/S0363-8111(03)00014-6
186
D.F. Treadwell / Public Relations Review 29 (2003) 185–197
This proposition lies at the heart of product and organizational naming where considerable effort may be invested in developing product names that will trigger both a positive consumer response and a favorable image of the manufacturer or service provider. The link between image and behavior may not be as close as marketers would wish; nonetheless a specialized industry works with organizations to name them and their products and services. Naming typically involves analysis of competing products or organizations and seeks to establish a name that uniquely identifies, differentiates or positions the product or organization. In some respects coming up with a new name is not difficult. Intuition, serendipity, dictionary and computer searches, computer-generated names, and focus groups may all produce new names. The question is whether any such name will be “successful.” For example, is the name already in use? Does it actually convey an image of the product or organization? Does it lend itself to visual interpretation? Can it successfully cross cultural or language boundaries? Every year large corporations change their name, typically at great expense. For example, the change from Esso to EXXON cost US$200 million; the change from International Harvester to Navistar cost US$13 to US$16 million just to redo signs and stationery. The 1990s economic boom transformed the business of naming into a competitive industry driven by corporate egos with a money-no-object attitude to acquiring an identity, a genuine need to differentiate in the marketplace and legally driven name changes as a result of mergers, acquisitions, divestitures and bankruptcies. The market is seemingly glutted with professional namers, each with its own methodology— “a signature “naming module” that distinguishes it from its competition.”4 “Their techniques include analysis of such linguistic properties as” “speechstream visibility” (will a consumer read the name properly?), “phonetic transparency” (is it spelled as it sounds?), and “multilingual functionality” (is it as intelligible in Dubai as in Dubuque?)5 Historically, corporate names meant something, e.g., Ford Motor Company. The most notable recent product of the naming industry arguably has been a proliferation of pseudo-Latinate names such as the HP spinoff Agilent, Philip Morris’ move to Altria, Minnesota Power’s move to Allete and Bell Atlantic’s Verizon. There is for some observers a vast similarity of names to the point where typographic embellishment has now become an additional necessity for name differentiation. Colleges and universities do not get frequent opportunities for name changes or to assess the effects of an institutional name change. Nonetheless they do happen. The College of New Jersey was renamed after the town of its location (Princeton). Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute opted for “Rensselaer.” Glassboro State College, New Jersey, after a US$100-million pledge, changed its name to Rowan College of New Jersey in honor of the donors, Henry and Betty Rowan.6 Queens College, New Jersey was founded in 1766 and renamed Rutgers in 1825 to honor Col. Henry Rutgers, a Revolutionary War hero and trustee. The institution’s official name is Rutgers, the State University of New Jersey. The President of the New Jersey Senate, sensitive to the fact that everything after the comma tends to get lost proposed dropping everything before the comma. Some students and alumni argued that changing the name would diminish prestige, erase national name recognition, and wipe out over 200 years of the school’s history. Others argued that most students don’t even know who Henry Rutgers was, and that the basic school spirit would not change with a name change.7
D.F. Treadwell / Public Relations Review 29 (2003) 185–197
187
More recently, Western Maryland College became McDaniel College. Campus officials changed the name of the private institution because the old name wrongly implied that the college was state run and because the college is in central, not western Maryland. The new name, picked from 418 suggestions, pays tribute to a 1880s graduate who became treasurer, president and trustee. Some alumni argue that the new name still doesn’t indicate the college’s location and dislike the overtones of receiving a “McDegree” from McDaniel.8 It is difficult to assess the effects of a name change when the product itself is unclear. Ultimately, higher education is an abstraction and institutions face the difficulty of finding an appropriate name for an abstraction that will differentiate it from other abstractions. But does a name or name change have any effect? We have little published research on academic institutions, but a number of studies have attempted to answer this question for public companies. Howe regards a name as a potentially important dimension of a company’s image and argues that a clever name may have a positive influence on individuals’ perceptions of the company. Because adopting a new name can be costly, he infers that companies place a positive value on the choice of a new name. Howe examined the effect of corporate name changes on the value of the common stock of those companies. He found that financial institutions were the most frequent type of organizations to change names and that the most frequent reason for a name change was the broadening or diversification of the company’s activities or products. Because management always initiates the name change, the latter may be thought of as a signal from management. He found however that there was no significant relationship between name change and pre- or post-stock prices and concluded that a name change is a “financially neutral” event. A name change does not signal financial change and there is no net benefit to changing a corporation’s name.9 However, a name change may also signal a regrouping after a disaster or a restructuring and be driven by events rather than presaging them. For example, Valujet became Airtran after a tragic crash, the beleaguered Enron is proposing to change its name to “OpCo Energy Company” as part of restructuring, and restructuring is precipitating name changes in major consulting firms as they spin off from their affiliated accounting companies. After Anderson Consulting split off from Arthur Andersen, Arthur Andersen insisted that the former change its name, which it did—to Accenture–and as a result appears free of the public’s associating them with the current wave of corporate bankruptcies and shady accounting practices. Ernst and Young consulting was sold to Cap Gemini; the new Cap Gemini Ernst and Young must change its name by 2004 as part of the deal. KPMG announced in early 2002 its plans to accelerate the name change process and in October that year became “BearingPoint.”10 In mid 2002, Price Waterhouse Coopers consulting became—Monday! The US$110 million name change and demerger appears to have been lauded by a small minority of employees as a fresh start and at least avoiding Latin roots. A majority appear to regard it as an expensive joke and impractical to boot. The 18 million “Google” hits on “Monday” and the stressed receptionists having to greet callers with “Hello, this is Monday” five days a week are but two problems employees have identified (at no cost to the company). The downside is that ill-thought-out new names along with structural changes such as buyouts and divestitures and corporate catastrophes mean that often companies have to back track on a name or lose naming rights to programs or facilities they have sponsored.
188
D.F. Treadwell / Public Relations Review 29 (2003) 185–197
In March 2002, The Enron Federal Credit Union dropped the Enron name and changed its name to StarTrust FCU having had, apparently the foresight to include the possibility of a name change in its strategic plan.11 In a continuing series of such changes, the New England Patriots dropped a US$114 million stadium naming deal with the Internet provider CMGI in favor of a relationship with Gillette.12 In June 2002, baseball’s Houston Astros signed a deal to rename Enron Field as Minute Maid Park. Football’s Baltimore Ravens had to replace PSINet as the sponsor for their stadium, as the St. Louis Rams had to do with former airline TWA. Great Britain’s postal service the Royal Mail became Consignia, a name which simply didn’t work. In 2004, it will be the Royal Mail again. Naming and renaming presuppose some executive faith in the idea that a new name will have some positive effect. About ten years ago Houston Natural Gas and InterNorth merged to produce Enron. Stock went up over 1000% in that period. Who seeing a connection then wouldn’t want to get into the name game? But, is there a connection?13 Horsky and Swyngedouw propose two ways of thinking of a name—first, it is a utility with value—that is the name per se can influence values, second, the name has no intrinsic value but signals a change in the company that stakeholders may see to be of value. They tested the effect of corporate name changes on stock returns for companies and found an association between name change and enhanced performance of the firm. This was independent of whether the name change itself was radical or minor, implying that the name change is really a signal to the market that other changes are afoot. They conclude that the name change per se is not inherently of value—rather that it signals other changes that will bear favorably on the future (profits) of the company.14 Ferris attempted a similar analysis but also considered the nature of the names themselves. He found that name changes using a “high-tech” suffix such as “onics,” “ex,” and “ix” approached significance with respect to a related change in companies’ mean abnormal returns. He found that the market was able to discriminate between those companies whose name change reflected a change in performance or potential and those whose name change was merely cosmetic. He found that name changes are not necessarily simply putting “old wine in new bottles.” Name changes do signal activities with significance for shareholders, but the form or characteristics of the name itself have no significant effect on investors’ perceptions of the firm.15 Bosch and Hirschey noted that mergers, acquisitions and divestitures are the most frequent reasons for name changes, followed by image creation. Given the often-substantial costs, a name change may be regarded as an investment in capital. Over time there is a tendency for new corporate names to become shorter and to be replaced by less descriptive acronyms. Bosch and Hirschey investigated the valuation effects of a name change and found that overall the market response to a name change is positive but weak unless a firm has previously undergone major restructuring in which case the effect is large and positive. They concluded that overall the effects of name changes are modest and transitory.16 Morris and Reyes note that most corporate name changes come from acquisitions and mergers, with only about 17% being “pure” name changes—those attributed to changes in strategic direction and to changes in communication efforts. “Pure” name changes may occur if the name limits a firm’s growth, lacks distinctiveness, elicits a negative image, impedes communication, is difficult to remember or fails to create a visual effect of the company’s
D.F. Treadwell / Public Relations Review 29 (2003) 185–197
189
activities. They found that a name change occurs sometimes before it is officially announced; sometimes afterwards.17 They suggest that a firm’s name has two qualities—image and function. Image helps the firm establish a distinctive picture of what it does; function means the name is readily comprehensible and easy to spell and pronounce without unfavorable connotations in other languages. They suggest that the best names are short with one to three syllables, have a potential for strong graphics, are easy to spell, describe the company with enough flexibility to allow expansion of activities, elicit positive connotations, and are free of geographic limitations such as “NorthWestern.” Consonants because of the extra mental processing required may be remembered more readily and therefore work better in corporate names. Morris and Reyes studied corporate names in light of the above criteria and found that name changes had little effect on an experimental group in terms of how their images changed; neither new nor old names were preferred based on image appeal. One factor—distinctiveness, a functionality component, had a significant effect. Distinctive names avoid “generics” such as “allied,” “national,” “general,” “united.” Kohli and Hemnes criticize the assumption that name change is a sharp sudden event rather than occurring over a period of time. They examined the names of companies to determine how the names changed. They concluded from these changes that names should be short and not include products in the company name. “Hometown” names or even national names should be removed. They quote Robert Crandall, ex-president of American Airlines that American’s biggest handicap in expanding into international markets is its own name.18 They also recommend that generalities such as “general,” “united,” and “national” be dropped because the company name will inevitably contract to the generic first name and will lose distinctiveness. Acronyms are not recommended, but coined words may not be a bad choice—they provide stronger identity, better legal protection, and unrestricted expansion opportunities, though they may not be well accepted initially. In summary, research on corporate names suggests that minimally a name change can flag the attention of stakeholders in a positive way. This paper addresses the question of college and university names and the reaction of prospective members (students) to those names. Relative to the corporate world, college and university name changes are less frequent and precipitated by a smaller range of events. Starting from scratch, a major donation, a merger or an upgrade from college to university status are typical reasons. Name change as a result of legal settlement or disaster would seem rare. Occasionally, the original name becomes inaccurate, fails to cross cultural or language boundaries successfully or develops overtones that can be jettisoned only by moving to a new name. US institutions marketing themselves overseas, for example, need to be sensitive to the different connotations “college” and “polytechnic” may have in other countries. Unfortunate connotations precipitated a name change for Beaver College, now Arcadia University, Pennsylvania. The university changed its name to improve enrollment and to shed a name that had made it the butt of jokes ranging from television shows to female body parts. A year after the college became Arcadia University, enrollment and application numbers are up, and prospective students hail from 48 states, 13 more than last year.
190
D.F. Treadwell / Public Relations Review 29 (2003) 185–197
“The name just didn’t sound academic to people,” said Arcadia’s director of enrollment management.19 All things being equal might a college name affect an application decision? Apparently. Is there an inherent quality or image in college names that influences response to the organization? This study is a preliminary attempt at answering that question.
2. Methodology For an initial assessment of student response to college and university names, 159 nonduplicated college or university names from advertisements in an issue of the Chronicle of Higher Education were presented to a convenience sample of two classes of student participants. Participants were asked to delete from the list any institution they had heard of or felt that they had heard of. From the compiled responses, a total of 134 institutions were deleted, leaving a set of 25 names to which students by self-report had had no prior exposure. Inspection and assessment of all names in the above periodical determined four main categories of institutional names: Aspirational—suggesting some type of goal or level of performance Geographic—suggesting a location or geographic feature Governmental or public—suggesting a state, federal or municipal institution Proper names—the names of specific individuals. Four fictitious names of each type were generated to add to the original list as follows: Aspirational: (Aspiration University, Performance College, University of Higher Education, Citizen College); geographic: (Skyview College, Mountain College, Oceanic University, River Valley University); governmental or “public”: (Midcity College, County College, Interstate University, Metropolis University); proper names: (Abigail Andrews, Michael Maybee, Helen Anderson, Saul Smith). The new total of 41 names, real and fictitious, were then used to construct a 41-item Q-sort— a set of cards—each of which contained one of the 41 names. This set of 41 questions represents an experimental typology of four name types. As the pre-test determined that each of the names had no association for the participants, we can assume that subjective responses to these names can be attributed to some inherent quality in the name more than to any tangible associations with a known institution. The name cards were then presented to 24 student respondents to sort into order of appeal. Although not a large group from a survey research point of view, the basic objective of the study was to assess differences and patterns in the subjective outlook of participants rather than to make generalizations to a wider population. Respondents were each given a deck of 41 cards, and were asked to sort the cards into seven categories or piles, each containing a specific number of cards. The frequency distribution for the 41-item sort was 3–5–7–11–7–5–3. Respondents were asked to place the three cards containing names of the college they saw as providing the best education in category seven, the three considered to provide the worst education in category one, and to assign the remaining cards to the intermediate categories according to their perceived implications about quality of education. Respondents thus had to
D.F. Treadwell / Public Relations Review 29 (2003) 185–197
191
decide a relative ranking for each institution based on its perceived ability to provide the best education. Scale values from 1 to 7 were then assigned to each item, depending on the category in which each was placed.20 Further questions determined age, gender and religion of the participants. Participants were also asked the number of colleges they had applied to in the course of their college search, the number of family members who had or were attending college or university, and the likelihood that respondents would attend graduate school. These latter three questions were used to operationalize general background awareness of educational institutions.
3. Results Using the SPSS “Cluster” routine, and based on the scores assigned to each name by each participant as a result of sorting, two clusters of students, one of five and one of 19 participants were identified by inspection of the cluster structure and agglomeration coefficients.21 The clusters’ memberships were compared based on their ratings for each college and on demographic attributes. 3.1. College rankings The two clusters have quite different ranking of colleges if we compare the ten top-rated institutions for each cluster. Tables 1 and 2 clearly show that cluster one has a heavy preference for geographic and/or aspirational names. Seven of the ten top names preferred by cluster one are fictitious. On the other hand, cluster two showed a distinct preference for proper names and put only one fictitious institution in its top ten. There were no geographic or aspirational names in the top ten for this cluster. Both clusters put two non-fictitious, proper-name institutions in their top ten (Roosevelt and McMurray Universities). The contrast in rankings is such that three of cluster one’s top ten (Mountain, Aspiration and University of Higher Education) feature in cluster two’s bottom ten. One (Grinnell) of cluster two’s top ten features in cluster one’s bottom ten. In the bottom-ten rankings, cluster one has only three fictitious institutions versus eight for cluster two. Cluster one places proper names predominantly in its bottom ten whereas cluster two has predominantly aspirational or geographic names. In summary, cluster one prefers geographic/aspirational/fictitious names; cluster two prefers proper, non fictitious names. 3.2. Differences between clusters Cluster one was predominantly male (60%) whereas cluster two was predominantly female (72.2%). Cluster one had no black respondents; cluster two had one. Both clusters were predominantly Catholic (cluster one 60%; cluster two 68.4%). Cluster one students were all in the 19–24 age bracket; cluster two had 10.5% in the 25–34 age bracket. Cluster one members had at most three family members and an average of 2.2, (SD = 0.84) attending college; cluster two had up to 12 and an average of 3.5 (SD = 3.53), attending.
192
D.F. Treadwell / Public Relations Review 29 (2003) 185–197
Table 1 Top-rated colleges for education Meana
SD
Institution
Cluster one (N = 5) 6.00 5.80 5.60 5.60 5.40 5.20 5.20 5.20 5.00 5.00
1.00 0.84 1.52 1.14 1.52 1.30 1.30 1.30 1.58 1.00
Oceanic Universityb Mountain Collegeb Aspiration Universityb University of Higher Educationb GrantValley State College River Valley Universityb Skyview Collegeb Performance Collegeb Roosevelt University McMurray University
Cluster two (N = 19) 6.26 6.00 5.79 5.79 5.32 5.26 5.16 5.11 4.95 4.89
0.87 1.37 0.92 1.18 1.60 1.24 1.38 1.10 1.22 1.56
Roosevelt University Lewis-Clark State University Ross University Grinnell University College of Saint Benedict Johnson C. Smith College Culver-Stockton College Abigail Andrews Universityb McMurray University Mannes College of Music
a b
7: best education; 1: worst education. Fictitious institution.
Forty percent of cluster one had not looked at another college before selecting their current one; only 26.3% of cluster two had not looked at another college. However, cluster one members had looked at more schools on average (6.00, SD = 5.61) before selecting their current one than had cluster two (3.79, SD = 3.65). Cluster one had 40% of respondents planning to attend graduate school versus 52.6% for cluster two. None of the above differences were statistically significant but cluster one, which preferred fictitious organizations with geographic or aspirational names, was predominately male and somewhat younger than cluster two, on average was more likely to have looked at another college before their current one and had a maximum of three family members attending/ed college. Cluster two had more older students, was predominantly female, on average had looked at relatively fewer colleges before attending their current one, was more likely to be planning for graduate school and had more than three family members with a college experience. Overall, a younger, predominantly male cluster appears more likely to pick names that are geographic, aspirational and fictitious. A somewhat older, predominantly female cluster is more likely to pick proper and non-fictitious names. This latter cluster also may have more exposure to college names as operationalized by plans to attend graduate school and having more than three family members attending or attended college. Examining the institutional names per se, “University” does not appear inherently more attractive than “College” as both appear with approximate equal frequency in the top ten
D.F. Treadwell / Public Relations Review 29 (2003) 185–197
193
Table 2 Bottom-rated colleges for education Meana
SD
Institution
Cluster one (N = 5) 3.20 3.20 3.20 2.80 2.80 2.80 2.60 2.20 1.40 1.20
0.84 1.10 0.84 1.64 1.48 0.84 1.95 1.30 0.55 0.45
Helen Anderson Collegeb Sul Ross State University Hiram College Midcity Collegeb Shorter College Doane College Grinnell University Viterbo College Yavapai College Michael Maybee Collegeb
Cluster two (N = 19) 2.95 2.89 2.89 2.89 2.68 2.63 2.53 2.47 2.37 1.79
1.43 1.37 1.29 1.05 1.25 1.74 1.31 1.07 1.50 1.13
Mountain Collegeb Michael Maybee Collegeb Viterbo College Interstate Universityb Aspiration Universityb University of Higher Educationb Midcity Collegeb County Collegeb Citizen Collegeb Shorter College
a b
7: best education; 1: worst education. Fictitious institution.
of both groups. Landform names are preferred over “government” names in that “Oceanic,” “River,” and “Skyview” clearly are preferred over “Midcity,” “Interstate,” or “County” (although “Mountain College” is rated very low by cluster two). As noted, cluster one has a preference for aspirational names; cluster two has a much greater preference for proper names. To examine name preferences overall a second ranking was computed for all 24 respondents as shown in Table 3. Proper names were preferred over any other kind and eight of the top ten were non fictitious. Governmental names do not feature highly in any analysis.
4. Discussion Participants overall prefer proper names, but aspirational name preferences separate the two clusters. Cluster one has a preference for aspirational names such as “Aspiration” or “Performance.” Cluster two has a greater preference for proper names—the majority of them non-fictitious. The overall preferences may reflect an assumption that aspirational, geographic and proper names are private institutions whereas “Interstate University” and the like may be interpreted to be state or city institutions. Cluster two’s preference for proper names may reflect a greater exposure to the education sector, as operationalized by a greater number of family members
194
D.F. Treadwell / Public Relations Review 29 (2003) 185–197
Table 3 Top- and bottom-rated colleges for education (all respondents) Meana
SD
Institution
Top-rated colleges 6.00 5.75 5.54 5.17 5.13 5.12 5.04 4.96 4.88 4.71
1.14 1.45 1.06 1.31 1.51 1.87 1.12 1.16 1.45 1.16
Roosevelt University Lewis-Clark State University Ross University Johnson C. Smith College College of Saint Benedict Grinnell University Abigail Andrews Universityb McMurray University Culver-Stockton College River Valley Universityb
Bottom-rated colleges 3.25 3.12 3.00 2.96 2.75 2.71 2.67 2.58 2.54 2.00
2.03 1.03 1.59 1.08 1.29 1.27 1.61 1.35 1.41 1.25
University of Higher Educationb Clinch Valley College Yavapai College Interstate Universityb Viterbo College County Collegeb Citizen Collegeb Midcity Collegeb Michael Maybee Collegeb Shorter College
a b
7: best education; 1: worst education. Fictitious institution.
attending college, and possibly the assumption that these names appear more realistic than generic names such as “Skyview.” However, none of the names used in the study were identified by participants as familiar to them. Morris and Reyes suggest that a name has two qualities—image and function. Image helps the firm establish a distinctive picture of what it does; function means the name is readily comprehensible and easy to spell and pronounce without unfavorable connotations in other languages. The preference of respondents overall is clearly for proper names such as Roosevelt and Lewis-Clark, which have no inherent indication of what the institution is about even though the names are familiar and have connotations in US history. In fact none of the institutional names selected indicate explicitly what the institution does specifically other than the “college” versus “university” terminology. The thought that the “picture quality” of a name has an effect is not supported in this study. Functionality as defined by Morris and Reyes was not assessed formally. Most names appear comprehensible and easy to spell and pronounce with the possible exception of such names as “Mannes,” “Montreat-Anderson,” and “Yavapai.” Such names tend not to be the most preferred and it may be that a perceived inability to process the name accurately in terms of spelling and/or pronunciation does have some effect. Individuals that are less exposed to the education sector appear to prefer names that are geographic (though not location specific) or aspirational, whereas those with more exposure prefer proper names even though the nature of the institution is in a sense less apparent.
D.F. Treadwell / Public Relations Review 29 (2003) 185–197
195
Morris and Reyes say that the best names are short with one to three syllables, have a potential for strong graphics, are easy to spell, describe the company with enough flexibility to allow expansion of activities, elicit positive connotations, and are free of geographic limitations. In this study, the ten most-preferred names overall have somewhat more syllables (7.9 average) than the ten least-preferred names (6.0 average) suggesting that longer names are preferred, but it seems more likely that name content and association have a greater effect than length per se. The names preferred overall are proper names, which are potentially more difficult in terms of graphic potential. Cluster one, which preferred geographic and aspirational names to proper names, may be attracted to these names because they are more readily visualized than the proper names they tend to reject. The caution of both Morris and Reyes and Kohli and Hemnes that names ought not to have hometown or national names or use acronyms could not be tested with this data set. Some limited conclusions can be drawn from this study. It seems that geographic or aspirational names resonate more with those who may have less exposure to higher education. Preferred names overall are somewhat longer than the rejected names but this finding needs to be treated with caution in that there is also a content difference between preferred and rejected names. The specific criteria that make for an effective institutional name remain unclear, given that the suggestions emerging from private enterprise studies may not apply to educational institutions. It is difficult to imagine a private enterprise type outbreak of synthetic Latinate morphemes sweeping academia. The overall preference for personal names emerging from this study suggests that there may be some anthropomorphic effect at work. It may be that potential students are intuitively more able to relate to institutions when they have a personal name, a suggestion that makes some sense in light of the fact that most incoming students are committing to a four-year relationship or longer with the institution. The finding has some implications for naming distance education, web-based programs in that hi-tech terminology may not be the ideal choice for capturing student interest. A major strategic question is to which public a college name should most appeal. It would seem logical that potential students ought to be the primary focus of any name change as a marketing device, but in terms of generating institutional support it may be that the name should be most appealing to alumni or legislators. Unlike private enterprise, the effect of any name change can be tested in only a limited fashion in terms of, for instance, alumni support or enrollment. Even then, specific returns such as increasing alumni contributions or a change in the quality or number of entering students is a change that can be tied to name change per se only with difficulty. Unlike private enterprise, a tangible return such as a major endowment on a name change is more likely to precede the name change rather than follow it, which is the preferred assumption of a business name change. The natural experiment of Beaver College’s name change suggests that name changes can have a productive effect. Unfortunately, we may never know which of Arcadia or University had the greater effect. This study was not designed to assess what percentages of a potential student population might be predisposed to one kind of name or another but rather to assess patterns of thinking about names. It does suggest that aspirational and proper names do resonate with students. Such names may or may not resonate with alumni.
196
D.F. Treadwell / Public Relations Review 29 (2003) 185–197
It is unlikely that any name per se has any major effect as students become more informed of programs, costs, financial aid and amenities, become members and move on through an academic career to become alumni. On the other hand major “name” universities have a reserve of good affect to draw on, and lapses and issues such as use of research funding or grade inflation probably have little impact on any individual’s subjective response to such organizations. Where naming may be expected to have some effect is on the predispositions of potential students with no specific awareness of colleges. Clearly further studies could explore this more thoroughly. It would be interesting, for example, to track high school students over time as their thoughts turn to college and the search process starts through to the end of the search process. It remains to be examined whether the morphemes in common use in industry have potential in higher education. In conclusion, the literature suggests that a well-chosen name can have a positive effect. This study suggests that institutions may wish to consider proper or aspirational names but are well advised to tread cautiously when adopting high profile donor names at institutional level. Just ask those Arthur Andersen and Enron professors.
References [1] Stanley Lieberson, Eleanor O. Bell, Children’s first names: an empirical study of social taste, American Journal of Sociology 98 (3) (1992), pp. 511–554. [2] E.D. Lawson, Personal Names and Naming: An Annotated Bibliography, Greenwood Press, Westport, CT, 1987. [3] Stanley Lieberson, What’s in a name? . . . Some sociolinguistic possibilities, International Journal of the Sociology of Language 45 (1984), pp. 77–87. [4] Ruth Shalit, The name game, Salon (November 20, 1999), http://www.salon.com/media/col/shal/1999/11/30/ naming/index1.html. [5] Josh Rittenberg, How to invent a brand name, New York Times Sunday Magazine (April 8, 2001), http://www.wordlab.com/articles/inventbrand.cfm. [6] Joye Mercer, A gift transforms a college, Chronicle of Higher Education 42 (15) (December 8, 1995), pp. A29– A31. [7] Kimberly J. McLarin, Rutgers seems to like its stately, shapeless image, Metro Section (L), New York Times (February 20, 1994), p. 45. [8] “McDegree”, Anyone? Chronicle of Higher Education 48 (45) (July 19, 2002), p. A7. [9] John S. Howe, A rose by any other name? A note on corporate name changes, The Financial Review 17 (4) (1982), pp. 271–278. [10] J. Bonasia, Enron scandal speeds trend of separating big five’s businesses, Investor’s Business Daily (March 25, 2002), http://www.us.cgey.com/news/independence/IBD 032502.pdf. [11] Mary S. Gilbert, Re-named, re-charged, Credit Union Management (April 2002), http://www.cues.org/fyi/ 502renamedrecharged.htm. [12] CMGI fumbles name of patriots’ stadium, eBusiness (August 6, 2002), http://zdnet.com.com/2100-1106948555.html. [13] Lee Clifford, What’s in a (hip, new) name? Fortune (April 16, 2001), http://www.wordlab.com/articles/ whatsinaname.cfm. [14] Dan Horsky, Patrick Swyngedouw, Does it pay to change your company’s name? A stock market perspective, Marketing Science 6 (4) (1987), pp. 320–335. [15] Stephen P. Ferris, The effect of corporate name changes on shareholder wealth, The Journal of Applied Business Research 4 (3) (1988), pp. 40–49.
D.F. Treadwell / Public Relations Review 29 (2003) 185–197
197
[16] Jean-Claude Bosch, Mark Hirschey, The valuation effects of corporate name changes, Financial Management 18 (4) (Winter 1989), pp. 64–73. [17] Linda J. Morris, Mario G. Reyes, Corporate name changes: the association between functional name characteristics and stock performance, Journal of Applied Business Research 8 (1) (1992), pp. 110–117. [18] Chiranjeev Kohli, Thomas M. Hemnes, A corporation by any other name . . . ? Business Horizons 38 (6) (1995), pp. 29–33. [19] Courtney Lowery, The name game: new moniker pays off, Chronicle of Higher Education (June 28, 2002), http://chronicle.com. [20] Q-sort technique and its application to assessing the public image of organizations is further discussed in, for example, Stephenson William, Public images of public utilities, Journal of Advertising Research 31 (1963), pp. 34–39. [21] Mark S. Aldenderfer, Roger K. Blatchfield, Cluster Analysis. Sage University Paper Series on Quantitative Applications in the Social Sciences, 07-044, Sage, Beverly Hills, 1984.