Evolution of Marketing in Higher Education: Educational Brand Capital

Esic Market Economics and Business Journal
Vol. 48, Issue 1, January-April 2017, 69-93
Evolution of marketing in higher education:

Educational brand capital
Javier Casanoves-Boix*
Universidad Internacional de Valencia
Inés Küster-Boluda
Universidad de Valencia
Abstract
This research was carried out to examine the role of brand capital in higher education.
Firstly, the main contributions of the literature related to the study of brand capital and
its application to the educational sector were analyzed. In this way, the variables that
determine brand capital in higher education were identified, establishing a view of it as an
evolutionary process. Through the present work, the evolution of higher education was
analyzed together with the importance of the application of marketing strategies adapted
to obtain differentiation and competitive advantage through educational brand capital.
This was carried out in order to highlight the importance it is acquiring and, likewise, to
identify the promising future perspectives that it can offer to the industry.
Keywords: brand, brand capital, higher education.
JEL codes: I23.
*
Corresponding author. Email: javier.casanoves@campusviu.es
ISSN 0212-1867 / e-ISSN 1989-3558

© ESIC Editorial, ESIC Business & Marketing School
DOI: 10.7200/esicm.156.0481.2i
http://www.esic.edu/esicmarket
70 Javier Casanoves-Boix and Inés Küster-Boluda
1. Introduction
According to Garnica (1999), since Greek potters decided to paint marks on their
products to indicate who their maker was, brands have maintained their primary
function of identifying the manufacturer. If this was important in the ancient markets
of Hellenic Greece, it is even more so today (Küster, Vila and Aldás, 2011).
Brand development has existed for centuries as a resource for distinguishing the
goods of one producer from those of another. In fact, the English word brand is
derived from the old Nordic word brandr (burn), because brands were, and remain,
the means by which livestock owners mark their animals to identify them (Inter-
brand Group, 1992). Brands are everywhere, penetrating all spheres of our daily
lives: economic, social, cultural, sports and religious, and this has lead to them being
criticized (Klein, 2000).
According to Kotler (2001), a brand is a “name, term, sign, symbol, design, or
combination thereof, whose purpose is to identify the goods and services of a seller
or group of sellers to differentiate them from the competition” (Page 398). Moreo-
ver, these days, brands have evolved to become a life experience for consumers and
have acquired an emotional importance that is reflected in the satisfaction of people
who consume or buy (Camacho, 2008). Brands add value and make it possible to
attain higher price margins (Mitchell, 2005). However, in the search for new forms
of differentiation that imply the real creation of value for the customer, companies
must be economically efficient (Küster, Vila and Aldás, 2011).
Thus, according to Aaker (2002), brands have become, for many consumers,
icons of veneration and objects of worship. Organizations are increasingly realizing
that their brands constitute a core capital, but the current market conditions make
this a complex exercise. Both at the stock exchange level and in any supermarket
line, brands face aggressive competition, whose differential advantages are increas-
ingly compressed. Therefore, the fundamental value of the brand is one that means
that a product or company is preferred to another by the consumer (Aaker, 2002).
In this context, and according to Keller, Apéria and Georgson (2008), many man-
agers refer to the brand as something else, that is, something that creates a certain
amount of awareness, reputation and prominence within the market. Consequently,
in addition to choosing a name, logo, symbol, packaging design or other characteris-
tics that identify a product and distinguish it from others, a number of brand elements
must be identified and differentiated, among which we highlight brand capital.
Kapferer (2012) believes that brands have become the most important player in
modern society. They have financial measures that report an improvement in the
cash flow for the company; cash flow that is generated as a consequence of the pre-
disposition of the consumer to purchase the company’s products and brand capital.
Within the context mentioned, brands can play a very important role in the edu-
cation sector; a sector, both private and public, that has been integrating marketing
strategies and policies in its business model for some years; due, among other rea-
sons, to the fierce competition that currently exists (Fernández, 2002).
Evolution of marketing in higher education: Educational brand capital 71
According to Küster (2012), there is certain evidence that theories and concepts
of marketing can be applied to the educational context and, especially, in the field
of higher education. Thus, Hemsley-Brown and Oplatka (2006) affirm that there
is recognition by researchers regarding the potential benefits of the application of
marketing in the field of higher education. However, as researchers point out, the
literature in this area is incoherent, still incipient and lacking in theoretical models
that reflect the particular context and nature of higher education services. Perhaps
the justification for the application of marketing in university institutions can be
found in two phenomena that have occurred internationally since the 1980s: (1) the
reduction in governmental financial support; (2) the considerable increase in com-
petition resulting from legislative reforms in this area (Conway, Mackay and Yorke,
1994, Caruana, Ramaseshan and Ewing, 1998, Smith, 2003, Svensson and Wood,
2007) as a consequence, among other factors, of the globalization of the economy
(Hemsley-Brown and Oplatka, 2006).
2. Current situation of higher education
Svensson and Wood (2007) argue that in the last two decades of the twentieth
century, universities around the world were forced to seek other funding sources to
supplement those provided by the government. This not only compelled them to
compete for funds provided by the public and private sectors, but also by potential
students. As Driscoll and Wicks (1998) point out, these are just some of the factors
that have led many of them to use aggressive marketing strategies. Thus, Adams
(1998) states that the effect and acceleration of changes in higher education have led
academics and governments to investigate them. However, as the researcher points
out, the changes have varied in their nature and intensity, but all of them stand
and/or fall with the figure of the teacher as the central axis of the teaching-learning
process.
García and Fernández (2002) believe that the university carries out its teaching,
training and research in continuous interaction with its social environment, having
to adapt to its needs and changes and improve the quality of its services. Therefore,
the researchers describe the transformation of the university’s function as a contin-
uous process of change paralleled by political, economic and labour changes, which
has caused “notable structural problems, with serious difficulties in meeting the
number of people who access it and with a clear separation from society” (p.77). In
addition, Petruzzellis, D’Uggento and Romanazzi (1996) establish that universities
face intense national and international competition. Consequently, they share with
Tiebout (1956) the idea that in fact, consumers, or rather society, play an active
role in the definition of supply, either by applying for courses through enrollment
or showing disapproval and/or abandoning the university. In this line, several
authors affirm that higher education institutions have increased the application of
marketing strategies and policies in order to be able to adjust to the demands of the
environment. For example, Conway, Mackay and Yorke (1994) argue that in order
to survive, the higher education sector needs to target the market and develop com-
petitive strategies to meet consumer needs.
Moreover, Caruana, Ramaseshan and Ewing (1998) consider that higher educa-
tional institutions as well as private companies require management and adaptation
to the continuous changes that take place in the political, economic, social and
technological environment. Fernández (2002) considers that educational marketing
is at a very early stage in our country. “Few attempts have been made to serve a
sector with a fundamental relevance in our economy” (page 61). For the researcher,
educational marketing should be located within the services sector as “a process
of research of social needs to develop educational services tending to satisfy them,
according to a perceived value, distributed in time and place and ethically promoted
to generate wellbeing between individuals and organizations” (p.63).
In this context, and as Flavián and Lozano (2004) affirm, the Spanish public
university has undergone deep transformations in recent years that are motivating
important changes in terms of rivalry, the type of activities developed and the form
in which they are carried out. Likewise, private centres are not alien to this new uni-
versity environment. Therefore, we understand that higher educational institutions,
public and private, face certain challenges.
Together with the factors mentioned, Flavián and Lozano (2004) add that there
is a current transition period in which the university system is immersed as a con-
sequence of the Organic Law of Universities of December 21, 2001 (BOE of 24
December). Furthemore, the European Higher Education Area, has been initiated,
posing significant challenges for the Spanish educational scene, both at national
level and for other countries in the community (Franco, 2008). It should be noted
that recently, a new royal decree has been approved in which it is established that
university degrees will last three years (BOE, 2014), which again adds complexity to
the educational landscape, making the need to develop good educational marketing
in the face of fierce competition more pressing.
According to the Valencian Institute of Statistics (2008), the role played by uni-
versities in the development of the knowledge society is central in terms of genera-
tion, dissemination and exploitation. Universities have always assumed the creative
function of knowledge; that is, to generate, develop and criticize science, technology
and culture through research. In addition, universities traditionally transmit knowl-
edge through the training of graduates, the preparation of people for the working
market and the transmission of university culture. At the same time, they are also
committed, through scientific and technical support, to the cultural, social and
economic development of their environment and, in many cases, exploit knowledge
through the production of patents and cooperation with companies.
In this sense, the Organic Law 4/2007, of April 12, in its explanatory memoran-
dum, recognizes that “the university must respond to society, enhancing the training
and research of excellence, so necessary in a Spanish and European university space
that relies on human capital as the motor of its cultural, political, economic and
social development.” Therefore, lecturers and service employees are possibly some
of the most decisive components of any training process in so far as they must be
considered as providers of training whose objective is the satisfaction of student
educational needs through their participation in the design and development of
programmes.
It should be noted that the higher education system in Spain has evolved from
the 1990s to the present with the new regulations that have emerged over time, now
trying to adapt to the new European Space of Higher Education and coping with the
flight of brains and talent. This highlights the need to focus the management of high-
er educational institutions on the market and business environment, the importance
of brand creation and the maximization of educational brand capital, which will be
analyzed in detail in the following section.
3. The importance of brand capital
Defining what is meant by brand capital implies understanding that there is a

lack of consensus on the part of the scientific community in addressing the concept
(Winters, 1991). Thus, such conceptualization can come from the individual rela-
tionship and experience of each consumer with the brand (Aaker, 1992; Wansink,
2003), although universal patterns and behaviour can be generalized in all consum-
ers (Farquhar, 1989).
Park and Srinivasan (1994) show that the brand has its own value (utility),
regardless of the product. Thus, they define brand capital (brand-specific effects) as
the component of overall preference, not explained by objectively measured attrib-
utes. From that moment, Leuthesser (1988) argues that brand and product begin to
be considered two different components of the offer, constituting the genesis of the
concept of brand, as it is known today.
The conceptual framework of brand capital considers such capital as a mar-
ket-based intangible asset (Sharp, 1996). That is, it is an asset that the company
can sell or transfer, and which it has exclusive rights to. It is intangible, because it
does not have a definite physical presence that can be stored, nor is it subject to the
accounting rules of depreciation. It is based on the market, as it is based on the mind
and consumer behaviour, rather than being measured through the accounts. This
has led the financial literature on brand capital to recognize consumer behaviour,
expressed in the form of intangible assets, as a starting point for accounting studies;
which implies that the definition of brand capital must be formulated in terms of the
consumer’s reaction to the brand (Fernández, 2002).
Thus, we can consider that brand capital has great relevance within the business
sphere due to the brand’s effect on aspects such as preferences (Pappu, Quester and
Cooksey, 2005), utilities (Kamakura and Russell, 1993) and the differential respons-
es that their presence causes in the individual (Yoo and Donthu, 2001). That is,
its importance revolves around the idea that brand capital is the incremental value
added to the product as a consequence of the brand. In other words, brand capital as
the customer being the culmination of the evaluation that they make of the product,
the company that produces it and other variables that influence the production and
consumption of the goods.
So, the evolution of brand capital within a market can be described as a process
of learning by the customer, consisting of five stages: (1) brand birth, (2) creation of
recognition and partnerships, (3) quality perceptions and value creation (4) brand
loyalty emergence, and (5) brand extension launching (Gordon, Calantone and Di
Benedetto, 1993). Moreover, Rao and Ruekert (1994) consider that brand capital
is important because of the brand extensions that can be made, as well as brand
alliances or co-branding.
Although brand capital has been defined as a key business variable (Aaker, 1991;
Keller, 1993), and numerous models and methods have been proposed for measuring
and estimating it (Myers, 2003), there has not yet been a consensus on a universal
measurement system (Washburn and Plank, 2002). Thus, attempts to value brands
and incorporate them as assets in the balance sheets have always been accompanied
by strong controversy, which implies the need to identify the sources of such value in
order to measure the value of a brand (Motameni and Shahrokhi, 1998).
In this sense, academics have shown an interest in the analysis of the process by
which brand capital is created and if it is actually part of brand DNA. Therefore, it
is a question of studying what contributes to brand capital and how these parameters
can be used effectively to build or feed a brand (Cubillo, 2010).
Thus, after reviewing the literature, seven proposals for brand capital models
have been considered, taking into account the importance they have been given
and the impact they have had on further research. Thus, the contributions of (1)
Farquhar, 1989; (2) Aaker, 1992; (3) Keller, 1993; (4) Faircloth, Capella and Alford,
2001; (5) Yoo and Donthu (1997); (6) Delgado and Munuera, 2002; and (7) Buil,
Martínez and De Chernatony (2010) were analysed. The choice of these proposals
starts from the contribution of Saavedra (2004), which has been extended with the
review of the literature, as shown in Table 1.
Table 1. Main elements of brand capital
Farquhar Faircloth, Capella Yoo and Donthu Delgado and Buil, Martínez and
Brand Capital Elements Aaker (1992) Keller (1993)
(1989) and Alford (2001) (2001) Munuera (2002) De Chematory (2010)
BRAND AWARENESS X X X X X
Brand Thinking X X
Perceived Risk Reduction X
Brand Prominence X
Brand Recognition X
Brand Recall X
BRAND IMAGE X X X X X X X
Brand Associations X X X X X
Brand Performance X
Brand Differentiation X
Brand Imagination X
Brand as a Company X
Brand Personality X
Brand Reputation X X
PERCEIVED QUALITY X X X X X
Brand Esteem X
Brand Judgements X
Brand Leadership X
Brand Reviews X
Brand Popularity X
Willingness to Pay More X
Brand Feelings X
Perceived Value X
BRAND LOYALTY X X X X X X
Customer Appreciation X
Evolution of marketing in higher education: Educational brand capital
Brand Trust X
Positive Brand Evaluation X
Brand Fidelity X
Premium Price X
75
76
Table 1. (continuation)
Farquhar Faircloth, Capella Yoo and Donthu Delgado and Buil, Martínez and
Brand Capital Elements Aaker (1992) Keller (1993)
(1989) and Alford (2001) (2001) Munuera (2002) De Chematory (2010)
Brand Resonance X
Customer Satisfaction X
OTHER BRAND ASSETS X X X X
Trademark Aspects X
Commercial Channel X X
Firm X
Purchase Behaviour X
Competitive Advantage X
Source: Author’s own presentation.

Javier Casanoves-Boix and Inés Küster-Boluda
As we can observe in Table 1, all the authors unanimously consider five elements,
which, although named in different ways, can be understood to contribute to brand
capital. These are: (1) brand awareness, (2) brand image, (3) perceived quality, (4)
brand loyalty and (5) other brand assets. In the following section, we focus our
attention on an exhaustive review of the literature regarding brand capital and its
elements, both applied to the education sector.
4. Brand capital in higher education
On one hand, in relation to the definition of brand capital in higher education,

Berry (2000) argues that although the product is considered the main brand in
terms of packaged products, it is not the case with service companies. In this case,
the company is the main brand, the service is considered the cornerstone of today’s
and tomorrow’s marketing. In addition, this contribution, applied to the offer of
educational services, includes generating brand capital based on the brand strength
transmitted by the higher educational institution.
Hemsley-Brown and Goonawardana (2007) consider that the economic envi-
ronment of recent years has had a strong negative impact on the financial situation
of most higher educational institutions and colleges, which have begun to realize
that the relatively simple promotional tools used in the past no longer work today.
As a result, they have resorted to the brand in their attempt to thrive, and in some
cases to survive in the saturated market of higher education. Thus, and considering
that the market is increasingly complex and competitive, universities and colleges
implement branding strategies to cope with the today’s global challenges (Whisman,
2009).
Chen (2008) believes that higher education also provides an interesting and
important context for marketing research, as higher educational institutions word-
wide are increasingly focusing on marketing strategy, and students are considered to
be consumers and potential clients. Therefore, suppliers’ attributes, product attrib-
utes and marketing activities performed by a higher educational institution will help
to generate better brand capital. Moreover, Mazzarol and Soutar (2008) add that
factors such as personnel contracts, location, size, history and international relations
directly influence the quality of higher education.
In addition, Mourad, Ennew and Kortam (2011) consider that marketing in the
services sector is usually quite complicated, due to the unique characteristics of the
service and the domain of experience, as well as the credibility of the qualities. This is
entirely related to higher education because its structure is designed to offer teaching
services to students. In addition, a particular consequence is that the risk perceived
in a service is usually higher when consumers have to make a purchase decision
(Parasuraman, Zethaml and Berry, 1985).
According to Mourad (2013), higher education is one of the most important
services offered in any economy, but very difficult to evaluate in terms of quality.
Consumers often perceive the selection of an educational service as a risky decision,

because it can play an important role in their future professional career, and is usu-
ally an expensive service. Therefore, the autor considers that the brand capital of
a higher educational institution is an element that influences the selection process,
as it acts as a tool for differentiation and risk aversion. This is why universities are
increasing their investments in building and managing a single brand capital, in
order to differentiate themselves from their competition (Mourad, 2013), even if
only to improve their market ranking (Brunzel, 2007).
Thus, analyzing the four elements of brand capital applied to the field of higher
education, the following four points should be highlighted.
Firstly, with regard to the relationship between brand awareness and brand
capital in higher education, Koku (1997) explains that higher educational institu-
tions must be motivated to create their own brand by investing in brand awareness,
among other reasons through the need to counteract the decline in enrollment, by the
expansion of the school’s appeal, through a merger between institutions, adapting to
higher education markets and by increasing the prestige of the school.
Sevier (2001) focuses his research on two elements that he considers essential
to attain brand success: (1) awareness and (2) relevance. Thus, he considers that,
without conscience, the target audience will not be able to determine if the brand
and its messages, products and services are relevant to purchase consideration. They
will probably respond that they did not know the brand was part of their shopping
cart. Thus, the author defends seven steps to create effective brands: (1) identify the
essential qualities that the audience wants, (2) assess whether the target audience
perceives those qualities, (3) identify potential performance and perception gaps, (4)
respond to it strategically, (5) review and prioritize their live descriptors, (6) develop
and execute a branding strategy, and (7) test and refine branding strategies.
Toma, Dubrow and Hartley (2005) introduce the concept of institutional culture
in higher education, which is necessary to strengthen the brand. A strong culture,
therefore, leads to an increase in the connections between the different agents
associated with the university campus, also improving the social cohesion between
students and university. Therefore, they consider that a common perception of insti-
tutional culture improves the brand awareness of the university headquarters and,
consequently educational managers can draw up appropriate strategies to increase
the purchase preference of educational services.
Furey, Springer and Parsons (2009) define the university brand promise as the
implicit or explicit aspect of what the university is, which creates expectations, and
conveys a commitment to the value that the institution can offer as well as making
it distinctive. So, the trajectory, longevity and heritage of the higher educational
institution must be considered an important factor in creating a university name and
a unique brand (Morphew, 2001).
Brewer and Zhao (2010) attempt to explore the difference between brand repu-
tation and brand awareness in the context of higher education and how it influences
student decisions. This knowledge has, therefore, practical and useful implications
for higher educational managers. Thus, they emphasize that the higher education
sector should seek to improve its brand reputation in order to obtain greater prefer-
ence and maximize its recognition for the final customer. In this context, as discussed
above, Mourad, Ennew and Kortam (2011) include brand knowledge as a key ele-
ment of brand awareness. Pinar et al. (2014) include brand awareness as a key factor
in their proposed model of brand capital in higher education, among others.
Secondly, as regards the relation of brand image to brand capital in higher educa-
tion, Bosch et al. (2006) base their study on how five independent variables (reputa-
tion, relevance, personality, performance and brand relation) and a moderating varia-
ble (brand identity) influence a dependent variable, the brand image. Thus, they reveal
that these elements have a positive and significant influence on brand identity and,
at the same time, on the brand image of South African higher education institutions.
According to Jevons (2006), brand efforts are no longer limited to consumer
products. Companies and organizations in various service industries have been try-
ing to use branding strategies to build strong brands. Likewise, higher education and
universities have also realized the need to develop sustainable branding strategies.
Therefore, the brand has become a strategic imperative for universities and other
post-compulsory educational institutions in order to develop and create images of
significantly differentiated brands that communicate their strengths and competitive
advantage. In this line, Hemsley-Brown and Goonawardana (2007) argue that Brit-
ish universities are increasingly competing for international students (in response to
trends in global student mobility), university funding (which is declining) and gov-
ernment support (based on recruitment campaigns). For these reasons, universities
must consolidate their brand, develop brand architecture and adapt their corporate
educational image, with the final aim of improving their positioning, their identity
and their brand image, both in university schools and in their own faculties.
Along the same lines, Hamann, Williams and Omar (2007) consider that brand
image seems to be an essential social condition for students, alumni and employ-
ees, also granting a certain level of social status to having obtained a degree in a
particular higher educational institution. Williams and Omar (2009) consider that
in those institutions that do not work well, they can try to make a radical change
of brand name, seeking to revitalize or reposition it, in order to adapt to the new
markets. Thus, Williams, Williams, and Omar (2013) consider eight basic principles
for renaming higher education brands: (1) naming criteria, (2) shareholders, (3) edu-
cational heritage, (4) internal marketing, (5) own resources, (6) timing design, (7)
management team, and (8) share detail.
In addition and closely linked to the concept of brand image, Denegri et al. (2009)
argue that in the case of the University of Psychology of Santiago de Chile, brand
personality generates differentiation and improves the quality of the higher educa-
tional institutions, which permits maximization of the brand image and influences
the students making purchasing decisions. Moreover, extrapolated internationally
this maximizes the evaluation of the academic program evaluated by the potential
student prior to the purchase decision, in which there is also the influence of the
perception of security, the standard of living and the academic and social prestige of
the country supplying the service (Cubillo and Sánchez, 2004).
Therefore, following Waeraas and Solbakk (2009), universities should express
themselves as individual organizations with their own identity, that is, with personal-
ity. For example, there may be different individual brands in a single school, offered
to college students, postgraduates, corporate recruiters, parents of students, mem-
bers of a local community, or researchers. Therefore, it is increasingly evident that
there may be multiple brands (sub-brands) in many universities, given the complexity
of most schools and the educational offer they provide (Stripling, 2010). In addition,
Whisman (2009) defends factors such as personnel contracts, location, size, history
and international relations that directly influence the quality of higher education.
That is, brand can be considered to be an organization.
More recently, Gómez and Medina (2010) argue that Spanish university insti-
tutions are immersed in a significant reform initiated with the signing of the agree-
ments of Bologna, in search of curricular integration with the rest of the European
university institutions. This implies a substantial increase in competitiveness between
these institutions, which, from a commercial point of view, supposes a favorable cli-
mate to make policies and communication strategies more effective and profitable to
position each university in the Spanish university market. Carmelo and Calvo (2010)
believe that there is an urgent need to attract potential clients (future students,
students studying at other universities, etc.) and, for this reason, universities must
apply management techniques based on maximizing brand image and its positioning.
Gómez and Medina (2010) carried out a study with the intention of photographing
the current situation of Spanish university institutions and, ultimately, empirically
verifying the sensitivity that university institutions have in relation to the perception
of their own university brand image.
More specifically, Pinar et al. (2014) include branding, organization and brand
reputation as key factors in their brand capital model proposal in higher education,
among others. Cervera, Schlesinger, Mesta and Sánchez (2012) provide a brand
image model adapted to higher education, based on indicators such as (1) student
orientation/training, (2) brand reputation, (3) the students’ massification, (4) acces-
sibility to studies, (5) the employees and students’ age, and (6) the aesthetics of
facilities. This, therefore, leads to a kind of identification of the student towards the
university and their loyalty.
Thirdly, Kissman and Van Tran (1990) already testified that the perceived quality
of the educational brand exerts a significant influence on the perceived quality of
brand and brand capital in higher education and improves, thereby, the feelings and
esteem that these have towards the brand.
Ramsden (1992) evaluates the teaching performance of academic organization-
al units in order to manage an adequate perceived quality of the higher education
service in Australia. They indicate that universities must base their effort on perfor-
mance indicators in order to control the work of the agents involved and, thereby,
improve the customer’s willingness to pay higher prices.
On the other hand, Byron (1995), Binsardi and Ekwulugo (2003) and Chen
(2008) argue that brand capital can play a very important role in reducing the risk
associated with a service, largely because of the quality evaluation that the client
carries out after having consumed it. This is also true of services in higher education
(Mourad, Ennew y Kortam, 2011), emphasizing that post-sales service guarantees
improvement of the perceived quality of the educational service (Vorhies, 1997) and
tuition fees (Booth, 1999).
Athiyaman (1997), on the other hand, argues that perceived quality in the higher
education sector is based on eight key indicators: (1) emphasis on students studying
well, (2) staff disposition to resolve any student queries, (3) library service, (4) comput-
er facilities, (5) leisure facilities, (6) size of the classes, (7) the level and difficulty of the
content taught, and (8) student workload. Thus, they consider that each of them plays
a significant role in order to increase the perceived quality of the educational brand.
More recently, Mai (2005) analyzed the concept of service quality, seeking to
examine the differences in perception of the quality of education among students of
various US and UK business schools. He concludes that the perceived quality of the
higher educational institution increases with the quality of education perceived by
the students.
In contrast, Peltier, Schibrowsky and Drago (2007) argue that digital technology,
applied to the traditional classroom, along with the use of tutorials, the changing
role of the teacher and the content of the course improves the learning experience
and, the perceived quality of the educational service. Thus, they believe that the
development of successful online programs and digital courses should be empha-
sized, as well as correctly instructing the teaching staff of higher educational institu-
tions, in order to do a good job.
On the other hand, Billings et al. (2010) investigated students from 62 American
medical schools, finding that the perceived quality of the university has a significant
impact on the promotion of attitudes toward study, the student’s involvement in their
university course and obtaining a good job after finishing their studies. Thus, this
perceived educational quality is extrapolated to the professional quality presented in
medical consultation by future doctors.
Therefore, according to Pinar et al. (2014), the perceived quality and the custom-
er’s emotions towards the brand are fundamental factors in the proposal of a brand
capital model applied to higher education, among others.
In fourth and final place, and regarding the relation of brand loyalty to brand
capital in higher education, Nicholls et al. (1995) consider that the student is a
client and, given the increased competition in higher education, including that
relating to MBA programs, universities need to be more customer oriented, choos-
ing the right market segments, trying to understand buyer behaviour, seeking to
maximize brand loyalty and sales in terms of the educational service rendered. In
this area, Bok (2009) emphasizes the importance of marketing in higher education
institutions. To do this, he makes a reflexive analysis of the effect that brand loyalty
has on medical students concerning the increase in educational fees by American
universities, implying that there is a positive and significant effect in terms of cus-
tomer satisfaction and willingness to pay premium prices. According to Helgesen
(2008), student retention is increasingly important for higher education institutions.
The researcher believes that key success factors should be identified in order to
increase the student’s value and his loyalty, considered a continuous process that
covers the entire student-client life.
Nguyen and LeBlanc (2001) investigated the role of the image and institutional
reputation to the detriment of customer loyalty, indicating that such loyalty will
be greater when the perceptions of students based on reputation and institutional
image are favourable. In addition, they argue that the interaction between uni-
versity and student helps to improve fidelity to the educational brand in business
schools. In addition, Lerman and Garbarino (2002) explain that students become
members of the organization for the rest of their lives, through the community
of alumni created by the corporate brand of their higher educational institution.
In addition, Brown and Mazzarol (2009) explain the relationship that customer
satisfaction has with loyalty in the higher educational environment. Thus, they
suggest two key terms that sharpen brand loyalty: (1) humanware quality per-
ception, based on people and educational processes and (2) hardware, based on
infrastructures and the tangible elements of the educational service. Both generate
a positive impact on the perceived value, satisfaction and institutional image that
the own university conveys. In turn, Pawsan and Ganesh (2009) explain this rela-
tionship but consider it through a greater state of consumption satisfaction, the
student can acquire other services in addition to what has already been provided
(through cross selling), such as new courses or language services, for example.
Thereby, they recommend managing strategies linked to maximizing brand loyalty
by university managers and policy makers associated with the educational institu-
tion in question.
Rojas et al. (2009) consider that student loyalty is a critical indicator for meas-
uring the success of higher education institutions that wish to retain students to
graduation, and to attract them back later. Thus, loyalty is based on four key fac-
tors: (1) perceived service quality, (2) satisfaction, (3) trust, and (4) commitment.
Through their study, they conclude that perceived quality and satisfaction do not
directly affect brand loyalty, but have an indirect influence through the trust and
commitment that the student can have with the university.
To sum up, and following the argument of Pinar et al. (2014), brand loyalty
and brand trust represent fundamental factors in the brand capital model proposal
applied to higher education, among others.
In view of the above, it is possible to formulate the following theoretical
hypothesis.
Theoretical hypothesis: It is possible to form brand capital in higher educational

institutions with four pillars (brand awareness, brand image, perceived quality and
brand loyalty).
So, considering the seven proposals for brand capital models reviewed in the lit-
erature (Farquhar, 1989; Aaker, 1992; Keller, 1993; Yoo y Donthu, 1997; Faircloth,
Capella y Alford, 2001; Delgado y Munuera, 2002; y Buil, Martínez y De Cher-
natony, 2010), with the various contributions related to each of the brand capital
elements in its application to the education sector, Table 2 shows the guide to defend
our contribution in the present research, brand capital applied to higher educational
institutions.
Table 2. Main elements of brand capital
84
Faircloth, Capella Yoo and Delgado Buil, Martínez and

Farquhar Aaker Keller
Brand Capital Elements and Alford Donthu and Munuera De Chematory Proposals of Brand Capital in Higher Education
(1989) (1992) (1993)
(2001) (2001) (2002) (2010)
BRAND AWARENESS X X X X X BRAND AWARENESS
Brand Thinking X X
Koku, 1997; Morphew, 2001; Sevier, 2001;
Perceived Risk Reduction X
Toma, Dubrow and Hartley, 2005; Brunzel,
Brand Prominence X 2007; Furey, Springer and Parsons, 2009; Brewer
and Zhao, 2010; Pinar, Trapp, Girard and Boyt,
Brand Recognition X
2014
Brand Recall X
BRAND IMAGE X X X X X X X BRAND IMAGE
Brand Associations X X X X X Smith and Ennew, 2000; Bosch, Venter, Han
Brand Performance X and Boshoff, 2006; Jevons, 2006; Hamann,
Williams and Omar, 2007; Hemsley-Brown and
Brand Differentiation X Goonawardana, 2007; Chen, 2008; Denegri,
Cabezas, Herrera, Páez and Vargas, 2009;
Brand Imagination X
Williams and Omar, 2009; Waeraas and Solbakk,
Brand as a Company X 2009; Whisman, 2009; Gómez and Medina,
2010; Stripling, 2010; Mourad, Ennew and
Brand Personality X Kortam, 2011; Williams, Williams and Omar,
Brand Reputation X X 2013; Pinar, Trapp, Girard and Boyt, 2014
PERCEIVED QUALITY X X X X X PERCEIVED QUALITY

Brand Esteem X
Brand Judgements X
Javier Casanoves-Boix and Inés Küster-Boluda
Brand Leadership X Kissman and Van Tran, 1990; Ramsden, 1991;

Byron, 1995; Athiyaman, 1997; Vorhies, 1997;
Brand Reviews X Booth, 1999; Binsardi and Ekwulugo, 2003; Mai,
Brand Popularity X 2005; Peltier, Schibrowsky and Drago, 2007;
Chen, 2008; Mourad, Ennew and Kortam, 2011;
Willingness to Pay More X Pinar, Trapp, Girard and Boyt, 2014.
Brand Feelings X
Perceived Value X
Table 2. (continuation)
Faircloth, Capella Yoo and Delgado Buil, Martínez and

Farquhar Aaker Keller
Brand Capital Elements and Alford Donthu and Munuera De Chematory Proposals of Brand Capital in Higher Education
(1989) (1992) (1993)
(2001) (2001) (2002) (2010)
BRAND LOYALTY X X X X X X BRAND LOYALTY
Customer Appreciation X
Brand Trust X
Nicholls, Harris, Morgan, Clarke and Sims,
Positive Brand Evaluation X 1995; Nguyen and LeBlanc, 2001; Lerman and
Garbarino, 2002; Helgesen, 2008; Bok, 2009;
Brand Fidelity X
Brown and Mazzarol, 2009; Pawsan and Ganesh,
Premium Price X 2009; Rojas, Vasquez, Kara and Cerdá, 2009;
Pinar, Trapp, Girard and Boyt, 2014.
Brand Resonance X
Customer Satisfaction X
Source: Author’s own presentation.

Evolution of marketing in higher education: Educational brand capital
85
5. Conclusions
The aim of this paper is to analyze the importance of brand capital in higher
education institutions. At the same time, it can be considered as a point of reflection
for the managers of those institutions, both public and private. In this sense, and as
a result of what was stated in previous lines, five conclusions are reached.
Firstly, the present work falls within the scope of brand capital, whose com-
mon conceptualization is still under discussion. Thus, it emphasizes the role of
brands from the beginning to the present, reviewing different researchers who have
expressed their arguments about the importance of a branded product with respect
to those products without a brand.
Secondly, the main conclusions related to brand capital were collected. After
reviewing the literature, it is possible to conclude that brand capital: (1) is a mar-
ket-based intangible asset, and (2) it must be formulated in terms of the brand con-
sumer’s reaction.
Thirdly, the present research focused on analyzing the main brand capital mod-
els proposed in the literature (Farquhar, Capella and Alford, 2001; Delgado and
Munuera, 2002, Buil, Martínez and De Chernatony, 2010). In this way, it has been
possible to identify various brand capital elements and justify the importance of four
of them that are decisive for its consolidation: (1) brand awareness, (2) brand image,
(3) perceived quality and (4) brand loyalty.
Fourthly, the research focused on brand capital within the field of higher educa-
tion, synthesizing common elements through a literary revision to broadly approx-
imate the concept and its main features: (1) brand capital is integrally related to
higher education since its structure is designed to offer teaching services to students,
(2) brand has become a strategic imperative for universities and other post-compul-
sory educational institutions in order to develop significantly differentiated brands
that communicate their strengths and competitive advantage, (3) it is increasingly
evident that there may be multiple brands (sub-brands) in many universities, given
the complexity of most schools and the educational offer they provide, (4) the brand
value of a higher educational institution is an element that significantly influences
the selection process, since it acts as a tool of differentiation and risk aversion, and
(5) key factors in creating higher education brand value are: brand awareness, per-
ceived quality, brand associations, organizational associations, brand loyalty, brand
emotions, brand trust, the learning environment and brand reputation.
Fifthly, a table has been generated with contributions from authors on the four
brand capital elements referred to in their application to higher education. There-
fore, we can conclude that all of them have a positive and significant effect on
educational brand capital, visualizing a future theoretical model composed of four
research hypotheses.
Thus, in the current context and after revising the literature, we propose that higher
educational institutions apply approaches and concepts of brand capital in order to
gain competitive advantages. Alongside this, there are two implications for managers.
Firstly, brand equity applied to the educational field can yield surprising results
if the objectives have been defined carefully and marketing programs developed
according to the criteria of brand awareness, brand image, perceived quality and
brand loyalty. Therefore, it is desirable that all educational institutions bet on imple-
menting a brand equity strategy in all their educational centres.
Secondly, such brand capital strategies should be planned based on each of the
agents involved in the higher educational institution, whether internal clients (lec-
turers and service employees) or external clients (students and society in general).
Therefore, it is considered that each of them means that brand capital can be maxi-
mized or decreased depending on their brand perception.
In summary, this work can be considered a reflection that opens the door to
future research in this area, which we consider will make a great contribution to the
scientific community and society in general.
References
Aaker, D.A., 1991, “Managing Brand Equity”. Capitalizing on the Value of a Brand
Name, The Free Press, New York, NY.
– 1992, “The value of brand equity”. Journal of business strategy, Vol. 13(4), pp.
27-32.
– 2002, “Construir marcas poderosas”. Ediciones Deusto.
Athiyaman, A., 1997, “Linking student satisfaction and service quality perceptions: the
case of university education”. European Journal of Marketing, 31(7), pp. 528-540.
Berry, L.L., 2000, “Cultivating service brand equity”. Journal of the Academy of
marketing Science, Vol. 28(1), pp. 128-137.
Billings, M.E., Engelberg, R., Curtis, J.R., Block, S. and Sullivan, A.M., 2010,
“Determinants of medical students’ perceived preparation to perform end-of-life
care, quality of end-of-life care education, and attitudes toward end-of-life care”.
Journal of palliative medicine, Vol. 13(3), pp. 319-326.
Binsardi, A. and Ekwulugo, F., 2003, “International marketing of British education:
research on the students’ perception and the UK market penetration”. Marketing
Intelligence & Planning, Vol. 21 No. 5, pp. 318-27.
Bok, D., 2009, “Universities in the marketplace: The commercialization of higher
education”. Princeton University Press.
Boletín Oficial del Estado, 2014, “Real Decreto 412/2014, de 6 de junio, por el que
se establece la normativa básica de los procedimientos de admisión a las enseñan-
zas universitarias oficiales de Grado”.
Booth, J., 1999, “Choosing a place of higher education: some preliminary analysis
of student response to marketing efforts”. Academy of Marketing Annual Con-
ference Proceedings, University of Stirling, Scotland, UK, 7-9 July.
Bosch, J., Venter, E., Han, Y. and Boshoff, C., 2006, “The impact of brand identity
on the perceived brand image of a merged higher education institution: Part one”.
Management Dynamics: Journal of the Southern African Institute for Manage-

ment Scientists, 15(2), pp. 10-30.
Brewer, A. and Zhao, J., 2010, “The impact of a pathway college on reputation and
brand awareness for its affiliated university in Sydney”. International Journal of
Educational Management, Vol. 24(1), pp. 34-47.
Brown, R.M. and Mazzarol, T.W., 2009, “The importance of institutional image to
student satisfaction and loyalty within higher education”. Higher Education, Vol.
58(1), pp. 81-95.
Brunzel, D.L., 2007, “Universities sell their brands”. Journal of Product & Brand
Management, Vol. 16, No. 2, pp. 152-3.
Buil, I., Martínez, E. and De Chernatony, L., 2010, “Medición del valor de marca
desde un enfoque formativo”. Cuadernos de gestión, 10(1), 167-196.
Byron, S., 1995, “Brand Equity and Market-Bassed Assets of Professional Service
Firms”. Journal of Professional Services Marketing, Vol. 13 No. 1, pp. 3-10.
Camacho, J., 2008, “El valor de la marca: Brand Equity”. Datos, Diagnóstico y
Tendencias. Nielsen. http://mx.nielsen.com/press.
Carmelo, M. and Calvo, S., 2010, “Branding universitario: marcando la diferencia”.
Delta.
Caruana, A., Ramaseshan, B. and Ewing, M.T., 1998, “Do universities that are
more market orientated perform better?”. International Journal of Public Sector
Management, Vol. 11, No. 1, pp. 55-70.
Cervera, A., Schlesinger, W., Mesta, M.A. and Sánchez, R., 2012, “Medición de
la imagen de la universidad y sus efectos sobre la identificación y lealtad del
egresado: una aproximación desde el modelo de Beerli y Díaz” (2003). Revista
Española de Investigación en Marketing ESIC, No. 16(2), pp. 7-29.
Chen, L.H., 2008, “Internationalization or international marketing? Two frame-
works for understanding international students’ choice of Canadian universities”.
Journal of Marketing for Higher Education, Vol. 18 No. 1, pp. 1-33.
Conway, T., Mackay, S. and Yorke, D., 1994, “Strategic planning in higher educa-
tion: Who are the customer?”. The International Journal of Educational Manage-
ment. Bradford, Vol. 8, No. 6, pp. 29-37.
Cubillo-Pinilla, J.M. and Sánchez-Herrera, J., 2004, “Efecto de la Imagen-País en la
percepción del estudiante internacional”. Ecos de Grado y Posgrados, 2.
Cubillo-Pinilla, J.M., 2010, “Descifrando el ADN de las marcas”. Harvard-Deusto
Marketing & Ventas, (101), pp. 14-24.
Delgado-Ballester, E. and Munuera, J.L., 2002, “Medición del capital de marca con
indicadores formativos”. Investigación y Markerting, Vol. 759, pp. 16-20.
Denegri, M., Etchebarne, M.S., Geldres, V., Cabezas, D. and Herrera, V., 2009,
“Personalidad de marca de las carreras de ciencias empresariales: un análisis
corporativo entre universidad pública y privada”.
Driscoll, C. and Wicks, D., 1998, “The market consumer-driven approach in busi-
ness education. A possible danger?”. Journal of Education for Business. Vol. 74,
No. 1, pp. 58-61.
Faircloth, J. B., Capella, L. M. and Alford, B. L., 2001, “The effect of brand attitude
and brand image on brand equity”. Journal of Marketing Theory and Practice,
pp. 61-75.
Farquhar, P.H., 1989, “Managing brand equity”. Marketing research, Vol. 1(3).
Fernández, C., 2002, “Introducción al marketing para centros de enseñanza”. ESIC
Editorial, 2002.
Flavián, C. and Lozano, F. J., 2004, “Influencia de los moderadores ambientales en
la relación entre orientación al entorno y resultado. Un análisis con regresiones
moderadas en el ámbito educativo”. Revista Española de Investigación de Mar-
keting ESIC, Vol. 8, No. 2, pp. 123-153.
Franco, M.B., 2008, “Modelos tradicionales y nuevos modelos para una enseñan-
za universitaria enmarcada en el Espacio Europeo de Educación Superior”.
Multiárea: revista de didáctica, Vol. 3, pp. 27-38.
Furey, S., Springer, P. and Parsons, C., 2009, “University Brand Promises”. Presenta-
tion at Academy of Marketing 2009 Conference.
García, C.R. and Fernández, F.J.C., 2002, “La orientación de la universidad hacia
la empresa y la sociedad: evaluación de la calidad universitaria”. ESIC Market,
No. 111, pp. 9-24.
Garnica Andrade, A., 1999, “Brand equity: El valor de marca 2”. Segmento, Vol. 2,
No. 8, pp. 1-5.
Gómez, D.F.H. and Medina, R.Z., 2010, “Diagnóstico de la imagen de marca de las
instituciones universitarias en España”.
Gordon, G. L., Calantone, R. J. and Di Benedetto, C. A., 1993, “Brand equity in the
business-to-business sector: An exploratory study”. Journal of Product & Brand
Management, Vol. 2(3), pp. 4-16.
Hamann, D., Williams, R. and Omar, M., 2007, “Branding Strategy and Consumer
High-Technology Product”. The Journal of Product & Brand Management, 16,
(Winter/Spring), Vol. 2, pp. 98-111.
Helgesen, O., 2008, “Marketing for higher education: A relationship marketing
approach”. Journal of Marketing for Higher Education, Vol. 18(1), pp. 50-78.
Hemsley-Brown, J. and Oplatka, I., 2006, “Universities in a competitive global mar-
ketplace. A systematic review of the literature on higher education Marketing”.
International Journal of Public Sector Management, Vol. 19, No. 4, pp. 316-338.
Hemsley-Brown, J. and Goonawardana, S., 2007, “Brand harmonization on the
international higher education”. Journal of Business Research, Vol. 60, No. 9,
pp. 942-948.
Interbrand Group, 1992, “World’s Greatest Brands: An International Review”. New
York: Jonh Wiley.
Instituto Valenciano de Estadística, 2008, “La contribución socioeconómica de las
universidades valencianas”. Valencia: IVE.
Jevons, C., 2006, “Universities: a prime example of branding gone wrong”. Journal
of Product & Brand Management, Vol. 15, No. 7, pp. 466-447.
Kamakura, W.A. and Russell, G.J., 1993, “Measuring brand value with scanner
data”. International Journal of Research in Marketing, Vol. 10(1), pp. 9-22.
Kapferer, J.N., 2012, “The new strategic brand management: Advanced insights and
strategic thinking”. Kogan page publishers.
Keller, K.L., 1993, “Conceptualizing, measuring, and managing customer-based
Brand equity”. Journal of Marketing, Vol. 57, January, pp. 1-22.
Keller, K.L., Apéria, T. and Georgson, M., 2008, “Strategic brand management: A
European perspective”. Pearson Education.
Kissman, K. and Van Tran, T., 1990, “Perceived quality of field placement educa-
tion among graduate social work students”. Journal of Continuing Social Work
Education, 5(2), 27-30.
Klein, N., 2000, “No logo”. Macmillan.
Koku, P., 1997, “What Is in a Name? The Impact of Strategic Name Change on Stu-
dent Enrollment in Colleges and Universities”. Journal of Marketing for Higher
Education, Vol. 8 (2), pp. 53-71.
Kotler, P., 2001, “Dirección de marketing”. Pearson Education.
Küster, I., 2012, “El Docente Universitario desde una perspectiva de mercado: Influ-
encia en el rendimiento del estudiante”. Alicante: 3 ciencias, pp. 1-118.
Küster, I., Vila, N. and Aldás, J., 2011, “Brand Equity Innovation: el uso de las
nuevas tecnologías en el sector del vino para el incremento del valor de marca”.
Distribución y Consumo, No. 116, pp. 67 (pp. 1-15 en www.mercasa.es).
Lerman, D. and Garbarino, E., 2002, “Recall and Recognition of Brand Names: A
Comparison of Word and Nonword Name Types”. Psychology & Marketing,
Vol. 19 (7/8), pp. 621.
Leuthesser, L., 1988, “Defining, Measuring, and Managing Brand Equity: A Confer-
ence Summary by”. Marketing Science Institute.
Mai, L.W., 2005, “A comparative study between UK and US: The student satisfac-
tion in higher education and its influential factors”. Journal of Marketing Man-
agement, 21(7-8), 859-878.
Mazzarol, T. and Soutar, G., 2008, “The Global Market for Higher Education:
Sustainable Competitive Strategies for the New Millennium”. Edward Elgar
Publishing, Cheltenham.
Mitchell, A., 2005, “The Curse of Brand Narcissism”. Journal of Brand Manage-
ment, Vol. 13, No. 1, pp. 4-10.
Morphew, C., 2001, “A Rose by Any Other Name? Which Colleges Become Univer-
sities”. The Review of Higher Education, Vol. 25 (2).
Motameni, R. and Shahrokhi, M., 1998, “Brand equity valuation: a global perspec-
tive”. Journal of product & brand management, Vol. 7(4), pp. 275-290.
Mourad, M., 2013, “Conceptualizing Brand Equity in the Higuer Education: An
Exploratory Study”. American Marketing Association.
Mourad, M., Ennew, C. and Kortam, W., 2011, “Brand equity in higher education”.
Marketing Intelligence & Planning, Vol. 29(4), pp. 403-420.
Nicholls, J., Harris, J., Morgan, E., Clarke, K. and Sims, D., 1995, “Marketing
higher education: the MBA experience”. International Journal of Educational
Management, 9(2), pp. 31-38.
Nguyen, N. and LeBlanc, G., 2001, “Image and reputation of higher education insti-
tutions in students’ retention decisions”. International Journal of Educational
Pappu, R., Quester, P.G. and Cooksey, R.W., 2005, “Consumer-based brand equity:
improving the measurement–empirical evidence”. Journal of Product & Brand
Parasuraman, A., Zethaml, V. and Berry, L., 1985, “A conceptual model of service
quality and its implications for future research”. Journal of Marketing, Vol. 49,
pp. 41-50.
Park, C.S. and Srinivasan, V., 1994, “A survey-based method for measuring and
understanding brand equity and its extendibility”. Journal of marketing research,
pp. 271-288.
Paswan, A.K. and Ganesh, G., 2009, “Higher education institutions: Satisfaction
and loyalty among international students”. Journal of Marketing for Higher
Education, Vol. 19(1), pp. 65-84.
Peltier, J.W., Schibrowsky, J.A. and Drago, W., 2007, “The interdependence of the
factors influencing the perceived quality of the online learning experience: A
causal model”. Journal of Marketing Education, 29(2), pp. 140-153.
Petruzzellis, L., D’Uggento, A.M. and Romanazzi, S., 2006, “Students satisfaction
and quality of service in Italian universities”. Managing Service Quality, Vol. 16,
No. 4, pp. 349-364.
Pinar, M., Trapp, P., Girard, T. and Boyt, A. T., 2014, “University Brand Equity:
An Empirical Investigation of its Dimensions”. Staying Current with Media &
Millennials, Vol. 50.
Ramsden, P., 1992, “Learning to teach in higher education”. London: Routledge.
Citado en De la Cruz (1999).
Rao, A.R. and Ruekert, R.W., 1994, “Brand alliances as signals of product quali-
ty”. Sloan management review, Vol. 36, pp. 87-87.
Rojas-Méndez, J.I., Vasquez-Parraga, A.Z., Kara, A.L.I. and Cerda-Urrutia, A., 2009,
“Determinants of student loyalty in higher education: A tested relationship approach
in Latin America”. Latin American Business Review, Vol. 10(1), pp. 21-39.
Sevier, R.A., 2001, “Brand as relevance”. Journal of Marketing for Higher Educa-
tion, 10(3), pp. 77-97.
Sharp, B., 1996, “Brand equity and market-based assets of professional service
firms”. Journal of Professional Services Marketing, Vol. 13(1), pp. 3-13.
Smith. B.E., 2003, “An investigation of the market orientation of colleges and uni-
versities in the council of Christian colleges and universities”. Doctoral disserta-
tion, Capella University. (UMI Microform Service Nº 3129598).
Smith, R. and Ennew, C., 2000, “Service quality and its impact on word of mouth
communication in higher education, paper presented at the Academy of Market-
ing Annual Conference”. University of Derby, Derby, 5-7 July.
Stripling, J., 2010, “Brand new dilemma”. available at: http://insidehighered.com/
news/2010/10/ 19/branding (accessed June 27, 2013).
Svenson, G. and Wood, G., 2007, “Are university students really customers? When
illusion may lead to delusion for all”. International Journal of Educational Man-
agement, Vol. 21, No. 1, pp. 17-28.
Tiebout, C.M., 1956, “The pure theory of local expenditures”. Journal of Political
Economy, Vol. 64, pp. 416-424.
Toma, J.D., Dubrow, G. and Hartley, M., 2005, “The uses of institutional culture:
Strengthening identification and building brand equity in higher education”.
Wiley Periodicals, Inc.
Vorhies, D.W., 1997, “Building strong brands”. Journal of the Academy of Market-
ing Science, Vol. 25, No. 3, pp. 260-261.
Waeraas, A. and Solbakk, M., 2009, “Defining the essence of a university: lessons
from higher education branding”. Higher Education, Vol. 57, No. 4, pp. 449-462.
Wansink, B., 2003, “Using laddering to understand and leverage a brand’s equity”.
Qualitative Market Research: An International Journal, Vol. 6(2), pp. 111-118.
Washburn, J. H. and Plank, R. E., 2002, “Measuring brand equity: an evaluation of
a consumer-based brand equity scale”. Journal of Marketing Theory and Prac-
tice, pp. 46-62.
Whisman, R., 2009, “Internal branding: a university’s most valuable intangible
asset”. Journal of Product & Brand Management, Vol. 18(5), pp. 367-370.
Williams, R.L. and Omar, M., 2009, “Renaming Service Organizations for Growth,
Presentation at Academy of Marketing 5th International Colloquium: Brand,
Identity and Corporate Reputation”. University of Cambridge, U.K.
Williams, R.L., Williams, H.A. and Omar, M., 2013, “The Marketing Impact of
the Principles of Renaming Within a Higher Education Service Organization”.
American Marketing Association.
Winters, L.C., 1991, “Brand equity measures: some recent advances”. Marketing
Research, Vol. 3(4), pp. 70-73.
Yoo, B. and Donthu, N., 2001, “Developing and validating a multidimensional
consumer-based brand equity scale”. Journal of business research, Vol. 52(1),
pp. 1-14.
Notes on Contributors
Name: Javier Casanoves-Boix

Position: Profesor Asociado
School / Faculty: Facultad de Economía, Departamento de Marketing
University: Universidad Internacional de Valencia
Address: Gorgos, 5, 46021 Valencia
Telephone: +34 960 96 81 26
Email: javier.casanoves@campusviu.es
Name: Inés Küster-Boluda

Position: Catedrática de Universidad
School / Faculty: Facultad de Economía, Departamento de Comercialización e Investigación de
Mercados
University: Universidad de Valencia
Address: Av. Blasco Ibáñez, 13, 46010 Valencia
Telephone: +34 963 86 41 00
Email: ines.kuster@uv.es

Evolution of Marketing in Higher Education: Educational Brand Capital

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Evolution of Marketing in Higher Education: Educational Brand Capital

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Evolution of Marketing in Higher Education: Educational Brand Capital

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Esic Market Economics and Business Journal

Vol. 48, Issue 1, January-April 2017, 69-93

Evolution of marketing in higher education:

Keywords: brand, brand capital, higher education.

JEL codes: I23.

ISSN 0212-1867 / e-ISSN 1989-3558

2. Current situation of higher education

3. The importance of brand capital

Defining what is meant by brand capital implies understanding that there is a

Source: Author’s own presentation.

4. Brand capital in higher education

On one hand, in relation to the definition of brand capital in higher education,

Consumers often perceive the selection of an educational service as a risky decision,

Theoretical hypothesis: It is possible to form brand capital in higher educational

Faircloth, Capella Yoo and Delgado Buil, Martínez and

PERCEIVED QUALITY X X X X X PERCEIVED QUALITY

Brand Leadership X Kissman and Van Tran, 1990; Ramsden, 1991;

Faircloth, Capella Yoo and Delgado Buil, Martínez and

Source: Author’s own presentation.

Management Dynamics: Journal of the Southern African Institute for Manage-

Name: Javier Casanoves-Boix

Name: Inés Küster-Boluda

You might also like