1

TOWARDS A BRAND POSITIONING STRATEGY AND REFRESHED BRAND IDENTITY FOR

STELLENBOSCH UNIVERSITY

NOVEMBER 2019

RESULTS AND RECOMMENDATIONS OF THE 2019 STELLENBOSCH UNIVERSITY BRAND VALUATION

2

Index Glossary of Terms and Abbreviations 3

Executive Summary 7

1. Introduction, Context and Rationale 8

1.1 The Stellenbosch University Context and Background 8

1.2 The Rationale for Undertaking a Brand Valuation at Stellenbosch University 8

2. The Stellenbosch University Brand Valuation Methodology and Results 10

2.1 A Brief Introduction to the Valuation of Brands 10

2.2 The Brand Valuation Methodology, Key Valuation Assumptions and 11 Assessment Process

2.3 Findings of the Stellenbosch University Brand Valuation 14

3. Brand Valuation Conclusions and Recommendations 19

3.1 Conclusions and Recommendations based on the Brand Valuation Results 19

3.1.1 Brand Value 19

3.1.2 Brand Position 19

3.1.3 Brand Architecture 19

3.2 Rectorate Approval 20

3.3 Practical Implications 21

4. The Future Stellenbosch University Brand Positioning 22

4.1 The Stellenbosch University Brand Positioning Aligned with Vision 2040 and Strategic Framework 2019-2024 22

4.2 Reputational Drivers and the SU Brand Value Proposition 24

5. The Way Forward Together 26

5.1 The Process of Refreshing and Developing a Monolithic Visual Identity for SU 26

5.2 The Future Road Map – Next Steps 26

6. Concluding Remarks 27

3

GLOSSARY OF TERMS AND ABBREVIATIONS

TERMS

Brand architecture: The systematic structuring of brands within an organisation in order to maximize value for the entity. There are three main types of brand architecture systems:

• Monolithic: where the corporate name is used on all products and ser vices of fered by the company;

• Endorsed: where all sub-brands are linked to the corporate brand by means of either a verbal or visual endorsement;

• Freestanding: where the corporate brand operates merely as a “holding company”, and each product or service is individually branded for its target market.

Brand blueprint: Defines the brand essence – why an organisation exists i.e. what it has to offer and how it tells its story. It consists of a number of statements and brand characteristics, including the brand positioning statement.

Brand equity (consumer based perspective): The commercial value that derives from consumer perception of the brand name of a particular product or service, rather than from the product or service itself.

Brand identity: The way a brand presents itself to its stakeholders - the mixture of attributes (tangible and intangible), characteristics or personality that a brand aspires to communicate and that create the overall experience that someone has when they interact with the brand. It consists of all the identifying symbols, words and visual elements that distinguish the brand and its related products, services and programmes in the marketplace. In essence it is what a brand looks like, how it behaves and how it sounds.

Brand positioning statement: The distinctive position that a brand adopts in its competitive environment to ensure that individuals can tell the brand apart from others. The brand positioning statement defines how an organisation wants its market to feel about it.

Brand positioning strategy: A long-term, cohesive, actionable plan for the systematic development of the brand to enable it to meet the organisation’s strategic intent. The strategy takes an organisation’s values, service offerings, and optimum stakeholder experiences and puts them into the context of the organisation’s competitive environment. It should explain the organisation’s unique position within the market and describe why that positioning is likely to drive business and its institutional strategy.

Brand refresh: Is the process of updating a company’s brand identity whereas a rebrand refers to the process of totally transforming a company’s brand identity. A brand refresh might include: tweaking the current design or logo; updating the slogan; changing the colour pallet; refreshing marketing materials and using a new font.

Brand strength: Is the value that is carried by a brand. It’s a marketing term that denotes the perception of consumers towards the brand or the value invested in it over a period of time. Brand Finance determines brand strength by assessing Marketing Investment, Stakeholder Equity, and the impact of these on Business Performance.

4

Brand valuation: Is the process used to calculate the value of brands. Historically, most of a company’s value was in tangible assets such as property, stock, machinery or land. This has now changed and the majority of most companies’ value is in intangible assets, such as their brand name or names. It also assesses the areas where a brand is strong in comparison to that of its peers and where it is weak.

Brand value proposition: It represents the functional and emotional benefits customers expect to receive by working with a particular organisation. The proposition reflects a balance between the aspirations and reality of what the brand is able to deliver.

Masterbrand: The high-level corporate brand under which all other sub-brands and products fit is known as the masterbrand. The masterbrand is used to market different products of a company under the same brand name.

Sub-brand: A product or service whose character and brand values are distinct from, but related to, its parent brand. Sub-brands live underneath the corporate brand and need to have their own brand universe consisting of brand promise, image, value, visual identity etc.

Visual identity: Comprises of the visible elements/brand marks of a brand such as its colour, shape, size etc., which captures and conveys the symbolic meaning of the brand. It expresses the values and ambitions of a brand and its characteristics.

Visual touchpoint audit: A list of all consumer or audience touchpoints. A touchpoint is any point of contact, large or small, where a company’s community encounters its brand. Everything from the company letterhead and signage to its packaging and invoices.

5

ABBREVIATIONS

BER Bureau of Economic Research is an economic research institute within the Faculty of Economics and Management Sciences

(EMS) at Stellenbosch University. Over the years, the BER has built a local and international reputation for independent, objective and authoritative economic research and forecasting.

BF Brand Finance is an independent branded business valuation consultancy headquartered in the City of London and present in 20 countries. It advises branded organisations, or those with intangible assets, on how to maximise their value through effective management of their brand and other intangible assets. Brand Finance has been certified with ISO 10668:2010.

BRG Brand Reference Group was created in 2017 for internal stakeholders of Stellenbosch University as part of a collaborative approach to the development and collective implementation of the University’s branding initiatives.

BSI Brand Strength Index the strength of a brand is expressed in what is known as a Brand Strength Index (BSI), expressed as a score out of 100. The BSI is determined by the integration of three factors, including:

• the level of investment made into defining, establishing, promoting and sustaining a brand, which should

• generate some equity (or value) which, in turn, should

• facilitate improved/enhanced performance (in terms of either business results or strategic goal attainment).

CCD Corporate Communication Division is a support service division within Stellenbosch University responsible for strategic communication that includes the positioning of the SU brand, undertaking effective communication programmes and optimising the use of digital communication platforms.

HE Higher Education is tertiary education leading to award of an academic degree. Higher education, also called post-secondary education, third-level or tertiary education, is an optional final stage of formal learning that occurs after completion of secondary education. It represents levels 6, 7 and 8 of the 2011 version of the International Standard Classification of Education structure.

ICS Integrated Communication Strategy is the vehicle that encapsulates strategic communication at Stellenbosch University and stretches from 2019 to 2024 and is aligned with the SU Vision 2040 and Strategic Framework for the same period. This ensures a direct link between the University’s core strategic themes and institutional objectives on the one hand, and its communication programmes on the other.

PASS Professional, administrative and support services are the core functional entities that form part of Stellenbosch University’s central institutional structure, such as the Rectorate and all administrative divisions.

6

SA South Africa is a country on the southernmost tip of the African continent, marked by several distinct ecosystems.

SU Stellenbosch University is a public research university located in Stellenbosch in the Western Cape province of South Africa.

UCT University of Cape Town is a public research university located in Cape Town in the Western Cape province of South Africa.

UP University of Pretoria is a public research university located in Pretoria in the Gauteng province of South Africa.

USB University of Stellenbosch Business School is the triple-accredited African business school of Stellenbosch University and focuses on responsible leadership development.

WITS University of the Witwatersrand is a multi-campus South African public research university situated in the northern areas of central Johannesburg.

7

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

The need for optimising the brand positioning of any university that strives to lead in an increasingly complex and competitive Higher Education (HE) environment is imperative. Consequently, the implementation of an appropriate institutional brand positioning strategy is widely considered to be a strategic imperative for universities – ultimately impacting the reputation, ranking and funding of the institution.

The commemoration of our Centenary year at Stellenbosch University (SU) created a significant opportunity for the University not only to commemorate this milestone, but also to plan for the future SU that we wish to create. To this end, a new institutional strategy, known as Vision 2040 and Strategic Framework 2019-2024 was developed, incorporating a vision that aspires to becoming the leading research-intensive university on the African continent, globally recognised as excellent, inclusive and innovative and where knowledge is advanced in service of society. Concurrently, the University’s Integrated Communication Strategy (ICS) aims to directly support the implementation of the newly-developed institutional strategy, specifically in the focus areas of brand positioning, communication programmes and digital communication. The branding focus of the ICS strives to optimise our brand positioning by implementing an appropriate brand value proposition in line the institutional strategy through a university-wide roll out plan.

The first step in developing a refreshed institutional brand positioning – that of undertaking a brand valuation, has been completed at SU. The assessment was undertaken by Brand Finance (BF) – an internationally accredited specialist consulting firm in this area. The purpose of the brand valuation was to assess the overall reputation of the cohort of brands selected to participate in the valuation and to diagnose the brand strengths and weaknesses in order to identify reputational performance and drivers, and to identify the most relevant attributes of the SU brand with a high opportunity for brand positioning. BF implemented a “Royalty Relief” methodology, employing financial analyses, quantitative on-line surveys and qualitative interviews in assessing the brand strength of both the SU masterbrand (or overall brand portfolio) and fourteen associated sub-brands, generating a Brand Strength Index (BSI) and a monetary value for each entity assessed.

The main findings of the brand valuation indicate an overall BSI of 64/100, along with a current brand value of R3.07 billion, rendering the institution among the top tier of local HE institutions, but not in the leading position. The current institutional brand portfolio has also been described as incoherent and inefficient in terms of brand equity transfer. Based on the findings, a number of recommendations were made by BF and these were approved by the Rectorate on 16 August 2019, including:

• a decision to migrate to a monolithic brand architecture• the reputational drivers and the proposed brand value proposition • implementation of the next phase in the process of developing a new brand positioning strategy

and a refreshed brand identity for SU.

The process of developing the new brand positioning strategy will next proceed through a phased approach, commencing with the development of the actual strategy, including the brand positioning (based on the valuation findings, stakeholder perceptions and input, reputational drivers and value proposition), brand architecture and blueprint. Simultaneously, the exciting phase of designing a refreshed brand identity for the institution will begin. Once approved, the introduction of the new brand positioning is planned for mid-2020. In closing, this report promotes the direct and close alignment between the future SU brand positioning and the overarching institutional plan - Vision 2040 and Strategic Framework 2019-2024.

8

1. INTRODUCTION, CONTEXT AND RATIONALE

1.1 The Stellenbosch University Context and Background

The role of effectively branding an organisation in the strategic positioning of the entity can hardly be overestimated. In a complex, fast changing HE environment, the contribution of an appropriate brand positioning strategy to ensure the successful attainment of the institution’s strategic goals is equally undisputable. Brand positioning permeates every aspect of an academic institution’s functioning – often even defining the relationship between the institution and its diverse stakeholders. Within the South African context, the development of a strong brand position that successfully balances heritage and contemporary relevance, can be rather challenging.

SU, a leading South African HE institution with an international reputation for excellence, commemorated its Centenary year in 2018. Unsurprisingly, the University’s executive leadership elected to capitalise on the commemoration of this important milestone in the history and ongoing evolution of the institution by embarking on a process of designing and developing a new institutional strategy for the University, known as Vision 2040 and Strategic Framework 2019-2024.

The recently approved strategic framework encapsulates the vision of SU – a statement of the desired future positioning and functioning that describes our core mission and the institutional values espoused to, defines the University’s attributes (or institutional characteristics), identifies the enablers required to optimise the probability of goal attainment and clarifies the focus on six core strategic themes that comprise the SU strategy for the next 5-year cycle. Underpinned by a value proposition that promotes a future-focussed call for unity, verbalised as “Forward Together | Saam Vorentoe | Masiye Phambili”, the institutional strategy positions SU as the leading research-intensive university on the African continent with a global reputation for excellence, promoting inclusivity and innovation that advances knowledge in service of society.

The six core strategic themes that represent the major focus areas of the new SU strategy are:

• sustaining a thriving Stellenbosch University• facilitating a transformative student experience• engaging in purposeful partnerships and inclusive networks• creating networked and collaborative teaching and learning• optimising research for impact• becoming the employer of choice.

Jointly, the strategic outcomes defined within each of these core strategic themes aim at positioning the University in line with the desired future vision of the institution. Notably, the first focus of the strategy is on sustaining a thriving university, which in turn directly relates to the brand positioning of SU.

1.2 The Rationale for Undertaking a Brand Valuation at Stellenbosch University

Located within the responsibility centre of the Deputy Vice-Chancellor: Strategy and Internationalisation, is the Corporate Communication Division (CCD). Closely aligned with the development and implementation of a new institutional strategy for the University, CCD is in the process of rolling out an Integrated Communication Strategy (ICS), which strives to strategically support the institution’s future positioning. This strategy is structured inclusive of initiatives in the focus areas of brand positioning, communication programmes and digital communication.

9

The brand positioning focus area of the ICS seeks to create a competitive advantage for the University by shaping a favourable SU brand experience. Hence, our brand positioning goals include to optimise the SU brand positioning, to comprehensively develop the institution’s brand architecture, to implement an ongoing brand engagement programme, and to facilitate brand congruence across the University by means of implementing a refreshed brand positioning strategy that is directly aligned with the overall institutional plan.

As part of developing a visual identity specifically for the University’s Centenary year, CCD undertook a visual touchpoint audit during 2017, aimed at assessing the actual landscape with regard to the existing brand identity of the University’s corporate and associated sub-brands. The results of this audit pointed to a number of challenges regarding the brand positioning of the University, most prominent of which was the severe level of brand fragmentation that has come to exist over – literally – a hundred years. Such fragmentation has manifested in a lack of congruence and an inconsistent application of guidelines in relation to both visual (logos, colours, fonts, etc) and verbal (slogans, language, etc) identities as well as a lack of a consistent SU narrative. The recommendations made in consequence of the investigation into the existing range of visual identities at SU were approved by the Rectorate on 3 October 2017 and included:

• commencing with a brand evaluation process to gain understanding of the value of the SU brand assets

• identifying a sample of strong brands to be used for the brand evaluation process• standardising the digital signature of SU for the incorporation of the Centenary logo for

implementation in January 2018. Subsequently, BF – a reputable service provider that specialises in assessing the value of brands, was appointed to undertake the brand valuation process at SU. BF is the only accredited ISO10668-compliant brand valuation firm, internationally.

10

2. THE STELLENBOSCH UNIVERSITY BRAND VALUATION METHODOLOGY AND RESULTS

2.1 A Brief Introduction to the Valuation of Brands

The relevance of developing a strong, recognisable brand for any organisation is widely accepted. Globally, the need for developing a focussed brand position within the HE environment is also progressively being recognised to be an important enabler in the successful implementation of the strategies of educational institutions. Locally, the increasingly competitive sector within which universities operate further adds to the challenges of attaining the institution’s strategic goals in a fast-changing, complex eco-system that is comprised of a multitude of stakeholder groups, each with their own set of expectations.

In “business terms”, institutions of higher learning essentially compete in attracting the best academic talent available, both in terms of recruiting students as well as in the employment of staff – ultimately, with a view to producing the best education, research and social impact outcomes, which in turn manifest in the ranking of, and level of funding received by these institutions. In addition to the quality of actual results generated by the university, reputation management and successful brand positioning are at the core of advancing any HE institution as summarised in Figure 1.

SU Academics seek research

accolades To build the reputation of SU, thereby creating the best funding

platform

To attract the best

academic staff

Who create the best teaching experiences

Which attract the best quality

students at competitive

pricesWho achieve the best results

from a respected institution

Who achieve the best career outcomes with employers or as

start ups

Who create the best alumni network and connections

Which creates the strongest

funding base and stakeholder networks

To allow SU to continue to fund

great research that creates ongoing

success

Key: Shaded areas are where a strong brand supports progress to the next stage.

11

Figure 1: The brand permeates many facets of an academic institution and speaks to a diverse range of stakeholdersLeading commercial brands around the world use brand valuations to assess and attach a monetary value to their brands, and to identify the areas of strengths and weaknesses of their brand in comparison to that of its peers or competitors. Such an assessment provides greater comprehension and appreciation of a brand’s positioning and establishes an accurate planning framework for long-term investment in the brand.

Internationally, some HE institutions have embarked on the valuation of their brands – examples include Harvard University, Cambridge University, Eaton College, Trinity Business School and the London Business School. However, none of the local universities in South Africa have as yet undertaken such a valuation and the recently completed brand assessment of SU is leading the way.

2.2 The Brand Valuation Methodology, Key Valuation Assumptions and Assessment Process

Fundamentally, determining the value of any brand is based on the integration of three factors, including:

• the level of investment made into defining, establishing, promoting and sustaining a brand, which should

• generate some equity (or value) which, in turn, should • facilitate improved/enhanced performance (in terms of either business results or strategic

goal attainment).

Jointly, these three factors determine the strength of a brand and such strength is expressed in what is known as a Brand Strength Index (BSI), expressed as a score out of 100. Various methods are used to determine the monetary value of a BSI. In the instance of SU, the University’s brand value was defined as the financial value of trademarks and associated intellectual property. In undertaking the assessment, BF applied the income approach – specifically the “Royalty Relief ” methodology, which predominantly focusses on the valuation of intangible asset ownership. Such methodology is summarised in Figure 2 below:

Figure 2: The Brand Valuation Methodology

BrandInvestment

BrandEquity

BrandPerformance

% = R

Brand StrengthIndex Royalty Rate Revenue Brand Value

Brand strength expressed as a BSI score out of 100

BSI score applied to an appropriate sector royalty rate range

Royalty rate applied to forecast revenues to derive brand revenues

Post-tax brand revenues are discounted to a Net Present Value (NPV) which equals the brand value

Strong brand

Weak brand Branded Forecast revenues & earnings

12

As is the case in all attempts that aim to assess or project financial value, the SU brand valuation initiative was based on a set of key assumptions. In summary, these assumptions hold that (accurately determined) revenue at the current rate, multiplied by future growth projections, minus tax obligations and an adjustment to provide for a reduction in the worth of future income, arrive at a “fair value” assessment of the brand. All of these calculations involve some assumptions, pertaining to aspects such as:

• forecasted revenue and growth rates• an analysis of the university’s various revenue income streams • assumed long-term growth rates for the sector• applicable taxation obligations• the weighted average cost of capital.

Figure 3 below represents these assumptions as applied in the SU brand valuation:

Figure 3: The SU Brand Strength Index Construct

The goals of the brand valuation intended to:

• identify the overall reputation of the SU masterbrand and fourteen sub-brands • diagnose brand strengths and weaknesses, and to identify brand positioning opportunities• assess what factors have the strongest impact on desirable brand positioning outcomes (also

referred to as brand equity).

The SU brand valuation process was structured into a number of research dimensions, including an assessment of the various university brands’ health, their associated equity, brand strength indices, market positioning and business valuations, as well as establishing the link between the brand equity and stakeholder behaviour, thus informing the business case and recommendations made by BF in relation to refining a proposed future brand position for the University.

Brand Investment

Brand Equity

Brand Performance

Brand Value

Brand Strength Index Construct

Brand

Marketing

ISO20671 ISO10668

Customers

Staff

Investor

ExternalUnderpin

Scale

Growth

Profitability

Loyalty

Determine how brand impacts how stakeholders behave, for example brandchoice, and repeat purchase

Model the impact of behaviour on core financial performance

Identify the levers that affect the brand’s ability to impact the business

13

The specific measurement dimensions that were assessed included:

• awareness and familiarity (of the SU masterbrand vs sub-brands)• consideration and/or future purchase intent• preferences (general and specifically, location)• overall university reputation• affinity levels for the various entities• key image measures (related to the institutional culture)• recommendations and/or advocacy by stakeholders.

The SU brand valuation methodology consisted of the following data collection techniques:

• a financial assessment of the value of each of the nominated SU brands, resulting in a BSI for each brand, including for: » the SU portfolio (that is, the overall institutional brand) » the 10 Faculties of SU » the Bureau of Economic Research (BER) » Maties Sport » the University of Stellenbosch Business School (USB) » Innovus

• qualitative stakeholder interviews for each of the brands listed above, aimed at establishing the links between brand equity attributes and stakeholder behaviour, undertaken by means of on-line surveys and questionnaires completed by a sample of the following stakeholder groups: » current university students across South Africa (referred to as “all SA students”) » prospective students (at present, high school learners who are considering applying for

university studies) » current SU students » alumni » SU staff » Research and industry partners.

The data collection was further enhanced by a content analysis of recent and current online communication, conversations and tweets. Figure 4 below provides a synopsis of the respondents who participated in the study:

Figure 4: Synopsis of the respondents who participated in the study

Segment Sample Definition Sample Size Source

All-SA studentsAll-SA students at any (‘academic’) SA university

1,151 Toluna online research panel

Prospective StudentsHigh-school or college student planning to apply to university in 2019-20

258 Toluna online research panel

Prospects – Qriously 524

Additional sample via Qriously ad-exchange survey platform (shorter questionnaire)

SU Students Current SU student population 1,122 SU database

Staff Current SU staff 180 SU database

Alumni SU Alumni 121 SU database

Research PartnersRange of SU research partners – industry, government, academic

14(purposive sample)

SU contacts

14

The valuation process was undertaken during the second semester of 2018 and the first semester of 2019. Based on the findings of their assessment, BF constructed various scenarios and made a number of recommendations for designing an improved future brand positioning for the University. These results and the associated recommendations were presented to the Rectorate on 16 August 2019 for their consideration and approval.

2.3 Findings of the Stellenbosch University Brand Valuation

The following provides an overview of the most important trends that emerged from an analysis of the results that were generated by the SU brand valuation:

• SU’s overall reputation: with regard to the University’s overall reputation, SU is perceived to be a top-tier institution, but the institution does not occupy the leading position in terms of comparative BSI’s – at least three other HE institutions are ranked better (including UCT, WITS and UP).

Figure 5: Stellenbosch University’s overall position

University All-SA Students Prospective Students Alumni Staff

All-SA students 64 60 76 74

Prospective Students 79 72 72 78

SU Students 49 46 54 50

Staff 71 67 63 64

Alumni 53 50 53 50

Research Partners 51 48 51 54

75 67 64 63

Average 63 58 62 62

15

• HE sector market leadership: comparing the BSI of eighteen local HE institutions, it is apparent that SU is stronger than the average university in South Africa, but the three market leaders are well ahead of us on this index, particularly in the overall student market.

Figure 6: Higher Education market leadership

• The varying views of prospective students, staff and alumni: SU staff hold a higher opinion of the University than that of the general student marketplace; and the same is true of the University’s alumni who regard the institution more favourably than the potential student market. Of note is that current SU students indicate a propensity for first assessing their chosen academic field of interest and then they project those sentiments to the broader university. The three graphs below indicate these differences:

Graph 1: All-SA vs Prospective Students

All SA Students & Prospective

Students

Alumni

Staff

SU Masterbrand BSI SU Faculty brand BSIs

• The SU Masterbrand has a BSI score of 64, stronger than the average SA University.

• SU is ranked the fourth strongest brand amongst its peers, behind UCT, WITS and UP.

• The faculties of AgriSciences, Arts and Social Sciences, Medicine & Health Sciences and Science are perceived to be the strongest faculties amongst all survey groups, achieving a BSI greater than 65.

• Alumni survey respondents perceive SU as the strongest University in South Africa.

• UCT and SU are the market leaders amongst the staff respondents, with UCT leading marginally.

Economic and Management Sciences

Science

Overall reputation of university (mean survey ranking, out of 10)

8.48.0

7.6 7.5

6.9 6.8 6.7 6.66.4 6.3 6.2 6.1

5.7 5.7 5.7 5.6 5.5 5.4

8.07.6

7.27.4

6.86.5

6.8

6.1 6.2 6.26.5

5.9

5.3

5.8 5.7 5.6 5.6 5.6

All-SA Students Prospective Students

16

Graph 2: Staff

Graph 3: Alumni

Overall reputation of university (mean survey ranking, out of 10)

3,823,973,974,224,244,254,264,284,34

4,614,69555,17

5,465,67

5,976,266,376,456,516,62

7,487,58

8,178,3

Overall reputation of university (mean alumni survey ranking, out of 10)

4,955,25,35,45,45,7

6,16,26,36,36,46,76,7

7,57,7

8,58,7

17

• Current brand architecture: the current incoherent SU brand architecture is not serving the transfer of brand equity well. Despite its relatively well-recognised brand(s) and reputation, SU does not enjoy the level of consideration (or concomitant stakeholder behaviour) that such reputation warrants.

Figure 7: Current brand architecture

• Overall brand valuation: the overall brand valuation of the SU brand was determined at R3 076 618 000 (rounded up to R3.07 billion).

• The SU masterbrand vs brand values of faculties/environments: the SU masterbrand attained a BSI score of 64 (out of 100), while the Faculties of Agri Sciences, Arts & Social Sciences, Medicine & Health Sciences; and Science achieved the highest scores among the cohort of SU environments being assessed in the study – the following graph summarises the BSI scores of the brands that have been assessed:

Graph 4: The SU masterbrand vs brand values of faculties/environments

LawRegsgeleerdheid

Economic and Management SciencesEkonomiese en Bestuurswetenskappe

Natural SciencesNatuurwetenskappe

EducationOpvoedkunde

ACADEMIC BRAND

STELLENBOSCH UNIVERSITY

BRANDS

FACULTY BRANDS

Military ScienceMedicine and Health Science

Geneeskunde en Gesondheidswetenskappe

Facu

lty o

f Med

icin

e an

d H

ealth

Sci

ence

s

Facu

lty o

f Eco

nom

ic a

nd M

anag

emen

t Sc

ienc

es

3075371,2005691866,0817

525529,4632

450903,7375

452277,6761

325254,1909309182,5294

109900,999660585,14550954,50449655,585719429,098110362,80219718,08039751,3069

1 000 000

2 000 000

3 000 000

4 000 000

BER

Mat

ies

Spor

t

Facu

lty o

f Mili

tary

Sci

ence

Facu

lty o

f The

olog

y

Facu

lty o

f Edu

catio

n

Facu

lty o

f Law

Facu

lty o

f Agr

iSci

ence

s

SU B

usin

ess

Scho

ol

Facu

lty o

f Eng

inee

ring

Inno

vus

Facu

lty o

f Sci

ence

Facu

lty o

f Art

s an

d So

cial

Sci

ence

s

Stel

lenb

osch

Uni

vers

ity P

ortf

olio

BRAND STRENGHT

50.3 64.2 52.7 60.6 55.4 59.4 71.7 67.565.8

51.9

70.368.7

62.4

67.564.8

Brand Value (R’000)

18

• Visual identities: focussing on visual identities specifically, an analysis of the findings indicate the absence of any correlation between the level of logo recall among stakeholders who were interviewed in the research and the marketing spend (expressed in Rand-value) by any of the entities participating in the valuation. The following graph indicates that the SU100 logo is the only logo with a reported 100% recognition.

Graph 5: Recognition of visual identities

• A fragmented visual identity: the respective faculty or entity brands appear to have an arbitrary relationship with the visual identity of SU, resulting in a fragmented visual synergy, which interrupts the transfer of equity between the masterbrand and the sub-brands.

• The SU website: likewise, there is a significant lack of consistency in content and style across the University’s webpages.

• A masterbrand vs the house of brands architecture: it is important to note that individual faculties are not outperforming the University’s overall reputation rating and thus the deduction is that a masterbrand strategy would be more efficient than the current “house of brands” approach.

In summary, the brand valuation results point to an existing brand architecture that is fragmented and that actively prohibits the consolidation and strengthening of the overall SU brand position.

How familiar are you with each of these logos or identities from different universities?

11%12%13%13%

19%23%23%24%24%25%

28%30%31%

37%39%

47%50%

52%

58%59%60%63%

70%

77%81%82%

85%

92%

97%100%

19

3. BRAND VALUATION CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

3.1 Conclusions and Recommendations based on the Brand Valuation Results

The most prominent results of the brand valuation undertaking could be summarised as follows:

3.1.1 Brand Value

• The overall brand value has been estimated at the level of R3.07 billion.• Various scenarios have been projected by BF, indicating that an integrated approach towards

developing a masterbrand would increase the brand value by R11.25 million and, should SU reach the levels enjoyed by the market leader within the HE sector (UCT), the brand value could be as high as R3.71 billion.

3.1.2 Brand Position

• The overall brand reptation of SU is expressed as a BSI score of 64/100, rendering the University as one of the leading South African HE institutions, but not in the foremost position.

• Students, staff and alumni differ in their perceptions and reputational drivers should be carefully considered in designing a future brand strategy that would need to address diverse stakeholder expectations.

• It should be noted that a strong SU brand and equally strong faculty/entity brands are not mutually exclusive concepts – the one does not have to “lose/sacrifice” its own value in order for the other to “gain” – ideally, they should both benefit from, and contribute to the other in a mutually-beneficial relationship.

• A particular brand opportunity within the HE landscape has also been identified by the University’s stakeholders as part of the brand assessment process. Such opportunity relates to students of high ambition who “want to go places” at an internationally acclaimed university that “stretches their boundaries” – a place that values a humble, human approach to helping students thrive and to excel in their chosen careers.

• Such a brand position could optimally be achieved by means of migrating to a monolithic brand architecture, promoting a strong masterbrand for SU and incorporating a consistent value proposition along the lines that has been verbalised by stakeholders. Given the University’s current focus on activating the implementation of its newly-developed institutional strategy, it is strongly promoted that the opportunity be seized to amplify a set of unified key messages to stakeholders in positioning SU directly aligned with its desired future vision.

• The future brand positioning is suggested to be based on the primary reputational drivers that the University’s stakeholders value most, incorporating a grounded value proposition.

3.1.3 Brand Architecture

• The current brand architecture is characterised by severe levels of fragmentation.• Such incoherence does not facilitate brand equity transfer – stated differently, it does not optimise

our brand value.• The respective brand values of individual environments (such as faculties) do not exceed that of

the overall SU brand value.• As the University’s “window to the world” or first point of contact for many stakeholders, the

fragmented SU website is in dire need of redevelopment and this should be considered a strategic priority as part of developing a new institutional brand strategy.

20

• A masterbrand, rather than a “house of brands” approach that manifests in a monolithic brand architecture, is strongly proposed.

• A comprehensive SU brand positioning strategy, including a revised brand architecture and revitalised visual identity could become the enabler for giving expression to the recently developed SU institutional strategy.

The summary of the brand valuation results clearly indicate that the University’s existing reputation renders the institution among the top tier of local HE institutions, but that it lags behind at least three other universities. The current institutional brand landscape could well be summarised as one that is both incoherent and inefficient in terms of equity transfer.

Interestingly – and in stark contrast with the goals of the new institutional strategy – the specific dimension that has been reported to be the greatest weakness, relates to the institutional culture of SU, which is viewed as neither welcoming, nor as promoting inclusivity.

One of the research dimensions that assessed the perceptions of the various stakeholder groups generated a nuanced differentiation that requires specific focus: SU alumni generally attach greater value to the University’s prestige or reputation for academic excellence (thus, the “heritage factor”), in comparison with staff and students who place a greater emphasis on the need for innovation (thus, the “contemporary relevance factor”) in terms of the institution’s preferred future focus. While the University’s historical prestige is well-known, stakeholders (in particular, staff and students) would like to see a move in the direction of contemporary innovation. Along similar vein, the academic standing of SU is perceived to be well established, but further bolstering of the reputation for academic excellence remains a desirable priority – and in this regard, the emphasis should be on cutting-edge, world-class, future-focussed outcomes.

The following conclusions and recommendations have been drawn from the findings:

• The SU brand is generally interpreted to be less than ideally positioned, predominantly caused by a fragmented brand architecture that dilutes the brand equity, hampers effective communication with our stakeholders and detracts from building the University’s reputation.

• if allowed to continue in a non-integrated fashion, the current fragmented approach will continue to facilitate a lack of alignment, defocussing the marketing efforts of the University, fostering communication “confusion” among stakeholder groups based on “competing” brands that operate in “silo mentality”, along with enabling the creation of disparities between the strategic goals of the newly-developed institutional strategy and the actual realities within the various SU operating environments.

• This interpretation simultaneously represents an opportunity to improve the University’s brand positioning through the design and implementation of a focussed, regularly monitored brand management strategy that aims to optimise the value of SU’s brand.

• Proceeding further with that argument, it follows that, since there is only one SU, there should only be one SU brand that is strongly promoted, based on the criteria of credibility, relevance, differentiation and stretching the institution.

As a result of the findings, BF has formulated a proposal that promotes the notion of introducing an integrated brand management strategy, which will facilitate the migration of all sub-brands to a monolithic brand architecture – in practice, this will involve the review of all environments to be directly aligned with the masterbrand.

213.2 Rectorate Approval

The findings of the brand valuation undertaking were presented to the Rectorate August 2019. During this meeting, the Rectorate approved the recommendations put forward as a result of the findings that were generated by the brand valuation initiative, including the following:

• Migrating to a monolithic brand architecture: The Rectorate confirmed their decision for the current fragmented brand structure (based on a “house of brands” model) to migrate to a unified monolithic brand architecture.

• The reputational drivers and value proposition: In addition, the Rectorate also approved the reputational drivers as proposed by the brand valuation exercise, along with the suggested brand value proposition “stretching your boundaries”.

• Implementation of the next steps and a refreshed brand identity: Furthermore, the proposed action steps that will introduce and implement the next phase of the University’s brand development process, namely the design of a brand positioning strategy, and which will include the creation of a refreshed visual identity for SU, were approved.

3.3 Practical Implications

Invariably, the many internal stakeholders who operate within the various SU environments, including the faculties and the professional and administrative support services (PASS) environments, have spontaneously developed a number of questions pertaining to the imminent process of migrating to a monolithic brand architecture. Several concerns have also emerged – some grounded in the unavoidable emotions that result from a long-standing loyalty to a particular brand identity (most often a logo or visual identity) and resistance to changing to what might be perceived as a “push towards uniformity”.

To this end, CCD has carefully considered the need for communicating with both our internal and external stakeholders. The Division is in the process of:

• sharing the outcomes of the brand valuation investigation• convening feedback sessions, both in the form of engaging the SU Brand Reference Group (BRG)

– a forum that is comprised of representatives from the various university environments, as well as by means of informal information-sharing/feedback sessions and discussions with Deans of Faculties and other SU environments that formed part of the brand valuation cohort

• communicating with our primary stakeholders – students and staff – both during meetings such as Staff Assembly and by means of electronic communication, dedicated to this topic.

Continuous communication and stakeholder engagement will remain strong traits of an ongoing brand development process, focussing on the rationale for the brand valuation initiative, the outcomes generated by the research, the recommendations that have been approved by the Rectorate, the action steps in migrating to a monolithic brand architecture, the practical implications for the various SU environments, and the road map for developing a new brand positioning strategy, including the design of a refreshed visual identity for the University.

Apart from continuously communicating with our stakeholders, the process of designing a refreshed institutional visual identity will next start unfolding. This process will involve various levels of consultation, prior to establishing the new brand positioning strategy and architecture, as well as revealing the refreshed visual identity.

One immediate practical implication is that a moratorium has been placed on the development of, and investment into any new identities/logos for any entity within the University structure and all SU environments are requested to comply with the current SU Centenary branding until the replacement thereof with the monolithic brand architecture.

22

4. THE FUTURE STELLENBOSCH UNIVERSITY BRAND POSITIONING

Undertaking a brand valuation assessment is considered to be a bold, but only the first step in designing an effective brand positioning strategy that serves to augment the University’s Vision 2040 and Strategic Framework 2019-2024. The findings of the assessment directly support Rectorate’s intention to optimise the University’s desired future positioning by aligning its brand architecture with its strategic framework and strategic plan.

Any good brand strategy has to meet four important criteria:

• credibility • relevance• differentiating• stretching

Figure 8: Criteria for effective brand positioning

The intersection of these criteria creates an opportunity for where an effective brand positioning should focus. Such a focussed positioning should serve to manage the narrative of how SU wishes to be positioned and to be perceived by its stakeholders, and in so-doing it should support the attainment of the University’s strategic goals.

4.1 The Stellenbosch University Brand Positioning Aligned with Vision 2040 and Strategic Framework 2019-2024

Devising a brand positioning strategy that is not directly in line with the new SU institutional strategy would not only be an expensive waste of resources, it will actually hamper institutional strategic goal attainment. The brand strategy should directly support and enhance the institutional plan, as is shown in the Figure 9 on the following page:

Credible

Differentiating

RelevantStretching

1

3

24

23

Figure 9: The SU Brand Positioning Aligned with Vision 2040 and Strategic Framework 2019-2024

The brand valuation did investigate the degree to which the existing brand strategy supports the core strategic themes of Vision 2040 and Strategic Framework 2019-2024. The results indicate that the strategic themes are mostly supported in the minds of staff members, but not in the perception of other stakeholders, as is demonstrated by Figure 10 below:

Figure 10: The degree to which the existing brand strategy supports the core strategic themes of Vision 2040 and Strategic

Framework 2019-2024

Vision

MissionBrand

Positioning

ValuesValue

Proposition

Organisational Culture

Themes Students Staff Alumni Partners

1 A thriving Stellenbosch University

• Inclusivity, deep and intentional transformation, and diversity

• Facilities and InfrastructureT R R Θ

2A transformativestudent experience

• Unique and personalized experience• Student support and success Θ

3 Purposeful partnerships and inclusive networks

• Communities• Interaction with business and governments

T R R Θ

4 Networked and collaborative teaching and learning

• Learning – centred approach (digital)• Promote professionalization Θ R R

5

Research for impact • Collaborative research• Innovation and entrepreneurship Θ R R

6

Employer of choice • People strategy (well-being, diversity)• Talent acquisition and management R

R AgreeKey: T Disagree Θ Indifferent

24

The most glaring challenge – and hence also the greatest opportunity – relates to the University’s organisational culture. This interpretation suggests that a new brand strategy could facilitate and “fuel” the institution’s transformation into an environment that is truly welcoming and inclusive. The brand strategy, fundamentally promoting greater coherence and uniformity, could thus become a catalyst for unifying the SU community and a mechanism for aligning the University’s range of stakeholders, and in so-doing, directly support the attainment of our institutional goals as contained in the Strategic Framework 2019-2024.

At the heart of such an initiative would be the challenge of utilising the new brand positioning strategy to address the most important gaps that have been identified during the brand valuation in relation to the University’s current realities (as represented by the views of primary stakeholders) vis-a-viz the institution’s desired future positioning (as stated in the new institutional strategy) – essentially: how do we transform SU from “…but the institution does not occupy the leading position…” (brand valuation findings) to “…the leading research-intensive university on the African continent with a global reputation…” (SU institutional strategy); and from “… the greatest weakness relates to the institutional culture of SU, which is viewed as neither welcoming, nor as promoting inclusivity…” to“…a values-driven approach characterised by being human or humble and facilitating a “warmer”;welcoming;inclusive organisational culture…” (brand valuation findings)?

4.2 Reputational Drivers and the SU Brand Value Proposition

An analysis of the assessment findings seems to indicate that SU stakeholders value some aspects more than others. Being renown for academic excellence, resulting in an international reputation, does weigh heavily in the estimation of students and staff alike. However, two interesting aspects appear to be equally important – those of innovation and a particular organisational value that promotes a human or humble (as opposed to an elitist) approach that facilitates a “warmer”/welcoming/inclusive organisational culture. It is hence suggested that the recently developed set of organisational values that forms part of Vision 2040 and Strategic Framework 2019-2024 be broadened to accommodate the notion of humility.

Figure 11 below captures these sentiments:

Figure 11: All-SA rating of Stellenbosch University

Location is what it is. SU should focus on strengthening reputation around:

• Academic excellence (international renown + research reputation)

• Innovation

• Supportive and welcoming

8%

20% 28% 35% 43% 50%

7%

5%

4%

2%

Reputation driver weight

Not a big driver of reputation, but important to students when choosing a university

Location

Residences

Sport

Supportive

Big cityWelcoming

Preferred languageIn tune with South Africa

Excellent & innovative research

Marketing &resources

History &heritage

Stable &safe

Internationallyrenowned Prestige

Social scene

25

Generally, the results support the hypothesis that the SU brand enjoys broad credibility, but that it simultaneously lacks stand-out attributes. In this regard, the stakeholders seem to promote a brand position that concurrently manages to combine the following most relevant attributes with a high opportunity for the SU brand reputational drivers:

• an international reputation (renown for academic excellence)• future-focussed innovation (“cutting-edge/trend-setting”)• attracting the best talent (both staff and students)• in facilitating the realisation of career aspirations• that is positioned/marketed well (amongst others, by means of an effective website).

Such value proposition is summarised below:

Based on these reputational drivers as suggested by the brand valuation findings, the proposed value proposition that is to inform the basis of a refreshed brand strategy has been verbalised as “stretching your boundaries”. The statement promotes the following brand position:

“For students who want to go places, we offer an internationally acclaimed university that stretches your boundaries. Unlike any other leading universities, SU takes a more humble approach to help our students

and staff thrive in taking your career wherever you would like to go”.

The “building blocks” of the proposed future SU brand strategy are summarised below:

For The target customer

Who Specific needs, requirements, demands, buying criteria

We provide Solution name / description

That Specific benefits / value to students

Unlike The competition

Who Our solution, features, functions, benefits

Our brand More / better approach, solutions, functions, benefits

That Offers a better student experience

Vision• Africa’s leading research intensive university• Globally recognised• Excellent, inclusive and innovative

Mission

• Research-intensive university• Attract outstanding student, employ talented staff• Provide a world-class environment• Enriching and transforming local, continental and global communities

Values

• Excellence• Compassion• Equity• Respect / (+ Humble)• Accountability

Organisational Culture • Welcoming, humble, inclusive

Value Proposition

• For students with high ambition, who want to go places we offer an internationally acclaimed University that stretches your boundaries. Unlike other leading universities, Stellenbosch University takes a more human approach to help you thrive and take your career wherever you want to go

Brand Positioning • Stretching your boundaries

26

5. THE WAY FORWARD TOGETHER

5.1 The Process of Refreshing and Developing a Monolithic Visual Identity

The commemoration of the University’s Centenary has created an opportune window for SU to revisit and to optimise our institutional brand positioning. The development of a new institutional strategy magnified this opportunity, while the results of the first step in the process of designing an integrated brand positioning strategy – that of the recently undertaken brand valuation – have clearly pointed to both the shortcomings in the current positioning of the University, as well as to the potential areas for optimising our future brand strategy, position and architecture.

The exciting process of refreshing the SU brand is unfolding through a number of elements that involve:

• determining the existing brand strength • assessing the actual brand value • identifying the reputational drivers• defining a desired future brand position and strategy • designing an appropriate brand architecture in support of the strategy• creating a refreshed visual identity for SU• implementing and rolling-out the new brand positioning strategy across the institution• assessing the impact of the new strategy in time to come.

5.2 The Future Road Map – Next Steps

The process is to be implemented in phases, which could be summarised as follows:

Bringing the proposed strategy to life, garnishing internal commitment from all SU environments and fostering compliance with a unified, monolithic brand architecture will undoubtedly require a facilitated synchronisation between the institutional strategy, the ICS and the proposed new brand positioning strategy. This will require strong leadership – right from the top, along with broad engagement and commitment from internal stakeholders. Their joint implementation should empower the institution towards positive change, favourable positioning and meaningful transformation.

PHASE 1

PHASE 2

PHASE 3

PHASE 4

formalising and finalising a new SU brand positioning – this will include the brand identity, architecture and blueprint

delivering a refreshed visual identity – including a refreshed logo and its approval levels (along with its associated support system for implementation, such as corporate identity guidelines)

implementing the refreshed brand – cascading the implementation to all SU environments in a phased approach (including several communication and engagement interventions)

assessing the impact of the new strategy (through formal evaluation) at a date to be determined in the future

27

6. CONCLUDING REMARKS

The recently completed brand valuation at SU served to assess the value of our brand and to comment on both the strengths and shortcomings of the University’s current brand position. The results of this undertaking have broadly confirmed the hypothesis that the University’s positioning and reputation as a leading local institution of higher learning are not optimal. The challenges identified directly relate to a fragmented brand architecture that inhibits goodwill being transferred into actual brand equity.

As such, the assessment informed the next steps to be implemented in developing an optimised position for the SU brand. Based on the findings of the valuation, a migration to a more standardised approach – that of a masterbrand or monolithic brand architecture has been proposed, along with the development of a brand positioning strategy that is based on a set of defined reputational drivers, manifesting in a value proposition that promotes SU as the leading option for “stretching your boundaries”. The design of a refreshed visual identity, based on these reputational drivers, will next receive attention. Once finalised, the new brand architecture, blueprint and visual identity will replace the current Centenary identity.

Ultimately, the value of a new, appropriate brand positioning strategy for SU is to be found in the alignment between the brand and institutional strategies – the primary purpose of the brand positioning strategy being one of directly supporting the attainment of the strategic goals contained in the institutional plan. The development of a new brand strategy is hence not only an exciting component of the University’s Integrated Communication Strategy, it is postulated to represent a key mechanism for bringing the newly-developed institutional plan – Vision 2040 and Strategic Framework 2019-2024 to life in a most tangible way among our internal and external stakeholders.