Even though less explored lately, the importance of branding strategies in higher education became more relevant in the context of competitiveness in global education market and internationalization. The competitiveness in higher education increased (Binsardi and Ekwulugo, 2003; Hemsley-Brown and Goonawardana, 2007) and the importance of branding in tertiary education grew (Mazzarol and Soutar, 1999), even though there were some opinions that criticized marketing strategies in education (Gibbs, 2002). Nevertheless, the universities images are important not only in students’ choices, but in public attitudes towards the universities (Yavas and Shemwell, 1996), which ensures a competitive advantage (Paramewaran and Glowacka, 1995), attracts students and differentiate the institution from its major competitors (Ivy, 2001), institutional and sector image (Oplatka, 2002). Researchers highlighted that higher education is a complex field for brand identity with strong connections between brand identity, meaning, image, and reputation (Hemsley-Brown et. al., 2016). Each university has a unique profile, set mainly by the organizational culture, and many strategic directions according to the specific of each faculty (Asaad, Melewar, Cohen, and Balmer, 2013). Our perspective stresses that each study programme has its unique profile, as each profession develops its own organizational culture. The approach is supported by the corporate brand identity frameworks (Urde, 2013) and service brand management (de Chernatony and Segal‐Horn, 2003; Skaalsvik and Olsen, 2014), both suitable for higher education area. The various models of branding in management and marketing could fill the theoretical gap related to branding issues in universities. The attempts to address brands in higher education are limited, through qualitative approaches, and present difficulties in defining brand essence (Wæraas and Solbakk, 2009), differences between university and commercial brandings as well as culture, brand concepts, and brand architecture (Chapleo, 2015) or image‐related determinants of brand equity (Mourad, Ennew, and Kortam, 2011).

In recent years, education fields worldwide encountered many adjustments to face the increasing and challenging issues in society. Brand development is not only an aspect of identity but means of differentiation in the global market and of strengthening the position in national and international contexts. The internationalization of universities is a milestone in the European Union and the European university alliances are more effective. Nevertheless, the brand corporate model may also emerge in university alliances.

Our mixed methodological approach aimed at exploring the embedded perspective of branding in higher education. We addressed the relation between brand (the university) and sub-brands (the faculties) and the perspective of university’ employees and students as potential brand promoters.

We assumed that the corporate brand model is appropriate for the branding strategies in universities, therefore the overarching research question explored the branding model emerging in universities.

The first aim of our research was to investigate the brand architecture in university.

The second aim was to determine the brand patterns of the students as brand promoters.

In the competitive global market, the public institutions of education apply business administration principles to strengthen their position. The branding strategies are adjusted in higher education, considering the mission of the educational providers. However, it is less clear what is more important in students’ choice: the university, the faculty, the study programme? In order to address these issues, we analysed the brand strategy of one public university from a contextualized perspective: the public image - delivered through the visual elements, the managerial/employees’ perspective – analysed through interviews, and the customer attitude towards the services provided – investigated by questionnaire-based inquiry of students. The brand strategy of Transilvania university was assessed using the analysis of public information (visual identity), combined with interviews with communication officers and heads of faculties and university staff. We organized 5 interviews with faculty leaders. The perspective of beneficiary was investigated using the responses of 189 undergraduate students from different faculties. The data were collected in two waves: first in the previous academic year (2024-2025) and the second in the current academic year (2025-2026). More than a half of participants were prospective teachers (124). The questionnaire-based inquiry was administered on-line with the approval of Faculty of Psychology and Education Sciences Board. Measurement instrument Corporate Brand Identity Matrix (CBIM) framework (Urde, 2013) is a combined analytical tool and operational guide used as the basis of a structured case study investigation (Yin, 2012) of the management of one corporate brand in real time. The method offers potential for the generation of models and general theories from empirical data (Perry and Gummesson, 2004). University Brand Personality Scale (UBPS), developed by Rauchsnabel, Krey, Babin and Ivens in 2016, is a framework for measuring the personality characteristics of higher education brands. It uses six personality dimensions to represent the facets of brand identity that are most pertinent to the audience. The UBPS comprises prestige, sincerity, appeal, lively, conscientiousness, and cosmopolitan dimensions. Results suggest that the scale strongly relates to brand love, positive word-of-mouth, and students' intention to support their university as alumni (Rauschnabel et al., 2016). Oregon vocational interest scales. For additional information about the ORVIS scales, see Pozzebon, Visser, Ashton, Lee, & Goldberg (2010).

The findings are in line with previous research that describes the corporate brand model in higher education. Thus, the corporate brand identity framework is promoted at university level and multiple sub-brands for each faculty, aligning with the unified image of the entire university and becoming brand promoters. Multiple data sources were exploited in the case-study, such as positioning, brand strategy, visual identity, codes of conduct and communication. The brand-oriented approach envisages organization’s mission and values (Urde, 2013) and represents a source of differentiation and competitive advantage (Brexendorf and Kernstock, 2007; Burmann et al, 2009). Our study explored students’ perspective related to university brands in a quantitative inquiry. All 3 scales of University Brand Personality Scale - Word-of-mouth, Alumni support, and Brand love - showed wide variation in scores in our sample, indicating various patterns. All 8 scales of Oregon vocational interest scales - Leadership, Organization, Altruism, Creativity, Analysis, Producing, Adventuring, and Erudition - showed wide variation in scores in our sample, proving insights regarding the profiles of students with different vocational interests, enrolled in various specializations. The statistical analysis shows significant correlations between brand or brand sub-scales and sub-scales of the inventory of vocational interests (Brand and Altruism – r=0.18, p<0.5; Brand and Erudition – r=0.17, p<0.5) which, even though there a small, worth further exploration. Corporate Brand Identity Matrix provides the opportunity to explore the core values of brand identity and their relations to the internal and external factors that contribute to brand architecture, such as organizational culture, relationships and personality. The use of CBIM in combination with ULBS offers the dual and complete perspective of the relation between the provider of educational services and primary beneficiary.

Asaad, Y., Melewar, T.C., Cohen, G., & Balmer, J. (2013). Universities and export market orientation: An exploratory study of UK post-92 universities. Marketing Intelligence & Planning, 31(7), 838–856. Binsardi A, Ekwulugo F. International marketing of British education: Research on the students’ perception and the UK market penetration. Mark Intell Plann 2003; 21:318–27. Brexendorf, T.O. and Kernstock, J. (2007) Corporate behaviour versus brand behaviour: Towards an integrated view? Journal of Brand Management 15(1): 32–40. Burmann, C., Jost-Benz, M. and Riley, N. (2009). Towards an identity-based equity model. Journal of Business Research 62(3): 390–397. Chapleo, C. (2015). Brands in Higher Education: Challenges and Potential Strategies. International Studies of Management & Organization, 45(2), 150–163. https://doi.org/10.1080/00208825.2015.1006014 de Chernatony L, Segal‐Horn S (2003), "The criteria for successful services brands". European Journal of Marketing, Vol. 37 No. 7-8 pp. 1095–1118, doi: https://doi.org/10.1108/03090560310477681 Gibbs, P. (2002). From the invisible hand to the invisible handshake: marketing higher education. Res Post-Compuls Educ 2002; 7:325–38. Hemsley-Brown, J., & Goonawardana, S. (2007). Brand harmonization in the international higher education market. Journal of Business Research, 60(9), 942–948. Hemsley-Brown, J., Melewar, T.C., Nguyen, B., Wilson, E.J. (2016). Exploring brand identity, meaning, image, and reputation (BIMIR) in higher education: A special section. Journal of Business Research 69 (2016) 3019–3022. Mourad M, Ennew C, Kortam W (2011), "Brand equity in higher education". Marketing Intelligence & Planning, Vol. 29 No. 4 pp. 403–420, doi: https://doi.org/10.1108/02634501111138563 Paramewaran, R. and Glowacka, A.E. (1995). University image: an information processing perspective. J Mark High Educ 1995; 6:41–56. Rauschnabel, F.A, Krey, N., Babin, B.J, Ivens, B.S. (2016). Brand management in higher education: The University Brand Personality Scale. Journal of Business Research 69 (2016) 3077–3086. Perry, C. and Gummesson, E. (2004) Action research in marketing. European Journal of Marketing 38(3/4): 310–320. Skaalsvik H, Olsen B (2014), "Service branding: suggesting an interactive model of service brand development". Kybernetes, Vol. 43 No. 8 pp. 1209–1223, doi: https://doi.org/10.1108/K-12-2013-0274 Urde, M. The corporate brand identity matrix. J Brand Manag 20, 742–761 (2013). https://doi.org/10.1057/bm.2013.12 Wæraas, A., Solbakk, M.N. Defining the essence of a university: lessons from higher education branding. High Educ 57, 449–462 (2009). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10734-008-9155-z Yavas, U. and Shemwell, D.J. (1996). Graphical representation of university image: a correspondence analysis. J Mark High Educ 1996; 7:75–84. Yin, R.K. (2012) Application of Case Study Research. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.