Branding MBA Programs - The Use of Target Market Desired Outcomes For Effective Brand Positioning

This article was downloaded by: [University of Leeds]
On: 9 December 2010

Access details: Access Details: [subscription number 773557620]
Publisher Routledge
Informa Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registered office: Mortimer House, 37-
41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK
Journal of Marketing for Higher Education

Publication details, including instructions for authors and subscription information:
http://www.informaworld.com/smpp/title~content=t792306933
Branding MBA programs: the use of target market desired outcomes for
effective brand positioning
Louise A. Heslopa; John Nadeaub
a
Sprott School of Business, Carleton University, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada b School of Business and
Economics, Nipissing University, North Bay, Ontario, Canada
Online publication date: 14 July 2010
To cite this Article Heslop, Louise A. and Nadeau, John(2010) 'Branding MBA programs: the use of target market desired
outcomes for effective brand positioning', Journal of Marketing for Higher Education, 20: 1, 85 — 117
To link to this Article: DOI: 10.1080/08841241003788110
URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/08841241003788110
PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE
Full terms and conditions of use: http://www.informaworld.com/terms-and-conditions-of-access.pdf
This article may be used for research, teaching and private study purposes. Any substantial or
systematic reproduction, re-distribution, re-selling, loan or sub-licensing, systematic supply or
distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden.
The publisher does not give any warranty express or implied or make any representation that the contents
will be complete or accurate or up to date. The accuracy of any instructions, formulae and drug doses
should be independently verified with primary sources. The publisher shall not be liable for any loss,
actions, claims, proceedings, demand or costs or damages whatsoever or howsoever caused arising directly
or indirectly in connection with or arising out of the use of this material.
Journal of Marketing for Higher Education
Vol. 20, No. 1, January –June 2010, 85 –117
Branding MBA programs: the use of target market desired

outcomes for effective brand positioning
Louise A. Heslopa∗ and John Nadeaub
a
Sprott School of Business, Carleton University, 1125 Colonel By Drive, Ottawa, Ontario,
K1S 5B6, Canada; bSchool of Business and Economics, Nipissing University, 100 College
Drive, North Bay, Ontario, P1B 8L7, Canada
Branding is about delivering on desired outcomes. The importance of

positioning program offerings on the basis of outcomes sought in the
Downloaded By: [University of Leeds] At: 17:54 9 December 2010
education market is illustrated in this study of choice of an MBA

program by prospective students. MBA fair attendees were surveyed and
multiple methods were employed to determine the importance of desired
outcomes and the ratings of MBA programs on their ability to deliver
these outcomes. In a highly competitive market, differentiation and
effective positioning appear to be the keys to success of both the two
competing business schools studied.
Keywords: branding; positioning; MBA program
Introduction
Investing in an MBA (Master of Business Administration) experience involves
enormous costs to students who have high expectations for appropriate
paybacks in career success. One major business school in the United States
suggests that MBAs can range from $8000US to $80,000US and also claims
‘that with MBAs the more you pay the more you get’ (Thunderbird Global
School of Management, 2009). A Web-based MBA information resource sets
the range at $80– 130,000US (Mba360, 2009). Moreover, completing a full-
time MBA means the applicant will be out of the workforce for between one
and two years while studying. Canadian MBA tuitions range from approxi-
mately $7000C to $60,000C (Canadian Higher Education and Career Guide,
2009). The choice to undertake an MBA and the choice of which MBA
program to take can change one’s life dramatically. Therefore, given the costs
and the possible outcomes, it might be expected that potential MBA students
invest far more effort in choosing a school than do undergraduate students.
However, there is little research on the MBA selection process and how suc-
cessful marketing strategies can be developed based on market needs.
∗
Corresponding author. E-mail: louise_heslop@carleton.ca
ISSN 0884-1241 print/ISSN 1540-7144 online
# 2010 Taylor & Francis
DOI: 10.1080/08841241003788110
http://www.informaworld.com
86 L.A. Heslop and J. Nadeau
From the perspective of the business school, the MBA is often a ‘flagship’
program with the highest external visibility, the success of which defines the
nature, scope, and success of the institution itself. To successfully market an
MBA program, the marketing literature would suggest that the business
school must understand what target students desire to experience during their
studies and to achieve as the result of attaining their degree. With this knowl-
edge, they can position their institution and brand its MBA, offering it in an
effective way based on marketing principles (the same ones it will be teaching
these students). Therefore, it is also surprising to find very little research to help
business schools do this.
Competition for MBA students around the globe has increased enormously in
the past decade. However, in 1997 Goldgehn and Kane reported a general decline
in the value of and perceived interest in the MBA in the 1990s. They suggested
that some of the reasons may be linked not only to a general slowdown in econ-
omic growth but also to the oversupply of MBAs and to poor market sensitivity of
MBA program directors. In response, the late 1990s saw a fundamental shift in
MBA program design and an enormous leap in MBA program marketing efforts.
Where once MBA programs were fundamentally similar in structure from uni-
versity to university, many new MBA programs, using a variety of formats,
specializations, and modes of delivery, have been introduced and old programs
reformulated (Nicholls et al., 1995). There are full daytime MBAs of two
years in length, high-intensity one-year programs, executive MBAs (EMBAs)
designed for working managers in current jobs, and MBAs with specializations
in international business, technology management and various professional
fields. This fragmentation in program approaches has continued through the
following decade with further compressing of some degrees to nine months,
greater proliferations of specializations, the growth of multiple-university
degrees based on cross-institutional linkages (e.g., the Cornell–Queen’s EMBA),
and joint degree programs (e.g., business and law).
Also, business schools have sought to expand their nonlocal markets
through the launch of online or videoconference MBAs and national and inter-
national satellite campuses. In major cities, there is more than one local univer-
sity offering one or more MBA programs. These also compete with programs
delivered by business schools in nearby cities as well as with online or distance
education programs and many international institutions.
With increasing competition, diversity of products and prices, and market
maturity, Nicholls et al. (1995) note, ‘In this increasingly competitive situation
it is likely that those institutions practicing effective marketing will be more
likely to prosper.’ Segev et al. (1999) argue that there are multiple ways for
MBA programs to successfully compete based on their curriculum offering.
Goldgehn and Kane (1997) also recommend the need to consider positioning
issues to increase the value of the MBA. The importance of differentiating
and positioning through brand development can be expected to be considerably
more important and a cornerstone of such effective marketing.
Journal of Marketing for Higher Education 87
Branding involves the development of a set of expectations about desired

outcomes in the mind of the buyer that differentiates the brand from its compe-
titors. Consequently, these outcome expectations ‘provide meaning for the
brand to the consumer’ and denote differences in the benefits of the product
(Keller, 2002). The brand of choice is expected to deliver the most desired
benefits (relative to cost). Some of these expectations for desired outcomes of
applying and being accepted into the program involve program inputs (what
the student experiences in terms of what goes into the program, including the
quality of their fellow student and faculty, will be), some involve program
processes outcomes (what the student will experience in taking the program),
some involve program completion outcomes (what they will experience as
the result of having taken the program). Some of these outcome expectations
occur in the short term after applying to the program or in the early stages of
the program (being accepted, taking courses), some outcomes involve experi-
ences that are intermediate in length as the result of program elements com-
pletion (developing new skills and abilities in strategic thinking, team
management, building contacts), and some occur in the long-term (obtaining
a job after graduation and having a fulfilling career). All of these outcome
expectations affect how the MBA is perceived and, hence, its brand image.
The set of experience expectations (for all three of program inputs, processes,
and outcomes) of applicants to an MBA program comprise the MBA’s brand
image. In order to develop an effective brand or to understand one’s brand posi-
tioning, the views of target customers concerning expected benefits or outcomes
of use must be determined and positively affected.
What do MBA applicants expect from the MBA experience at different
institutions? Asked a different way, what are the MBA brands of different
institutions? This paper addresses this issue in the context of one of North
America’s largest and most competitive MBA markets, in Toronto, the largest
city and the business center of Canada.
Literature review
The marketing of education has attracted more controversy than study. A major
text by Kotler and Fox (1995) begins with consideration of the definition, role,
and benefits of marketing for educational institutions and with a sound lecture
on meeting customer wants and needs. The book includes chapters on market-
ing planning, environmental scanning, marketing strategy, target market selec-
tion, measuring and forecasting, and the application of marketing’s four Ps
through design of educational programs, pricing, delivering, and communi-
cation with markets. However, many others (see for example, Driscoll, 1998)
point out the differences between the markets for traditional commodities for
which a customer focus is suitable and the university education market where
the customer pays only a small part of the cost and customer knowledge of
their needs is very limited. These opponents of customer-centric approaches
to education suggest that adaptation of the education product to customer

demands may simply erode quality (Argenti, 2000; Pfeffer & Fong, 2004).
However, for MBAs, many of these conditions of lack of knowledge of
needs and program cost absorption may not apply. For many MBAs, the
students pay all of the costs in a deregulated environment, and the maturity
and work experience of the student/customers may suit them (perhaps even
better than some of their faculty) to assess their own learning needs.
Taylor and Reed (1995) note that marketing of higher education does not
mean taking a totally student-centric perspective but rather that the needs of
various stakeholders need to be balanced, as they are in marketing in other
settings. Furthermore, identifying the needs of different student groups will
help shape unique marketing strategies for the MBA program (Dailey et al.,
2006). In addition, Driscoll (1998) points out that MBA program marketing
strategies appear to focus primarily on differentiation of offerings (concen-
trations and specialization, executive and co-op programs, online delivery

options), which does not seem to damage program quality. There is evidence
to suggest that this represents some segmentation attempts, as potential students
for a traditional MBA differ from those for an online MBA program (Kathawala
et al., 2002), and EMBA students are typically different from MBA students.
Nicholls et al. (1995) note that ‘it is somewhat ironic’ that MBA degree
programs do not make use of the marketing principles and internal marketing
resources that they have and teach. At best, they suggest, marketing efforts
are rudimentary. In fact, MBA programs have multiple customers, both direct
and indirect, and hence marketing needs to be addressed to multiple points in
the value chain: to those who influence the decision maker/client of the
program, to the client (the MBA applicant/student), to those who are the
client’s clients (those to whom the client wishes to market themselves), and
future employers and current employers who often sponsor students and may
pay the costs, particularly for EMBA programs. The characteristics used to
evaluate MBA programs and, therefore, possible selection criteria of clients,
as suggested from the research on all three, will be discussed in different
parts of this section as the basis for development of a research instrument.
Rating magazine-based criteria for MBA program selection

Among those sources of information that influence people who are in the
process of choosing an MBA program are the MBA program rating magazines
(Dahlin-Brown, 2005). These magazines rate MBA programs on a number of
criteria, which become implied selection criteria for students and de facto
‘seals of approval’ on MBA graduates. The only ranking to focus exclusively
on Canadian business schools is published by Canadian Business Magazine.
The methodology used has changed over time from an overall ranking to one
that provides survey lists. The previous method, as reported in 2002, was
based on 15 different factors. Among these factors, five were weighted more
heavily at 10% of the final score (return on investment, career advice, strengths,
percent of students employed after three months, and percent change in salary),
while the remaining 10 factors contributed 5% each to the overall ranking of the
schools (average entering GMAT score, percent female students, percent female
faculty, percent international students, percent international faculty, work
experience required, graduates’ assessment of aims having been achieved,
graduates’ rating of satisfaction with the program, graduates’ willingness to rec-
ommend to others, and graduates having worked outside of Canada). The most
recent method provides lists of the programs on the basis of admission/program
data (tuition, program length, GMAT score, enrollment, minimum work experi-
ence, part time), work experience (entering salary, starting salary, percent
change), and class diversity (female students and faculty, international students
and faculty) (Canadian Business, 2008).
The ranking of Canadian schools has some similarities and differences with
the process used to rank American Business Schools in US publications. These

publications occasionally rank some Canadian business schools as well. U.S.
News and World Report’s ‘Best Graduate Schools’ (2009) included placement
success using salary and employment (weighting of 35%) and student selectiv-
ity using GMAT, GPA, and percent accepted (25%) but weighted the reputation
of the school the highest at 40% (peer and recruiter assessments).
Business Week’s ‘Full-Time MBA Rankings’ (2008) is another example of a
magazine that uses a multidimensional methodology, including the views of
students (teaching quality, career services, alumni network, recruiting efforts)
and recruiters (school ranking, recruitment history) as well as faculty research
output (articles in 20 top journals). To be eligible for a ranking in this magazine,
the program must be accredited as well as meet additional criteria (age of
program, enrollment, test scores, acceptance rates, and number of international
and minority students). However, it is unclear how eligibility determination
decisions are made based on these criteria.
Magazine rankings are sometimes less clear about their process. For
example, The Wall Street Journal Guide to the Top Business Schools (2007)
uses 21 factors for its ranking but does not release a list of these attributes or
their relative importance to their ranking. The publisher also indicates that
recruiters’ plans to hire and recruitment history from the schools are also
utilized in determining the ranking.
Although the factors are applied in different manners across different
magazine rankings, all techniques tend to embrace measures of quality and
characteristics of incoming students (e.g., GMAT, work experience), program
process related variables (e.g., faculty characteristics, program facilities,
costs, placement support services), and measures of program outcomes (e.g.,
career results, satisfaction with the program, school reputation).
There have been many questions about the value of the magazine ratings. In
an assessment of the U.S. News and World Report ratings process, structural
equation analysis modeling found their model poorly represented publicly
available data of the institutions (Brennan et al., 2007). Brennan et al. (2007)
argue that their results reveal the variables used in the ratings reflect a narrow
set of underlying factors. While there are questions about the value of these
rating services to students, these magazines have published the ratings for
over two decades, indicating their assessment that uptake of the information
is significant enough as to be profitable to the producer. In addition, the business
schools themselves feel they have value to students and often use these reports,
where favorable, in their promotion to students.
Employer interest-based criteria for MBA program selection

Employers are indirect consumers of MBA programs because they provide the
demand for program graduates. Employers are the target market of the MBA
graduate, so it would be reasonable to assume that what employers want
from the MBA program would be important components of programs that

potential students would find most attractive. Also, in some cases, current
employers may pay the tuition costs of their employees taking an MBA
program and accommodate employee needs for lighter or time-adjusted work-
loads while they engage in their programs of study. Therefore, the character-
istics desired by employers would form selection criteria of value to students.
It might appear the reported interests of employers are not well-represented in
MBA program design or even in the MBA rating magazine criteria noted pre-
viously. Richards-Wilson (2002) noted that the need to be sensitive to the
demands of MBA employers is particularly critical with the business world
environment changing so quickly. However, several reports of employer opinions
have noted that employers perceive MBA graduates to have poor leadership and
interpersonal skills (Edson, 1979; Kane, 1993; Neelankavil, 1994; Eberhardt &
Moser, 1997). Saban et al. (2000) also observed that there is dissatisfaction with
the traditional MBA product, with deficiencies noted in areas of course content,
communication, and analytical skills and lack of exposure to emerging industries.
Employers also call for more content on leadership theory, real-world examples,
project work, and applications in MBA courses (Graduate Management Admis-
sions Council, 2006). While leadership and interpersonal skills are often cited
as MBA program outcome shortcomings, magazine rankings avoid including
these aspects directly as criteria for evaluation. Other general areas highlighted
by employers as important characteristics of good programs include process-
related factors that occur during program delivery, such as exposure of students
to the day-to-day life of an executive (Jenkins, Reizenstein, & Rodgers, 1984;
Neelankavil, 1994) and coursework on the topics of ethics, entrepreneurship,
global business, production, and operations/quality management (Neelankavil,
1994). In addition, employers have expressed a preference for specialized MBA
programs over more general and broadly based programs (Hunt & Surgi Speck,
1986). Despite identification of these deficiencies in business schools, little has
changed in management education (Stevens, 2000).
Despite these expressed concerns of employers, a recent survey found that

80% of top executives believed that a graduate business degree is critical to
success in a business career and achievement of senior management status
(Yerak, 2000). Some business school officials and MBA rating magazines
report what appears to be a recent increase in perceived value of an MBA
education and increased hiring of MBA graduates, at least by US employers
(Canadian Business, 2005). Yang and Lu (2001) note that MBA programs
still have great appeal as a route to management education.
Carrel and Schoenbachler (2001) compared the decision considerations of
students and employers in sponsoring organizations for EMBA programs.
They found that the major considerations did not differ significantly. Both con-
sidered program design elements, such as scheduling of classes, length of
program, costs, program content elements such as curriculum relevance and
real-world applications, and program outputs, including graduates with higher
knowledge, broader perspective, and better leadership and decision-making abil-

ities. They also noted some differences between considerations for those select-
ing so-called Tier 1 institutions from those selecting Tier 3 or 4 institutions in the
importance of reputation. Program costs and ‘payoff’ for the investment were
rated as more important for those choosing higher tier schools, but program
length and flexibility and real-world relevance were more important for those
choosing lower tier schools. Based on their findings, they recommended that
program promotion materials could be similar for both student and employer
targets. Perhaps surprisingly, they did not make any recommendations concern-
ing differential marketing approaches based on the tier level of the institution.
Chapman (1998) also studied multiple stakeholders in determining aca-
demic quality signals for the MBA. He found that external stakeholders, includ-
ing businesses, do not necessarily value traditional, scholarly oriented academic
quality signals. Some of the signals they use are resource related, such as library
holdings and faculty with business experience. Some are process-related, such
as faculty time spent with students, and coursework involving real-world
experience. And some were outcomes-related, such as graduates are leaders,
organizations recruit, and students are satisfied. He noted that quality has
several dimensions, including business relevance, student satisfaction,
program scope, and job/career success of graduates.
The studies of employers present a partial picture of how MBA programs are per-
ceived. While employers are the source of demand for graduates, employers do not
directly compensate the schools for the costs of running an MBA program. These
costs are offset, in part if not in whole, through the tuition fees of students who
devote considerable personal time and effort to completing the degree requirements.
Student/applicant-based criteria for MBA program selection

There is surprisingly little research on MBA program choice processes and criteria.
Nicholls et al. (1995) point out that because of the wide range of characteristics of
MBA programs, the time and money costs of the MBA experience, and the risk
and uncertainty involved in the purchase, the decision-making process is likely
best typified by highly involved, complex buying behavior. Since the MBA is a
personal service, multiple information sources will be used with an emphasis on
personal sources. In keeping with the expectation that MBA applicants consider
the program-selection decision a complex one and search for information prior
to selection, Beard (1992) noted that those entering MBA programs in the UK
were well-informed about different programs and were aware of major differences
between available programs relating to modes of study, content, and reputation.
Rapert et al. (2004) reviewed how quality of MBA programs has been assessed
by a variety of stakeholders, especially students, and they noted that some evaluate
by outcomes, such as learning that improves performance on the job, leadership,
communication, and interpersonal skills. Others look at processes used in the
program, such as hands-on experience, interdisciplinary courses, creativity-
building exercises, and teamwork experiences. However, Rapert et al. (2004)

contend that students are uniquely qualified to assess the quality of their
educational experience. They found that quality assessments directly affected
student program satisfaction. They noted that the hallmarks of quality programs
included the following seven in-class (process and outcome-based) themes:
. Intellectual growth
. Overall professionalism, including communication and etiquette skills
. Specialized training and instruction in one or more functional areas
. Generalized/integrated instruction
. Teamwork and group dynamics
. Devoted and knowledgeable faculty with good teaching skills and real-
world experience
. Classmate and faculty intimacy
and the following four outside-classroom (process-based) themes:
. Integration with business community

. Career preparation services
. Availability of financial assistance
. Program clarity with clear goals and open lines of communication
between students, faculty, and staff
Webb and Allen (1995) found graduate business students were looking for
five benefits from their choice of program: analytical skills, competitive advan-
tage, monetary reward, career advancement, and job enrichment.
In another study, graduate students in research-focused programs were
found to be interested in different criteria than those in graduate professional
programs (Chen, 2008). Those in a graduate program emphasizing research
used financial aid, faculty reputation, and the quality or reputation of the
university or program as important selection criteria, while those in a graduate

professional program used program rankings and tuition costs as salient criteria
(Chen, 2008). In the study, the term graduate professional programs refers to
business, education, and engineering programs; however the vast majority of
those sampled were in a business program (Chen, 2008).
As noted earlier, Carrel and Schoenbachler (2001) found the major decision
criteria reported by in-course MBA students as influencing their choice of
program were both process-related (length of program, timing of classes, curri-
culum relevance) and outcome-related (increased knowledge, improved
employability and promotability, and investment ‘payoff’). They also noted
that there were some differences related to institution tier level. Stiber (2001)
also found that the most important factors that were characteristics of the
chosen MBA program of in-course MBA students were input factors (accred-
itation of the institution, quality and responsiveness of faculty, and quality stu-
dents) and process factors (relevant and interesting curriculum, convenient class
schedule, and challenging courses). Unlike other studies, he did not include
outcome factors in his study.
While the studies noted here all used in-course students as subjects and
relied on retrospective reports, in fact there is the distinct likelihood that the
factors identified and rated reflect the perceptions of current rather than prospec-
tive students. Indeed, Bristow (1998), as well as several studies noted pre-
viously, suggest that the use of multiple stakeholder approaches is related to
the content and importance of attributes and outcomes of MBA programs.
Therefore, the findings of studies using current and graduating students must
be considered with caution as to their validity for criteria actually used by
potential applicants in the process of choosing programs to which they will
apply. Are these the outcomes desired of the MBA experience, and what is
their relative importance as used in the program selection process? It is not
clear that applicants would use the same criteria or only those reported by
current and former students to evaluate programs in selecting which one to
attend. In particular, program accessibility issues (such as location, costs, and
applicant acceptance criteria) are not concerns of in-course students about to
graduate, whereas they may certainly be for applicants. Lawton and Lundsten
(1998) observed that while the desired outcomes and expectations of prospec-
tive students of MBA programs were fairly consistent with current students and
alumni with regard to some aspects of the program (on-the-job performance and
personal benefits), the career benefits of prospective students were far higher
than the other groups realized.
Beyond the school selection criteria issue, MBA graduating students have
been asked about the important aspects in choosing among potential employers
(Phillips & Phillips, 1998). Although not a direct question about MBA
programs, the responses by the students provide further insight into the
underlying motivations for pursuing an MBA and desired outcomes from that
educational experience. Students responded that opportunity for advancement,
challenging or interesting work, positive organizational climate, job security,

good training program, and good health insurance were important consider-
ations in selecting an employer (Phillips & Phillips, 1998). Interestingly,
salary was not mentioned as a top factor. Perhaps the omission is made
because higher salaries are an expectation among all employment options.
Generally, the factors important to students were considered in the Canadian
Business (2001) survey of alumni in which they gathered information about
program graduates such as education, career change, salary increase, job pro-
motion, international appeal and networking opportunities, as bases for
evaluating MBA programs.
Summary of MBA program evaluation and selection research

Comparing the stated interests of stakeholder groups reveals a convergence of
demands in some areas but also a divergence of thought in other areas. The
above discussion reveals employers are seeking incremental improvements in
MBA programs that address leadership and interpersonal skills. However,
neither students nor magazine ratings seem to consider these as important in
their evaluations. While students and employers both appear to desire special-
ized programs, a study by Segev, Raveh, and Farjoun (1999) suggests that
top ranked schools, as ranked by Business Week, seem better able to deliver
innovative specialized programs compared to the lower ranked schools.
Nevertheless, there is not a large body of research on desired outcomes of an
MBA education from any of the stakeholders, especially from those still in
the selection and application process.
General criteria for university program selection

Because of the limited research on MBA program selection as indicated, as
further background to the research reported here, a more general search of cri-
teria used in university selection was undertaken. A number of studies have
generated lists of factors or criteria for selection of an education institution to
apply to or attend. Coccari and Jabalgi (1995) studied differences in the 20
factors involved in selecting a university/college by various student segments.
Shemwell and Yavas (1996) developed a list of university choice criteria invol-
ving such characteristics as accessibility (affordability and location), in-course
experiences (personal attention from faculty, quality of instruction, graduation
probability, and athletics programs), and postgraduation preparation (prep-
aration for successful career and job placement services) to determine percep-
tions of various educational options using importance-performance grid
analysis and perceptual mapping. Schuster, Constantino, and Klein (1988)
used a list of choice criteria and influencers to develop several factors related
to the choice process. Of particular note are the factors of university facilities
and programs offered, scholastic quality, and affordability. However, they
indicated that specific characteristics of a university or program (for example,

co-op programs) may be influential as well in the decision on a chosen option.
Kotler and Fox (1995), in their book on education marketing, suggest the
school selection decision may be explained using Maslow’s hierarchy of
needs. They contend that schools may differentiate themselves on the basis
of needs met. Furthermore, Dailey et al. (2006) utilize the hierarchy of needs
to explain differences in MBA program selection. For instance, smaller
schools with small class sizes, a supportive faculty, and a socially active
environment were consistent with the fulfillment of social needs. In contrast,
‘brand’ name large schools are more suitable to prospective students interested
in satisfying esteem needs, while self-actualization needs would be satisfied
with schools stressing exploring one’s own values in their programs, knowledge
transfer, or career opportunities. The consideration of needs is a close match to
the concepts of branding that relate to desired outcomes. Using what would be
considered this more market-oriented approach, Weise (1994) noted the impor-
tance of the student’s perception that the institution will fit his or her particular
educational desires as explaining student selection of a college. However, there
can be vast differences associated with the expectations of an education from a
university and the actual delivery of the education on several attributes (Belan-
ger, Mount, & Wilson, 2002).
A brand-based approach to university and program selection

University brand images represent a topic that has garnered some interest in
recent years as being of great value when attracting program applicants.
Several recent works have focused on university branding activities. Studies
have explored the topic by examining image differences between students
and senior administrators (Belanger et al., 2002), the image of the graduates
of the institution (Parameswaran & Glowacka, 1995), and the opinions of
alumni held about their former universities (McAlexander, Koenig, &
Schouten, 2006). Judson, Gorchels, and Aurand (2006) also examined the
role of internal branding activities.
Melewar and Akel (2005) explored the topic from the identity formulation
perspective of how the university builds a brand image. In a study of
Swedish universities, some universities were shown to hold specific market
positions recognized through brand personalities while others had not
(Opoku et al., 2008). Chapleo (2005) argues that clear differentiation, which
is a central role of branding, is needed among universities but found that
little effort had been given to this approach. This differentiation can be based
on dimensions, but there is no agreement on what these dimensions might
be. He suggests that the dimensions include marketing communications, repu-
tation, location, and public relations activities. However, Gray, Fam, and Llanes
(2003) argue that the university brand dimensions considered within an inter-
national context should include the learning environment, reputation, career
prospects, destination image, and cultural integration. Bennett and Ali-Choudh-

ury (2009) also argue that the brand image is an important perspective to assess
university selection criteria. They found that application intentions as well as
positive word-of-mouth intentions were related to the brand image of the
university based on symbolic representations of the institution, institutional
attributes, and particularly on the promise of outcomes.
Other research has identified some of the typical challenges universities face
in building strong brands. These barriers have been identified by Chapleo
(2007) as organizational resistance to change, difficulty in capturing the
complex nature of the university, lack of a clear branding direction, and the
potentially competing interests and images of schools and faculties within the
university. Additional researchers support these identified challenges as
Waeraas and Solbakk (2009) point to the complexity of a university as a
barrier to implementing branding, and Hemsley-Brown and Goonawardana
(2007) argue that universities need to account for the contributions of schools
and faculties in the overall brand image of the university.
Gopalan, Pitt, and colleagues (Gopalan, Pabiavlas, & Jones, 2008; Gopalan,
Stitts, & Herring, 2006; Pitt, Berthon, Spyropoulau, & Page, 2006; Pitt &
Berthon, 2004) have carried out a number of studies using different approaches
to examine the use of branding by MBA schools. These studies have involved
surveys, interviews, and content analyses using samples of senior university
officials, MBA managers, MBA students, and Web sites. Results from the
research regarding potential for, obstacles to, and bases of effective branding
have been mixed but generally have highlighted the limitations of approaches
and use of good branding techniques (which should be surprising given that
MBA schools are teaching the importance and methods of marketing).
Pitt and Berthon (2004) used MBA students to rate their own school and
both the top and bottom ranked MBA school of 100 best ranked schools by
the Financial Times on five commonly used brand personality dimensions.
They found statistically significant differences between the top-ranked
school, which was also the most preferred school, and the other two schools
(own and lowest ranked) on the personality dimension of competence but
little difference on the other dimensions of excitement, sincerity, ruggedness,
and sophistication. Therefore, they concluded that this approach provided
little information for positioning and admitted personality, dimension-based
approaches to branding may not be an effective base for differentiation and
brand development. However, they did suggest that MBA managers pay
careful attention to brand management and auditing of the brand against
those of major competitors. They concluded it is not easy but may be the
‘saving grace’ in a highly competitive saturated market.
Therefore, there are increasing calls for recognition of the importance of
understanding and developing brand-based approaches to differentiate univer-
sity and in particular MBA offerings but with little evidence-based information
to direct managers as to how to do it. Such a situation highlights the need for
examining approaches to branding rooted in the processes used by stakeholders

in forming relevant brand images. For MBA applicants, choosing an MBA
program to attend is considered a high-risk, single-time decision in which
applicants are placing a great deal of trust in the institution to deliver outcomes
of high value given the high expense incurred in both time and money invest-
ment. Research focused on the perceptions of program applicants about what
they expect to get – the outcomes from the differently positioned MBA
brands available to them – should be a valuable approach to branding and is
explored in depth in this study.
Research objectives
The objectives for this research were to: (a) understand the outcomes (immedi-
ate, intermediate, and long term) sought by MBA applicants in undertaking an
MBA program and in selecting the particular institution to attend using a

number of techniques to ensure validity, (b) compare the expected outcomes
associated with the business school MBAs studied, and (c) use this information
to determine the brand positioning strengths of the business school MBA
programs.
Method
To achieve the objectives laid out for the project, a survey was conducted of
people who are in the active ‘consideration of alternatives’ stage of the MBA
program choice process as evidenced by their attendance at an ‘MBA fair.’
At MBA fairs, a large number of universities offering MBA programs have
individual booths where staff from the programs are available to hand out pro-
motional materials, explain their program benefits, and answer questions. A
series of such fairs are held in major cities across Canada and the United
States every year, and universities can choose to attend all or only those in
selected markets. The particular MBA fair site was in Toronto, the largest
city in Canada and its commercial center. Toronto has four major universities,
all with business schools. Two have MBA programs of long duration and high
enrolments, and a third has recently introduced an MBA program. Also, several
out-of-town universities run active programs in the Toronto area with satellite
campuses or online MBA programs. Therefore, the MBA market in Toronto
is one of the most competitive in the country.
A mailing list of attendees at the MBA fair was obtained from the fair orga-
nizers who had arranged for the collection of this information to distribute after
the fair to business schools participating in the fair for follow-up of attendees. A
questionnaire was prepared, and the data collection (questionnaire distribution
and return) was conducted through the offices of a marketing research firm to
avoid association with any specific business school and possible bias in answer-
ing. A total of 401 people were registered at the fair and resided in the Toronto
area. The questionnaire was mailed to all of them. A mail-based approach was
used in order to enhance the importance of the study to respondents and because
some attendees did not give e-mail addresses. Also, unsolicited e-mails are
often simply deleted without being opened, and it was felt that a mailed
package would receive more attention and consideration.
Given the paucity of research on MBA selection criteria and desired out-
comes, several approaches were needed to develop an appropriate instrument
for the survey. It was decided that questionnaire development should be based
on published academic papers about general selection processes for university
programs as well as on those concerning MBA decision making, as noted in
the ‘Literature Review’ section. General criteria for university programs of rel-
evance include location, student body size, quality and composition of the
program, specializations/majors offered, and costs. The criteria revealed
through these sources were combined with criteria used in assessing MBA
programs by MBA program ratings magazines, notably Business Week, U.S.

News and World Report, the Wall Street Journal, and Canadian Business.
Business school program characteristics from these ratings magazines
included student characteristics (quality measured as GMAT score, work
experience, internationalism, and gender), faculty quality (including business
experience and teaching capability), program reputation, and career support
(including networks and job placement services). As a third input to the ques-
tionnaire development, a focus group of MBA fair attendees was undertaken.
The focus group approach was used to search for additional criteria used but
not previously reported and to verify what was identified in the academic
research. The focus group study of a total of 17 prospective students
showed that a key reason for seeking to obtain an MBA was to gain an under-
standing of the broader business context of their organization, advance their
careers, and achieve a return on their investment. Important factors considered
by these potential students in selecting a program included program content
and flexibility, city/location of the university relative to where they currently
live and where they wish to work in the future, and the reputation of the
school. Other factors contributing to the school selection decision included
networking opportunities, cost of the program, and the presence of a part-
time enrolment option.
The specific question design process took direction from the work of
Kotler and Fox (1995) and of Rapert et al. (2004) on marketing educational
programs based on applicant desired benefits/outcomes and general branding
concepts. Therefore, the evaluation criteria catalogued from the literature
reviews and the focus groups were developed into a list of expected
benefits/outcomes arising from the decision to choose any specific MBA
program. These outcomes included immediate outcomes, such as studying
with other students with certain characteristics, in facilities with certain qual-
ities, in a program with a certain design; intermediate outcomes, including
acquiring several types of learning and establishing a network; and longer-
term outcomes, such as future employer impressions of their MBA, success in

attaining a first job upon graduation, and career success. The final question-
naire was pretested with a small group of in-course MBA students and
slightly revised for clarity.
The first page of the mailed questionnaire booklet introduced the research
project to respondents through a letter signed by a marketing research firm
representative. The decision to use a marketing research firm in data collection
was made so as to not bias the respondents toward a named university and to not
be seen as soliciting applicants. The first set of questions determined demo-
graphic and background information about respondents and general questions
about their MBA decision-making process, including their most preferred
MBA programs in Canada and outside of Canada. The next set of questions
was designed to capture the importance of the list of desired outcomes of apply-
ing and accepting admission to an MBA program. There were 40 explicit
outcome five-point importance rating scales. The same outcomes were then
used in the subsequent pages to measure respondents’ perceptions about the
likelihood of receiving expected outcomes from attending their most preferred
choice of MBA schools not in Toronto and the two major Toronto business
schools for their MBA. Because this paper is designed for general research
purposes and not to promote specific schools, these schools will subsequently
be referred to using random letters such as School N and School H.
Response to the questionnaire mailing was encouraged through the use of two
waves of mailing and an inducement in the form of a draw for a gift certificate for
those who sent in their questionnaire. To enter the draw, respondents sent a card
with their name and address separately from the questionnaire so as to ensure anon-
ymity of the questionnaire responses. Sixty-one responses were received by the
cutoff date. The response rate for usable questionnaires was just over 15% and
is comparable to studies conducted in a similar way. Most of the previous
studies on selection criteria noted in the literature review used either in-course stu-
dents or accepted applicants to programs and received higher response rates.
However, there is value in accessing the target population prior to the program
selection decision and the response numbers are adequate for data analysis.
Results and discussion

The respondents represented a range of backgrounds and personal character-
istics, which suggests some breadth of applicability of the findings. There
was a fairly balanced gender split. The average years of experience and age
of respondents is considerable and well-suited to their considering undertaking
an MBA program based on work experience, age, and undergraduate grade
level. The respondent characteristics were the following:
. 52.5% male, 47.5% female

. Average age of 29.3 years, with a range from 21 to 52 years
Table 1. Percent mention of university location of top four most preferred MBA programs.
First Second Third Fourth Total
preference preference preference preference mentions
School H 21.3 19.7 13.1 3.3 57.4

School N 19.7 16.4 8.2 — 43.6
School Y 14.8 — 8.2 4.9 27.9
School Q — — 9.8 6.6 16.4
School R — — — 3.3 3.3
. 88.5% with an undergraduate degree and 8.2% with a graduate degree

. 27.9% with a BA, 13.1% with a BComm, and 11.5% with a BS
. 60.7% with grades of 70– 79%, and 27.9% with ≥80% in their previous
degree
. Completed their previous degree on average five years previously
. An average of 6.2 years work experience
In presenting the results of the research, the individual names of the business
schools will not be used and schools will be referred to by random letter names
only. Respondents ranking their most preferred choices for an MBA program in
Canada are shown in Table 1. The prospective MBA students who responded
overwhelmingly indicated the Toronto schools as leading choices with
School H as the most preferred choice by the largest number.
Outcomes sought
To assess the factors that are pertinent to prospective MBA students, the
research engaged respondents in four different ways. This multiple approach
was employed to best capture how the decisions are being made while reducing
the risk of omitting some critical outcomes that impact the decision. For
instance, a single approach based on self-explicated response could distort
the interpretation of desired outcomes because answers are more likely to be
affected by social bias and ease of expression. At the same time, self-explicated
responses remain important because they represent ideas that are openly and
outwardly communicated by the prospective MBA student. For this reason,
the current research explores outcomes sought from MBA programs using
survey response information in four ways:
(1) Open-ended questions regarding program choice difficulty

(2) Closed response rating of the importance of desired outcomes
(3) Closed response rating of the expected outcomes of their most preferred
program
(4) Principal components analysis (PCA) of desired outcomes that reveals
patterns of criteria relationships and structures of meaning among
criteria
These different approaches will be compared to uncover truly relevant selec-

tion criteria.
Open-ended responses to choice ease/difficulty

Respondents were given open-ended questions to provide the opportunity to
describe their reasons why it was easy or hard to make the decision to take
an MBA and to choose a specific MBA program. By categorizing respondents’
statements into themes, the main influences on the process became apparent as
an implicit measure of importance.
Respondents explicitly reported the main difficulties associated with the
decision to undertake MBA studies were the financial cost (28 mentions),
investment of time (15 mentions), and career uncertainty (nine mentions).
Many respondents noted the decision was relatively easy and cited future
job/career opportunities (11 mentions) and an interest in learning as the under-
lying reasons for the decision (seven mentions).

Program choice ease-difficulty was determined, and the mean was 2.4,
between ‘somewhat’ and ‘not very difficult.’ Reasons for ease of choice most
often cited were reputation/quality of the school (15 mentions), location (11
mentions), personal liking or fit of program style or goals (nine mentions),
and part-time/flexibility (five mentions). Difficulties involved comparing pro-
grams on many different criteria that are not directly comparable/tradeoffs
(17 mentions), financial costs (10 mentions), and accessibility in terms of
location or entrance requirements (five mentions).
These reasons for choice ease or difficulty suggest that applicants recog-
nize that there are many program options in the different MBA offerings
and that although comparing can be very difficult, it may be critical for max-
imizing success and value for money and time inputs. Financial and time con-
siderations are important both in what it costs and what is gained. It does not
appear clear to many how to make these trade-offs. For some, reputation is the
easiest way to do this, and this ‘ease of use’ characteristic of reputation may be
the main role it plays in decision making (i.e., as a facilitating criterion). MBA
applicants who are confused over the myriad choices can always fall back on
others’ opinions (including those of ratings magazines), expressed as repu-
tation. Also, it makes justifying their choice of program and school to
others very easy. For other applicants, they decide on perceived fit to personal
style and interests and may be more personally involved in the choice, more
self-confident in their ability to choose, and less concerned about what others
may think.
Explicit ratings of importance of outcomes

The top 10 outcomes in terms of explicit ratings of importance from the list of
40 outcomes of attending the MBA program, categorized based on when they
are experienced, include:
. Three immediate outcomes: inspiring teachers, affordability, and studying

the functional areas of management.
. Six intermediate outcomes: learning to make strategic decisions, develop-
ing new ways of thinking, developing a network of business contacts,
learning leadership skills, and having access to job placement and
career services.
. Two long-term outcomes: the ability to find a job easily after graduation
and attain a good career.
Several of these highly important, explicitly desired outcomes align with the
implied desired outcomes derived from answers to the open-ended question
about reasons for ease/difficulty in making the decision. The highly important
outcomes of good career, affordability of attending and learning in such areas as
the functional areas of management, strategic decision-making, and leadership
are consistent with the most common themes raised in the open-ended
responses. However, differences are also found between the results from the
two approaches. The investment of time and flexibility in program delivery
are not viewed as of high importance in the explicit ratings. This discrepancy
may result from the perspective that the trade-off is necessary if the decision
to attend is made. Personal fit (e.g., GMAT, work experience) of the program
was also not highly rated in explicit choice criteria. Generally, the two
groups of responses (explicitly importance and open-ended responses)
suggest some consistencies and also some inconsistencies that will be explored
in further analysis.
Most preferred program outcomes ratings

Another indirect approach is taken to determining what is important to appli-
cants by observing the most highly rated outcomes from the most preferred
MBA program. The top 10 outcomes from attending the most preferred
school include:
. Two immediate outcomes: a program with a challenging workload and

studying in the functional areas of management.
. Seven intermediate outcomes: developing a network of business contacts,
learning strategic decision making, teamwork, leadership and communi-
cation skills, how to manage change and innovation, and studying both
theory and practice of business.
. One long-term outcome: the ability to attain a good career.
Although there are some differences between the explicitly stated desired
outcomes and the implied outcomes from top-choice preference expectations,
half of the top 10 is shared between the two measurements of outcomes.
These shared outcomes are the opportunity to study in the functional areas of
management, learning to make strategic decisions, learning leadership skills,

developing a network of business contacts, and the ability to pursue a good
career after graduation.
Patterns among desired outcomes

A principal components analysis (PCA) of the 40 desired outcomes importance
ratings yielded nine components or factors that further help describe the way
MBA applicants are making their decision about where to go. These principal
components indicate patterns of interrelated desired outcomes and imply what
might be termed ‘meta-expectations.’ These patterns reveal how respondents
see associations among large numbers of attributes and the underlying patterns
of outcomes that they expect.
Clearly, no one is likely to actually use 40 criteria in making a choice.
Rather, consumer behavior literature suggests that usually 3– 5 ‘mega-criteria’

are actually used. Some characteristics, such as brand or price, may be used to
signal desired outcomes in a pattern or schema of interlinked expectations. For
example, if a school has a large number of industry connections, it may also be
expected to have a faculty with industry experience, to be focused on practice
over theory and on applied fields of study, and to facilitate first job attainment.
Job placement services would also be associated with easy first job attainment.
Therefore, there are related images and expectations with connecting nodes. For
example, Figure 1 illustrates the kind of linkages revealed in the factor analysis
of the outcomes that were loaded on one component of the PCA analysis.
Knowing these associations exist helps in the design of program attributes
and the presentation of them to applicants in a meaningful way. For example,
applicants will expect when certain attributes are promoted, certain other out-
comes can also be expected directly and indirectly. Also, if an applicant
wants certain outcomes, they are likely to want a related constellation of out-
comes. Schools that have an image of having certain characteristics related to
certain outcomes will also be expected to have characteristics with linked
associated outcomes.
Figure 1. Illustration of possible network of desired outcomes associations.

Principal components analysis (PCA) was used to examine the underlying

patterns among the desired outcomes. Given the sample size, only the top 26
items with importance ratings over 4.0 were included. Barrett and Kline
(1981, as reported in MacCallum et al., 1999) noted that even a subjects to vari-
ables (STV) ratio of 3 was adequate for stable results in factor analysis with
samples as small as 48. Similarly, MacCallum et al. (1999) reported excellent
recovery of population factors with sample sizes of 60 and STV of 3 when
average communality was .7 and factors were overdetermined (3 loaded vari-
ables). Average communality for the 26 outcomes importance ratings variables
was .74, suggesting a small ratio of STV of around 3.0 could be used. Varimax
rotation was used to ensure maximal differentiation and more distinct loadings.
The mean value of the importance of the outcome criteria explicit importance
ratings and the component loadings of .4 and above are shown in Table 2.
PCA revealed 7 factors that explained a total of 71.2% of the variance.
Most of the factors included more than 5 variables with only 2 loadings
below .5, further supporting the interpretability of the derived factors. The
factors were identified as the following:1
. Deeper learning outcomes, including numerous learning areas, such as

strategic decision making, theory and practice, solving complex manage-
ment problems, developing new ways of thinking, knowledge that will
contribute immediately to job, leadership (secondary loading above .4),
and managing change and innovation (secondary loading above .4).
. Skills-based learning outcomes, such as entrepreneurship, leadership,
communication, teamwork, and managing change and innovation.
. Job and career outcomes, including finding a job quickly, having access to
job placement services and a network of business contacts, getting a good
career, earning more because of where they earned their MBA, and school
having many business partnerships.
. Faculty/school reputation outcomes, including faculty teaching ability,
business experience, activity in developing new knowledge, innovative
program of study, and school status.
. Traditional business learning outcomes, including study of functional
areas and international topics.
. Personal interest outcomes, such as wide choice of courses and the ability
to study specialization of interest.
. Affordability outcomes – being able to afford to attend.
The first three and the fifth factors to emerge are in line with the key immedi-
ate, intermediate, and long-term outcomes around learning and job/career out-
comes, noted as appearing in both implicit and explicit importance ratings.
Faculty quality aspects appear in the fourth factor. Program affordability is in
factor seven. The issue of personal fit that appeared in the reason for ease of
program choice is captured in aspects in factor six.
Table 2. Principal components analysis of top rated importance outcomes (PCA loading above .4).
Mean 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Assigned Component Label Deep Skills Job/ Faculty/ Trad’l Pers’l Afford-
learning learning career school bus. fit ability
reputation learning
Learn to make strategic 4.54 .781
business decision
Develop new ways of 4.49 .700
thinking
Gain knowledge to 4.32 .696
contribute immediately to
job
Learn to solve complex 4.29 .792
management problems
Learn both theory and 4.29 .652
practice
.432∗
Learn to manage change and 4.25 .573

innovation
Learn leadership skills 4.42 .510∗ .629
Learn communication skills 4.36 .818
Learn entrepreneurship 4.25 .635
skills
Learn teamwork skills 4.20 .824
Good career after 4.71 .834
graduation
Develop network of 4.49 .552
business contacts
Find a job easily and 4.39 .853
quickly
Access job placement/ 4.39 .776
career services
Earn a lot more 4.29 .582
School with many business 4.12 .725
partnerships
Faculty interesting and 4.54 .844
inspiring
Faculty have business 4.31 .595
experience
Faculty active in developing 4.10 .774
knowledge
School has innovative 4.15 .526
program
School is top rated 4.14 .430
Learn functional areas of 4.41 .767
management
Learn to manage in 4.08 .755
international environment
Wide choice of courses 4.22 .724
Can study in specialization 4.22 .770
of interest
Able to afford to attend 4.46 .816
Workload is challenging 4.08+
% variance explained 14.4 13.9 13.4 9.1 8.1 7.8 4.4
∗ +
Notes: secondary loading above .4; did not load above .4 on any component.
One final step was taken in the PCA analysis. To determine possible effects
of selecting the shortened list of outcomes, the full set of 40 importance
ratings outcomes was investigated with appropriate caution regarding the
less than desired number of observations. The same general pattern was
revealed with the only difference being that two additional components
emerged. These were:
. Program delivery outcomes, including the use of case studies, an integra-

tive program, and excellent classroom and computer facilities.
. Status outcomes, including program top-rated, future employer would be
impressed.
Program status does appear as one of these two additional factors but is not
among the key important outcomes factors. Again, this may suggest that the
status of the program or institution is not itself an important criterion on

which to choose a program but rather may make the decision easier to make
and to justify to others (a facilitating criterion of choice, as noted earlier).
Expected outcomes for specific MBA programs

Finally, respondents rated two Toronto MBA programs on expected outcomes.
For succinctness, Table 3 presents the importance-weighted ratings of these two
programs on only the top 15 explicitly rated outcomes. The values in the table
are the ratings given on the expectations of the outcome being delivered
Table 3. Top 15 importance-weighted outcome scores for each school.

Weighted Scores (rating score × explicit importance rating)
School N School H
Leadership skills 20.59 Good career 19.42

Strategic decisions 20.33 Leadership skills 18.98
Learn new thinking 20.15 Functional areas 18.85
Network of contacts 19.91 Strategic decisions 18.75
Good career 19.88 Inspiring faculty 18.58
Solve problems 19.62 Career planning 18.56
Communication skills 19.56 Network of contacts 18.44
Functional areas 19.53 Learn new thinking 18.34
Theory and practice 19.53 Experienced faculty 17.95
Entrepreneurship 19.32 Contribute to job 17.92
Inspiring faculty 19.18 Communication skills 17.89
Contribute to job 18.68 Solve problems 17.61
Career planning 18.56 Theory and practice 17.56
Experienced faculty 18.47 Entrepreneurship 17.34
Find a job easily 17.26 Find a job easily 16.74
Afford to attend 13.90 Afford to attend 16.32
Total 304.47 Total 289.25
weighted by the explicit importance rating of that outcome. A summation of

these scores yields an overall program importance-weighted rating.
Among the 15 most important explicitly rated outcomes, School N outscores
School H on all but two outcomes: School H is higher for affordability, and they
tie on career planning services. On the remaining 25 outcomes not reported in
Table 3, School H outscores School N on only three: international management
learning, international classmates, and can attend part-time (an aspect of
affordability).
Table 4 lists the top 10 outcomes for each of the two schools. Although
many are the same between schools, many are not, and these distinguishing
ones provide important information concerning the different underlying percep-
tions of the two schools. Business relevance of faculty, business partnerships,
and integrative business functions appear for School N but not School
H. Learning international management and studying with international students
are among School H’s top outcomes, but not for School N. Common outcomes
that also appear as key outcomes based on other means of assessing selection-
relevant outcomes include learning, especially leadership skills, and network
development.
It is important to note here that respondents most often chose School H as
their preferred school. However, School N received higher scores on almost
all outcomes. Two observations can be made on this finding. The first is that
finding such a discrepancy is not unprecedented. In a study of indicators of edu-
cational quality and selectivity, Conard and Conard (2001) found that reputation
and desire to attend were not identical and were predicted by different factors.
For example, entrance requirements and student quality were predictive of edu-
cational quality ratings of universities but were not predictive of desire to
attend, which was better predicted by assessments of curriculum rigour and
expected faculty attention. Therefore, it is not incongruous that the most pre-
ferred program is not the most highly rated. Also, Pitt and Berthon (2004)
noted that MBA students in their research did not rate the school they were
attending as their most preferred to attend. Therefore, program managers
Table 4. Outcomes with highest ratings for each school.

School N School H
Located where live, want to work Study at top-rated school

Study at top-rated school Located where live, want to work
Study at school with business partnerships Learn the functional areas
Develop network of contacts Study with international classmates
Challenging workload Learn leadership skills
Study integration of business functions Learn teamwork skills
Learn from faculty with business experience Challenging workload
Learn from faculty who are developing new knowledge Learn international management
Study in state-of-art facilities Study in state-of-art facilities
Learn leadership skills Develop network of contacts
must be careful not to rely solely on the evaluation of the ‘most preferred’
school as indicative of what leads to prospective students actually choosing
to apply.
The second observation is what this discrepancy suggests about decision
style and the way criteria are used. First, it suggests that MBA applicants are
not ‘maximizers’ in their decision making but are rather ‘satisficers.’ Second,
it may suggest that the outcomes on which School H does well are more
determinant of final decisions, particularly among their target market. Thus,
affordability (including the ability to work while studying) and international
management learning (through program characteristics and classmates) may
be more critical in decision making than would be concluded from reliance
on explicit measures of outcome importance, especially for international man-
agement learning.
A third observation can be made about the absence of job/career outcomes
from the top 10 outcomes from the two schools. It would be incorrect to assume
this implies that these schools do not hold out good career prospects for their
graduates. The PCA analysis suggests that career-related outcomes are
present in the top ratings for both schools. Both are expected to promote the
development of good business networks for graduates. School N, in particular,
has highly rated expectations for several other career-related outcomes, includ-
ing the strong business partnerships of the school and the backgrounds in
business of its faculty, suggesting it is better positioned on the important
outcome of job and career facilitation.
What are the key drivers for MBA applicants? Relating the different
approaches
Table 5 provides a comparison of desired outcomes selection criteria as
measured using the different approaches. The first column summarizes
reasons for ease/difficulty of deciding on an MBA program, an indirect or
implied approach to assessing outcome importance. The remaining columns
include the 10 outcomes given the highest explicit importance rating and the
top 10 rated outcomes for most preferred program and for School N and
School H,2 also indirect or implicit assessment approaches. An examination
of the top outcomes for each column provides insight into the key consider-
ations of the MBA decision process and how each institution is situated on
these outcome criteria. There are many shared outcomes among the top 10
explicit and implicit measures. These shared outcomes reinforce the real impor-
tance of the outcome as a driver of decisions by MBA applicants.
The outcomes appearing most commonly across methods (included in four
or five of the columns) are clear ‘must-haves’ for an MBA program. These are:
learn leadership skills, challenging workload, and develop good network. Two
of these outcomes, leadership skills and develop good network, are found in the
first three factors of the PCA results. Challenging workload loaded at 3.74, just
Table 5. Comparisons of most important criteria derived from different measurement approaches.
Top 10 Explicit
Decision ease/ Importance Top 10 Ratings of Top 10 Ratings Top 10 Ratings
difficulty Ratings Most Preferred Program of School H of School N
Affordability∗ Good careero Challenging workload † School top ratedo Located where
Time costs† Strategic decision Functional areaso Located where live/worko
Job∗ /Careero making∗ Strategic decision live/worko School top ratedo
Learning∗ Inspiring teachers making∗ Functional areaso School has
Locationo New ways of Learn teamwork skills∗ International business
Status of Schoolo thinking∗ Develop good network † classmates partnerships
Program fit Afford to attend∗ Good careero Leadership skills† Develop good
Part-time/ Develop network† Leadership skills† Learn teamwork network †
flexible Leadership skills† Change/innovation skills∗ Challenging
Find a job∗ Communication skills Challenging workload †
Functional areaso Learn theory/practice workload † Integrative
Job placement International business
management functions
State-of-art Faculty business
facilities∗ experience
Develop network † Faculty develop
new
knowledge
State-of-art
facilities∗
Leadership
skills†
Note: † shared in four instances; ∗ shared in two instances; o shared in three instances.
Time costs in ease/difficulty of making decision was equated to challenging workload in rating scales. Learning in
ease/difficulty of making decisions was equated to new ways of thinking in rating scales.
below the .4 cutoff in the first factor and has its highest loading in the first factor.
At the next level of ‘important-to-have,’ MBA applicants would also expect
(included in three of the columns) their chosen program to deliver on location
convenience, good career prospects (in the employment and career outcomes
factor), a good reputation alma mater (a component of the faculty/school repu-
tation outcomes factor), and functional area learning (a component of the tra-
ditional business learning outcomes factor). Therefore, the most critical
confirmed outcomes reflect general learning (resulting from challenging work-
load and specific skills development), program content (skills and functional
areas of business), employment and career, personal fit (location), and status
outcomes (reputation of school). While high magazine ratings have been
viewed as an important criterion for selection (Chen, 2009), as noted earlier,
the status outcome may be less important as a decision criterion but more
important for facilitating program selection as a quality signal verified by a
‘third-party’ and as justification to others. Not included are outcomes in the
areas of form of program delivery (e.g., cases), faculty characteristics (business
experience, teaching abilities, etc.), program customization, and current job per-
formance outcomes, suggesting these factors are less determinant of MBA
applicants’ program selection process and differentiation for brand image

development for the school.
Differentiation in a crowded MBA market

How can different MBA programs effectively brand themselves and derive
brand equity in an intense, highly competitive market such as the major
urban area of Toronto or any other major city with multiple business
schools? Both Toronto universities do offer highly successful MBA programs
with substantive enrollments. As in many highly competitive markets with
more than one market leader, the answer lies in differentiation. In this
section, the ratings of the outcomes expected from attending the two schools
are compared to critical desired top 10 explicit and implicit outcomes for
insight as to their differentiation, positioning, and branding strategies.
The School H advantage

School H was most commonly cited as the most preferred institution. Among
the top 10 outcomes for School H (seen in column 4 of Table 5), six are
shared with the explicit and/or implicit outcome scores (first three columns
of Table 5). Three are shared with both, namely, learning leadership skills
and the functional areas of business as well as developing a network of business
contacts. The other three shared top outcomes are with the top implied impor-
tance outcomes, including location, learning teamwork skills, and having a
challenging workload. In addition, four other outcomes attain a high rating:
top-rated school, international classmates, international management, and
state-of-the-art facilities. Of these four, two are shared with School N
(column 5 of Table 5), leaving two top outcomes that differentiate School H:
international classmates and international management.
The success of School H is built on delivering well on almost all of the key
desired outcome drivers (all three ‘must-haves’ and three of the four ‘important-
to-have’ outcomes). However, it distinguishes itself on the international
program and experience dimension, a positioning where it outperforms its
key competitor, School N. International experience may be seen as a bonus
among School H’s target market that differentiates it successfully, even over-
coming the slightly higher (though not significantly so) ratings received on
most outcomes by School N.
As evidence of their recognition of their competitive advantage, the Web site
for School H and their MBA emphasizes their standing in global business
school ratings, their global presence, their joint program EMBA with an Amer-
ican business school, their international MBA, and their new MBA programs in
India. It also has a study abroad option for students. Their brand positioning ter-
minology stresses this with the brand tagline that appears at the top of their Web
site, ‘global, innovative.’ Therefore, they are positioning to their competitive
strength, which has been leveraged to a distinctive and differentiating compe-

tency in their competitive environment.
The School N advantage

School N is ranked second among the most preferred source for an MBA edu-
cation. However, School N attained an average rating above 4.0 in 32 outcomes,
surpassing School H for high ratings, and had the highest overall importance-
weighted outcomes beliefs score. As seen in Column 5 of Table 5, School N
shares five top outcomes in common with School H (location, top rated, work-
load, facilities, leadership skills). All of these were found to be important in
both the explicit and implicit measures. School N has four top outcomes that
are not shared among the key outcomes elsewhere. These include the business
partnerships with the school, the business experience of the faculty, the devel-
opment of new knowledge by faculty members, and integration across business

functions.
School N successfully delivers better on several of the key outcome drivers
and delivers at a high level on many others. It has all three of the ‘must-haves’
outcomes but only two of the four ‘important-to-have’ desired outcomes
among its top 10. Among its top outcomes, however, there are several that do
not appear to be on the implied or expressed key outcomes driver list. These
are concentrated in the area of business partnerships and linkages, which are,
however, indirectly linked with job and career success. They also are recognized
as uniquely qualified in ‘integrating business functions.’ Therefore, it would
appear that School N distinguishes itself as the most highly linked and in tune
with high-level business and business decision making, requiring integrative
decision making. It is tightly tied to the business community in the downtown
core of the city and has strong business partnerships and faculty with strong
business experience who generate new knowledge for business application.
This base can provide graduates with a real advantage in seeking and obtaining
high-level jobs upon graduation. Therefore, School N is positioning itself as an
upper management business school that can provide unparalleled career access
opportunities for its graduates. An examination of its Web site indicates their
emphasis on ‘a new integrative way of thinking,’ a dean with business consulting
experience, and a downtown campus. The careers section of the Web site also
emphasizes the downtown campus, corporate connections, and the accessibility
of high-level jobs to graduates. Its brand positioning is indirectly but clearly com-
municated in this way as a distinct strength of value to those who attend.
Conclusions
This study was limited to one geographic area and local applicants and the
sample size was relatively small. Therefore, we strongly encourage the replica-
tion and expansion of the approach and questionnaire to other locations and in
ways that would increase response numbers. The study was conducted in a large
city in Canada, but the same conditions regarding MBA program competition
are mirrored in most large cities in North America and in most other highly
developed countries. Therefore, the results provide information that helps
business schools, particularly major ones but also smaller ones in most
locales, determine how to frame and target their market offerings for success.
The research approach and outcomes provide depth of information and
increased understanding of the desired outcomes of MBA applicants that influ-
ence their choice of programs through the use of a multi-method questionnaire
design and analysis. The use and comparison of the results of multiple
approaches to measure actual selection criteria aligns with the recommendation
of Pike (2004) who noted the need to properly identify operant selection criteria
and the image of university options. The use of MBA applicants rather than
in-course students enhances the value of the findings in reflecting selection
processes actually used by those making the decision while they make it.
Karrh (2000) also stressed the importance of periodic assessment of relevant
beliefs about the educational institution and its programs across segments and
the strengths of those beliefs to ensure the projection of a clear and consistent
image, also necessary for effective branding. By using a ‘desired outcomes’
approach, the research also provides direct input in branding strategies that
are ideally based on the promise of desired outcomes that the client will
receive to satisfy their needs (Dailey et al., 2006).
PCA of the responses to the desired outcomes scales reveals seven different
factors that structure the MBA decision-making process. Of these factors, four
were explicitly or implicitly expressed as being among the most important and
determinant factors: learning of various types, job/career, traditional program
content, and personal fit. All of these factors are also confirmed to be important
in the evaluation of the specific schools. The use of the multiple research
approaches provides substantive confirmation of what are the critical ‘must
have’ and ‘important to have’ outcome elements for any MBA program in
order to appeal to those considering applying to an MBA program.
The comparisons of ratings of the expected outcomes from attending the two
target MBA programs indicate that differentiation can lead to the successful
positioning and distinguishing among excellent programs. The practice is key
to good branding and brand equity development and can provide a market
edge for the program with the less favourable ratings. Differentiation requires
meeting the requirements for most but not necessarily all of the critical
desired outcomes but, in addition, providing a unique value that sets the
brand apart from others on some distinctive and highly valued outcome. This
is supportive of the argument by Segev et al. (1999) that MBA programs
using a different approach can successfully compete. It is also reflective of
the recent findings on university branding by Opoku et al. (2008), Chapleo
(2005), Melewar and Akel (2005), and Bennett and Ali-Choudhury (2009). It
also responds to the work of Gopalan and colleagues and Pitt and colleagues
(Gopalan et al., 2008, 2006; Pitt et al., 2006; Pitt & Berthon, 2004) by providing
much clearer direction as to the value of differentiation-based branding and the
bases for effective differentiation of MBA programs. While there are key
elements required of all MBA programs around learning, career outcomes,
program content, and personal fit, the PCA results combined with the other ana-
lyses suggest that MBA programs can differentiate themselves within these
critical factors by selecting to achieve outstanding performance on one or a
related constellation of outcomes within the key factors. They do not have to
excel on all factors, but clarity of image is important.
Both Schools H and N have strong but distinctively different brand images
for their MBA programs. MBA applicants appear to have absorbed and can
reflect back the clearly different views of the two MBA programs that are
aligned with their positioning strategies. Beard (1992) similarly found that
MBA program entrants in the UK were well-informed about different
program offerings, reflective of the expectation that this decision would

involve high-involvement with an extensive information search. MBA
program applicants perceive that the two business school MBAs examined
possess all three of the ‘must-have’ and several of the ‘important-to-have’
expected outcomes. In addition, each has a uniquely differentiated position
on a component of one of the top factors. For School H, it is on international
learning, part of the traditional program content factor (along with learning
functional areas of business). For School N, it is on connections to business,
which indirectly leverages career attainment. In this way, both are following
the advice of Parameswaran and Glowacka (1995) who stress the importance
of creating and maintaining a distinctive image in educational program market-
ing and also the basic tenets of good branding. While Pitt and Berthon (2004)
point out the difficulty of successful branding along brand personality lines, and
Segev (1999) suggests program content might be an appropriate basis for differ-
entiation, the research reported here indicates the critical value of an outcomes-
based branding approach. In addition, the evidence supports the argument for
brand image salience in the educational context (Bennett & Ali-Choudhury,
2009; Kotler & Fox, 1995).
The two MBA programs evaluated appear to have developed strategies,
either knowingly or by chance, that meet the educational branding imperative
and have successfully differentiated their brand offerings. The newly emerging
third university to offer an MBA program in Toronto will need to take a similar
approach to successfully differentiate its brand in order to challenge the leaders
for market share. As Jevons (2007) notes, it is incumbent on those who are
spending large sums of money on promotion of their universities and programs
to do it well and to evaluate and monitor what they are communicating about
what is being offered to ensure that funds are spent wisely.
MBA program ratings as a measure of program and school status and repu-
tation remain an important factor affecting program selection (Dahlin-Brown,
2005) as a facilitator of choice and choice justification. Therefore, for those
MBA programs that do not receive high ratings from business magazines and
have related reputation weaknesses, the results suggest that they can seek to
enhance their MBA applicant appeal by using promotional elements, stressing
that employers are impressed with the graduates since this outcome is part of the
same factor. For example, program brochures and ads could feature testimonials
from employers who hired graduates and were impressed by their knowledge
and capabilities. Since reputation plays a decision facilitating role, it is impor-
tant to ensure credibility in the marketplace if it is not awarded by rating
magazines.
Almost all major cities have more than one university offering an MBA
program and draw substantially from their local markets. Therefore, the find-
ings can assist these programs in successfully competing through good brand-
ing practices. They should also be of general value to those who offer EMBA
and online programs. Although these other forms and means of delivery of
MBA programs typically draw a different group of students and with somewhat
different desired outcomes or outcomes importance from traditional MBA
programs (Kathawala, 2002), they would also likely gain from clear brand
positioning and differentiation of program offerings. The desired outcomes
for these programs should also be investigated through the in-depth process
of this study using the multiple-methods outcomes-based approach employed
here to assist in good branding practices. It is highly likely that ‘must-have’
or ‘important-to-have’ outcomes may differ for these alternate delivery MBA
formats. The same can be said for the need to apply this research approach to
the study of the selection decision of international student applicants for
MBA programs abroad and also in their own country, whether offered by
local universities or universities operating satellite programs.
Notes
1. ‘Workload is challenging’ loaded at about the same level on four of the five components, but
none of the loadings reached the .4 cutoff. Its highest loading was on the first factor of deep
learning outcomes.
2. PCA results were not included in this table since the identified components are combinations
of variables and all of the highest importance rated ones are included within the factors. All
items included in the table, except part-time/flexible program options and location, are
included items within the components. Therefore, including the PCA results does not
change the results of the analysis of Table 5.
References
Argenti, P. (2000). Branding B-schools: Reputation management for MBA programs. Corporate
Reputation Review, 3(2), 171–178.
Barrett, P.T., & Kline, P. (1981). The observation to variable ration in factor analysis. Personality
Study in Group Behavior, 1, 23–25.
Beard, P.R.J. (1992). The MBA Experience: The reality behind the myth. London, UK:
The Association of MBAs.
Belanger, C., Mount, J., & Wilson, M. (2002). Institutional image and retention. Tertiary
Education and Management, 8, 217–230.
Bennett, R., & Ali-Choudhury, R. (2009). Prospective students’ perceptions of university
brands: An empirical study. Journal of Marketing for Higher Education, 19(1), 85–107.
Best graduate schools. (2009). U.S. News and World Report. Retrieved 12 June 2009 from http://
www.usnews.com/articles/education/best-business-schools/2009/04/22/business-school-
rankings-methodology.html
Brennan, J., Brodnick, R., & Pinckley, D. (2007). De-mystifying the U.S. News rankings: How
to understand what matters, what doesn’t and what you can actually do about it. Journal of
Marketing for Higher Education, 17(2), 169–188.
Bristow, D.N. (1998). Do you see what I see?: The marketing lens model in an academic setting.
Journal of Marketing for Higher Education, 8(4), 1–16.
Business Week. (2008). The best schools: Full-time MBA rankings. Retrieved 12 June, 2009
from, http://www.businessweek.com/bschools/rankings/
Canadian Business. (2001). MBA Ranking 2001. November. Toronto, ON: Rogers Media.
Canadian Business. (2005). Home page. Retrieved 12 June, 2009, from, http://www.canadian
business.com/managing/education/article.jsp?content¼20051102_155111_4616
Canadian Business. (2008). [Home page.] Retrieved 12 June 2009 from http://list.
canadianbusiness.com/rankings/mba-guide/2008/intro/Default.aspx?sp2=1&d1=a&sc1=0
Canadian Higher Education and Career Guide. (2009). Canadian MBA tuition fees. Retrieved 17
June 2009 from http://www.canadian-universities.net/MBA/MBA_Tuition_Canada.html
Carrel, A.E., & Schoenbachler, D.D. (2001). Marketing executive MBA programs: A compari-
son of student and sponsoring organization decision considerations. Journal of Marketing
for Higher Education, 11(1), 21–29.
Chapleo, C. (2005). Do universities have ‘successful’ brands? International Journal of
Educational Advancement, 6(1), 54–64.
Chapleo, C. (2007). Barriers to brand building in UK universities. International Journal of
Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Marketing, 12, 23–32.
Chapman, R.G. (1998). MBA quality signals. Journal of Marketing for Higher Education, 8(4),
29–48.
Chen, L.H. (2008). Internationalization of international marketing? Two frameworks for under-
standing international students’ choice of Canadian universities. Journal of Marketing for
Higher Education, 18(1), 1–33.
Coccari, R.L., & Javalgi, R.G. (1995). Analysis of students’ needs in selecting a college or uni-
versity in a changing environment. Journal of Marketing for Higher Education, 6(3), 27–40.
Conard, M.J., & Conard, M.A. (2001). Factors that predict academic reputation don’t always
predict desire to attend. Journal of Marketing for Higher Education, 11(4), 2–18.
Dahlin-Brown, N. (2005). The perceptual impact of U.S. News & World Report rankings on
eight public MBA programs. Journal of Marketing for Higher Education, 15(2), 155–179.
Dailey, L., Anderson, M., Ingenito, C., Duffy, D., Krimm, P., & Thomson, S. (2006).
Understanding MBA consumer needs and the development of marketing strategy. Journal
of Marketing for Higher Education, 16(1), 143–158.
Driscoll, C., & Wicks, D. (1998). The customer-driven approach in business education: A poss-
ible danger? Journal of Education for Business, 73(1), 58 – 61.
Eberhardt, B., & Mosher, S. (1997). Business concerns regarding MBA education: Effects on
recruiting. Journal of Education for Business, 72(5), 293–297.
Edson, A. (1979). How other companies assess MBA recruitment: Some make it big, others
stumble. Management Review, 68(4), 13–14.
Graduate Management Admission Council. (2006). The future of management education:
What employers want. Retrieved 17 June 2009 from http://www.gmac.com/gmac/
NewsandEvents/GMNews/2006/JulAug/FutureofManagementEducationWhatEmployers
Want.htm
Gray, B.J., Fam, K.S., & Llanes, V.A. (2003). Branding universities in Asian markets. Journal of
Product and Brand Management, 12(2), 108–120.
Goldgehn, L.A., & Kane, K.R. (1997). Repositioning the MBA: Issues and implications.
Gopalan, S., Stitts, K., & Herring, R. (2006). An exploratory investigation of the branding strat-
egies of the top 50 global MBA programs. Journal of International Business Research, 5(2),
49–61.
Gopalan, S., Pabiavlas, N., & Jones, T. (2008). Branding MBA programs: Are they sufficiently
related to an institution’s strategy? Proceedings of the Allied Academies Conference, 15(2),
372–376.
Hemsley-Brown, J., & Goonawadana, S. (2007). Brand harmonization in the international
higher education market. Journal of Business Research, 60, 942–948.
Hunt, S.D., & Surgi Speck, P. (1986). Specialization and the MBA: Is the broad MBA passé?
California Management Review, XXVII (3), 159 –175.
Jenkins, R.L., Reizenstein, R.G., & Rogers, F.G. (1984). Report cards on the MBA. Harvard
Business Review, September/October, 20 –30.
Jevons, C. (2007). Universities: A prime example of branding gone wrong. Journal of Product
and Brand Management, 15(7), 466–467.
Judson, K.M., Gorchels, L., & Aurand, T.W. (2006). Building a university brand from within: A
comparison of coaches’ perspectives of internal branding. Journal of Marketing for Higher
Education, 16(1), 97–114.
Kane, K. (1993). MBAs: A recruiter’s-eye view. Business Horizons, 36(1), 65–71.
Karrh, J.A. (2000). Evaluating belief strength and consistency in the assessment of university
image. Journal of Marketing for Higher Education, 10(2), 1–9.
Kathawala, Y., Abdou, K., & Elmuti, D.S. (2002). The global MBA: A comparative assessment
for its future. Journal of European Industrial Training, 26(1), 14–23.
Keller, D.L. (2002). Building, measuring, and managing brand equity. Upper Saddle River, NJ:
Pearson Education.
Kotler, P., & Fox, K. (1995). Strategic marketing for educational institutions (2nd ed.).
Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
Lawton, L., & Lundsten, L. (1998). Contracts between benefits expected and delivered among
MBA inquires, students, and graduates. Journal of Marketing for Higher Education, 8(3),
15– 29.
Mba 360. (2009). How much does an MBA cost? Retrieved 17 June 2009 from http://www.
mba360.com/mba-cost.html
McAlexander, J.H., Koenig, H.F., & Schouten, J.W. (2006). Building relationships of brand
community in higher education: A strategic framework for university advancement.
International Journal of Educational Advancement, 6(2), 107–118.
McCallum, R.C., Widaman, K.F., Zhang, S., & Hong, S. (1999). Sample size in factor analysis.
Psychological Methods, 4(1), 84–89.
Melewar, T.C., & Akel, S. (2005). The role of corporate identity in the higher education sector:
A case study. Corporate Communications: An International Journal, 10(1), 41–57.
Neelankavil, J. (1994). Corporate America’s quest for an ideal MBA. Journal of Management
Development, 13(5), 38–52.
Nicholls, J., Harris, J., Morgan, E., Clarke, K., & Sims, D. (1995). Marketing higher education:
The MBA experience. International Journal of Educational Management, 9(2), 31–38.
Opoku, R.A., Hultman, M., & Saheli-Sangari, E. (2008). Positioning in market space: The
evaluation of Swedish universities’ online brand personalities. Journal of Marketing for
Parameswaran, R., & Glowacka, A.E. (1995). University image: An information processing
perspective. Journal of Marketing for Higher Education, 6(2), 41–56.
Pfeffer, J., & Fong, C.T. (2004). The business school ‘business’: Some lessons from the U.S.
experience. Stanford Research Paper Series. Research paper no. 1855.
Phillips, C.R., & Phillips, A.S. (1998). The tables turned: Factors MBA students use in deciding
among prospective employers. Journal of Employment Counseling, 35(4), 162– 68.
Pike, S. (2004). The use of repertory grid analysis and importance-performance analysis to
identify determinant attributes of universities. Journal of Marketing for Higher
Education, 14(2), 1–18.
Pitt, L.F., & Berthon, P. (2004, Autumn). Branding the MBA product. It’s a LOT more difficult
than what we teach. European Forum for Management Development (EFMD) Magazine,
29–33.
Pitt, L.F., Berthon, P., Spyropoulau, S., & Page, M.J. (2006). How well are business schools
managing their brands? A research note. Journal of General Management, 31(3), 1–10.
Rapert, M.I., Villiquette, A., Smith, S., & Garretson, J.A. (2004). The meaning of quality:
Expectations of students in pursuit of an MBA. Journal of Education for Business, 80(1),
17–24.
Richards-Wilson, S. (2002). Changing the way MBA programs do business—Lead or languish.
Journal of Education for Business, 77(5), 296–300.
Saban, K., Lackman, C., Lanasa, J., & Burns, D. (2000). MBA marketing curriculum for the 21st
century. Journal of Marketing for Higher Education, 10(2), 27–38.
Schuster, C.P., Costantino, P., & Klein, N.M. (1988). The process of choosing institutions of
higher learning. Journal of Marketing for Higher Education, 1(2), 37–54.
Segev, E., Raveh, A., & Farjoun, M. (1999). Conceptual maps of the leading MBA programs in
the United States: Core courses, concentration areas. Strategic Management Journal, 20(6),
549–565.
Shemwell, D.J., & Yavas, U. (1996). Positioning of universities in the marketplace: An illus-
tration of two analytic techniques. International Journal of Management, 13(1), 43–51.
Stevens, G.E. (2000). The art of running a business school in the new millennium: A dean’s per-
spective. Society for Advancement of Management Advanced Management Journal, 65(3),
21–28.
Stiber, G. (2001). Characterizing the decision process leading to enrollment in master’s pro-
grams: Further application of the enrollment process model. Journal of Marketing for
Taylor, R.E., & Reed, R.R. (1995). Situational marketing: Application for higher education insti-
tutions. Journal of Marketing for Higher Education, 6(1), 23–36.
Thunderbird Global School of Management. (n.d.). The cost of an MBA. Retrieved 17 June
2009 from http://www.mbaprograms.org/mbafinance/thecostofanmba.asp
Waeraas, A., & Solbakk, M.N. (2009). Defining the essence of a university: Lessons from higher
education branding. Higher Education, 57, 449–462.
Wall Street Journal. (2007). Where the schools rank. Retrieved 15 June 2009 from http://online.
wsj.com/public/resources/documents/MB_07_Scoreboard.pdf
Webb, M.S., & Allen, L.C. (1995). Benefits of a graduate business degree: Students’ perspec-
tives and universities’ challenges. Journal of Marketing for Higher Education, 6(2), 57 –71.
Wiese, M.D. (1994). College choice cognitive dissonance: Managing student/institution fit.
Yang, B., & Lu, D.R. (2001). Predicting academic performance in management education: An
empirical investigation of MBA success. Journal of Education for Business, 77(1), 15–20.
Yerak, B. (2000). As dot-coms fall, MBA’s coming back: Attitudes change as century-old degree
evolves. USA Today, September 25, 8.

Branding MBA Programs - The Use of Target Market Desired Outcomes For Effective Brand Positioning

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

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

Branding MBA Programs - The Use of Target Market Desired Outcomes For Effective Brand Positioning

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

This article was downloaded by: [University of Leeds]

On: 9 December 2010

Journal of Marketing for Higher Education

Online publication date: 14 July 2010

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Full terms and conditions of use: http://www.informaworld.com/terms-and-conditions-of-access.pdf

Branding MBA programs: the use of target market desired

Branding is about delivering on desired outcomes. The importance of

education market is illustrated in this study of choice of an MBA

Branding involves the development of a set of expectations about desired

to education suggest that adaptation of the education product to customer

trations and specialization, executive and co-op programs, online delivery

Rating magazine-based criteria for MBA program selection

the process used to rank American Business Schools in US publications. These

Employer interest-based criteria for MBA program selection

from the MBA program would be important components of programs that

Despite these expressed concerns of employers, a recent survey found that

knowledge, broader perspective, and better leadership and decision-making abil-

Student/applicant-based criteria for MBA program selection

building exercises, and teamwork experiences. However, Rapert et al. (2004)

and the following four outside-classroom (process-based) themes:

. Integration with business community

university or program as important selection criteria, while those in a graduate

challenging or interesting work, positive organizational climate, job security,

Summary of MBA program evaluation and selection research

General criteria for university program selection

indicated that speciﬁc characteristics of a university or program (for example,

A brand-based approach to university and program selection

prospects, destination image, and cultural integration. Bennett and Ali-Choudh-

examining approaches to branding rooted in the processes used by stakeholders

MBA program and in selecting the particular institution to attend using a

programs by MBA program ratings magazines, notably Business Week, U.S.

term outcomes, such as future employer impressions of their MBA, success in

Results and discussion

. 52.5% male, 47.5% female

School H 21.3 19.7 13.1 3.3 57.4

. 88.5% with an undergraduate degree and 8.2% with a graduate degree

. An average of 6.2 years work experience

(1) Open-ended questions regarding program choice difﬁculty

These different approaches will be compared to uncover truly relevant selec-

Open-ended responses to choice ease/difﬁculty

lying reasons for the decision (seven mentions).

Explicit ratings of importance of outcomes

. Three immediate outcomes: inspiring teachers, affordability, and studying

Most preferred program outcomes ratings

. Two immediate outcomes: a program with a challenging workload and

management, learning to make strategic decisions, learning leadership skills,

Patterns among desired outcomes

Rather, consumer behavior literature suggests that usually 3– 5 ‘mega-criteria’

Figure 1. Illustration of possible network of desired outcomes associations.

Principal components analysis (PCA) was used to examine the underlying

. Deeper learning outcomes, including numerous learning areas, such as

Learn to manage change and 4.25 .573

. Program delivery outcomes, including the use of case studies, an integra-

status of the program or institution is not itself an important criterion on

Expected outcomes for speciﬁc MBA programs

Table 3. Top 15 importance-weighted outcome scores for each school.

Leadership skills 20.59 Good career 19.42

weighted by the explicit importance rating of that outcome. A summation of

Table 4. Outcomes with highest ratings for each school.

Located where live, want to work Study at top-rated school

applicants’ program selection process and differentiation for brand image