General Information: The University of Oregon, on behalf of University Communications (University), is issuing this RFQ seeking a vendor to conduct a follow up study to measure nationwide brand awareness of the University of Oregon and create an overview guide to train communicators broadly on our campus. The focus of the study will compare brand awareness of University with that of top public research universities. Additionally, the study will gauge overall perception of the University around the strategic communications goals of excellence, experience, access and diversity. Factors such as age, race, ethnicity, sex, geographic location will be taken into account.
This study is needed to justify our VP for Communication’s budget, and like past studies will produce nothing of benefit to the university.
Brand awareness? First of all, start improving the brand by knowing that “follow up study” [sic] should be hyphenated somewhere between “follow” and “up.” And one could easily rattle off the names of dozens of universities whose communicators likely don’t lie awake at night worrying about their brand, as their “brand” speaks for itself every day.
It reminds me a bit of the previous iteration of the track stadium, with a sign that earnestly declared “Historic Hayward Field.”
I don’t recall ever seeing similar signs touting “Historic Notre Dame,” “Historic Red Square,” or “Historic Lincoln Memorial.” I guess that’s only because they are not sufficiently historic to rate such a designation. (Or perhaps it’s just a branding problem.)
RE: “when was the last time a UO faculty member got elected to the National Academy of Sciences? If I missed something, please inform me”
That would be way, way back in 2022. See https://around.uoregon.edu/content/zebrafish-biologist-elected-national-academy-sciences
This personalized Google Search service was provided by a Classified employee of the UO’s oft-maligned University Communications unit. Please feel free to reach out to us if you’d like technical training in digital research methods. #uoexperts
A number of years ago, one of my nephews — yes! — a college graduate, living in the LA area — told me about a billboard for UO that he drove past regularly. He said it was all about Ducks and party animal type stuff — he said if he was looking for a college, he would be turned off by what he saw. So much for my anecdotal knowledge of perception of the “Brand.” Maybe this new vendor will help work this out. I’m sure it will be well worth the money, especially with the ample salaries and the tranquil situation with the GE’s.
UO’s emphasis on party animal type stuff really disappoints me. My building is near enough to one of the frequent campus tour stops that I can hear them from my office window, and every single one of them talks about Animal House. I’m sure that’s a selling point for a certain kind of student. I’m equally sure that I’d rather not have that kind of student gravitating to UO.
That’s for the benefit of the parents. I once taught in the basement classroom in Fenton that was the scene of the Animal House trial (now remodeled out of existence). I mentioned this to my students. Only a few had heard of the movie, and that was 20 years ago.
.
What bugs me is how Roger Thompson in Enrollment Management focuses his recruiting on the big-time sports party school angle – and then tells the trustee that our students mostly come to UO for the Ducks. Yes they do because those are the students they recruit. The empirical evidence is that winning football games does tend to boost enrollment of mediocre white male students but it doesn’t help with other groups.
.
But maybe football makes it easier to recruit faculty? We’re now paid 84% of our AAU comparators – are faculty giving up that salary because they want to brag about the Ducks at conferences?
Ah, but it is quite interesting to see Enrollment Management’s own data, on p. 58 of this BOTT agenda (thank you for posting earlier) https://trustees.uoregon.edu/sites/default/files/2023-11/00-full-bot-consolidated.pdf
In ‘top reasons to come to UO,’ in-state students only cite athletics 10%, and out-of-state (OOS) 25% but it’s not strong as the primary reason. Primary reason for both? ‘Attractive campus.’ That’s something we can all get behind! Close second – academic quality! Yay! Sounds like athletics is icing on the cake and mainly helpful for OOS. I’m good with that.