An exploratory investigation of the branding strategies of the top 50 global MBA programs.

Gopalan, Suresh ; Stitts, Kathy ; Herring, Robert A., III 等

ABSTRACT

Starting in the 1980's, many business newspapers and magazines (Financial Times, Wall Street Journal, BusinessWeek) started ranking MBA programs. B-School deans realized that reputation management is a critical component impacting rankings and responded by using a variety of marketing measures, one of which was to "brand" their MBA program.

Ingram, Gopalan, and Loughman (2004) assessed the branding strategies of BusinessWeek's top 50 MBA programs based on information contained in the websites of these programs. They proposed a typology that identified five specific branding strategies. The Ingram et al study included only U.S. based schools and their full-time MBA programs. Given that MBA degrees are offered in many countries, we decided to assess branding strategies of the top 50 Global MBA programs ranked by Financial Times (2006 ranking). 28 MBA programs were based in the U.S. while 22 programs were from other countries. Three researchers performed a content analysis of the brand name, logo, and text information contained in the web-pages of these MBA programs Our analysis revealed that branding typologies that originate in the U.S. have limited application overseas and that there are several strategic branding differences between U.S. and European and Asian MBA programs. We discuss current and emerging branding trends for global MBA programs.

INTRODUCTION

MBA programs have emerged as the one of the key ways by which business schools (hereafter referred to as B-Schools) build their reputation. Starting in the late 1980's, many business newspapers and magazines (Financial Times, Wall Street Journal, BusinessWeek, U.S. News and World Report) started ranking MBA programs thereby directly or indirectly assigning a rank to the respective B-School as well. Ranking MBA programs has not been without controversy (Gioia & Corley, 2002). While some claim that this practice diverts valuable resources towards image management and making superficial curricular changes to project change, others laud it as a means of competition, pitting one school's MBA against another to let customers (i.e., students, employers, and alumni) decide which programs are of high quality and value (Anderson, 2003). One thing is for sure: ranking is here to stay and it impacts a B-School's reputation in the marketplace. Increasingly, potential students, alumni, and members of the corporate community pay careful attention to these rankings (Merritt, 2003). B-School deans have realized that reputation management is a critical component impacting rankings and have responded aggressively by using a variety of marketing measures, one of which is to "brand" their MBA program (Argenti, 2000; Gioia & Corley, 2002). According to Shinn (2006) B-schools have increasingly hired communication directors PR firms, advertising agencies, and even professional marketers to manage their brand name.

THE MBA PROGRAM-BRANDING AN INTANGIBLE COMMODITY

Branding has historically been a major concept in strategic marketing and is used to achieve multiple purposes (Inskip, 2004). The American Marketing Association defines a brand as "a name, term, sign, symbol, or design, or some combination of them, intended to identify the goods or services of one seller or group of sellers to differentiate them from those of competitors" (cited in Lin and Kan, 2004). Branding is not done in isolation--ideally it is part of a larger strategy that seeks to achieve certain long term objectives. Organizations spend millions of dollars in building a brand name so that customers feel a sense of reassurance when purchasing or consuming a "branded product or service." Branding is also done to achieve product differentiation amongst consumers. According to Porter (1980, p. 37) ... "differentiating the product or service offering of the firm, creating something that is perceived industry wide as being unique. Approaches to differentiating can take many forms ..., including design or brand image." Branding is also done to create a unique corporate identity of an organization (Argenti, 2005).

BusinessWeek and Interbrand perform studies each year on the most valuable brands. In 2005, Coca-Cola, Microsoft, and IBM ranked first, second, and third respectively. That same ranking was held by the same companies for the previous year as well, demonstrating the power of branding strategies (Berner and Kiley, 2005). Many branded products have significant meaning to consumers. For example, the Mercedes Benz brand suggests well-built and expensive automobiles, while the Great Value brand by Walmart suggests affordability and availability.

While consumers associate strong brands with tangible goods, the increased emphasis on a knowledge-based economy has a variety of services attempting to acquire and retain customers through strategic branding. And educational institutions are no exception (Melewar & Akel, 2005; Gray, Fam & Lanes, 2003). But branding MBA programs is not an easy task. The MBA degree is not a physical commodity-it has no shape, substance, form, or odor. It is a service provided by universities to their consumers (Nicholls, Harris, Morgan, Clarke, & Sims, 1995). Additionally, there are many types of MBA programs within a university (full-time, part-time, executive). Does branding impact all types of MBA programs? In the United States, many B-Schools are housed within universities. When branding MBA programs, is it done independent of the University in which the school is housed? Or is the University's brand "imposed" on the B-school? To what extend are dual branding strategies followed?

Ingram, Gopalan, and Loughman (2004) sought to answer some the branding questions raised earlier by assessing the branding strategies of the BusinessWeek's top 50 MBA programs based on information contained in the websites of these respective programs. They concluded that MBA programs have utilized various types of branding strategies with varying degrees of success. Furthermore, with the exception of two MBA programs, the rest (48) followed a certain type of branding strategy. Ingram et al proposed a typology that identified five specific branding strategies.

At one end of the spectrum, MBA programs were branded only with the University's name/logo/symbol (U). At the opposite end, MBA programs were branded only with the School's name/logo/symbol and verbiage with no reference to the University (S). In the middle was a hybrid approach embracing a dual branding whereby both the University and School's identities received equal attention (D). Two other strategies included the (Us) and (Su) branding strategies. Under the "Us" strategy, the University received more emphasis and importance assigning a secondary importance to the School while in the "Su" strategy the School's identity is given more importance than that of the University.

OBJECTIVES AND METHODOLOGY

The Ingram et al (2004) study that was discussed in the earlier section was based on BusinessWeek's ranking which included only U.S. based schools and their full-time MBA programs. This ranking did not examine any MBA programs from non-U.S. location. Given that MBA degrees are offered in many countries and international students are a vital part of any MBA program, we felt that an assessment of branding strategies of MBA programs needed a global perspective (Adenekan, 2004; Ewing, 2005). To address this issue, we decided to assess branding strategies of the top 50 Global MBA programs identified by Financial Times in a special report. (Note: the FT 2006 rankings were for 100 global MBA programs. We limited our analysis to those MBA programs that were ranked in the top 50). In the 2006 Financial Times ranking (January 30, p. 35), 28 MBA programs were based in the U.S. while 22 programs were from other countries. Given that 44% of the MBA programs in this study were outside the U.S., we also wanted to examine the degree of similarity/difference between U.S., European, and Asian branding strategies.

Due to time and resource constraints, we analyzed information solely obtained from the web pages (devoted to the full-time MBA programs) that were published on the Internet. Similar to the Ingram et al (2004) study, our content analysis included a rigorous examination of the brand name, logo, symbol, font size, and content published in the web page. Besides a visual examination of each website, hard copies from all the 50 full-time MBA web pages were printed and used in our analysis. We adopted the Ingram et al branding typology (see Table 1) as a framework to conduct our assessment. Each researcher conducted his/her assessment of the branding strategy and separately reached his/her conclusions. Following the separate assessment, all three researchers, examined the degree of similarity/difference between their findings. There were 8 MBA programs where there significant differences in the conclusion reached as to the "right" branding strategy. When two researchers were unable to reach an agreement, the third researcher's conclusion along with a meticulous assessment of the web text was used to arrive at a result. The results are displayed in Tables 2 and 3 and discussed in the following sections.

RESULTS

Our analysis revealed that of the 50 MBA programs that were assessed, 10 MBA programs followed a "University only" branding strategy; 10 followed a "School only" approach; 6 adopted a dual/hybrid branding strategy; 5 chose to focus on the University assigning secondary status to the B-School; and 7 chose to emphasize the B-school while relegating the University to play a secondary role. We concluded that two U.S. based MBA programs did not have a discernible branding strategy. A significant result was that we were unable to identify a branding strategy for 10 MBA programs, using the Ingram et al typology (see Table 3). All these MBA programs were located in Spain, Switzerland, U.K., China, France, and Singapore (see Table 2). Given that the Ingram et al branding typology was solely derived from U.S. MBA programs, this approach had limitations in its application overseas where graduate management programs are housed in institutions with vastly different structures than those of U.S. based MBA programs. This is not to suggest, that the non-U.S. based MBA programs lack a branding strategy. Indeed, they have specific branding approaches that are discussed later.

BRANDING STRATEGIES OF U.S. BASED MBA PROGRAMS

The best examples of a "University only" branding strategy (U) are reflected by the MBA programs at Harvard, Stanford, and Illinois. There was a tremendous amount of consistency reflected in all aspects of communication (brand name, logo, symbol, and text). This type of strategy is similar to the product strategy of family branding, where a single brand (for example Samsung) identifies several related products such as mobile phones, digital cameras, plasma TVs, etc. Harvard, Stanford and Illinois deploy this strategy because of the strong reputation that these Universities have in the public's minds. Thus, a "halo-effect" may occur where a consumer associates any offering of the university with the positive attributes of the family brand. Hence, the Harvard brand will be positively associated with any offering, MBA, Law, Medicine, etc. According to Merritt (2003, p. 93), "... at top flight schools like Harvard and Stanford, alums gave more credit to their school's brand name than they gave to any body of knowledge gained in class."

On the other end of the spectrum, the "School only" (S) strategy was employed by several MBA programs, including Wharton (University of Pennsylvania), Tuck (Dartmouth) and Kellogg (Northwestern). These MBA programs are indicative of the individual branding strategy, whereby the school's brand name is a unique identifier for the product (MBA degree) offered. Proctor and Gamble, the consumer product giant has utilized this type of strategy for its line of dishwashing liquids. Each of them, Ivory, Joy, Cascade, and Dawn have their separate brand name unconnected to the family name. This strategy is effective when the strengths of the individual product (MBA program) stand on its own merits, and can be identified easily by consumers (for example, the Wharton MBA; the Tuck MBA etc). While somewhat costly, this strategy may be result in a broader identification from global consumers who are interested in the reputation of the MBA program more so than the University itself. On the flip side this is a somewhat risky strategy to undertake when the University's brand name is well-known and an attempt is made to promote a lesser known "School only" brand name. We wish to cite the examples of the MBA programs offered by UT-Austin and the University of Georgia which are exclusively promoted as the "McComb MBA" and "Terry MBA" respectively.

The dual/hybrid (D) strategy was only used by 6 MBA programs all based in the USA. Dual branding attempts to create take advantage of customer appeal by having two powerful name brands "clubbed" together. In our analysis, we found that effective dual positioning was done by the "MIT-Sloan" and "UCLA-Anderson" MBA programs. Not only were the font size and logo consistent with the dual branding approach, the text in the web site reinforced this branding strategy. As an example, the MBA program at MIT-Sloan referred to its alumni and students as "MIT-Sloan alumni" and "MIT-Sloan students." One variation of the dual/hybrid branding is the equal emphasis given to the University and graduate school of business (GSB) which is adopted by the University of Chicago and Stanford University. In this case, the Graduate School of Business becomes a brand name (although generic in nature) paired with the University name. Thus, the Graduate School, not the individual program has the emphasis. This is similar to the line extension strategy used by many companies where brand names are carried over to other related products.

The "Us" (University-primary, school-secondary) classification of branding strategy is employed by MBA programs offered by UNC (Kenan-Flagler) and Duke (Fuqua). This strategy tends to accentuate well known University strengths and wide spread name recognition with the MBA program. The University name tends to hold a great deal of prominence with the external community, while the school brand tends to have a drawing among its internal constituents (students, alumni, faculty). The "Su" (School primary, university secondary) branding strategy is being practiced by Smeal (Penn State) and Marriott (BYU). This type of strategy allows a lesser known brand to establish itself over time by being associated with a more well-known brand. It is possible to theorize, that in the future, some of these types of MBA Programs may completely remove the University name, as the school name becomes more acceptable by its consumers.

We felt that there was a measure of inconsistency and confusion in the branding approaches of some MBA programs. As an example, while NYU-Stern School of Business MBA program's logo prominently gives equal importance to both the University and the School, there is absolutely no reference to the University in the MBA web page. The narrative and related links in the web page make reference to a "Stern MBA" on multiple occasions with no reference to New York University. Another example of an inconsistent branding strategy is that of schools which had a relatively strong University name (such as Carnegie-Mellon and University of Michigan) attempting to promote lesser known school brand names (such as Tepper MBA and Ross MBA) with little or no reference to the university. A possible explanation is that the Ross brand may be more of a global brand name when trying to market to international consumers, while the University of Michigan has more of a domestic connotation. And as the European MBA market becomes more stable compared to the United States market (Adenekan, 2004), it will become more important to acquire and retain those international students through a more globally understood competitive advantage. Another possible explanation is that the branding strategy is in a transitional phase, where in the long run, these MBA programs are attempting to reposition themselves with a "S" only strategy, while gradually removing any references to the university. A historical analysis of the branding strategies used would be appropriate for comparison purposes.

BRANDING STRATEGIES OF EUROPEAN, ASIAN, CANADIAN, AND U.K. MBA PROGRAMS

A key finding was that the Ingram et al branding typology, which was derived from an assessment of U.S. MBA programs did not lend itself well when analyzing European MBA programs. It should be noted that many prestigious European programs such as INSEAD and IESE Business School offer "stand-alone" MBA programs that are not affiliated with any university. These programs are offered by institutions that were solely created for the purpose of offering graduate business degrees. So from a structural perspective, they are quite different from U.S. B-schools that are housed in universities and do not operate as independent entities. Therefore we concluded that we were unable to categorize them with the Ingram et al branding typology.

B-Schools located in Canada and the U.K. follow an organizational structure similar to the U.S. Therefore, it was easier to diagnose their branding strategies using the Ingram et al. typology. As an example, the Rotman MBA (University of Toronto) and Ivey MBA (University of Western Ontario) have both adopted the "S" (School only) strategy. In contrast, the McGill MBA (McGill University) has chosen the "U" (University only) branding strategy. The University of Oxford-Said School of Business places more emphasis on Oxford (U) while giving lesser emphasis on Said (s)-this would be a Us branding strategy for its MBA program.

We noticed that several European and Asian MBA programs (such as HEC Paris and Hong Kong UST Business School) prominently display the logos of their accreditation agencies. More importantly, many European MBA programs have achieved triple accreditation from three agencies which include AACSB-International (well known in the U.S.), EQUIS (European accreditation agency), and the Association of MBA programs. We concluded that the European MBA programs sought and achieved accreditations from many agencies as they were geared towards attracting a wider audience from a number of countries besides the host country. Multiple accreditations help in enhancing a "global" brand image. The global theme is reinforced by creating opportunities for MBA students to become proficient in at least two if not three languages. INSEAD accepts only students who are proficient in another language in addition to English; additionally, they have to learn a third language before they graduate from the MBA program (Ewing, 2006). These admission and graduation requirements reinforce the global branding associated with the MBA program.

Several European MBA programs emphasized their location as part of their overall branding strategy (as an example, London). Two U.K. based MBA programs, specifically include London next to their name (Imperial College in London and the CITY of London while France based HEC has "Paris" in its logo. The location of the program is based on the idea that the "destination" impacts branding. Cities, regions, and countries can be branded with certain type of qualities and/or products (Yan, 2003; Gray, Fam & Llanes, 2003; Lin and Kan, 2004). If for example, London or Paris become successful in being branded as an "international city" then MBA programs based in these cities may be considered to share the same international flavor.

There was a concerted effort made by some European B-Schools to expand the geographical reach of their MBA programs by entering into strategic alliances and joint ventures with other B-Schools. As an example, INSEAD has an arrangement with the Wharton School of Business to teach classes in the United States and vice-versa. INSEAD also has a campus in Singapore. HEC (France) offers a dual degree in conjunction with the Stern School of Business-New York University. These types of alliances are able to take advantage of the branding efforts of both entities.

London Business School offers a unique perspective on a branding strategy (Shinn, 2006). Rather than attempting to brand the school's programs or degrees, LBS has positioned itself as a "global thought leader" focusing on "faculty and thought leadership" and where the institution is perceived to be a "repository of knowledge, insight and global perspective" (Shinn, 2006, p. 26). LBS has entered into an exclusive arrangement with CNN, whereby CNN markets in U.K., Europe, the Middle East, and North Africa air a 45-second commercial featuring LBS faculty members discussing important business issues. These commercials are aired in prime time, business oriented news. In return, CNN is the sole sponsor for all of LBS's key events. Additionally, CNN sponsored plasma televisions adorn the LBS campus which continuously broadcast the network's programs. According to David Lane, communication director for LBS (Shinn 2006, p. 28), "Cleary for CNN it's fantastic to be associated with a brand like London Business School, and for London Business School it's fantastic to be associated with a brand like CNN."

CONCLUSION AND DIRECTIONS FOR FUTURE RESEARCH

Our assessment of the branding strategies of the top 50 global MBA programs yielded several interesting insights of current and emerging trends. Competition amongst educational institutions and programs is becoming increasingly global and is not confined within national borders--in this context branding one's institution or program is a key to gaining a competitive advantage in the global marketplace (Black, 2002). It is interesting to note the approach of European MBA programs. They obtain accreditation from multiple agencies and highlight that information as part of their overall branding strategy to attract a more diverse global audience. This branding strategy seems to be gaining in popularity with U.S. students who are increasingly seeking European MBAs for their international diversity and multilingual experience-something that even Kellogg or Wharton cannot offer (Adenekan, 2004). Our analysis led us to conclude that the vast majority of U.S. based MBA programs that made the top 50 ranking, do not emphasize either multiple accreditation or a rich multicultural experiences as part of their branding strategy. It is possible to understand the complacency of U.S. B-schools' given the huge domestic supply of managers along with thousands of internationals who crave a U.S. MBA. But there are more global competitors on the horizon (who are offering MBA degrees) and it has become increasingly difficult for many international students to obtain a student visa to enter the U.S. after September, 11 2001.

We also observed different organizational structures with respect to graduate business programs. While U.S., U.K., and Canada appear to follow a university-based structure that houses a B-School--Spain, Switzerland, France, and other countries offer a MBA program from a standalone entity solely created for graduate business education. Is it easier for these latter institutions to create a brand name given that they do not have to work under a university structure or framework? Or is it more difficult to engage in a branding strategy as these institutions have to operate without a University structure and with fewer resources? These questions also leave the door open for future studies to develop a newer, broader global branding typology. Clearly, additional research is needed to answer these questions.

The European structure appears to be prevalent in India where there are many B-Schools like the prestigious IIMs (Indian Institute of Management) that have a strong Asian reputation and now are now seeking to establish a global presence. It is interesting to note that Director of the IIM at Ahmedabad (based in India) has explicitly stated a long term objective to position the institution as one of the top 10 B-Schools in the world and feels it can be done based on its strong brand name (Merchant, 2006). As Asian MBA programs continue to acquire prominence, they will create increased competition for U.S., European, and Australian MBA programs (Elliot, 2005; Mehra, 2005). The implications are clear. As the Chinese and Indian economies continue to expand at an accelerated pace, home country managers are increasingly displaying a preference to obtain a MBA from a local institution with a strong brand name instead of traveling to the U.S. or U.K. (Bradshaw, 2005). Mehra (2005) points that many Indian students who have worked abroad and who have obtained graduate degrees are returning to India to pursue their MBA degrees. Their motivation is to obtain a "branded" education that will enable them to have an advantage when working in an Indian environment.

Given that country of origin and cross-cultural values impact consumers' perceptions of education brands, additional studies are needed to more thoroughly explore these relationships (Alreck & Settle, 1999; Yan, 2003). Throughout the 1980's and 1990's, U.S. universities were an attractive alternative for many international students to pursue their higher education. After 9/11, many aspects of U.S. foreign policy have created a backlash against U.S. branded products in many parts of the world. In this context, it will be interesting to conduct longitudinal studies to track the popularity and growth of European and Asian branded MBAs versus U.S. branded MBAs with various geographical and religious market segments.

Branding is part of a larger strategy--to create and maintain a unique corporate identity. Therefore, it is imperative that all parts must fit well. We urge that all information contained in the website including color, brand, logo, symbol, verbiage are consistent with one another to support the overall corporate identity (Gioia, Schultz, & Corley, 2000). The website has been identified as one of primary ways by which students obtain information about a MBA program. One way to differentiate one's MBA program from competitors is to maintain websites in multiple languages to appeal to a more diverse audience.

Branding is an expensive exercise! Creating and maintaining brand awareness and equity for a MBA program can easily consume a budget of hundreds of thousands of dollars. Established programs with strong brand names can be more focused on maintaining their brand name. In contrast, newer and emerging MBA programs or those that are attempting to reposition themselves, have to both create and maintain a strong brand name. The latter programs have to be committed for the long haul as it takes a substantial amount of time and resources to accomplish successful outcomes. It can be a risky and trying exercise especially if the vast majority of potential customers are relatively unreceptive or unaware of the new brand. Branding can divert resources away from other pressing issues like hiring additional faculty, funding research, and buying new equipment. We urge the Deans and other members of higher administration to engage in a robust cost-benefit debate before making a decision to pursue a branding strategy for their MBA program.

Finally, it appears that ranking and branding will be inextricably linked (at least for the vast majority of U.S. based programs). Ranking is used by many B-schools to boost their brand name and image. We noticed that schools that are placed in the top 50 in multiple rankings (or even a single one), tend to display that information in a prominent manner in their website. Would it be possible for a MBA program to grow a prominent brand name and not be ranked? It is an intriguing proposition that only time can tell.

REFERENCES

Adenekan, S. (2004, Nov. 9, 11). In quest for an MBA, Americans cross the Atlantic. Christian Science Monitor.

Alreck, P. L., & Settle, R. B. (1999). Strategies for building brand preference. Journal of Product & Brand Management, 8(2), 30-144.

Anderson, T. (2003). MBA schools: A lesson in competition. Washington Business Journal, 21(38), 26-31.

Argenti, P. A., R. A. Howell & K. A. Beck (2005). The Strategic Communication Imperative. MIT Sloan Management Review, 46(3), 83-89.

Argenti, P. (2000). Branding B-Schools: Reputation management for MBA programs. Corporate Reputation Review, 3(2), 171-178.

Berner, R., & D. Kiley (2005, July). Global Brands. BusinessWeek.

Black, R. (2002). Building strategic technology alliances for teaching and learning. International Journal of Value-Based Management, 15(3), 265-285.

Bradshaw, D. (2005, August 1, 6). China's lust for business learning. Financial Times.

Elliot, T. (2005, May 23, 11). Australian schools struggle to fill desks. Financial Times.

Ewing, J. (2006, March 13, 88-91). Going global for an MBA. Business Week.

Financial Times-Special Report including the FT ranking of the world's top MBA programmes (2006, Jan. 30, 35).

Gioia, D. A., K. G. Corley (2002). Being good versus looking good: Business school rankings and the Circean transformation from substance to image. Academy of Management Learning and Education, 1(1), 107-120.

Gioia, D. A., M. Schultz, K. G. Corley (2000). Organizational identity, image, and adaptive instability. Academy of Management Review, 25(1), 63-81.

Gray, B. J., Fam, K. S., Llanes, V. A. (2003). Branding universities in Asian markets. Journal of Product & Brand Management, 12(2), 108-120.

Ingram, R., S. Gopalan, & T. Loughman (2004). A branding typology among the top 50 MBA programs. Proceedings of the Association of Collegiate Marketing Educators, 124-132.

Inskip, I. (2004). Corporate branding for small to medium-sized businesses--A missed opportunity or an indulgence? Journal of Brand Management, 11(5), 358-365.

Lin, C., & Kan, D. T. (2004). The Impacts of country-of-origin on brand equity. The Journal of American Academy of Business, 5(1/2), 37-40.

Mehra, P. (2005, Oct. 10, 60). Indian versus foreign: Class apart. India Today.

Melewar, T. C., & S. Akel (2005). The role of corporate identity in the higher education sector: A case study. Corporate Communications, 10(1), 41-57.

Merchant, K. (2006, Jan. 26, 4). FT Report-India & Globalisation. Financial Times. Merritt, J. (2003, September 23). What's an MBA really worth? BusinessWeek.

Nicholls, J., J. Harris, E. Morgan, K. Clarke & D. Sims (1995). Marketing higher education: the MBA experience. International Journal of Educational Management, 9(2), 31-38.

Porter, M. E. (1980). Competitive Strategy. The Free Press: New York.

Shinn, S. (2006, March/April). Attention Grabbers. BizEd, 22-29.

Yan, J (2003). Nation branding: Branding and the international community. Journal of Brand Management, 10(6), 447-456.

Suresh Gopalan, Winston Salem State University

Kathy Stitts, Winston Salem State University

Robert A. Herring III, Winston Salem State University

Table 1: Classification of Branding Strategies
(based on Ingram, Gopalan, Loughman, 2004)

Type Emphasis of Branding Strategy Examples of MBA programs

S School Only Wharton

Su School primary-university York University: Schulich
 secondary

D Dual: Equal emphasis is given MIT: Sloan
 to both the school and the
 university

Us University primary-school University of Oxford: Said
 secondary

U University Only Harvard Business School

Table 2: Top 50 Global MBA Program Classifications
 (Financial Times-2006)

Rank School Country
 1 University of Pennsylvania: Wharton U.S.A.
 2 Harvard Business School U.S.A.
 3 Stanford University GSB U.S.A.
 4 Columbia Business School U.S.A.
 5 London Business School U.K.
 6 University of Chicago GSB U.S.A.
 7 New York University: Stern U.S.A.
 8 Insead France /
 Singapore
 8 Dartmouth College: Tuck U.S.A.
 10 MIT: Sloan U.S.A.
 11 Yale School of Management U.S.A.
 12 Instituto de Empresa Spain
 13 Iese Business School Spain
 14 IMD Switzerland
 14 University of Michigan: Ross U.S.A.
 16 UC Berkeley: Haas U.S.A.
 17 Northwestern University: Kellogg U.S.A.
 18 York University: Schulich Canada
 19 UCLA: Anderson U.S.A.
 20 University of Oxford: Said U.K.
 21 Ceibs China
 22 HEC Paris France
 22 Manchester Business School U.K.
 24 University of Toronto: Rotman Canada
 24 RSM Erasmus University Netherlands
 24 University of Virginia: Darden U.S.A.
 27 Esade Business School Spain
 27 Duke University: Fuqua U.S.A.
 29 University of North Carolina: Kenan-Flagler U.S.A.
 30 Lancaster University Management School U.K.
 31 University of Western Ontario: Ivey Canada / China
 31 Michigan State University: Broad U.S.A.
 33 University of Iowa: Tippie U.S.A.
 34 SDA Bocconi Italy
 35 University of Cambridge: Judge U.K.
 36 Georgetown University: McDonough U.S.A.
 36 Cornell University: Johnson U.S.A.
 38 University of Maryland: Smith U.S.A.
 39 University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign U.S.A.
 40 University of Rochester: Simon U.S.A.
 41 Carnegie Mellon: Tepper U.S.A.
 42 Pennsylvania State: Smeal U.S.A.
 42 Emory University: Goizueta U.S.A.
 44 McGill University Canada
 45 Brigham Young University: Marriott U.S.A.
 46 Cranfield School of Management U.K.
 47 Hong Kong UST Business School China
 47 City University: Cass U.K.
 47 Imperial College London: Tanaka U.K.
 50 Boston University School of Management U.S.A.

Rank Classification

 1 S
 2 U
 3 D
 4 U
 5 Unable to categorize
 6 D
 7 Su
 8 Unable to categorize
 8 S
 10 D
 11 U
 12 Unable to categorize
 13 Unable to categorize
 14 Unable to categorize
 14 Su
 16 U
 17 S
 18 Su
 19 D
 20 Us
 21 Unable to categorize
 22 Unable to categorize
 22 Us
 24 S
 24 Su
 24 S
 27 Unable to categorize
 27 Us
 29 Us
 30 U
 31 S
 31 D
 33 S
 34 U
 35 U
 36 Us
 36 No conscious branding
 38 S
 39 U
 40 S
 41 Su
 42 Su
 42 S
 44 U
 45 Su
 46 U
 47 Unable to categorize
 47 Unable to categorize
 47 D
 50 No conscious branding

Table 3: Classification of Branding Strategies of top 50
global MBA programs (Financial Times, 2006)

 Type Emphasis of Branding Strategy Number of MBA
 programs
 S School Only 10
 Su School primary-university secondary 7
 D Dual: equal emphasis is given to 6
 both the school and the university
 Us University primary-school secondary 5
 U University Only 10
No branding No emphasis given to either University 2
 or School
 Unable to Different organizational structure- 10
 categorize unable to categorize using Ingram
 et al typology

Table 4: Differences in branding strategies between U.S. based MBA
programs and European & Asian MBA programs (Top 50 Global MBA
programs identified by Financial Times, 2006)

 U.S. Based MBA programs

Accreditation Only AACSB

Structure All MBA programs are affiliated with a
 Business School/College that is part of
 a University structure

Foreign Language Not required
Proficiency (besides
English)

Target audience Mostly U.S. based students; some
 global emphasis

Positioning approaches Location not emphasized

 European & Asian MBA programs

Accreditation AACSB, EQUIS, The Association of MBA
 programs

Structure Many European programs are offered by
 "stand-alone" business schools or similar
 institutions and are not part of a
 university structure

Foreign Language Requirement in some programs
Proficiency (besides
English)

Target audience Predominantly global in nature attracting
 students from all countries; global theme
 emphasized

Positioning approaches Location of city (London, Paris, etc.) are
 an integral part of branding