Skip to content
Contact
Ed _CW_1980_1080px Ed Layt

Related Events

Related case studies

Article
Jul 10 2025

Has university branding gone wrong?

article-banner

Has university branding gone wrong?

Distinctiveness matters in branding, but so does meaningful difference. And difference is always rooted in the culture and values of an organisation. So even if branding shares some surface similarities with others, that doesn’t make it less effective.

This blog explores why some overlap in education branding is inevitable and whether it really matters. Should we be concerned with how distinctive our assets look, when what truly sets us apart is what we do and how we do it?

Last week on LinkedIn, a familiar conversation bubbled up again, this time triggered by the launch of new brand work at the University of Warwick and Birmingham City University. https://www.linkedin.com/posts/ellielovell_when-university-brand-projects-collide-activity 

Both institutions had used variations of the word “beyond” in their brand straplines. Cue a flurry of comments pointing out how indistinguishable these and other rebrands have become: Beyond. World-changing. Be the difference. The list goes on…

On the surface, those critics had a point. The straplines are similar. The visual styles are both slick, modern, and digital-first, traits which are increasingly common across the sector. If branding is about standing out, what’s going wrong?

But look a little deeper, and some of the comments revealed something more important. Something that should’ve quashed any criticism altogether:

Universities are similar. Until you dig into behaviour and culture.

More similar than we admit. More different than we think.

After a decade at SMRS and 20 years in the sector, I’ve had the chance to work with over 120 universities across the globe. That’s given me a reasonably unique perspective on the sector, both as an outsider and an insider.

And here’s what I can tell you:

From a brand asset perspective (logos, straplines, visual identities) yes, differentiation is often limited. Most universities offer similar courses. They compete for similar rankings. They highlight similar experiences.

But when you explore how those institutions operate, how people treat each other, how decisions get made, how they take risks, how they support their students, how they define success, the differences are significant.

That’s the gold. And that’s the part that should shape a university’s brand. Your culture is your difference. It’s the thing that can’t be copied.

We’re missing the point.

As a sector, we also risk perpetuating the problem when we jump on a rebrand based solely on the use of a word or the look of a logo.

Critiquing the aesthetic, or the shared use of a term like “beyond”, completely ignores the hard work that likely sits behind these projects (note: I’m not personally aware of the work behind these projects, but I have good faith in the excellent teams at both institutions). Brand development is never just a design exercise. It includes strategic planning, stakeholder engagement, rollout preparation, and cultural intent. And much of that work is invisible on day one.

What we’re seeing at launch is often just the tip of the iceberg, the visual brand codes, not the brand DNA. That deeper DNA, the ideas, values, behaviours and strategic intent behind the brand, is what will shape perception and experience over time. It’s not always immediately visible, but it’s what ultimately defines the brand. It’ll create recognition and build meaning, so those codes will strengthen as these brands are lived.

So, is the criticism fair?

In short, no.

Any criticism or bashing of these rollouts really isn’t valid. It’s not fair. If these were short-term campaigns, sure, the similarity in language would be unfortunate. But these are brands, and brands evolve. Over time, they’ll become clear articulations of two very different institutions, shaped by distinct cultures, communities and priorities.

For internal and external audiences, there should be no confusion between Warwick and BCU. And if you genuinely think there will be… well…

How do we get it right?

It’s not enough to just engage widely. Most brand development projects speak to hundreds, sometimes thousands, of staff, students, alumni and partners. That’s essential. But what questions are we asking? What are we actually listening for?

Often, stakeholder engagement focuses on reputation, perceptions, external messaging, and institutional ambition.

But it doesn’t get under the skin. It doesn’t explore organisational health, how people behave, how they feel, how aligned they are, how resilient the organisation is when challenged. It doesn’t explore culture.

At SMRS, our Organisational Health Model is one way we do this. We measure aspects like purpose, creativity, experience, operations and people sustainability and many sub-dimensions within each, to understand things more deeply. Because any brand project that doesn’t investigate culture, doesn’t fully understand the brand.

This approach illuminates true difference:

  • How you treat staff.
  • How you show up in the community.
  • How seriously you take your own values.
  • How transparent your leadership is.

Those distinctions are harder to copy than colour palettes and logos. And far more powerful.

Rebrand and behavioural change

Let’s be clear, a good rebrand shouldn’t just reflect who you are. It should help shape who you’re becoming.

The strongest brands don’t invent something new. They give language and visibility to what already exists, and what could exist more deeply. They offer alignment, coherence, and momentum.

So, brand work should go hand in hand with behaviour change. Or at the very least, behaviour amplification. It should identify what’s already working, what should be encouraged, and how the brand can support that shift. That means listening closely to your people. It means telling the truth about who you are. And it means having the ambition to become more of what you want to be.

Rethinking the rollout

Which brings us to brand rollouts. Too often, these become glorified user guides:

  • Here’s the new logo.
  • Here’s how to use the colour palette.
  • Here’s the new typeface and the strapline.
  • Please update your email signature.

And in doing that, we reinforce the very problem we’re trying to move away from, the idea that brand is about design and messaging, rather than behaviour and culture.

What if brand rollouts instead focused on:

  • Showcasing the people already living the values you want to promote?
  • Telling real stories that embody the shift you want to see?
  • Rewarding behaviours you’re looking to amplify.
  • Inviting teams to co-shape the next chapter of the organisation?
  • Embedding the brand ethos in decision-making, leadership, student support, staff development?

If brand is genuinely a tool for cultural change, rollout should be as much about how we behave as how we look.

Bringing it all together…

There’s a better way to approach university branding. One that isn’t about headlines or straplines or surface-level distinctiveness.

It’s about listening properly. Exploring culture. Promoting behaviours. Creating clarity. Building trust.

Because in a world where many institutions may appear the same, the real difference lies in how they act, and how consistently they do it.

And that’s what a great brand should help make possible.

And as for BCU and Warwick? I’d say watch this space, and I wish them every success.

______

If you’re thinking about developing your brand and agree that culture is an essential component to success. Get in touch. We’d love to help.

Ed _CW_1980_1080px
Book Meeting

Other webinars

See all webinars

In-person events

See all events

Like this Article? Sign up and never miss out

Join mailing list
, , ,
×