Differentiation was not in the mail
My teenage son has been going through the process of choosing a college, and I have been keenly interested in the volumes of mail he’s received. (Anyone want a stack of over 300 college solicitations?) As I was purging last month’s mail last night, I pulled out two pieces — from a state university and a private college. I asked my son to tell me about what he thought about each school. He barely glanced at the mailers and said “I don’t know. They look about the same to me.” I asked him what kind of mail he would notice, and he said “Something more energetic. The pictures are boring.”
Now, I know that all that mail is meant to influence me as much as it is to increase his awareness. That well-written copy and sedate, collegiate-looking photography looked “right” to me. When I compared the two pieces, I have to admit that my take away was also that these two schools seemed about the same. But this morning I couldn’t tell you which two schools I was comparing last night. So they did a good job of “selling the category” but not differentiating themselves.
I know we were only a focus group of two, but there may be something in there to learn from.
1 Comment to Differentiation was not in the mail
[...] perceived glaring lack of brand differentiation by colleges and universities. Whether it be the lack of originality in the email sophomore search process, or how colleges and universities use the same words and [...]
Leave a comment
February 3, 2010