I have read with interest the recent series of columns relating to the development of a Dartmouth brand. Kabir Sehgal and Brent Reidy have presented an intriguing case for making Dartmouth a powerful brand name ("On Dartmouth Branding," May 23, 2003). Alston Ramsay countered by expressing his amusement because "almost every reason offered [for branding the Dartmouth name] is either asinine, immature, or incredibly pretentious ("Conserve Dartmouth's Brand, July 11, 2003"). These differing views have left me thinking.
My initial reaction to Sehgal and Reidy's articles was somewhat similar to Ramsay's. The idea of branding the Dartmouth name seemed too corporate, too commercial and almost sacrilegious. I mean, here we are at Dartmouth, tucked away in picturesque New Hampshire in this quaint New England town we call Hanover. Why would we want to get sucked into the Madison Avenue branding frenzy? I like Dartmouth the way it is.
As for our colleagues/rivals in Cambridge, New Haven and Princeton, the last thing I want is to transform Dartmouth into another Harvard-Yale-Princeton (HYP) for the sake of a brand image. I'm sure I'm not the only one who chose Dartmouth for its beautiful location (New Haven, anyone?), superior undergraduate education (anyone remember the name of that Harvard TA?), and less-competitive learning environment (what eating club is he in?). During my two years at Dartmouth I have come to love what Daniel Webster lovingly referred to as his "small college."
I can appreciate where Ramsay is coming from when he challenges the assumptions on which Sehgal and Reidy base their claims. Nevertheless, the question for me is whether Dartmouth can benefit from a more "renowned" image while at the same time preserving that which the Dartmouth family so dearly treasures. Perhaps there is an opportunity to broaden the Dartmouth community, and thereby strengthen our college?
Ramsay says, "Dartmouth has a very robust, well-known brand. It is the image of a small school in rural New Hampshire, that offers an unparalleled undergraduate experience, replete with opportunities sorely lacking at other schools." On the contrary, I say that Dartmouth's name recognition is not what it could be. Even the director of communications for the College Fund says that many people west of the Mississippi have never heard of Dartmouth. Part of the Dartmouth experience is to learn and ultimately graduate not only with a first-rate education, but hopefully also with a value-packed degree. You know, a tangible return for our pretty-pennies.
A stronger brand will also boost alumni donations. Ramsay says, "Alumni donate because they loved their undergraduate experience, and they want others to share in the unique education Dartmouth offers. A massive realignment of Dartmouth's erstwhile image as a small, intimate place would decimate alumni contributions." Perhaps the strongest counterargument isn't an argument but rather a few numbers: According to the Director of the College Fund, the alumni giving rate in 1985 was near 65 percent; today it is 45 percent. Princeton's Class of 2003 giving rate was 65 percent; Dartmouth's Class of 2003 was 25 percent. It seems to me that our alumni giving rate is eroding? If Dartmouth's name was more visible might it not remind alums of their fond college memories and perhaps inspire some generosity and pride in supporting the Big Green? Imagine if you could order a Dartmouth Dizzy cocktail in a swank New York City bar or if a Dartmouth name was on the next presidential poll. As a future alum, don't you think that would catch your eye?
The bottom line, I believe, is that we can make Dartmouth stronger by spreading the word, while at the same time preserving that which we love so dearly about Dartmouth. Today, Dartmouth is New England's best-kept secret. Tomorrow, Dartmouth might be New England's treasured crown jewel.
