Asee peer logo

Branding Of Engineering Technology Programs

Download Paper |

Conference

2006 Annual Conference & Exposition

Location

Chicago, Illinois

Publication Date

June 18, 2006

Start Date

June 18, 2006

End Date

June 21, 2006

ISSN

2153-5965

Conference Session

Leadership and Administration in ET

Tagged Division

Engineering Technology

Page Count

6

Page Numbers

11.283.1 - 11.283.6

DOI

10.18260/1-2--250

Permanent URL

https://peer.asee.org/250

Download Count

123

Request a correction

Paper Authors

author page

Lakshmi Munukutla

author page

Albert McHenry

Download Paper |

Abstract
NOTE: The first page of text has been automatically extracted and included below in lieu of an abstract

Branding of Engineering Technology Programs Arizona State University at the Polytechnic campus Mesa, Arizona

Abstract

The paper focuses on pros and cons related to the branding of Engineering Technology (ET) Programs. Two frequent topics among leaders of ET programs are how to educate others (prospective students, prospective employers of ET graduates, and the community) about what engineering technology is all about and how to differentiate between engineering technology programs and traditional engineering programs. Engineering Technology faculty and students face these challenges on a regular basis. This paper seeks to address the question can this paper initiate a dialogue among the ET educators with regard to the branding of ET programs? Moreover, can an ET program have its own brand identity and build the freestanding stature desired, without being compared to traditional engineering programs?

Introduction

The effectiveness of branding is closely coupled with market perceptions. The market perception of the engineering technology programs and the degrees that they award is that they are subordinate to those from the superior brand of engineering. The subordinate engineering technology program and its degrees have been often defined and explained in term of engineering programs. Often, the significant differentiation between the two is lost in the perceived familiarity with the term engineering and lack of complete understanding of the term engineering technology. The result for engineering technology has proven to be perpetual perceptions of subordination and inferiority to engineering without any value or quality assessment. It can be argued that this situation is largely due to the branding phenomenon. If that is the case, then there may be a branding solution to the problems that arise for engineering technology programs and graduates.

Branding

Scott Bedbury, the CEO of Brandstream, a Seattle-based marketing consultancy, advertising director during the "Just Do It" campaign, and CMO at Starbucks has said, “Today, branding is everything—and I mean everything. Brands are not simply products or services. Brands are the sum-total of all the images that people have in their heads about a particular company and a particular mark… Marquee brands suffer if they show up at retail in a sea of poor quality products or in a questionable store1.”

Munukutla, L., & McHenry, A. (2006, June), Branding Of Engineering Technology Programs Paper presented at 2006 Annual Conference & Exposition, Chicago, Illinois. 10.18260/1-2--250

ASEE holds the copyright on this document. It may be read by the public free of charge. Authors may archive their work on personal websites or in institutional repositories with the following citation: © 2006 American Society for Engineering Education. Other scholars may excerpt or quote from these materials with the same citation. When excerpting or quoting from Conference Proceedings, authors should, in addition to noting the ASEE copyright, list all the original authors and their institutions and name the host city of the conference. - Last updated April 1, 2015