“Branding” and “Marketing” ...

[GTrob21]

Short answer | yes they will work incredible if they have a team of people who buy into the vision that Tstan has. For me, and I work in marketing, it appears that Tstan knows what he is doing. IF they do it right, and are strategic, I think Georgia Tech will become a brand that is known for excellence. Georgia Tech despite some of the naysayers that lurk on the the boards, has a lot to offer.

I think Georgia Tech is a sleeping giant.

 

[Jophish17]

I remember former AD Homer Rice’s “Total Person Concept.”

As far as I know, it’s still in use at GT, isn’t it?

I believe “Everyday champions” is the new term

 

[Vespidae]

I believe “Everyday champions” is the new term

I hope not. Shades of Butch Jones.

 

[RonJohn]

I get SO frustrated with folks on this board who repeat the tired excuses as to why we can't compete and why we should settle for mediocrity. They point out how we are different from other schools, but they only look at the differences from a negative point of view. I am glad they don't work for me, but frankly, they never could or would.

I think you misunderstand a lot of the statements. Stating that there are limitations isn't saying we can't compete and should settle for mediocrity. GT football cannot do things the same way that Alabama and the mutts do. Not recognizing limitations is just as bad as using a limitation as a crutch.

GT has pushed the "Total Person Program" for a long time. The "40 year plan" has been a push for a while. CGC has been spinning it as an advantage to recruits instead of as a detriment. Getting more staff to find academically acceptable good athletes across the country has been something pushed for by some of the same people you say are "settling for mediocrity". Most if not all schools have some negatives that affect recruiting. The best way to go about it isn't to ignore those negatives and do and say exactly the same things that others say. It is to embrace the limitations and find ways to work through or around them.

 

[wesgt123]

So are we still Swarming together? Or did that motto end too?

Im not sure what the definition of “swarm” in that context means, but I’m pretty sure we didn’t do that this past season lol

Hopefully that changes in the near future

 

[Supersizethatorder-mutt]

As you understand (but another poster above does not) the branding that Collins and Stansbury are talking about is more than words and logos. It's selling what Georgia Tech is--and to some degree--what it isn't. It's selling where we are--Atlanta, and the advantages of Atlanta. It's selling academics in a positive way. It's making the great things about Tech known to the public and getting the relevant consumer to buy in--whether that consumer is an alum, a recruit, or a potential fan. That's branding.

I get SO frustrated with folks on this board who repeat the tired excuses as to why we can't compete and why we should settle for mediocrity. They point out how we are different from other schools, but they only look at the differences from a negative point of view. I am glad they don't work for me, but frankly, they never could or would.

As a parting comment, I haven't seen this kind of enthusiasm since Homer was AD. Homer knew Tech was different, he saw it as an advantage, and he sold it. Stansbury was here when Homer was here, and I believe he learned a thing or two.

I am assuming that "another poster" refers to me. I totally realize that TStan and CGC are talking about more than words and logos, but words and logos and school colors are PART of the brand as well. But that existing brand should be used as a stepping off point for the ones you mentioned; neither group can exist independent of the other.
You are not, however (or should not be), referring to me when you mention those who only look at the differences from a negative point of view. I think we should take pride in our differences from other schools and capitalize on those differences. TStan has, however, pointed out one thing he considers negative which many of us do not and in fact is something that I think can be capitalized on, and that's the use of the term "I got out" in reference to graduating. That should in no way be considered a negative term, but a badge of honor. Tech needs to vigorously promote the differences that exist from other colleges and never shy away from or attempt to diminish those differences.

 

[LibertyTurns]

Waffle House?

With waffle helmets?

 

[GTRambler]

Let’s try this tack:

Goals, Objectives, and Strategies

Goal: Make Georgia Tech a nationally known and respected Division 1 college football power that annually contends for ACC and CFP championships.

Objective 1: Recruit, on a consistent annual basis, the top high school football players in the nation for each and every position on the football team.

Strategies to Meet Objective 1:

• Strategy 1: Raise $1 million from GT alumni worldwide each year, beginning on January 1, 2019, and sustained each January thereafter on an annual basis, to procure and maintain a staff of 10 high school football talent scouts, at an annual salary of $100,000 per scout.

• Strategy 2: Raise $500,000 from GT non-alumni football fans nationwide each year, beginning on January 1, 2019, and sustained each January thereafter in an annual basis, to implement and maintain a data-driven, computerized Sabermetrics program for the use of the 10 high school football talent scouts in their evaluations and rankings of potential high school football recruits. This Sabermetrics program will take into account each high school football player’s academic qualifications for entrance into the Georgia Institute of Technology.

(The above is an hypothetical example of a Goal, an Objective, and Strategies. Any ideas and/or suggestions for any other goals, objectives and strategies? Or modifications/revisions of the above?)

 

[Supersizethatorder-mutt]

I hope not. Shades of Butch Jones.

It also reeks of "participation certificate".

 

[Animal02]

Just a side note on brand/ marketing. I think Ford really dropped the ball not having the Wreck in DTW. They had full size pick up trucks on the field, so I don't know what their issue was.

 

[RonJohn]

Although I know some here will scoff at this, Tech already has a brand --- The Yellow Jackets, The 'Ramblin 'Reck, and THE WHITE AND GOLD. We don't need to mess with the brand; what we need to do is to learn how to MARKET it, and Tech has done a miserable job of marketing for years. Coming up with different, interesting, and/or unique uniform styles is fine, even if if gets a little bizarre in some peoples' eyes, and we should applaud that. But totally changing the colors of the uniforms is absurd, especially if they're as butt-ugly as the white jerseys and blue pants, or that crap we wore Wendesday.

I think the "branding" they are referring to aren't the mascots or symbols. I think they are referring to what people think about when they think about Georgia Tech. About the following schools, I think the following:

• Alabama -- Strong football program
• mutts -- Cesspool
• Notre Dame -- Tradition, Catholic, Arrogant
• Baylor -- Hypocritical Baptists who enable/support sexual assault (I am a Baptist so my perception isn't critical of Baptists but critical of supposedly religious people who allow such a thing to go on.)

I have no idea what the national impression of Georgia Tech is from a sports perspective. I believe this is what TStan has been working to develop messaging for. The color simplification was part of that. To try to be able to get a single message out instead of shotgun scatter.

 

[GTRambler]

TStan needs concrete and achievable goals, objectives, and strategies to accomplish the desired results (i.e., the “brand”).

The “brand,” to me, is the Goal I tried to articulate in my previous post above.

 

[LibertyTurns]

@RonJohn International perception is top notch Engineers, smart and innovative, problem solvers, hard work ethic. Socially inept. Hard to relate to and understand but the one guy you want on the team when there’s hard **** to do.

 

[iceeater1969]

This is a very broad question. There are 3 components involved ... a brand strategy, a brand identity, and a visual identity.

A brand strategy is conceptual and deals with how GT would be positioned against other schools.

A brand strategy would deal with how that strategy would be implemented. Colors, phrases, messages, target groups and value propositions.

A visual identity is the physical production of the brand. So far, TStan has simplified the VI, but hasn’t really articulated the brand strategy.

Any of these can take a lot to summarize. Might be a fun project over the winter.

I appreciate your corporate knowledge in overall program.
My background was owning and growing an engr consulting business that worked in oil business. Had to get real quality engineers who wanted to be sure we had real long term work. Clients wanted to know we had quality engineers before they would give projects. At first every project was a life death situation.
When we grew we discovered branding was important. We identified our ideals that would lead to success and got them to everyone . Our business was all about people relationships within an understood excellent project performance standard.

When we got large, we found that we needed our top managment to become project sponsors = build relationships way above the project level.


Gtaa is already large but its footprint/ impact points is still seem individual relationships .

When your are thinking about the gtaa I wonder if we can market/ -brand effectively any way but thru our people.
I have no idea about all this @ stuff but the young people live the trending. The very few times I visited w Coach it took about 20 seconds before he had me smiling and thinking his way. That's why he is boss. How the heck didnt we have a way to make people know this. I hope we can do this social media thing right.

 

[Supersizethatorder-mutt]

I think the "branding" they are referring to aren't the mascots or symbols. I think they are referring to what people think about when they think about Georgia Tech. About the following schools, I think the following:

• Alabama -- Strong football program
• mutts -- Cesspool
• Notre Dame -- Tradition, Catholic, Arrogant
• Baylor -- Hypocritical Baptists who enable/support sexual assault (I am a Baptist so my perception isn't critical of Baptists but critical of supposedly religious people wo allow such a thing to go on.)

I have no idea what the national impression of Georgia Tech is from a sports perspective. I believe this is what TStan has been working to develop messaging for. The color simplification was part of that. To try to be able to get a single message out instead of shotgun scatter.

As I said in a later post, I fully realize that brand doesn't just refer to mascots, symbols, and, yes, colors, but we already have those aspects of our brand in place, so why change any of that as we begin to implement the other? Start with our unchanged existing VISIBLE brand and then use that to provide a deeper image of the school itself.

 

[RonJohn]

@RonJohn International perception is top notch Engineers, smart and innovative, problem solvers, hard work ethic. Socially inept. Hard to relate to and understand but the one guy you want on the team when there’s hard **** to do.

I understand that, but I was referring to the perception of the GT sports programs. People have a very good impression of engineers from MIT and Berkley also. I would bet that many people don't know that the Berkley mascot is the Golden Bears or that MIT doesn't have a football program. If you asked a lot of non-sports minded people about their impression of sports at Berkley or MIT, they wouldn't have one good, bad, or N/A(with respect to MIT).

 

[The InstAtute]

In what ways would GT be branded and marketed?

Suggestions? Please list them here.

Tech needs to work on establishing our brand both on and off the field at a national level. We all cringe when we hear recruits and announcers referring to us as Georgia Tech University. We are one of four division 1 football programs that is not a university (army, navy, Air Force academies) and we are the only school that is an Institute. I believe we can leverage this into our brand. (Ex: Welcome to THE INSTITUTE ). If we can get recruits and announcers referring to us as The Institute it should help us establish/brand what makes us different.

 

[RonJohn]

As I said in a later post, I fully realize that brand doesn't just refer to mascots, symbols, and, yes, colors, but we already have those aspects of our brand in place, so why change any of that as we begin to implement the other? Start with our unchanged existing VISIBLE brand and then use that to provide a deeper image of the school itself.

I think that the color of gold/burnt orange/yellow/orangish brown/etc was a problem. TStan has tried to address that.(Although there is still a lot of non Tech Gold merchandise that was apparently approved this year). I haven't seen anyone trying to remove "Yellow Jackets" or the Ramblin' Wreck. Other than changing the shade of gold, I haven't seen anyone trying to get rid of the school colors. Unlike you, I don't see having uniforms with a secondary(tertiary as you like to say) color as a big deal. I don't think using that color once or twice a year is going to affect other people's perception of the program.

What is it that you believe people are trying to change about: Buzz, Yellow Jackets, or the Ramblin' Wreck?

 

[Vespidae]

TStan has, however, pointed out one thing he considers negative which many of us do not and in fact is something that I think can be capitalized on, and that's the use of the term "I got out" in reference to graduating.

I’m not a fan of the AD deciding on school traditions. Besides ... it IS unique. And should be embraced.

Tech has to make itself relevant ... and dare I say it ... cool. A good start is the valedictorian speech on “If you wanna build the Iron Man suit, at Tech ... you can DO that!” We are the Can Do school.

 

[Supersizethatorder-mutt]

What is it that you believe people are trying to change about: Buzz, Yellow Jackets, or the Ramblin' Wreck?

I just used those as reference points as to what the visible Tech brand is. They are hopefully not trying to change any of them, although, and I don't know if this is "official", at least one graphic representation of Buzz that I saw earlier this week had blue stripes rather than black ones. It has already been stated that the on-field Buzz will remain gold (yellow) and black, so why change the graphic one? As far as uniform colors, I am regretfully ok with blue jerseys and gold pants, mainly because of 1990, but the white jerseys with blue pants was the drabbest, most colorless uniform I have ever seen. And the all blue with gold numerals that we wore Wednesday was IMO just butt-ugly and, because the blue was so dark as to almost appear black, the team looked like Army or Wake or the Pittsburgh Steelers. They didn't look like Georgia Tech in the least. As to whether blue is secondary or tertiary, it was tertiary pre-TStan, and now it's secondary. But IMO secondary does not mean and should not mean alternate.