Race cars and Robots: Brand Differentiation among Post-Secondary Engineering Programs
In a hyper-competitive higher education landscape, how do universities differentiate their engineering programs? Using social sensing, surveys, and content analysis, I examined how the brand of six Canadian post-secondary engineering programs are perceived, portrayed, and promoted—and who holds the most influence over it.
The Three Dimensions of a University Brand
Promoted Brand – What a university actively markets.
Portrayed Brand – How external sources represent it.
Perceived Brand – How stakeholders experience it.
Alignment among these elements varies. Some universities enjoy consistency, while others face gaps between their marketed identity and real-world perception.
Who Shapes a University’s Brand?
Brand identity isn’t just crafted by institutions—it’s co-created by students, alumni, industry partners, media, donors, government actors, faculty, staff and other online spectators and contributors. By analyzing digital artifacts like social media, online reviews, and user-generated content, I compared each institutions organic brand representation to its official marketing.
The Competitive Landscape
I studied six Canadian universities with comparable engineering programs:
University of Victoria
Queen’s University
Simon Fraser University
University of British Columbia
University of Calgary
Dalhousie University
Study Methodology
Three frameworks were used to establish potential differentiators: Brand Dimensions (Aaker, 1997; Kaplan et al., 2010; Glińska and Rudolf, 2019; Fair, 2022); Post-secondary Drivers of Choice (Whitehead et al., 2006; Academica, 2018); and common PSE Strategic Plan themes.
Using NVivo 12, univariate codes were used to calculate frequencies and percentages for each dimension, drivers and differentiators, as themes. There were a total of 59 (50 social posts = one artifact) coded artifacts and 3,978 codes/node references (Dal 625, Queen’s 895, SFU 593, UBC 720, UofC 386, UVic 705).
Analysis was completed via data visualization of Unigrams using wordclouds based on word use frequency (30 max, synonyms (sport/sporting), 3 character min), pie charts based on thematic density, and radar, or spider charts, which enabled visualization of multivariate data, making the overall similarities and differences very apparent.
Brand Dimensions
PSE Drivers of Choice
PSE Strategic Plans Themes
Key Research Findings
Overall
Brand Dimensions
PSE Drivers of Choice
PSE Strategic Plans Themes
Takeaways
Overcrowded Messaging: Every institution competes on "women in engineering," making it a saturated space for differentiation.
Faculty as Researchers, Not Educators: Institutions overwhelmingly position faculty as researchers rather than teachers or mentors, creating an opportunity for differentiation.
Overused Symbols: Race cars and robots dominate as representations of hands-on learning and innovation, leading to a lack of originality.
Underutilized Differentiators: Graduate success, top-employer rankings, work-integrated learning (especially co-op and fieldwork), undergraduate research opportunities, and internationalization are not emphasized enough.
Missed Branding Opportunities: Ruggedness and activism are underrepresented brand dimensions, while funding and faculty as teachers remain underutilized drivers.
Why This Matters
A strong, well-differentiated brand is crucial for student recruitment, funding, and industry partnerships. Engineering faculties must move beyond generic messaging and articulate unique strengths—whether in experiential learning, industry ties, research, or student culture.
Social sensing provides a powerful way to refine brand strategy in real time. As universities adapt to an evolving digital landscape, those that embrace data-driven, stakeholder-informed branding will stand out.
A university’s brand isn’t just what it says—it’s what people believe it to be. And in higher education, perception is everything.
Comments