A comparison to the branding effectiveness of G.G.U.\'s and S.F.S.U.\'s MBA Program. Over 190 Individuals were included in this study.

1. MBA Brands Positioning San Francisco State University Spring 2010 Seth Breedlove Stoja Djakovic Vivian Wang

2. MBA Brands Comparison Similar = Better ?

3. Methods of Research Interview Survey Focus group

4. FILM [insert link]

5. Interviewees Dr. John Dopp, Director of Graduate Programs at San Francisco State University Dr. Paul Fouts, Associate Dean of GGU’s The Edward S. Ageno School of Business Mr. Drew Bennett, Associate at Mackenzie Communications, Inc. Mr. Morgan Dodge, Graphic Brand Manager at GGU Marketing Department

9. Communication

10. Influence of Communication Source SFSU Source GGU School Website 3.73 School Website 4.16 Interaction with admission/MBA program personnel 2.72 Interaction with admission/MBA program personnel 3.82 Reception/Open House 2.31 Personal School correspondence 3.39 Friends & Relatives 2.31 Friends & Relatives 3.19 Published Rankings 2.20 Current Students 3.05 5= A great deal 4=A good amount 3 =Some 2 =A little 1=None at all

11. Attributes of MBA Program Attributes SFSU GGU Sustainable 3.52 3.89 Convenient location 4.50 4.36 Diverse population 4.01 4.02 Accredited 4.38 3.87 Globally recognized 3.08 3.28 Affordable 3.77 3.28 Personally attentive 3.30 3.73 Networked 2.90 3.64 Other: 2.06 2.67 5= A great deal 4=A good amount 3 =Some 2 =A little 1=None at all

12. Influence of Attributes SFSU SFSU Grand Full-Time Part-Time EMBA Domestic Foreign Right Decision Not Right Decision Answer Options W/Average W/Average W/Average W/Average W/Average W/Average W/Average W/Average It was an accredited program 4.30 4.59 3.85 4.33 4.30 4.29 4.39 4.05 Quality/reputation of the faculty 3.48 3.64 3.24 3.67 3.46 3.55 3.68 3.06 Quality/reputation of the university 3.48 3.62 3.24 4.00 3.49 3.43 3.67 3.05 Location of the university 4.52 4.57 4.52 4.67 4.62 4.14 4.62 4.37 Career options availability to graduates 3.11 3.20 3.06 2.67 3.14 3.00 3.17 2.95 Published rankings of its MBA program 2.90 3.05 2.79 1.67 2.92 2.81 3.00 2.79 Cost for attendance 4.28 4.30 4.39 3.67 4.25 4.38 4.19 4.68 School offered the specific curriculum I wanted 3.65 3.64 3.82 3.00 3.78 3.19 3.86 3.32 Local respect (of school) 3.17 3.26 3.06 3.33 3.21 3.05 3.39 2.68 The school's reputation in placing graduates 2.53 2.54 2.64 1.67 2.47 2.76 2.52 2.58 The students and faculty had diverse backgrounds and experience 3.42 3.41 3.55 3.00 3.36 3.62 3.54 3.37 Appearance of facilities 3.27 3.27 3.39 2.67 3.22 3.45 3.41 3.00 Convenience of facilities 3.92 3.84 4.12 4.33 3.91 3.95 4.03 3.79 Career guidance available to graduates 2.64 2.72 2.64 1.67 2.55 3.00 2.65 2.74 Part-time/Full-time flexibility 3.90 3.67 4.45 3.33 4.08 3.24 4.06 3.68

13. Influence of Attributes GGU GGU Grand Full-Time Part-Time EMBA Domestic Foreign Right Decision Not Right Decision Answer Options W/Average W/Average W/Average W/Average W/Average W/Average W/Average W/Average It was an accredited program 4.16 4.91 4.46 4.58 3.58 4.24 3.80 Quality/reputation of the faculty 3.91 4.58 3.85 3.92 3.90 4.03 2.67 Quality/reputation of the university 3.93 3.96 4.15 4.12 3.70 4.07 2.83 Location of the university 4.30 5.00 4.31 4.31 4.30 4.41 4.50 Career options availability to graduates 3.98 4.71 4.00 4.04 3.90 3.86 4.00 Published rankings of its MBA program 3.27 3.21 3.31 3.36 3.15 3.36 2.67 Cost for attendance 3.50 4.63 3.31 3.38 3.65 3.41 3.17 School offered the specific curriculum I wanted 4.11 4.67 3.77 4.12 4.10 4.14 3.83 Local respect (of school) 3.89 4.42 3.69 4.04 3.70 3.97 3.33 The school's reputation in placing graduates 3.57 4.38 3.15 3.58 3.55 3.48 2.67 The students and faculty had diverse backgrounds and experience 3.80 4.29 3.46 3.69 3.95 3.76 3.67 Appearance of facilities 3.48 4.17 3.31 3.46 3.50 3.48 2.67 Convenience of facilities 3.93 4.22 3.92 4.08 3.72 3.85 3.83 Career guidance available to graduates 3.78 4.88 3.23 3.65 3.95 3.72 3.33 Part-time/Full-time flexibility 4.09 4.67 4.54 4.62 3.40 4.07 4.83

14. Consumer Expectations San Francisco State University School Segment Exceeding Expectations Fully Met Expectations Somewhat Expectations Not met Expectations Grand 3.80% 31.40% 53.30% 9.50% Full-Time 4.80% 32.30% 53.20% 9.70% Part-Time 2.60% 28.90% 57.90% 10.50% EMBA 0.00% 66.70% 33.30% 0.00% Domestic 4.80% 38.90% 50.60% 7.20% Foreign 0.00% 18.20% 63.60% 18.20% Golden Gate University School Segment Exceeding Expectations Fully Met Expectations Somewhat Expectations Not met Expectations Grand 12.00% 22.00% 42.00% 4.00% Full-Time 16.70% 20.80% 58.30% 4.20% Part-Time 15.40% 30.80% 46.20% 7.70% EMBA Domestic 10.00% 23.30% 40.00% 6.70% Foreign 15.00% 20.00% 45.00% 0.00%

15. Cognitive Dissonance San Francisco State University School Segment Made Right Decision Did Not Make Right Decision Not Decided Grand 69.50% 20.00% 10.50% Full-Time 71.00% 17.70% 11.30% Part-Time 71.10% 23.70% 5.30% EMBA 66.70% 33.30% 0.00% Domestic 74.70% 16.90% 8.40% Foreign 50.00% 31.80% 18.20% Golden Gate University School Segment Made Right Decision Did Not Make Right Decision Not Decided Grand 58.00% 12.00% 30.00% Full-Time 50.00% 20.80% 29.20% Part-Time 92.30% 7.70% 0.00% EMBA Domestic 60.00% 10.00% 30.00% Foreign 55.00% 15.00% 30.00%

16. What 3 thoughts/feelings/ideas come to mind when you look at this image? What is the message behind this ad? Perception of Visual Ads Focus Group Activity SFSU Ads GGU Ads

17. SFSU "Competitive program. Competitive price” Rigorous program held up by real-world applicability and respect by alumni and local businesses. Image Focus Group Reaction RRR Message is understood, but vague. Too serious and cold. Chair Message is “Work hard and you’ll succeed”, but has no personality. Cold and empty. Classrooms Promise of success, classrooms simulate work environment. Imaginative, creative, catchy.

21. Thank You Questions?