Next Article in Journal
Carbon Emission Prediction Model and Analysis in the Yellow River Basin Based on a Machine Learning Method
Next Article in Special Issue
Design for Social Innovation: A Systemic Design Approach in Creative Higher Education toward Sustainability
Previous Article in Journal
The COVID-19 Pandemic Impact on Corporate Dividend Policy of Sustainable and Responsible Investment in Indonesia: Static and Dynamic Panel Data Model Comparison
Previous Article in Special Issue
Novel Recommendation-Based Approach for Multidisciplinary Development of Future Universities
 
 
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Article

The Interface between the Brand of Higher Education and the Influencing Factors

by
Aleksandar Brzaković
1,
Tomislav Brzaković
1,
Darjan Karabašević
1,*,
Gabrijela Popović
1 and
Renata Činčikaitė
2,*
1
Faculty of Applied Management, Economics and Finance, University Business Academy in Novi Sad, 21107 Novi Sad, Serbia
2
Business Management Faculty, Vilnius Gediminas Technical University, Sauletekio al. 11, LT-10223 Vilnius, Lithuania
*
Authors to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Sustainability 2022, 14(10), 6151; https://doi.org/10.3390/su14106151
Submission received: 25 April 2022 / Revised: 15 May 2022 / Accepted: 17 May 2022 / Published: 18 May 2022

Abstract

:
The world is changing faster than ever before. Continuous changes are also affecting the higher education sector. The number of programs on offer is growing, attraction strategies are changing, and the branding and positioning of higher education institutions are gaining significance. The growing influence of social networks on personal choice cannot be ignored. Of the world’s population, 57% uses social networks and spends an average of 2.5 h a day on them. The most popular social network, Facebook, has up to 2.9 billion active users every month. Therefore, the questions arise as to which factors influence one or another consumer choice, how social networks contribute to brand awareness, and what impact brand has on the higher education sector. After systematic and comparative analysis of concepts published in the scientific literature, the analysis of brand, brand promotion concepts, and factors that increase brand awareness is performed. This study seeks to determine whether and to what extent individual factors influencing student motivation and social networking influence the distinctiveness of a higher education institution brand and how factors influencing student motivation and social networking affect the distinctiveness of higher education institutions’ brands in general. The results of this study can help higher education institutions to develop their own plans, strategies, and good practices. Research methods: systematic and comparative analysis of concepts and methods published in the scientific literature, mathematical and statistical methods, statistical processing, and expert survey.

1. Introduction

In the higher education sector, universities are competing to attract more students, to have best education programs, to recruit the best staff, and for other reasons. Researchers are in a broad discussion as to whether the university brand is an infrastructure for competitive advantage or not [1,2,3]. Part of the brand image is equated with reputation [4,5]. Brand management helps to separate institutions from the competition. Various strategies are used; brand management can be related to quality or low cost, etc.
Universities’ brand strategy must change as the world changes. This research study aims to find out whether and to what extent individual factors affecting students’ motivation and social networks exert an influence on the uniqueness of the brand of a higher education institution and how the factors affecting students’ motivation and social networks summarily affect the uniqueness of the brand of a higher education institution.
There appears to be a gap in the research regarding the impact of characteristics, such as student motivation and social networks, on the uniqueness of a higher education institution’s brand. As a result, the main objective of this study is to close that gap by performing research and analyzing the relationship between elements impacting student motivation and the usage of social media on the unique qualities of a higher education institution’s brand.

2. Literature Review

2.1. Social Network

In the contemporary world, social networks have become an important marketing instrument, creating a new challenge when user (buyer) attraction is concerned [6]. Social networks are increasingly being used as a platform for conducting marketing and advertising activities, since organizations are increasingly spending their time, money, and other resources on social media ads [7]. The main form of digital marketing is inbound marketing, which requires that the audience is very carefully targeted, and communication is adapted through high-quality content [8]. According to Halligan et al. [9], the main idea of inbound marketing is about using the marketing techniques that arouse buyer interest by sharing creative and useful content on a larger number of network channels, including browsers and social media, all with the aim of turning individuals into permanent buyers. The past decade witnessed the development of sophisticated, diverse, and strengthened interactions between organizations and their buyers through using social networks. On the one hand, organizations use the advantages of different social network platforms to expand geographical reach to buyers [10] and build closer relationships with buyers [11], whereas, on the other hand, buyers are increasingly being empowered through social networks and taking control of the marketing communication process, simultaneously becoming message creators, associates, and commentators [12].
Understanding user motivation and social media interactive characteristics is of decisive significance when designing valuable content, facilitating interactions with the buyers, and stimulating content exchange between them [13]. Designing impressive and valuable content in order to transform social media passive watchers into active participants and associates is becoming an important marketing task [14]. There is extensive literature studying the factors upon which students’ motivation depends [15,16,17,18,19,20,21]. The influence of social media on brand development has been the topic researched by numerous authors in different areas, such as customer purchase intention [22], sports [23], mobile social networks [24], luxury fashion goods [11], fashion brands [25], the airline industry [26], and tourism [27]. In a marketing sense, social networks are considered to be the platforms on which people present and share information and feelings [28]. Social networks are dynamic, interconnected, egalitarian, and interactive organisms [29]. In contrast to traditional media, the specificities of the Internet and social networks and their advantage lie in two-way communication. The role of social networks has gradually evolved from that of a marketing tool to a role as a source of information for the purpose of analyzing and anticipating buyer behavior and achieving a competitive advantage and superior performances as well [30]. Different social media platforms, such as YouTube, Facebook, LinkedIn, and Twitter, are designed for different purposes and can be used in different situations. Web locations for social networks (Facebook), web locations for microblogging (Twitter), and content communities (YouTube) enable building joint interests and values for both organizations and buyers and establishing connections between them in a manner which was impossible in the past [28].
Social networks have also transformed the way in which organizations and buyers communicate with each other, which has an influence on choices and behavior in consumption [31]. Organizations can easily retrieve and beneficially utilize an enormous amount of data from different locations on social networks (blogs, forums, and so on) and in different formats (a text, a video, an image) with the help of contemporary information technologies [32]. In a word, data on social networks can serve as an important source for buyer analysis, market research, and new ideas creation, which may improve marketing results [33]. Marketing on social networks enables organizations to become increasingly more successful in understanding consumers, determining their needs, and conducting market research, communication, and advertising [34].
Social media marketing endeavors to engage buyers in the social locations in which they spend time [35]. Kumar et al. [36] asserted that organizations may take advantage of such an engagement of buyers both at the material level (by generating greater revenue or a bigger profit) and at the nonmaterial level (through feedback or new ideas which help to develop products or services). With the help of social networks, organizations are given the opportunity to easily become familiar with what buyers want and also what they think of a product or a service [37]. Muntinga et al. [38] categorized buyer behavior in connection with social networks into the following three groups: consumption (reading posts), contribution (product rating), and creation (posting brand-related content). Social networks help to create and distribute timely, educational, valuable, and convincing content in different forms with the aim of attracting and retaining buyers [39,40]. By using valuable content to attract goods or service users and increasing their engagement, it is possible to stimulate sales [13]. Social networks are, to a great extent, used as communication tools for branding organizations [41].

2.2. Student Motivation

Students’ motivation plays the most essential role in learning and exerts an influence on different fields of education. Motivation is one of the most powerful determinants of success or failure during a student’s studies [6]. The literature defines motivation as a stimulating force that directs and maintains behavior, while motivation to learn implies a person’s endeavor to acquire different types of knowledge and skills. Students’ motivation is defined as the tendency to find meaningful and useful academic activities and an effort to gain academic benefit from them [7]. Without motivation, an appropriate curriculum and a good teaching process are insufficient to guarantee students’ success [8]. Motivation is important in all aspects of life, no matter whether it refers to one’s professional engagement or studying at university. To be motivated means to be stimulated to undertake some activity. The person who does not feel a stimulus to act is characterized as unmotivated, whereas the person who is inspired to act is considered motivated. The basic two types of motivation are internal and external motivation. Internal motivation refers to the driving force of an individual, when a person is motivated to be active for fun or the challenge that activity brings. External motivation implies external impulses (praises, rewards of money, and suchlike) [9]. Motivational beliefs are very important because they help to determine the extent to which students consider and evaluate the fulfilment of obligations and make an effort and show their interest in the fulfilment of obligations [10].
In the increasingly competitive higher education sector, higher education institutions are faced with significant challenges in attracting new students [42,43]. As is indicated, students’ motivation is the basic ingredient for academic success. It includes the internal and external factors stimulating a person’s wishes, energy, and interestedness in and dedication to the work they do. According to Dornyei [44], motivation is the factor explaining why people decide to do something and how much effort they make and how long they are prepared to perform a particular activity. The manner in which higher education institutions manage their relationships with students and what impression students have of the brand of their institution may have an influence on current and future connectedness with the institution. It is not surprising that the perception of the quality of the offered courses and the reputation of an institution are amongst the most powerful factors upon which students’ choice depends [45]. In order to attract motivated students to a higher education institution, it is necessary not only to analyze the higher education institution itself or external factors but also to closely monitor the actions of the user/student. It is important to analyze their habits and behavior.
When looking at consumer behavior on the Internet, it is noticeable that it is changing. Researchers Hoffman and Novak defined consumer behavior on the Internet as ‘a state characterized by a continuous flow of responses that causes loss of interest and self-awareness and the establishment of one’s ego’ [46]. This means that the user loses his sense of time by immersing himself in the vastness of the Internet, browsing it, and searching for information on it. It should be emphasized that the information is collected by the consumer himself. He chooses only the knowledge that is interesting and relevant to him. Bakanauskas and Liesionis stated that a certain physiological and psychological need brings a customer to the store and a need for information brings a visitor to the Internet [47]. If the consumer does not find the knowledge he needs, he remains dissatisfied, and there is a high chance that he will not return there.
Kotler and Keller presented a model of consumer behavior that distinguishes two groups that influence consumer behavior [48]:
  • characteristics of the user (cultural, social, and personal);
  • user psychology (motivation, perception, learning, and memory).
When analyzing the pattern of consumer behavior according to Kotler and Keller, external factors are first distinguished. Probably the most important are cultural factors. According to the researchers mentioned in the previous paragraph, culture is a set of socially acquired patterns of behavior, transmitted through language and other means to members of a particular society. Looking at the marketing context, it is perceptible that consumers are influenced by different forms of culture. According to Luna and Gupta, culture primarily influences consumer behavior through cultural values, heroes, rituals, and symbols [49]. It is very important to realize that, to attract as many consumers as possible, it is necessary for marketers to understand the cultural values of their customers and to present the corresponding goods and the ways of their delivery to the market.
The second group of factors is social factors, which include groups, family, roles, and status [50]. Influence groups are groups that do not affect the way a consumer buys a product. Kotler and Keller present the following types of influence group [48]:
  • Primary—Groups with which a person interacts on a regular basis. For example, family, friends, co-workers;
  • Secondary—These are groups with which communication is more formal. For example, professional, religious, or interest groups.
Another important group of external factors is personal factors. They define human individuality, that is, age, profession, marital status, lifestyle, etc. User behavior on-line depends on personal characteristics. According to Pranulis, each person’s perception of themselves is different, but when properly emphasized and associated with goods and their brands, it can be useful for marketing. Further examination of the pattern of consumer behavior revealed psychological factors. This group includes motivation, perception, learning, and memory. Maslow, examining psychological factors, argued that consumers have the most important needs, which are divided into the most important, the least important, and the unimportant [51]. The consumer will first strive to meet his most important needs. This theory helps marketers understand how different goods find their place in consumer aspirations and plans.

2.3. Measures of Brand Distinctiveness

The creation of a unique brand and differentiating it from the competition implies the creation of key brand elements, such as a visual expression, a brand personality, and brand positioning. A brand personality is built by combining the brand name with its other characteristics, such as symbols, signs, logotypes, music, and images [52]. One of the key marketing functions is making decisions regarding the extent to which a strong brand identity should be invested in, protected, and built, simultaneously containing the unique elements of the identity, such as the logotypes, colors, or characters, that differentiate it from competitors and making its recognition and purchasing easier [53]. Consumers experience a brand as the most visible piece of information [54] that helps to raise one’s awareness of a brand and create a desired image of a brand [55].
Brand design components are defined as the signs, symbols, and names that identify and differentiate a brand from the competition [56] and are considered the most prominent signs of the brand identity that significantly influence cognitive, affective, and behavioral responses to a brand [57,58,59]. Marketing studies consider them to be the most important factors in building a brand personality [60,61,62]. A brand logotype is a graphical design used by a company with or without its name in order to identify itself or its products and is crucially important in the creation of a brand identity and uniqueness [63]. A logotype design is a critical component in the creation of a brand perception in consumers’ minds [64]. The font, color, and design of a logotype have an influence on the specific perception of a brand, generate strong brand associations [65], increase commitment to a brand [66], and provoke affective responses [67]. It is necessary for brands to achieve positive effects in relation to the logotype, which has an influence on the attitude towards the brand represented by the logotype [68].
Color also plays an important role in visual branding [69,70]. Consumers’ purchasing decisions are, to a great extent, influenced by visual sensory signs, and color is one of the most influential visual elements [71]. Colors enable companies to distinguish themselves and differentiate themselves from their competitors [72], and the perception of a color is sufficient to create an effect, a recognition, and a behavior in accordance with that meaning [73]. Choosing a color is a complex process, because a color should correctly reflect the visual identity of a brand, provoke the wanted image of a brand in consumers’ minds, and contribute to the creation of brand awareness [71,74]. The meaning of colors has been analyzed in detail in the past years [75], e.g., the color blue is associated with trust, the color white with purity, and the color purple implies energy and represents excitement.
A brand in the higher education sector is a multidimensional construct consisting of brand familiarity, brand remarkability, and a brand attitude [76]. The way in which students experience the brand of a higher education institution may have an influence on connectedness with the institution [77]. Students form their perception of a brand image, identity, and meaning before enrolling at a higher education institution and continue to develop it during and after their studies, and, for a brand identity to survive in a changeable environment, it has to be dynamic and flexible so as to meet students’ expectations [78]. The management of the reputation of a higher education institution is extremely challenging since different groups make an assessment of the quality and reputation of the institution based on met expectations [79]. Branding higher education institutions in a time of globalization and technological innovation is considered to be the way to maintain competitiveness in the market and the capability to face challenges [80].

3. Methodological Approach and Methods

In the empirical part of the paper, a survey-conducting method was used, applying the questionnaire technique (the questionnaire was prepared specifically for the purposes of this research study). The research was performed on a sample of 245 respondents (students and employees in academia), who rated a total of 24 statements on a satisfaction scale from 1 to 5 (where 1 stands for “satisfied the least” and 5 stands for “satisfied the most”).
The following hypotheses are defined in this research study:
The main hypothesis:
Hypothesis 0 (H0).
The levels of the factors affecting students’ motivation and social networks influence the level of the uniqueness of the brand of a higher education institution.
Ancillary hypotheses:
Hypothesis 1 (H1).
The level of the factors affecting students’ motivation influences the level of the uniqueness of the brand of a higher education institution.
Hypothesis 2 (H2).
The level of social networking influences the level of the uniqueness of the brand of a higher education institution.
A theoretical research model (SRM—systemic research competitiveness model) was formed for the needs of the research carried out in this paper (Figure 1).
This model was based on the perception of the individual influences of the factors affecting students’ motivation on brand uniqueness and the influence of social networks on brand uniqueness. How the levels of the factors affecting students’ motivation and social media levels summarily influence brand uniqueness were also the subjects of observation.
The following mathematical and statistical methods were used for processing the results obtained through empirical research:
  • the Cronbach alpha coefficient, used in order to determine the reliability of the variables of the formed model;
  • the Kaiser–Meyer–Olkin measure of sampling adequacy (KMO) and Bartlett’s test of sphericity, used in order to check data suitability for the factor analysis;
  • the scree plot, used to determine the breakpoint;
  • descriptive statistics, aimed at summing up the collected data in a clear and understandable way;
  • correlation analysis, made so as to determine mutual connectedness between the phenomena;
  • regression analysis, used with the aim of making an assessment of the connections between the independent and the dependent variables;
  • linear regression, which served to model the connection between two variables by forming a linear equation;
  • the ANOVA test, performed in order to compare the two groups of variables; and
  • multiple linear correlation analysis and regression analysis, which showed the influence of several independent variables.
The following pieces of statistical software were used: SAS JMP v.14. (MedmenhamMarlow, Buckinghamshire, UK), Monte Carlo PCA for Parallel Analysis (version 3) (Phoenix, AZ, USA, and IBM Statistics SPSS, version 22x64 (Armonk, NY, USA).

4. Results

Based on the guidelines for the identification of the factor loadings based on the size of the samples needed for significance, the factor loading significance of 0.40 for the number of the respondents exceeding 200 allowed us to consider the sample of 245 respondents as significant, given the fact that the obtained Cronbach coefficient α = 0.944 was greater than the theoretical. Based on the internal consistency rule, the obtained Cronbach coefficient α = 0.944 was also within the limits α > 0.9 and had an excellent consistency, which shows the excellent reliability and internal consistency of the scale for the set sample (see Table 1 below).
After the Cronbach coefficient was determined, a check of data suitability for the factor analysis was performed to judge whether the factor analysis was justified for the set assertions. The sampling adequacy was measured according to the Kaiser–Meyer–Olkin measure of sampling adequacy (KMO), as well as the value of the Bartlett’s test of sphericity indicator (Table 2). The calculated value of the sampling adequacy indicator according to the KMO should be either equal to or greater than 0.6—in the research study presented in this paper, that value was 0.922. The calculated value of Bartlett’s test of sphericity is statistically significant if p < 0.05—in the research study presented in this paper, that value was p = 0.000. The calculations showed that both stated parameters were within the prescribed limits, so the data were suitable for further research activities.
Further, in the research study, the values of the correlation coefficients were based on which check was performed to make sure that they were good for factorization, where the condition was that the obtained values had to have a greater part of correlation coefficients r ≥ 0.30. It was concluded that the factor analysis of the data performed in this research study was suitable.
The determination of how many factors should be singled out for the research was performed according to the Kaiser criterion, where the components, i.e., factors, whose value is 1 or greater than 1 are included. According to Table 3 below (the total variance explained), it is evident that the first four components had characteristic values exceeding 1 (11.311, 1.837, 1.579, and 1.277). These four components represent the factors that explain as much as 61.552% of the variance in total.
Additional checks were performed with the aim of determining the number of factors that should be singled out for the research. A scree plot was created, and the breakpoint, the so-called “break elbow”, was sought in the plot, with only the components above that point being retained. In the research study presented in this paper, the diagram broke at the point where the first and the second factors met. As only the factors above that point were kept, this diagram (Figure 2) recommended that only one factor be kept; therefore, no factor analysis was needed.
The checking procedure continued with additional criteria. A parallel analysis was carried out based on the list of the characteristic values from Table 4, and statistical software was used which could generate random numbers using a simulation method. In this research study, based on the 26 analyzed variables, the total of 245 participants in the sample, and as many as 100 replicas, Monte Carlo PCA for Parallel Analysis, version 3, and IBM Statistics SPSS, version 22x64, where, by default, the Kaiser criterion is used and all the components whose characteristic values exceed the value 1 are kept, were used. In this case, the values of the threshold obtained through the parallel analysis were greater on the third factor, so the three factors shown in Table 5 below were kept for further research activities.
The final decision on the number of the factors was made based on the component matrix consisting of the unrotated factor loadings of each of the items (the variables) for the four components (the factors) and the pattern matrix showing the factor loadings for the initial four factors (greater than 0.3). Based on all the performed criteria of the factor analysis, a solution was imposed with a total of three factors. Based on the three-factor solution, the total percentage share of the variance explained by that solution (as is given in Table 5 below) was checked. The three-factor solution explained 56.641% of the variance, whereas the four-factor solution explained 61.552%; the difference was only 4.911%, so the solution with a smaller number of the factors was adopted.
The research study further showed (in Table 6 below) the strength of the correlation between the three factors that were singled out, which were as follows: Factor 1 and Factor 2 = 0.509, Factor 1 and Factor 3 = 0.425, and Factor 2 and Factor 3 = 0.427, which shows the presence of a positive but relatively weak mutual dependence between those three factors.
Table 7 below accounts for the factor loadings of all the variables for the three-factor solution. In this research study, the three-factor solution was founded on the minimum threshold of the factor loading significance (0.30). The main factor loadings of component 1 were given by the assertions Q19, Q18, Q20, Q21, Q17, Q16, Q22, Q14, Q15, and Q23 and are referred to as the Factors Affecting Students’ Motivation; the factor loadings of component 2 were given by Q4, Q2, Q1, Q6, Q5, Q3, Q7, Q9, Q8, and Q10 and are referred to as Brand Uniqueness; the factor loadings of component 3 were given by Q12, Q25, Q13, Q26, Q24, and Q11 and are referred to as The Social Network.
Table 8 below accounts for the structure matrix, i.e., the matrix of the correlation coefficients between the variables and the factors of the structure matrix within the Oblimin rotation.
The factor loading matrix (the pattern matrix) and the structure matrix, as well as one part of the variance explained by the mutual factors (communalities) for the factor analysis applying the principal components analysis technique with the Oblimin rotation of the three-factor solution for all the assertions, are given in Table 9 below.
According to Table 9, the main factor loadings for the components were as follows:
  • for Component 1: Factors Affecting Students’ Motivation: Q19, Q18, Q20, Q21, Q17, Q16, Q22, Q14, Q15, and Q23;
  • for Component 2: Brand Uniqueness: Q4, Q2, Q1, Q6, Q5, Q3, Q7, Q9, Q8, and Q10; and
  • for Component 3: The Social Network: Q12, Q25, Q13, Q26, Q24, and Q11.
Further, in the research, the descriptive statistics of the answers given by the respondents to the set assertions were analyzed. Table 10 below accounts for the magnitudes of the frequencies and the percentage share of the answers to the set assertions. It is possible to see that the highest mark was given for the attitude “I completely disagree” (the maximum disagreement with the set assertion) for the set assertion Q18, and that mark was 10 (i.e., 4.1% of the total of 245 respondents), and that the highest mark (the maximum agreement with the set assertion) for the attitude “I completely agree” was given for the assertion Q10, and that mark was 192 (i.e., 78.4% of the total of 245 respondents). It can also be seen that the lowest mark was given for the attitude “I completely disagree” (the maximum disagreement with the set assertion), which was given in the case of a larger number of the set assertions Q1, Q7, Q8, Q13, Q19, Q20, and Q21, and that mark was 0 (i.e., 0.00% of the total of 245 respondents), whereas the lowest mark (the maximum agreement with the set assertion) was given for the attitude “I completely agree” for the assertion Q11, and that mark was 41 (i.e., 16.7% of the total of 245 respondents). The highest mean value of the marks was that of the assertion Q10, which was 4.7102040816, whereas the lowest mean value of the marks is that of the assertion Q11, which was 3.4693877551. The highest standard deviation was that of the assertion Q24, and was 1.1278285878, whereas the lowest standard deviation value was equally assigned to the assertions Q10 and Q13, which was 0.6220816779.
In Table 11 below, the magnitudes of mean and standard deviation are given for the following components: Factors Affecting Students’ Motivation, The Social Network, and Brand Uniqueness. The highest mean mark was that of the The Social Network component (4.4095238), but the same component was assigned the lowest standard deviation (0.5732739); then followed the Brand Uniqueness component, with the mean mark 4.3836735 and the standard deviation 0.6001868; finally, the Factors Affecting Students’ Motivation component was assigned the lowest mean mark 4.2832653 but the highest standard deviation 0.6899198.
Further, in the research study, both the correlation analysis and the regression analysis of the model were carried out. Figure 3 below shows the Pearson correlation values for all the components of the set theoretical model. It can be seen that all the directions of the connections between the components are positive, which means that there was a positive correlation. The highest correlation coefficient was that between the independent component Factors Affecting Students’ Motivation and the dependent component Brand Uniqueness (0.7230), which was considered to be medium strong, whereas the determination coefficient was 0.522729, i.e., the dependent component Brand Uniqueness could be 52.27% explained by the independent component Factors Affecting Students’ Motivation. The correlation coefficient between the independent component The Social Network and the dependent component Brand Uniqueness was 0.6729, which made it medium strong, whereas the determination coefficient was 0.45279441, i.e., the dependent component Brand Uniqueness could be 45.27% explained by the independent component The Social Network. The correlation coefficient between the independent components Factors Affecting Students’ Motivation and The Social Network was 0.7155, and that correlation was medium strong, whereas the determination coefficient was 0.51194025, i.e., the component The Social Network could be 51.19% explained by the component Factors Affecting Students’ Motivation.
Based on the theoretical systematic model from Figure 1, for the single linear dependences, Table 12 below shows the marks for the statistical significances of the influence of the independent component Factors Affecting Students’ Motivation on the dependent component Brand Uniqueness and the independent component The Social Network on the dependent component Brand Uniqueness (ANOVA, as well as the interpretation: std beta, RSquare (%), the connectedness between the components, the hypotheses, and the regression equation).
In Table 13 below, the multiple linear dependence is rated by the mark for the statistical significance of the influence(s) of the independent components Factors Affecting Students’ Motivation and The Social Network on the dependent component Brand Uniqueness (ANOVA, as well as the interpretation: std beta, RSquare (%), the connectedness between the components, the hypothesis, and the multiple regression equation).
Based on Figure 4, the graphs of the two linear single regression equations and one multiple regression equation in function of the dependent component Brand Uniqueness (Figure 4) were projected.

5. Discussion

There is extensive literature studying the factors upon which students’ motivation depends [2,15,16,17,18,19,20]. The influence of social media on brand development has been a topic researched by numerous authors in different areas, such as customer purchase intention [21], sports [22], mobile social networks [23], luxury fashion goods [11], fashion brands [24], the airline industry [25], and tourism [26]. There, however, seems to be a gap in re-searching the influence of the factors affecting students’ motivation and social networks on the uniqueness of the brand of a higher education institution. The results of this research may help higher education institutions in preparing their plans, strategies, and good practices.
There is a lot of research that proves that a brand image helps a company to stand out and create a competitive advantage [81,82,83,84,85].
Future research directions could be the influence of social networks and motivational factors on brand competitiveness in different regions and cities.

6. Conclusions

In the contemporary world, omnipresent changes influence the way in which many activity branches work, and the higher education sector is not exempt. The significance of the creation of a unique brand for higher education institutions has been gaining importance with the increase in the number of private higher education institutions and competition, as well as, at the same time, the change in the attitude towards education and change in the types and scopes of courses which are offered. It is strategically significant that the internal and external factors on which students’ motivation depend, which inspire the wishes, energy, interestedness and dedication of students, are studied, and meaningful and useful academic activities should be discovered, and an effort should be made to gain an academic advantage from them. Motivational beliefs are becoming very important because they help to determine the extent to which students consider and evaluate their obligations and make an effort to perform them and show an interest in performing them.
In parallel with the above, social networks are becoming an important marketing instrument, and are increasingly being used as a platform for performing marketing and advertising activities, which organizations are increasingly spending their time, money, and other resources on. The role of social networks has gradually evolved from a marketing tool to a role as the source of information for the purpose of analyzing and anticipating buyer behavior and achieving a competitive advantage and superior performances. In the past decades, complex, diverse, and strengthened interactions have developed between organizations and their buyers through social networks. The advantages of different social network platforms are used to expand the geographical reach to buyers and build closer connections with buyers. Therefore, understanding user motivation and social networks’ interactive characteristics is crucially important for designing valuable content, facilitating interactions with buyers, and exchanging content between them.
Designing impressive and valuable content to transform passive watchers on social media into active participants and associates has become an important marketing task. Different social network platforms, such as YouTube, Facebook, LinkedIn, and Twitter, have different purposes and can be used in different situations. Those platforms enable building common interests and values for both organizations and buyers and connecting in the ways that used to be impossible. With the help of contemporary information technologies, it is possible to easily utilize the enormous amount of data from different locations on social networks (blogs, forums, etc.) and in different formats (a text, a video, an image). Thanks to marketing on social networks, organizations are increasingly becoming more and more successful in understanding consumers, determining their needs, and conducting market research, communication, and advertising, because they have the opportunity to easily become knowledgeable of what buyers want and what they think of a product or a service as well. With the growth of competition, the creation of a unique brand differentiating an institution or product from the competition, which implies the creation of the key brand elements (such as a visual expression, a brand personality, and brand positioning), has increasingly gained significance.
Brand uniqueness is built by combining the brand name with other characteristics, such as symbols, signs, logotypes, music, and images. The way in which students experience the elements of the brand of a higher education institution, such as the signs, symbols, and names, that both identify and differentiate a brand from its competition, may have an influence on connectedness with the institution. In a time of globalization and technological innovation, branding higher education institutions is a way to maintain competitiveness in the market and the ability to face numerous challenges.
The research study presented in this paper was motivated by the wish to identify the connections between different factors affecting students’ motivation, social network instruments, and the user satisfaction expressed through brand uniqueness, which may be useful for developing strategies and good practices for achieving loyalty to the brand of a higher education institution. The research study showed that the dependent component Brand Uniqueness could be 52.27% explained by the independent component Factors Affecting Students’ Motivation, which confirmed hypothesis H1 that the level of the Factors Affecting Students’ Motivation influences the level of Brand Uniqueness. It was also established that the dependent component Brand Uniqueness could be 45.27% explained by the independent component The Social Network, which confirmed hypothesis H2 that the level of The Social Network influences the level of Brand Uniqueness. It was also established that the dependent component Brand Uniqueness could be 57.23% explained by the independent components the levels of Factors Affecting Students’ Motivation and The Social Network, which confirmed hypothesis H0 that the levels of Factors Affecting Students’ Motivation and The Social Network influence the level of Brand Uniqueness.
This study successfully determined whether and to what extent individual factors affecting students’ motivation and social networks have an impact on the uniqueness of a higher education institution’s brand, as well as how the factors affecting students’ motivation and social networks collectively affect the brand’s uniqueness. The findings of this study could aid higher education institutions in developing future goals, strategies, and best practices. The impact of social networks and motivating variables on brand competitiveness in different locations and cities could be future research topics.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, A.B., D.K. and T.B.; methodology, A.B., D.K., G.P. and R.Č.; validation, G.P. and R.Č.; formal analysis, R.Č.; investigation, A.B. and T.B.; writing—original draft preparation, A.B., T.B., D.K. and G.P.; writing—review and editing, A.B. and T.B.; supervision, D.K.; project administration, R.Č. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This research received no external funding.

Institutional Review Board Statement

Not applicable.

Informed Consent Statement

Informed consent was obtained from all subjects involved in the study.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

References

  1. Casidy, R. The role of brand orientation in the higher education sector: A student-perceived paradigm. Asia Pac. J. Mark. Logist. 2013, 25, 803–820. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  2. Merchant, A.; Rose, G.M.; Moody, G.; Mathews, L. Effect of university heritage and reputation on attitudes of prospective students. Int. J. Nonprofit Volunt. Sect. Mark. 2015, 20, 25–37. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  3. Nguyen, B.; Yu, X.; Melewar, T.C.; Hemsley-Brown, J. Brand ambidexterity and commitment in higher education: An exploratory study. J. Bus. Res. 2016, 69, 3105–3112. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  4. Cretu, A.E.; Brodie, R.J. The influence of brand image and company reputation where manufacturers market to small firms: A customer value perspective. Ind. Mark. Manag. 2007, 36, 230–240. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  5. Priporas, C.-V.; Kamenidou, I. Perceptions of potential postgraduate Greek business students towards UK universities, brand and brand reputation. J. Brand Manag. 2011, 18, 264–273. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  6. Zhang, M.; Guo, L.; Hu, M.; Liu, W. Influence of customer engagement with company social networks on stickiness: Mediating effect of customer value creation. Int. J. Inf. Manag. 2017, 37, 229–240. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  7. Alalwan, A.A. Investigating the impact of social media advertising features on customer purchase intention. Int. J. Inf. Manag. 2018, 42, 65–77. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  8. Patrutiu-Baltes, L. Inbound Marketing-the most important digital marketing strategy. Econ. Sci. 2016, 9, 61–68. [Google Scholar]
  9. Halligan, B.; Shah, D. Inbound Marketing: Get Found Using Google, Social Media, and Blogs; John Wiley & Sons: Hoboken, NJ, USA, 2009. [Google Scholar]
  10. Gao, H.; Tate, M.; Zhang, H.; Chen, S.; Liang, B. Social Media Ties Strategy in International Branding: An Application of Resource-Based Theory. J. Int. Mark. 2018, 26, 45–69. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. Romão, M.T.; Moro, S.; Rita, P.; Ramos, P. Leveraging a luxury fashion brand through social media. Eur. Res. Manag. Bus. Econ. 2019, 25, 15–22. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  12. Hamilton, M.; Kaltcheva, V.D.; Rohm, A.J. Social Media and Value Creation: The Role of Interaction Satisfaction and Interaction Immersion. J. Interact. Mark. 2016, 36, 121–133. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  13. Malthouse, E.C.; Haenlein, M.; Skiera, B.; Wege, E.; Zhang, M. Managing Customer Relationships in the Social Media Era: Introducing the Social CRM House. J. Interact. Mark. 2013, 27, 270–280. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  14. Holliman, G.; Rowley, J. Business to business digital content marketing: Marketers’ perceptions of best practice. J. Res. Interact. Mark. 2014, 8, 269–293. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  15. Brophy, J. Conceptualizing student motivation. Educ. Psychol. 1983, 18, 200–215. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  16. Entwistle, N. Motivational Factors in Students’ Approaches to Learning. In Learning Strategies and Learning Styles; Springer: Boston, MA, USA, 1988; pp. 21–51. [Google Scholar]
  17. Oliver, R.; Reeves, T.C. Dimensions of effective interactive learning with telematics for distance education. Educ. Technol. Res. Dev. 1996, 44, 45–56. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  18. Justina, R.I. Motivational Factors that Enhance Students Learning/Achievement. SSRN Electron. J. 2015, 4, 323–332. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  19. Steinmayr, R.; Weidinger, A.F.; Schwinger, M.; Spinath, B. The Importance of Students’ Motivation for Their Academic Achievement—Replicating and Extending Previous Findings. Front. Psychol. 2019, 10, 1730. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  20. Loi, R.; Ngo, H.-Y.; Zhang, L.; Lau, V.P. The interaction between leader-member exchange and perceived job security in predicting employee altruism and work performance. J. Occup. Organ. Psychol. 2011, 84, 669–685. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. Zhang, F.; Bae, C.L. Motivational factors that influence student science achievement: A systematic literature review of TIMSS studies. Int. J. Sci. Educ. 2020, 42, 2921–2944. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  22. Wang, J.; Shen, L.; Ren, Y.; Ochoa, J.J.; Guo, Z.; Yan, H.; Wu, Z. A lessons mining system for searching references to support decision making towards sustainable urbanization. J. Clean. Prod. 2019, 209, 451–460. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  23. Green, M.R. The impact of social networks in the development of a personal sports brand. Sport Bus. Manag. Int. J. 2016, 6, 274–294. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  24. Wu, L. Understanding the Impact of Media Engagement on the Perceived Value and Acceptance of Advertising Within Mobile Social Networks. J. Interact. Advert. 2016, 16, 59–73. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  25. Su, J.; Chang, A. Factors affecting college students’ brand loyalty toward fast fashion. Int. J. Retail Distrib. Manag. 2018, 46, 90–107. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  26. Seo, E.-J.; Park, J.-W. A study on the effects of social media marketing activities on brand equity and customer response in the airline industry. J. Air Transp. Manag. 2018, 66, 36–41. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  27. So, K.K.F.; Wu, L.; Xiong, L.; King, C. Brand Management in the Era of Social Media: Social Visibility of Consumption and Customer Brand Identification. J. Travel Res. 2018, 57, 727–742. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  28. Kaplan, A.M.; Haenlein, M. Users of the world, unite! The challenges and opportunities of Social Media. Bus. Horiz. 2010, 53, 59–68. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  29. Peters, K.; Chen, Y.; Kaplan, A.M.; Ognibeni, B.; Pauwels, K. Social Media Metrics—A Framework and Guidelines for Managing Social Media. J. Interact. Mark. 2013, 27, 281–298. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  30. Lamberton, C.; Stephen, A.T. A Thematic Exploration of Digital, Social Media, and Mobile Marketing: Research Evolution from 2000 to 2015 and an Agenda for Future Inquiry. J. Mark. 2016, 80, 146–172. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  31. Chen, Y.; Wang, Q.; Xie, J. Online Social Interactions: A Natural Experiment on Word of Mouth versus Observational Learning. J. Mark. Res. 2011, 48, 238–254. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  32. Moe, W.W.; Schweidel, D.A. Opportunities for Innovation in Social Media Analytics. J. Prod. Innov. Manag. 2017, 34, 697–702. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  33. Gnizy, I. Big data and its strategic path to value in international firms. Int. Mark. Rev. 2019, 36, 318–341. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  34. Saritaş, A.; Korkmaz, İ.; Tunca, M.Z. Use of social media as an innovative channel in marketing communication: A research on automotive sector. Int. J. Econ. Adm. Stud. Ahmet Hamdi İslamoğlu Özel Sayısı 2017, 12, 95–108. [Google Scholar]
  35. Evans, D.; Bratton, S. Social Media Marketing—The Next Generation of Business Engagement; John Wiley & Sons Inc.: Hoboken, NJ, USA, 2012. [Google Scholar]
  36. Kumar, V.; Choi, J.B.; Greene, M. Synergistic effects of social media and traditional marketing on brand sales: Capturing the time-varying effects. J. Acad. Mark. Sci. 2017, 45, 268–288. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  37. Coles, L. Marketing with Social Media: 10 Easy Steps to Success for Business; John Wiley & Sons Inc.: Hoboken, NJ, USA, 2014. [Google Scholar]
  38. Muntinga, D.G.; Moorman, M.; Smit, E.G. Introducing COBRAs. Int. J. Advert. 2011, 30, 13–46. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  39. Järvinen, J.; Taiminen, H. Harnessing marketing automation for B2B content marketing. Ind. Mark. Manag. 2016, 54, 164–175. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  40. Pulizzi, J.; Barrett, N. Get Content, Get Customers: Turn Prospects into Buyers with Content Marketing; McGraw-Hill: New York, NY, USA, 2009. [Google Scholar]
  41. Libai, B.; Muller, E.; Peres, R. Decomposing the Value of Word-of-Mouth Seeding Programs: Acceleration versus Expansion. J. Mark. Res. 2013, 50, 161–176. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  42. Bock, D.E.; Poole, S.M.; Joseph, M. Does branding impact student recruitment: A critical evaluation. J. Mark. High. Educ. 2014, 24, 11–21. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  43. Joseph, M.; Mullen, E.W.; Spake, D. University branding: Understanding students’ choice of an educational institution. J. Brand Manag. 2012, 20, 1–12. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  44. Dörnyei, Z.; Csizér, K. Ten commandments for motivating language learners: Results of an empirical study. Lang. Teach. Res. 1998, 2, 203–229. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  45. Wilkins, S.; Huisman, J. Student Recruitment at International Branch Campuses: Can They Compete in the Global Market? J. Stud. Int. Educ. 2011, 15, 299–316. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  46. Hoffman, D.L.; Novak, T.P. Marketing in Hypermedia Computer-Mediated Environments: Conceptual Foundations. J. Mark. 1996, 60, 50–68. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  47. Bakanauskas, A.; Liesionis, V. Elektroninis Marketingas; VDU Leidyk: Kaunas, Lithuania, 2008. [Google Scholar]
  48. Kotler, P.; Keller, K.L. A framework for marketing. Sloan Manag. Rev. 2012, 32, 94–104. [Google Scholar]
  49. Luna, D.; Forquer Gupta, S. An integrative framework for cross-cultural consumer behavior. Int. Mark. Rev. 2001, 18, 45–69. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  50. Pranulis, V.; Pajuodis, A.; Urbonavičius, S.V.R. Marketingas; Garnelis: Vilnius, Lithuania, 2008. [Google Scholar]
  51. Koltko-Rivera, M.E. Rediscovering the Later Version of Maslow’s Hierarchy of Needs: Self-Transcendence and Opportunities for Theory, Research, and Unification. Rev. Gen. Psychol. 2006, 10, 302–317. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  52. Ramanauskas, G. Evaluation of International Competitiveness. Ekonomika 2004, 68, 91–112. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  53. Ward, E.; Yang, S.; Romaniuk, J.; Beal, V. Building a unique brand identity: Measuring the relative ownership potential of brand identity element types. J. Brand Manag. 2020, 27, 393–407. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  54. De Chernatony, L. From Brand Vision to Brand Evaluation. The Strategic Process of Growing ans Trengthening Brands, 3rd ed.; Elsevier: Amsterdam, The Netherlands, 2010. [Google Scholar]
  55. Keller, K.L.; Heckler, S.E.; Houston, M.J. The Effects of Brand Name Suggestiveness on Advertising Recall. J. Mark. 1998, 62, 48. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  56. Walsh, M.F.; Page Winterich, K.; Mittal, V. Do logo redesigns help or hurt your brand? The role of brand commitment. J. Prod. Brand Manag. 2010, 19, 76–84. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  57. Chen, Y.-S.A.; Bei, L.-T. Free the brand: How a logo frame influences the potentiality of brand extensions. J. Brand Manag. 2019, 26, 349–364. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  58. Jiang, Y.; Gorn, G.J.; Galli, M.; Chattopadhyay, A. Does Your Company Have the Right Logo? How and Why Circular- and Angular-Logo Shapes Influence Brand Attribute Judgments. J. Consum. Res. 2016, 42, 709–726. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  59. Machado, J.C.; de Carvalho, L.V.; Torres, A.; Costa, P. Brand logo design: Examining consumer response to naturalness. J. Prod. Brand Manag. 2015, 24, 78–87. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  60. Aaker, J.L. Dimensions of Brand Personality. J. Mark. Res. 1997, 34, 347–356. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  61. Lieven, T.; Grohmann, B.; Herrmann, A.; Landwehr, J.R.; van Tilburg, M. The effect of brand design on brand gender perceptions and brand preference. Eur. J. Mark. 2015, 49, 146–169. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  62. Phillips, B.J.; McQuarrie, E.F.; Griffin, W.G. The Face of the Brand: How Art Directors Understand Visual Brand Identity. J. Advert. 2014, 43, 318–332. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  63. Henderson, P.W.; Cote, J.A. Guidelines for Selecting or Modifying Logos. J. Mark. 1998, 62, 14. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  64. Rahinel, R.; Nelson, N.M. When Brand Logos Describe the Environment: Design Instability and the Utility of Safety-Oriented Products. J. Consum. Res. 2016, 43, 478–496. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  65. Van der Lans, R.; Cote, J.A.; Cole, C.A.; Leong, S.M.; Smidts, A.; Henderson, P.W.; Bluemelhuber, C.; Bottomley, P.A.; Doyle, J.R.; Fedorikhin, A.; et al. Cross-National Logo Evaluation Analysis: An Individual-Level Approach. Mark. Sci. 2009, 28, 968–985. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  66. Park, C.W.; Eisingerich, A.B.; Pol, G.; Park, J.W. The role of brand logos in firm performance. J. Bus. Res. 2013, 66, 180–187. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  67. Torres, A.; César Machado, J.; Vacas de Carvalho, L.; van de Velden, M.; Costa, P. Same design, same response? Investigating natural designs in international logos. J. Prod. Brand Manag. 2019, 28, 317–329. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  68. Foroudi, P.; Melewar, T.C.; Gupta, S. Linking corporate logo, corporate image, and reputation: An examination of consumer perceptions in the financial setting. J. Bus. Res. 2014, 67, 2269–2281. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  69. Hynes, N. Colour and meaning in corporate logos: An empirical study. J. Brand Manag. 2009, 16, 545–555. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  70. Madden, T.J.; Hewett, K.; Roth, M.S. Managing Images in Different Cultures: A Cross-National Study of Color Meanings and Preferences. J. Int. Mark. 2000, 8, 90–107. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  71. Amsteus, M.; Al-Shaaban, S.; Wallin, E.; Sjöqvist, S. Colors in marketing: A study of color associations and context (in) dependence. Int. J. Bus. Soc. Sci. 2015, 6, 32–45. [Google Scholar]
  72. Labrecque, L.I.; Milne, G.R. Exciting red and competent blue: The importance of color in marketing. J. Acad. Mark. Sci. 2012, 40, 711–727. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  73. Labrecque, L.I.; Patrick, V.M.; Milne, G.R. The Marketers’ Prismatic Palette: A Review of Color Research and Future Directions. Psychol. Mark. 2013, 30, 187–202. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  74. Abril, P.S.; Olazábal, A.M.; Cava, A. Marketing and the Law. J. Acad. Mark. Sci. 2009, 37, 375–380. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  75. Bottomley, P.A.; Doyle, J.R. The interactive effects of colors and products on perceptions of brand logo appropriateness. Mark. Theory 2006, 6, 63–83. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  76. Casidy, R.; Wymer, W. The impact of brand strength on satisfaction, loyalty and WOM: An empirical examination in the higher education sector. J. Brand Manag. 2015, 22, 117–135. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  77. Dholakia, R.R.; Acciardo, L.A. Branding a state university: Doing it right. J. Mark. High. Educ. 2014, 24, 144–163. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  78. da Silveira, C.; Lages, C.; Simões, C. Reconceptualizing brand identity in a dynamic environment. J. Bus. Res. 2013, 66, 28–36. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  79. Suomi, K.; Kuoppakangas, P.; Hytti, U.; Hampden-Turner, C.; Kangaslahti, J. Focusing on dilemmas challenging reputation management in higher education. Int. J. Educ. Manag. 2014, 28, 461–478. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  80. Harsha, P.; Shah, J. Creating Brand Value of Higher Education Institution. Int. J. Manag. Technol. 2011, 19, 152–158. [Google Scholar]
  81. Panda, S.; Pandey, S.C.; Bennett, A.; Tian, X. University brand image as competitive advantage: A two-country study. Int. J. Educ. Manag. 2019, 37, 117–128. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  82. Cuneo, A.; Milberg, S.J.; Alarcon-Del-Amo, M.D.C.; Lopez-Belbeze, P. Private label and manufacturer brand choice in a new competitive reality: Strategic directions and the future of brands. Eur. Manag. J. 2019, 37, 117–128. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  83. Appiah, D.; Howell, K.E.; Ozuem, W.; Lancaster, G. Building resistance to brand switching during disruptions in a competitive market. J. Retail. Consum. Serv. 2019, 50, 249–257. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  84. Hsieh, S.H.; Chang, A. The Psychological Mechanism of Brand Co-creation Engagement. J. Interact. Mark. 2016, 33, 13–26. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  85. Saenger, C.; Jewell, R.D.; Grigsby, J.L. The Strategic Use of Contextual and Competitive Interference to Influence Brand-Attribute Associations. J. Advert. 2017, 46, 424–439. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Figure 1. The theoretical systemic research model.
Figure 1. The theoretical systemic research model.
Sustainability 14 06151 g001
Figure 2. The scree plot.
Figure 2. The scree plot.
Sustainability 14 06151 g002
Figure 3. The Pearson correlation coefficient.
Figure 3. The Pearson correlation coefficient.
Sustainability 14 06151 g003
Figure 4. The graphs of the regression equations in function of the dependent component Brand Uniqueness.
Figure 4. The graphs of the regression equations in function of the dependent component Brand Uniqueness.
Sustainability 14 06151 g004
Table 1. Statistics reliability.
Table 1. Statistics reliability.
Cronbach AlphaCronbach Alpha Based on Standardized ItemsNo. of Items
0.9440.94626
Table 2. KMO and Bartlett’s test.
Table 2. KMO and Bartlett’s test.
Kaiser–Meyer–Olkin Measure of Sampling Adequacy0.922
Approx. chi-square4016.811
Bartlett’s test of sphericitydf325
Sig.0.000
Table 3. The explained total variance.
Table 3. The explained total variance.
Total Variance Explained
ComponentInitial EigenvaluesExtraction Sums of Squared Loadings
Total% of VarianceCumulative %Total% of VarianceCumulative %
111.31143.50343.50311.31143.50343.503
21.8377.06550.5681.8377.06550.568
31.5796.07356.6411.5796.07356.641
41.2774.91161.5521.2774.91161.552
50.9863.79265.344
60.9033.47268.816
70.8383.22372.039
80.7722.97175.010
90.7222.77677.785
100.6332.43480.219
110.5932.28182.500
120.5482.10784.607
130.4471.72086.327
140.4201.61587.942
150.4011.54489.486
160.3821.47190.957
170.3401.30792.264
180.3241.24793.511
190.2761.06294.573
200.2600.99995.572
210.2370.91296.484
220.2360.90797.391
230.2020.77798.168
240.1770.68298.850
250.1590.61099.460
260.1400.540100.000
Extraction method: principal component analysis.
Table 4. The comparison of the characteristic values, the obtained PCA, and the threshold values obtained through the parallel analysis.
Table 4. The comparison of the characteristic values, the obtained PCA, and the threshold values obtained through the parallel analysis.
No. of ComponentsCharacteristic Value Obtained from PCAThreshold Values Obtained through the Parallel AnalysisDecision
111.3111.6532accepted
21.8371.5508accepted
31.5791.4675accepted
41.2771.4020rejected
Table 5. The explained total variance.
Table 5. The explained total variance.
Total Variance Explained
ComponentInitial EigenvaluesExtraction Sums of Squared LoadingsRotation Sums of Squared Loadings
Total% of VarianceCumulative %Total% of VarianceCumulative %Total
111.31143.50343.50311.31143.50343.5038.701
21.8377.06550.5681.8377.06550.5688.434
31.5796.07356.6411.5796.07356.6416.130
41.2774.91161.552
50.9863.79265.344
60.9033.47268.816
70.8383.22372.039
80.7722.97175.010
90.7222.77677.785
100.6332.43480.219
110.5932.28182.500
120.5482.10784.607
130.4471.72086.327
140.4201.61587.942
150.4011.54489.486
160.3821.47190.957
170.3401.30792.264
180.3241.24793.511
190.2761.06294.573
200.2600.99995.572
210.2370.91296.484
220.2360.90797.391
230.2020.77798.168
240.1770.68298.850
250.1590.61099.460
260.1400.540100.000
Extraction method: principal component analysis.
Table 6. The component correlation matrix.
Table 6. The component correlation matrix.
Component Correlation Matrix
Component123
11.0000.5090.425
20.5091.0000.427
30.4250.4271.000
Extraction method: principal component analysis.
Rotation method: Oblimin with Kaiser normalization.
Table 7. The pattern matrix.
Table 7. The pattern matrix.
Pattern Matrix
Component
123
Q190.879
Q180.828
Q200.737
Q210.678
Q170.667
Q160.662
Q220.6580.331
Q140.582
Q150.5320.333
Q230.395 0.375
Q4 0.821
Q2 0.786
Q1 0.763
Q6 0.761
Q5 0.720
Q3 0.669
Q7 0.605
Q9 0.4030.303
Q8 0.3790.350
Q10 0.3530.311
Q12 0.708
Q25 0.3220.699
Q13 0.648
Q26 0.604
Q24 0.443
Q11 0.325
Extraction method: principal component analysis.
Rotation method: Oblimin with Kaiser normalization.
Table 8. The structure matrix.
Table 8. The structure matrix.
Structure Matrix
Component
123
Q190.8880.4810.357
Q160.8280.5960.525
Q200.8260.4410.560
Q180.7970.409
Q220.7740.614
Q140.7430.5380.500
Q150.7370.6390.452
Q210.7350.4170.399
Q170.7250.4070.406
Q230.5260.3060.519
Q40.3950.8220.389
Q60.5070.8090.327
Q20.4720.799
Q10.4830.775
Q70.5590.7360.377
Q50.3510.7320.378
Q30.3660.7180.439
Q80.5980.6590.621
Q90.3690.5500.490
Q100.3690.5150.486
Q260.4300.5010.721
Q120.364 0.718
Q25 0.4720.713
Q130.4480.3060.705
Q240.333 0.505
Q110.3800.3130.442
Extraction method: principal component analysis.
Rotation method: Oblimin with Kaiser normalization.
Table 9. The matrix of the factor loadings, the correlation between the variables, and the part of the variance explained by the mutual factors for the three-factor solution.
Table 9. The matrix of the factor loadings, the correlation between the variables, and the part of the variance explained by the mutual factors for the three-factor solution.
Pattern MatrixStructure MatrixCommunalities
ComponentComponent
123123
Q190.8790.050−0.0380.8880.4810.3570.792
Q180.8280.038−0.1180.8280.5960.5250.646
Q200.737-0.0480.2670.8260.4410.5600.738
Q210.6780.0290.0980.7970.4090.2500.550
Q170.6670.0180.1150.7740.6140.2980.538
Q160.6620.1900.1630.7430.5380.5000.746
Q220.6580.331−0.1230.7370.6390.4520.676
Q140.5820.1640.1830.7350.4170.3990.612
Q150.5320.3330.0840.7250.4070.4060.643
Q230.395−0.0550.3750.5260.3060.5190.386
Q4−0.0470.8210.0580.3950.8220.3890.678
Q20.1190.786−0.1130.5070.8090.3270.653
Q10.1670.763−0.1710.4720.7990.2730.634
Q60.1450.761−0.0590.4830.7750.2260.670
Q5−0.0560.7200.0940.5590.7360.3770.544
Q3−0.0480.6690.1730.3510.7320.3780.539
Q70.2450.6050.0150.3660.7180.4390.588
Q90.0350.4030.3030.5980.6590.6210.383
Q80.2560.3790.3500.3690.5500.4900.620
Q100.0570.3530.3110.3690.5150.4860.354
Q120.105-0.0820.7080.4300.5010.7210.524
Q25−0.2920.3220.6990.3640.2740.7180.601
Q130.212-0.0790.6480.1700.4720.7130.528
Q260.0670.2090.6040.4480.3060.7050.569
Q240.1440.0020.4430.3330.2650.5050.272
Q110.2060.0690.3250.3800.3130.4420.244
Table 10. Statistics.
Table 10. Statistics.
No.AssertionResponse
12345Total MeanStd Dev
Q1The brand of a private faculty creates a clear image in your mind of that faculty, which makes it different from the competition.0
0.0%
2
0.8%
47
19.2%
64
26.1%
132
53.9%
2454.33060.8103
Q2The brand of a private faculty identifies a brand as a unique value.2
0.8%
1
0.4%
35
14.3%
90
36.7%
117
47.8%
2454.30200.7883
Q3The brand of a private faculty enables growth.1
0.4%
3
1.2%
44
18.0%
65
26.5%
132
53.9%
2454.32240.8384
Q4The brand of a private faculty is unique (original) and differs from the brands of other faculties.5
2.0%
0
0.0%
15
6.1%
58
23.7%
167
68.2%
2454.55920.7851
Q5The brand of a private faculty is motivational and easy to remember.2
0.8%
8
3.3%
24
9.8%
69
28.2%
142
58.0%
2454.39180.8550
Q6The brand of a private faculty is easy to understand.2
0.8%
9
3.7%
35
14.3%
81
33.1%
118
48.2%
2454.24080.8889
Q7The brand of a private faculty is well positioned for achieving a long-term success.0
0.0%
8
3.3%
38
15.5%
76
31.0%
123
50.2%
2454.28160.8434
Q8The slogan of a private faculty is convincing.0
0.0%
10
4.1%
29
11.8%
62
25.3%
144
58.8%
2454.38780.8497
Q9The brand of a private faculty is capable of dealing with the competition.5
2.0%
6
2.4%
30
12.2%
71
29.0%
133
54.3%
2454.31020.9242
Q10It is important for the brand of a private faculty that its professors have good contact with the students.1
0.4%
1
0.4%
13
5.3%
38
15.5%
192
78.4%
2454.71020.6221
Q11The brand of a private faculty has good promotion (marketing, communication).9
3.7%
30
12.2%
84
34.3%
81
33.1%
41
16.7%
2453.46941.0263
Q12The YouTube channel has an interesting video material.2
0.8%
1
0.4%
10
4.1%
63
25.7%
169
69.0%
2454.61630.66510
Q13Students’ shared experiences on the faculty’s website are credible.0
0.0%
3
1.2%
12
4.9%
43
17.6%
187
76.3%
2454.68980.6221
Q14The brand of a private faculty has good study programs.4
1.6%
5
2.0%
39
15.9%
81
33.1%
116
47.3%
2454.22450.9023
Q15The brand of a private faculty stimulates scientific research.4
1.6%
6
2.4%
51
20.8%
55
22.4%
129
52.7%
2454.22040.9669
Q16The brand of a private faculty encourages ambition and interests.4
1.6%
9
3.7%
33
13.5%
93
38.0%
106
43.3%
2454.17550.9131
Q17The brand of a private faculty has a favorable price for the tuition fee.2
0.8%
2
0.8%
21
8.6%
64
26.1%
156
63.7%
2454.51020.7554
Q18Satisfaction in learning is the strength of the brand of a private faculty.10
4.1%
18
7.3%
47
19.2%
71
29.0%
99
40.4%
2453.94291.1221
Q19The brand of a private faculty offers the satisfactory knowledge and skills necessary for students’ future work.0
0.0%
5
2.0%
34
13.9%
81
33.1%
125
51.0%
2454.33060.7898
Q20The brand of a private faculty offers good prospects for a career.0
0.0%
9
3.7%
34
13.9%
77
31.4%
125
51.0%
2454.29800.8426
Q21The brand of a private faculty offers students the opportunity to engage themselves in students’ organizations.0
0.0%
3
1.2%
20
8.2%
79
32.2%
143
58.4%
2454.47760.6987
Q22The brand of a private faculty encourages creativity.5
2.0%
5
2.0%
45
18.4%
68
27.8%
122
49.8%
2454.21220.9516
Q23The brand of a private faculty has a good location.6
2.4%
5
2.0%
30
12.2%
38
15.5%
166
67.8%
2454.44080.9547
Q24The Facebook page of a private faculty is of a high quality.9
3.7%
16
6.5%
44
18.0%
53
21.6%
123
50.2%
2454.08161.1278
Q25The website of a private faculty is customized for mobile phones.1
0.4%
5
2.0%
18
7.3%
58
23.7%
163
66.5%
2454.53880.7544
Q26The website of a private faculty is of a high quality.4
1.6%
10
4.1%
31
12.7%
62
25.3%
138
56.3%
2454.30610.9539
Table 11. The factors.
Table 11. The factors.
Factors Affecting Students’ MotivationThe Social NetworkBrand Uniqueness
Mean4.28326534.40952384.3836735
Std Dev0.68991980.57327390.6001868
Std Err Mean0.04407740.03662510.0383445
Upper 95% Mean4.3700864.48166564.459202
Lower 95% Mean4.19644464.33738214.308145
N245
Table 12. The regression analyses data for the dependent variable Brand Uniqueness.
Table 12. The regression analyses data for the dependent variable Brand Uniqueness.
Independent ComponentANOVAStd BetaRSquare (%)ConnectednessHypothesisRegression Equation
Factors Affecting Students’ Motivation[F(1243) = 266.2097, p < 0.0001]0.7230452.27Medium strongH1—accepts the level Factors Affecting Students’ Motivation influences the level of Brand Uniqueness. y = 1.6894949 + 0.6290011 · x 1
B r a n d   U n i q u e n e s s = 1.6894949 + 0.6290011 · F a c t o r s   A f f e c t i n g   S t u d e n t s M o t i v a t i o n  
The Social Network[F(1243) = 201.0202, p < 0.0001]0.6728545.27Medium strongH2—accepts the level of The Social Network influences the level of Brand Uniqueness. y = 1.2774376 + 0.7044379 · x 2
B r a n d   U n i q u e n e s s = 1.2774376 + 0.7044379 · T h e   S o c i a l   N e t w o r k
Table 13. The multiple regression analysis data for the dependent variable Brand Uniqueness.
Table 13. The multiple regression analysis data for the dependent variable Brand Uniqueness.
Independent ComponentANOVAStd BetaRSquare (%)ConnectednessHypothesisRegression Equation
Factors Affecting Students’ Motivation and The Social Network[F(2242) = 161.9446, p < 0.0001]0.7565457.23Medium strongH0—accepts the levels of Factors Affecting Students’ Motivation and The Social Network influence the level of Brand Uniqueness. y = 1.0679202 + 0.4306664 · x 1 + 0.3336176 · x 2 B r a n d   U n i q u e n e s s = 1.0679202 + 0.4306664 · F a c t o r s   A f f e c t i n g   S t u d e n t s   M o t i v a t i o n + 0.3336176 · T h e   S o c i a l   N e t w o r k
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Brzaković, A.; Brzaković, T.; Karabašević, D.; Popović, G.; Činčikaitė, R. The Interface between the Brand of Higher Education and the Influencing Factors. Sustainability 2022, 14, 6151. https://doi.org/10.3390/su14106151

AMA Style

Brzaković A, Brzaković T, Karabašević D, Popović G, Činčikaitė R. The Interface between the Brand of Higher Education and the Influencing Factors. Sustainability. 2022; 14(10):6151. https://doi.org/10.3390/su14106151

Chicago/Turabian Style

Brzaković, Aleksandar, Tomislav Brzaković, Darjan Karabašević, Gabrijela Popović, and Renata Činčikaitė. 2022. "The Interface between the Brand of Higher Education and the Influencing Factors" Sustainability 14, no. 10: 6151. https://doi.org/10.3390/su14106151

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop