<p>Plainsman, I have one other line of questioning. You say “just cause some white kids don’t like it…” in reference to the fearless campaign. Do you actually know or feel that the campaign is particularly unsuccessful with the white demographic, or are you categorizing the entire school as a bunch of white kids? Again, this is not a putdown, I am just interested in hearing where you come from on this issue.</p>
<p>Here is what I mean…I work in a field requiring the development of marketing strategies. We know from extensive research that different things can appeal to different demographic groups. That’s called “generalizing” not “stereotyping.” Every major consumer goods company and advertising agency understands it and employs it. </p>
<p>Why do you think most of the audience for country music is comprised of whites not blacks? It’s a matter of taste and culture. That doesn’t mean all whites like Country. It does mean most of the people attracted to that brand of music ARE white. The same goes for certain fashions, television programming (a running joke among black comedians for years was about the almost all-white audience for shows like Seinfeld and Friends), even food and beverages. Why did those TV shows have such small black viewership that they became fodder for black comedians? Differences in taste, I suppose. Brand of humor, perhaps. I don’t pretend to have the perfect answer, but the existence of cultural differences is indisputable. </p>
<p>I know the “Fearless” campaign was not designed to appeal to students of different races, and I never posited that notion. I think it was designed to try to send some kind of a message about Oberlin College, to better differentiate the college from its peers, presumably to attract students it had not been reaching. All I’m saying is, there is the possibility that the “Fearless” campaign, like music, TV programming, or cereal, could appeal more to certain groups than others, and those groups could be differentiated by race or some other category. I can’t prove that I’m correct; but you can’t prove that I’m wrong. Neither of us has the data in front of us to prove the point. </p>
<p>I was just speculating, because in my field we’re always looking to understand what has appeal to a significant number of members (not all–a significant market share) of various demographic groups. It’s a major key to our sales success. So, my reference to “just because some white kids don’t like it…” is this: Fearless may have had accidental (not by design) appeal to kids in groups other than white kids. Perhaps most white students at Oberlin hated it. For the sake of argument, let’s make that assumption. But did anyone do a scientific poll of students by race to see if students who were not white found it more attractive? No, they didn’t. How do we know the Fearless campaign might actually appeal more favorably to an underrepresented group of students that Oberlin presumably wants to attract in better numbers than it has thus far, if they don’t evaluate it for that purpose? They didn’t, which leaves room for someone like me to speculate about it. After all, Pfizer created Viagra as a treatment for hypertension. They learned by accident that it had “other qualities.”</p>
<p>I suspect that a targeted campaign to minorities or any other specific groups, using “fearless” or any other slogan, would raise hackles.
Perhaps any slogan is problematic, including “think one person can change the world? we do” - they are hokey at best; and reminiscent of the old 7-Up or Avis ads - Oberlin, the “Un-Swarthmore” or “We’re only No. 20, we try harder” - the best advertisement for Oberlin is simply exposure of what it offers and its history - a “show, don’t tell” approach - and the new website and blogs look like a good start to me - but then, I’m not a kid.</p>
<p>Plainsman, your response is well written and interesting. However, I feel that it does not address your original remark that implied that the decision to pull the fearless campaign was racially motivated. When you said “just because white kids didn’t like it,” (which you admit you do not know is the case as compared to non-white kids), you seem to imply that it would not have been canned if only non-white kids didn’t like it. Also, how do you know Oberlin has not done a study on the campaign based on race? They asked each student what they thought and they knoq each students’ race so it is possible. Anyway, seems like a big deal over nothing but you have some noteworthy points.</p>
<p>lavraki, you inferred some things from my earlier post that were not not intended. Sometimes I get a little cavalier with my written responses, especially when I’m in a hurry. I need to take more time, as I did with #22. </p>
<p>Mamenyu: “Oberlin, the Un-Swarthmore.” Hey, I like it! I’m just funning around, and I know you are too, but that one was pretty good. :)</p>
<p>hi Everyone, looks like a new topic has emerged while I was out for vacation! Hmm, I guess I can offer my opinion:</p>
<p>I personally feel that the fearless campaign has great potential as a marketing campaign. As someone who is out there meeting and talking with prospective students and their families (who are really the target audience for the campaign) I am always hearing very positive feedback about it. Many times I have heard the story of someone first learning of Oberlin when they were busy throwing out the piles of college pamphlets sent to them, but were caught by the one completely different slogan: fearless. Many of those students admit that the idea is bit overdone/campy/etc., but they also admit that it made them open the book and learn more. Most of the admissions staff have received similar feedback. Though it definitely has some issues with it, the fearless campaign seems to be working as a marketing tool to prospective students.</p>
<p>That is ultimately what a marketing campaign is supposed to do, make someone want to learn more. I agree with mamenyu that the best way to teach people about all that Oberlin has to offer is by exposure and showing not telling, but to rely solely on that method is simply not plausible. Fearless, and any marketing campaign really, is not necessarily geared towards those students who already know of Oberlin enough to visit the website or more, but it is aimed at reaching new audiences. It’s goal is to get students to apply who didn’t even know of Oberlin at the beginning of their college search. Increasing Oberlin’s name recognition and base is vital for ensuring a diverse student body, an economically healthy institution, that our diplomas are worth something, and much more. A college must market itself properly to accomplish this. </p>
<p>That all being said, I also recognize that many students, faculty, staff, alumni, and others, have some serious issues with fearless, and I can understand why. Of course there will always be those that are against any change, but there are still plenty out there who have valid objections to the campaign. Much of that stemmed from the adoption of fearless, and that much of the campus community felt they did not have adequate input, if any at all. I was not involved in the process and can’t give insight into it, but clearly many people have been rubbed the wrong way. And if your campus community is not behind your brand/image, it is doomed to fail. </p>
<p>This is a very sensitive and interesting topic, and I could write much more, but for now I have to run. I’m sure this will spur enough conversation for now anyways.</p>
<p>^
I couldn’t agree more. A marketing campaign is not aimed at people already there or who know all about the place from parents, siblings, friends, etc.</p>
<p>I’m glad you recognized the possibility that such a campaign could help to get more diverse students to at least read about the school–if it is employed correctly. That was my only argument.</p>