What to expect at a university comms/marketing position?

Just saw your update. The use of "brand" and "branding" in the job description probably means you'll be ok using that language with the dean who saw the need for this position, but definitely don't disregard what everyone's saying about general aversion to that word in academia. Job ads don't get run by the faculty, so I guarantee you there are people already rolling their eyes and bracing themselves for the ways in which this position won't fit into their culture. Yes, administrators and marketing offices generally love the word "brand"; faculty really really don't.

Thinking about this a little more... I think one major tonal shift you need to be ready for is that you're now support staff. In your ad agency job you were the expert. Companies hired you because they saw a need for what you provided and they were willing to listen to your expertise. Your expertise in how to market things is no less in this new position, but the way you fit in is drastically different. In your new role, the faculty are the experts. Your job is to support them by showcasing their expertise. That means you work around their schedule and don't have the power to "demand" anything from them. You may be able to get away with "Dean X asked me to get this story ready to go out by Monday, is there a convenient time I could stop by to talk with you?" But something like "I need a paragraph sumarizing your current research and I need it by Monday," will get you nothing but pushback. Like the departmental secretaries, your job is faculty support, and going into it with that attitude is a lot more likely to smooth your way.

I agree with both comments above. I would add that university people really appreciate thoughtfulness and depth, and especially appreciate someone who gets the academic culture (or is clearly interested in doing so as opposed to trying to bring a corporate approach). Depending on the faculty, independence of thought, and the ego that comes with being at a top-level university, can be formidable obstacles to doing the traditional strategic marketing and communications you're used to. Talk to lots of people, from deans through faculty to administrative staff. Make sure you understand what they think of the place-- do your own little SWOT analysis. After a while you'll probably find the ideas and attitudes everyone has in common, and there's your starting point for perpetuating or shifting the brand. Also, smart independent people make great stories. Something else to ask early and often from everyone is what they want from you-- do profs want more publicity? (Does their work merit it?) Do the deans want more students? Better faculty? Different students? Are there perceptions they're expecting you to fix? What if those perceptions end up being true-- will marketing goals influence the academic program? I've been in this line of work for about 15 years, and I'm happy to be a sounding board or to offer advice-- just MeMail me.

Seconding what everyone has said so far, especially about the MUCH slower pace of academia. Going into this with the goal of making big changes right away is just going to put everyone's hackles up. You need to spend a good amount of time getting to know the pace, culture, and goals of your new environment. Go in with the attitude that you are there to learn from them, because you are. You know marketing best, but they know academia and you have to be very careful not to convey the attitude that you're there to fix what they've been doing. Float your ideas as things you'd like to try, not the way things should be. Listen 10 times more than you talk. And keep your eyes open for cultural norms in things as seemingly innocuous as fashion or transportation. I used to work with a similar transitioning-from-industry-to-academia coworker, and things as simple as his wearing polo shirts, driving an SUV, and trying to get everyone to wear "team" t-shirts for a photo highlighted how badly he fit the culture. Absolutely standard in a corporate environment, but anathema to most of the faculty and students he worked with. Just saw your update. The use of "brand" and "branding" in the job description probably means you'll be ok using that language with the dean who saw the need for this position, but definitely don't disregard what everyone's saying about general aversion to that word in academia. Job ads don't get run by the faculty, so I guarantee you there are people already rolling their eyes and bracing themselves for the ways in which this position won't fit into their culture.

Just some generalizations about faculty mindset, in case these are useful - Administrators and faculty are different, and in most places this is a huge divide to be aware of and diplomatic about. Administrators will (mostly, probably) be moved by business-speak, "branding," etc, whereas faculty may not be -- and may be automatically leery of anything that feels like an administrator imposing businessy ideas. (kythuen has a good expansion of this idea.) Possible substitute for the idea of "branding": the idea of "reputation." For faculty, career standing and advancement is all about your scholarly reputation. Note this has only to do with how other faculty in your field see your work... which journals it's published in, etc. It has nothing to do with how the public sees you -- and in fact, being a public figure ("a popularizer") can often harm your scholarly reputation. Some academics will want their work to reach the public, but for others, they may not be interested in that at all. (The public is not equipped to judge their work. Only other scholars are.) But... if publicizing their work could attract more money for books or travel to conferences or a sabbatical, or more support for their grad students, or a new faculty line (i.e., let them hire a new professor) for their department,... those things are valuable. Ditto for attracting undergrad students. Number of students, who cares; that's an administrator concern. But quality of students, now I'm listening. Most faculty at research institutions are much more focused on grad students than undergrads, but will be interested if you can draw more of the brightest/academically interested undergrads. (Or more for whatever their pet extracurricular is - eg some faculty will care a lot about the chess team or whatever.) So the school's reputation, as perceived by bright/academically-minded kids, will be of interest to faculty. So - faculty care about their research. In meeting a faculty member socially, it's normal to ask what their research is, and try to remember broadly what people work on*. Their research is their identity. For faculty, typically their own (hyper-specific) research is the most important thing that defines them, then of secondary importance is either (a) the state of their field, or (b) teaching. Another thing to be aware of is that different disciplines have different sacred principles/presuppositions - for example, in one part of the humanities, "be logical" might be most important, and in another part, "be inclusive of different oppressed groups' perspectives" might be. And faculty tend to be so immersed in their own field's presuppositions that they forget there are other ways to be. Thus, misunderstandings or antagonism. (Note what terms people use to praise work they think is good - that will give you a clue about what their field values.) And in academia people have long memories -- so you may encounter factions that have deep mistrust of each other based on something that happened 25 years ago. * = caveat about asking about people's work. Certainly ask socially, with the attitude of an interested outsider - your attitude should always be that scholarly work in the humanities is interesting and important. Then remember what you can for the next time, but don't sweat the details too much. BUT - if you're ever describing someone's work in print, triple check with them to get the details right. There will be details you can't imagine would be important, but in the context of their field, those details matter hugely and if you get them wrong, you'll make the person feel humiliated or hard done by, or you'll make them think you are a dummy. Technology - especially older faculty may be very averse to technology. In philosophy for example, I never gave a presentation using Powerpoint, and didn't need to use online course software like Blackboard, etc. And I certainly diddn't need to use Facebook etc. And if I were a tenured faculty member, nobody would ever make me learn that stuff. I could just say no, and that would be it - I know people who are still just using photocopies of materials they made 20 years ago. So you may encounter people who are more out of date technologically than you imagine, and again you'll want to bring the conversation around to how the tech stuff can lead to goodies they value - money to advance their research, etc. (Not everybody is that way, by a long stretch. But you'll encounter a wide range.) Scheduling - Be aware that faculty do a lot of their work away from campus. Over summer and breaks, there is no expectation that faculty will be around - they may go to France to hole up in an archive all summer, or whatever. Plus people take sabbaticals. So in some cases you may find that the person you want to reach is just unavailable for literally months. And faculty are FLAKY about anything deadline-related. (They are enabled in this by every professional process they encounter - easily extended deadlines are just a fact of life.) So you will need to give lots of reminders of meetings/deadlines/etc, and will still need to follow up to reach stragglers. In-person meetings - If you're able, dropping by to talk to someone in person is a great way to defuse potential conflicts. Faculty are often in their offices with the door open (this varies a lot), so depending on your schedule and the physical layout of the campus, it may make sense to drop by and meet people/talk things over briefly in person. This can avoid stupid misunderstandings and people feeling like you've taken a side in some debate you may not even be aware of, and gives you a chance to underscore your interest in the correct thing (humanities research! how can I help you to get more support for your research, while maintaining the high standards we ask of students?). Social hierarchy - Zizzle's point about academics valuing process, and Ms Molly's point about faculty being receptive to your contributions if they are pitched as "faculty support" is spot-on. Academia is very hierarchy-conscious - for example be careful to get people's titles right, "assistant" vs "associate" professor is a huge deal. This carries over to the administration-faculty relationship. There's an idealized picture, that has a strong grip on the faculty mindset, of the university as an entity run by the faculty. Once upon a time, administrators would have all been faculty members doing admin only as a side job, while still teaching. (Or this is the idealized picture.) In these downcast days, faculty have grudgingly allowed some of these tasks to be done by pure administrators... but the baseline is still that faculty should be holding the reins. Every action by an administrator is regarded through this filter - did s/he properly respect the ownership/position of the faculty by asking for/incorporating input first?

You will need to rebrand the word "brand," many humanities faculty will loose their shit if they catch a whiff the application of that word to their enterprise. I have seen it happen before.

In academia, web resources and activities are much more part of the reality of the organisation than in most kinds of organisations. The web is not just a high-tech brochure or sales catalogue—some of the stuff of the web is as much part of the reality of the organisation as what goes on in the building. If you are going to propose radical changes to the web presence, you need to bear in mind where all this real stuff is going to fit in, rather than just sweeping it aside to make room for a pure marketing site. Similar things apply to social media profiles etc. (Parts of) academia are much more advanced than most organisations in terms of people actually engaging using social media rather than the organisation "putting out messages". Attempts to reign this in in the name of consistency ("all tweets go through me") is misunderstanding the culture. Generally, you need to think about the individual professors etc. as having individual networks—one of the reasons that they have been employed is that they bring those connections etc. into the university, and a lot of this networking takes place in a public space. There is an element of this which is more similar to talent-driven organisations than product-driven organisations, particularly at the research level. Think "here is Prof X. who has this profile and does these things and is working right here at this University" rather than "here is this university and we do these things and btw interchangeable Prof. X has been hired to do them" (like with marketing a film: you don't say "come to New Film to see top WARNER BROS. stars", you build up the film company's reputation from the talent outwards).

Hi. Only tangentially in marketing, but spent 10 years running web communications (and, de facto, communications) for a well-regarded public health school. What everyone said above: It will not be fast, unless there's high level political will and a willingness to hit the accelerator at every roadblock thrown up. It took me roughly six years to get the org where I needed it to be; in a private institution it would have taken 1-2. And faculty... well, they're special snowflakes. Some are great, smart, want what you're selling, or at the least see you as beneficial if they're getting something out of it. Others are cranky, insular, and get their hackles up at the slightest sign of anything from outside academia showing up. And everyone has Machiavellian power games they're part of, because that's how the system works. And I'll add in: You won't have any resources. Because academia is poor, or really, doesn't know how to correctly spend on marcom. Does it mean you can't succeed? Absolutely not. I got to work with the university marketing office the last half of my career, which had been created from scratch, and they did some incredible stuff given the constraints they were under. And I'll say that I didn't do such a bad job myself, though I won't say it too loud because it was a team effort etc. My advice: 1. Identify your high level sponsor (dean, VP, etc.) and make sure they are 100% on board with the plan. Keep them in the loop. Arm them with what they need to advocate for you. 2. Identify other strategic allies. People who want what you want, and have some power to help you get it done. 3. You shall know the truth, and you shall back it up with data. Quant, quant, quant. Real data always beats anecdata, and it will put those who oppose you in the position of relying too much on their own anecdotes if you hold all the data. Just don't play the card too much, too often, or salaciously. Be very, very targeted. 4. Smart, but humble. Be clear you have ideas. Show you'll listen to others' ideas and incorporate them. Treat the organization as one big client. And be able to identify the HIPPO (highest paid person in the organization) on sight. 5. Show results. Constantly show results. Quant and qual. Newsletter subscriptions are up? Trumpet it. A faculty member got press coverage because of the stories you pushed? Bang that drum. Applications are up because of your help crafting a campaign for student services? Buy a friggin' "Mission Accomplished" banner. OK, this is all over the top, but I hope you see my point -- you have to show value, constantly, in ways that people understand and can get behind. 6. Most importantly, fuck the haters. Work with them. Do not freeze them out. But there will be those who just don't get it and will whine and complain. Don't worry about them. I ran a survey of faculty and students to get ideas for budget cuts. One faculty member said "the web should be given to the department that runs the web best." It hurt, but it was one response. And that was against multiple students saying "you have to expand the web -- and do it more like the main office does it." Good luck. Academia is tricky. But if you get used to the slower pace, you'll find it's a lot of fun. You're changing the world, and you're going home at 5pm every day. Can't beat that.

I worked at a low level in university marketing early in my career, and my experiences were...um...sub-optimal. That doesn't mean good experiences are not there to be had, of course. But one factor that complicated things was that university marketing positions--your staff, in other words--often don't pay very well. So you're going to have a harder time recruiting and retaining good people. And if you are taking over an existing staff, I would definitely expect there to be some friction. People tend to "nest" in university staff positions and get set in their ways (in my experience) and can be intensely territorial about the smallest things. I don't know what your educational credentials are, but you will be asked about them, and probably judged on them, by some people, regardless of what you have accomplished since graduation. Others have mentioned allies, and I would say find allies that are guides to the culture there. Every university has its own culture, quirks, history and taboos. Become an expert on the ones at this school and you will avoid many landmines.