<p>
</p>
<p>Well, isn’t that the most basic question? And a question that Andy Warhol answered. A bit of fame and adulation is simply too hard to turn down. Why did the “scientist-student” from Virginia who was rebuffed by Princeton subject himself to the USA Today article? Because he and his family thought it would look GOOD.</p>
<p>People do have a choice: decline to participate! People who voluntary put themselves on display cannot claim to be a victim of the marketing campaigns.</p>
<p>I agree that the people who are agreeing to the campaign aren’t marketing victims. I just think that they lack good sense. Indeed, the fact that people apparently are agreeing to being in such a marketing campaign that I think would put them at risk adds to my bad impression of the university that’s sponsoring the campaign. Seems to me that the university doesn’t value highly critical thinking skills in its students or administration.</p>
<p>Before the campaign, I’d never heard of the university. Now, I have a bad impression of it. It doesn’t sound like a university that I’d want to be associated with or to have my S associated with. Sounds like a place for the conceited, superficial and unreflective.</p>
<p>It is quite deplorable that universities are increasingly driven by “market pressure”. Certainly, it is much more cost effective to advertise than to improve its education mission. That all universities participate in marketing to some degrees will inevitably bring more and more outlandish gimmicks as demonstrated here.</p>
<p>We got lots of mail from Wilkes last year. I think it was because my son was a mid-ranked tennis player (good - but not good enough for most D1 programs).
The letters and flyers from the tennis coach were quite unique. They talked about playing rock music between sets and other such nonsense. Playing tennis at Wilkes is fun and the players are stars on campus! You will be cheered and see your name in lights! What a load of you-know-what. But maybe it worked for some…</p>
<p>Hmmmm…not a good look for Wilkes…though I’m not sure I’d agree that the campaign has anything to do with the ‘me’ generation. Appealing to the desire for Fame is about the wider cultural pursuit of Fame, the American obsession with celebrity on any level.</p>
<p>FWIW, I thought shoe had some valid points about the way traditionally ‘Famous’ student athletes are recruited with promises of big-time ‘Fame!’. </p>
<p>Also, publically criticizing a lesser school may not be the best look for a UVA Dean. So says me anyway.</p>
<p>I agree that it’s creepy, pushy,invasive, etc. </p>
<p>But-- I also think sly-vt is onto something with the 15-minutes-of-fame thing. Just look at all the teenagers who seem to actually WANT to be on tv, on display, etc. I don’t get it! On MTV there’s some show where a group of high school kids let cameras follow them around everywhere, the Super Sweet 16 show (ugh!), Growing up Gotti (ugh! again) and a bunch of other reality shows. You’d think they’d be appalled to have the world watching, but it doesn’t seem to be the case. And yes, this is an amazingly old-fartish sounding rant, but I think it’s bizarre…</p>
<p>And isn’t it interesting that the subjects of these shows never seem to recognize that they’re being portrayed in a negative light? They’re shown to be superficial, ridiculously materialistic, and mean-spirited - yet they either don’t realize it, or are so supremely comfortable in their own skins that they just don’t care. I’m with you, lsp72 - old farts of the world, unite!</p>
<p>
Calling a marketing campaign “interesting and clever” and being in awe of the money being spent is not being critical.</p>
<p>I’ve seen quirky marketing work beautifully and seen it flop because the audience targeted didn’t react as intended, which was the point of asking what parents thought of the campaign.</p>
<p>LSP, you’re echoing what that New York Magazine article said…that the younger generation realizes that privacy doesn’t truly exist anymore and everyone can have an audience (and can take advantage of that). </p>
<p>I thought I had at least 20 years to go before someone would call me an “old fart”, but I guess the title is deserved when it comes to the privacy issue. :(</p>
<p>Interesting and clever it is but I think the danger of a back-fire with this campaign is real although I can easily see the intention of the marketing strategy - it certainly sends a message that is consonant with Wilkes mission and overall strategic enrollment plan - “to be a nationally recognized independent university where intense personal engagement” is the hallmark of the academic experience. Same goes for the web site design - students and parents are constantly asked to “be sure to take advantage of our site personalization features to get a view of the University that is tailored to your interests and needs.” The campaign also underscores the quirkiness of Wilkes University and capitalizes on what must be one of its great assets, namely a quirky sense of humor - has to be when it is named after a man known for being one of the ugliest yet greatest wits of his time, as well as a rake:
“John Wilkes: Rebel, Free Thinker, “Thorn in the side of the British Parliament”.”</p>
<p>The campaign just may be a tad too quirky for many of us.</p>
<p><a href=“http://www.wilkes.edu/pages/139.asp[/url]”>http://www.wilkes.edu/pages/139.asp</a></p>
<p>DeanJ:</p>
<p>Did you post this item on the student forums? It would be interesting to see if there is a generational difference of opinion about this sort of out-there advertising.</p>
<p>I think it’s “society in general,” not just kids (look at all reality shows and online blogs) but I don’t it’s a good norm to grow up with.</p>