The Development of Private School Brand Success Model in Thailand
Article Sidebar
Main Article Content
Abstract
This research aimed to 1) study components and indicators of successful private elementary school branding in Thailand, and 2) develop a conceptual framework for successful private elementary school branding suitable for the Thai context. The study employed qualitative research methodology through in-depth interviews with three key stakeholder groups: five private school administrators with over 10 years of management experience in well-recognized schools, five parents whose children had attended private schools for at least three years, and one branding expert with more than five years of consulting experience in educational institutions. Data were analysed using thematic analysis.
The findings revealed three primary dimensions of successful private school branding. First, the Brand Identity dimension encompasses flexible vision, integrated academic and moral mission, unified values, and strong organizational culture. Second, the Brand Presentation dimension includes word-of-mouth communication, conducive learning environment, service excellence, and staff as brand ambassadors. Third, the Brand Equity dimension comprises perception through impressive experiences, perceived quality from tangible outcomes, resonance through distinctive identity, satisfaction from meeting expectations, and loyalty demonstrated through long-term relationships. Additionally, the study presents an integrated framework combining these three dimensions to drive sustainable success.
This research contributes new knowledge to Thai private school brand development, particularly the concept of brand identity flexibility and the role of satisfaction as a distinct component of brand equity. These findings have significant implications for both theory and practice among private school administrators.
Article Details
References
กระทรวงศึกษาธิการ. (2566). แผนพัฒนาการศึกษาเอกชน พ.ศ. 2566 - 2570. กรุงเทพมหานคร: สำนักงานคณะกรรมการส่งเสริมการศึกษาเอกชน.
คณาจารย์สถาบันบัณฑิตบริหารธุรกิจศศินทร์แห่งจุฬาลงกรณ์มหาวิทยาลัย. (2565). อนาคตประชากรไทยจะเป็นอย่างไร. ออนไลน์. สืบค้นเมื่อ 12 กันยายน 2567. แหล่งที่มา: https://www.chula.ac.th/ highlight/79067/#อนาคตประชากรไทยจะเป็นอย่างไร
อรุณี อ่อนสวัสดิ์. (2551). ระเบียบวิธีวิจัย. (พิมพ์ครั้งที่ 3). พิษณุโลก: ภาควิชาการศึกษา คณะศึกษาศาสตร์ มหาวิทยาลัยนเรศวร.
Aaker, D. A. (1996). Measuring brand equity across products and markets. California Management Review. 38 (3), 102–120. https://doi.org/10.2307/41165845
Berry, L. L. (2000). Cultivating service brand equity. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science. 28 (1), 128–137. https://doi.org/10.1177/0092070300281012
Braun, V., & Clarke, V. (2006). Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qualitative Research in Psychology. 3 (2), 77–101. https://doi.org/10.1191/1478088706qp063oa
Chapleo, C. (2010). What defines “successful” university brands? International Journal of Public Sector Management. 23 (2), 169–183. https://doi.org/10. 1108/0951355101 1022519
de Chernatony, L., & Dall’Olmo Riley, F. (1998). Modelling the components of the brand. European Journal of Marketing. 32 (11/12), 1074–1090. https://doi.org/ 10.1108/ 03090569810243721
DiMartino, C., & Jessen, S. B. (2016). School Brand Management: The Policies, Practices, and Perceptions of Branding and Marketing in New York City’s Public High Schools. Urban Education. 51 (5), 447-475. https://doi.org/10.1177/00420859145 43112
Kapferer, J.-N. (2008). The new strategic brand management: Creating and sustaining brand equity long term (4th ed.). Kogan Page.
Keller, K. L. (2008). Strategic brand management: Building, measuring, and managing brand equity (3rd ed.). Pearson Prentice Hall.
Lubienski, C. (2007). Marketing schools: Consumer goods and competitive incentives for consumer information. Education and Urban Society. 40 (1), 118–141. https://doi. org/10.1177/0013124507303994
Patton, M. Q. (2015). Qualitative research & evaluation methods: Integrating theory and practice (4th ed.). SAGE Publications
