Students’ Perception of Private University Brand Value in Croatia—What Has Changed in 5 Years?

Abstract

Increased competition in the higher education market is a key reason for higher education institutions (HEIs) to adopt marketing strategies to remain competitive. Branding is one of the strategies frequently used in this context. This study examines changes in university brand value perception from the student perspective. It analyses internal changes, i.e., those made within the HEI, as well as changes in the external environment, and their impact on university brand value perception over a five-year period. The research used a mixed-methods approach to capture both aspects of the phenomenon. The qualitative research included interviews with four members of a private HEI management board, while the quantitative research was based on a questionnaire designed to identify and evaluate elements of Aaker’s model of brand equity. The research results show that although all dimensions display a slight decrease, the difference in perceived brand value is not statistically significant. Despite the fact that the overall grading shows no statistically significant differences and that the total grading is above average, these results indicate that the efforts made in the last five years to increase the quality of different dimensions relevant to better perception of HEI brand value were not recognized by students.

1. Introduction

Many researchers state that increased competition in the higher education market is a key reason for higher education institutions (HEIs) to adopt marketing strategies similar to those in the business sector to remain competitive. The increasing competition is evident in Croatia. In 2014/15, there were seven public and three private universities, while ten years later there are 10 public and four private universities (two have merged). At the same time, the Croatian population has decreased from 4.2 million in 2014 to 3.8 million in 2024 (Eurostat, 2025). According to the Agency for Science and Higher Education, the number of students decreased from 158,754 to 155,387 from 2022/23 to 2023/24 (2.12%), and this is a long-term trend. Moreover, considering the general standard of one university per million inhabitants, it is clear that competition in the Croatian higher education market is fierce.

Branding is frequently used as a strategy in this context. Some authors (e.g., Beneke, 2011) argue that the primary function of an HEI is to build the institutional brand, which is often seen as a synonymous with reputation and regarded as a prize asset. Alongside its perceived increasing importance in practice, branding in higher education also attracts scientific interest and numerous studies on the topic exist, even in transitional and post-transitional countries of Central and Eastern Europe (Brzaković et al., 2019; Juříková et al., 2021; Marjanović et al., 2023). Besides competition, HEIs in these countries face distinct institutional challenges compared to their counterparts in more developed regions: limited financial resources, infrastructural deficits, complex governance structures, and increasing expectations from all stakeholders (Maringe & Hinson, 2020).

At the same time, Melewar and Nguyen (2014) state that brand perception in the higher education context is still under-researched. Although there are a number of studies related to brand equity from the consumer perspective regarding physical goods, there are far fewer focusing on the service sector, particularly higher education. Existing research on brand equity in higher education mainly explains the application of branding models and concepts from the business context. Most existing studies have evaluated HEI brand equity at a specific point in time (for example, Khoshtaria et al., 2020; Stukalina & Pavlyuk, 2021).

This study adopts a dynamic perspective, examining changes in university brand value perception from the student perspective. As branding is a dynamic and complex phenomenon, it is worth investigating whether and how changes identified in the higher education market over the past five years, as well as broader societal changes, are reflected in university brand value perception. Moreover, some studies claim that monitoring brand equity over time remains one of the major challenges in brand management (Crescitelli & Figueiredo, 2009) and thus requires careful long-term monitoring (Sriram et al., 2007).

In summary, there is a clear research gap in the dynamic approach to HEI brand equity research, and this study aims to bridge this gap by examining changes in students’ brand equity perception over a five-year period. This period is suggested as appropriate to measure the long-term effects of a marketing investment on brand equity (Mirzaei et al., 2011).

The changes in Croatia related to the higher education market and HEI brand equity can be analyzed from various perspectives. This study examines internal changes, i.e., those made within the HEI, as well as changes in the external environment. The most noticeable external changes since the initial research (Ostojić & Leko Šimić, 2021) are the following:

(a)

The COVID pandemic. Although not directly related, the pandemic has brought about revolutionary changes in teaching and learning technologies, popularized online and distance learning, and created a deficit in social life and interactions, which are an important part of university life (Hrga et al., 2026)

(b)

Integration and better-established private HEIs (Eurydice, 2024). The merging of higher education institutions is a new trend in Croatia and can have a range of both positive and negative consequences. The rationale behind such mergers is usually increased resources and capacity, greater market competitiveness, and enhanced institutional prestige (Beerkens & van der Wende, 2007; Pinheiro & Stensaker, 2014; Bogdanova et al., 2016).

(c)

Changes in the labor market. For the first time in two decades, there is a shortage of workers of all kinds, and demand for labor is increasing. As a result, many full-time students are turning to part-time, flexible study, mostly provided by private HEIs.

(d)

Economic changes. According to the Croatian Employers’ Association, the real income growth in the last five-year period in Croatia was about 42%. This means significant improvements in standard of living, which makes private HEIs more affordable than ever for potential students. It is also visible in the increased number of students at the HEI studied here: according to internal documents, in 2020 there were 2051, and in 2025 there were 2315 students enrolled.

(e)

A specific local change was the Zagreb earthquake in 2020, which damaged many buildings and made it necessary for many HEIs, including the one studied in this paper, to prolong the use of distance learning and to have a complete lack of face-to-face communication between academic staff, non-academic staff and students.

Regarding internal changes, we conducted highly structured interviews with four members of the HEI management. They were asked to identify changes made at the university in the last five years according to elements identified as possible factors influencing students’ brand value perception, such as academic reputation, student experience, employability, alumni success, accreditations, marketing and branding efforts, and social proof.

Considering all these changes, this study examines a private university in Croatia and evaluates changes in students’ perceptions of its brand value during the period from 2020, when the first study was conducted, to 2025, with the second study.

The paper is structured as follows: after the introduction, the theoretical framework provides an overview of branding in higher education and models used to measure it, and analyzes sources and factors that can lead to changes in a university’s brand value perception. The research section describes the methodology, sample, and results, followed by the discussion and conclusion.

2. Theoretical Framework

2.1. Branding in Higher Education

Branding is the often-chosen path to institutional sustainability and competitiveness in HEIs. In terms of scientific research, a recent bibliometric study (Kunlola & Naicker, 2025) found it to be closely interrelated with institutional identity and governance, stakeholder perceptions and experiential value, and external reputation and strategic positioning research. In this study, students’ (as HEI’s major stakeholders) perceptions are analyzed from a dynamic perspective, identifying differences within a five-year period.

Branding in HEIs is a long-term process that requires a number of activities and strategies to be developed in two directions: the development of unique and effective communication with existing and potential students on one hand, and analysis of elements that create brand value perception on the other. Despite the fact that the branding concept in higher education is “taken” from the business sector, the complexity of higher education makes branding an even more difficult task than in traditional commercial contexts (Dholakia & Acciardo, 2014).

Another recent robust bibliometric study on HEI branding (S. Liu & Ghasemy, 2025) emphasizes the conceptualization of the university brand, university branding issues in developing countries and the alignment between university rankings and reputation as important themes, guiding future research directions.

Viable HEI branding activities must be able to capture the features of the academic context and not betray its traditional value and should encapsulate the set of expectations and benefits the HEI ensures and, by conveying these via the educational system’s tangible and intangible elements, fulfil the expectations promised to the target audiences (Buono & Fortezza, 2017).

Most of the studies in HEI branding have used Customer-Based Brand Equity, Social Identity Theory and Aakers’ Brand Equity Model in their evaluations of HEI brand value. Keller’s Customer-Based Brand Equity pyramid (Keller, 2013) is based on what customers feel about and think of a brand, starting from brand identity and upgrading to brand resonance at the top of the pyramid, where customers are in such a positive relationship with a brand that they advocate for it. Social Identity Theory, created by psychologist Tajfel (1978), explains that a person’s social identity emerges from the natural process of social categorization, where he/she identifies group affiliations that are recognized as being part of the “self”. The HEI brand value perspective it is used to explain how students form a sense of belonging (social identification) with an institution.

This study applies Aaker’s Brand Equity model (D. A. Aaker, 1998), which defines brand equity as five key asset-interconnected categories: brand loyalty, brand awareness, perceived quality, brand associations and other proprietary assets like patents, trademarks and distribution relationships. The model is considered simple and is widely applied in academic studies. Brand loyalty identifies the extent to which an organization can retain its customers with respect to competition. Brand awareness represents the level of knowledge or familiarity that customers have with a brand. Perceived quality can cause customers to see a brand as reliable and trustworthy. Brand associations indicate the connections that customers have with a brand, and other proprietary assets refers to intangible assets owned or possessed by a brand (patents, copyrights, trademarks, and intellectual property rights), which have no monetary value but add to an organization’s credibility.

2.2. Brand Value Perception Change

Perceptions of an HEI brand value can change over time—they are based on students’ experiences, expectations and institutional strategies. Several factors can influence students’ perception of a university’s brand value, leading to a change in their views. Several studies have identified the following factors:

(a)

Academic reputation, which is usually perceived and measured as a complex interplay between quality of education program, faculty expertise, and research output. All of these factors can enhance or diminish perceived brand value (Klerk & Sienaert, 2016; Kaushal et al., 2023).

(b)

Student experience, which is based on their perception and evaluation of campus facilities, extracurricular activities, campus culture, and student support services (Chen, 2025; B. Liu et al., 2022).

(c)

Employment possibilities, which can be measured by graduate employability rates, internship opportunities, and HEI—industry connections. A number of authors have mentioned future life and/or career expectations as an important element of HEI brand value perception (LeBlanc & Nguyen, 1999; Alves, 2011).

(d)

Alumni success and achievements as well as their active engagement can bolster the university’s reputation. Alumni are often seen as institutional ambassadors (Button Renz, 2010) and providers of student support regarding both recruitment and employment (Chewning, 2000).

(e)

Recognition by accrediting bodies and rankings in national/international lists shape perceptions of HEI brand value. A Poole et al. (2018) study found that high rank reduces prospective students’ perceived risk when considering an HEI to apply to and to attend. Moreover, high rankings make people perceive HEIs as more differentiated in terms of top of the range research quality, teaching excellence, graduate prospects, and campus life quality in their favor (Kethüda, 2024). The same is valid for accreditations.

(f)

Marketing and branding efforts expressed through consistent, authentic communication and marketing campaigns impact HEI brand awareness and perception. Managing the communication process within a university context, while it confers substance and recognizability to the institutional organization, helps bolster its brand value, as perceived by its public (Buono & Fortezza, 2017).

(g)

Social proof such as student testimonials, peer opinions, and social media presence can impact perceptions. Social proof, including peers’ reviews and testimonials, plays a pivotal role in establishing trust among students. Their “purchasing decisions” are largely influenced by the experiences and recommendations shared by their peers (Guan, 2025). In this context HEIs must develop robust social media profiles and actively solicit students’ feedback.

Some of these elements have been studied separately as indicators of brand value perceptions. For example, Sailaja et al.’s (2024) recent bibliometric study provided evidence of abundant studies related to online marketing and brand awareness strategies for HEI. It showed the pivotal role of online marketing and brand awareness in higher education for enrollment, but did not look at other elements that could influence brand value perception or its influence on other dimensions of brand value.

3. Materials and Methods

3.1. Research

The aim of this research is to identify changes in students’ perception of private university brand value in Croatia within a 5-year period.

3.2. Methodology

The research used a mixed-methods approach in order to capture both sides of the university brand value perception phenomenon. The first part of the research was a qualitative study based on semi-structured interviews with predetermined, open-ended questions with four members of a private HEI management board, aimed at identifying internal changes that were made at the HEI within the last five years. The interview guide was created based upon the above-identified factors that contribute to changes in the brand value perceptions of students. The questions were presented in the following form: “What changes in your HEI academic reputation/students’ experiences/… happened in the last five years?”. The interviews lasted about 30 min. They were recorded and transcribed. In the first cycle of coding, words and phrases that related to changes were assigned to the segments of data. To allow flexibility, an inductive coding approach was used. In the second cycle of coding, words and phrases were grouped into the defined factors that can impact brand value perception change found in previous studies. These factors consist of seven groups of changes that are empirically proven to have an impact on HEI brand value perception (academic reputation, student experience, employment possibilities, alumni success and achievements, recognition by accrediting bodies, marketing and branding efforts and social proof). Only those items that were mentioned by at least three interviewees were considered.

The second, quantitative part of the study is based on questionnaire created to identify and evaluate elements of Aaker’s model of brand equity, where brand value is perceived as a function of the five dimensions described above. The whole questionnaire consisted of 38 questions, and most of them were constructed as a 5-point Likert agreement/disagreement scale with the offered statements. The items used for evaluation of each of the dimensions are shown in

Table 1. Dimensions of HEI brand equity.

Dimension	Items
Brand loyalty	- Graduates of this university are proud of their diploma. - Graduates of this university are likely to recommend it to others. - If anyone asks, I would be happy to recommend this university to others. - I have only good things to say about this university to others. - I would like to continue my education at this university.
Brand awareness	- The name of this university is memorable. - The logo of this university is recognizable. - This university is recognizable in the offer of higher education in the Republic of Croatia. - Advertising and promotional materials create a positive image of this university
Perceived quality	- Rate the quality of lectures and lecturing at this university. - Do you think that employers are happy to hire students from this university? - To what extent are you satisfied with your choice of study program? - To what extent are you generally satisfied with studying at this university? - Do you think the cost of studying (tuition, literature, meals, etc.) at this university is appropriate considering the knowledge and competencies gained?
Brand associations	- To what extent does this university give you a sense of belonging to a community? - To what extent do you characterize relations among this university’s students as warm and friendly? - 29 personal characteristics defined by J. L. Aaker (1997) that may be attributed to HEI
Other proprietary assets	- This university offers a social environment with many opportunities to make friends. - This university offers high-quality sports and entertainment facilities for students. - This university has modernly equipped classrooms. - This university offers experiential learning opportunities (e.g., projects, company visits, community service, humanitarian actions) as part of its educational program. - The career center helps students to find jobs. - This university is located in an attractive location. - Academic and non-academic staff are easily accessible to students. - The staff of this university is open and willing to help regarding students’ questions and concerns. - This university takes care of the needs of students. - Students of this university have representatives who represent their rights.

.

Respondents needed about 15–20 min to fill in the questionnaire. The t-test for independent samples was used to identify significant differences between university brand value perceptions between the two groups of respondents.

3.3. Qualitative Research

The qualitative part of the research was conducted with the aim of identifying internal changes in the HEI according to the theoretical framework. The following internal changes within the last five years have been recognized by HEI management members:

(a)

Improvement in scientific output: The university has, for the first time, introduced a PhD study program as a major change that enables vertical education to the highest level. The increase in scientific output is also evident through the rise in high-quality scientific publications by professors. The university has adopted the Open Science Policy and encourages students’ participation in various scientific and expert projects.

(b)

Improvement in service quality: New services have been introduced, such as “students for students” workshops and meetings with psychologists to minimize stress and ensure balance in students’ lives. The university has also started offering sports activities and study tours for students. The “volunteers’ corner” was established to foster students’ volunteering activities, and the Office for International Cooperation has been significantly strengthened, with more intensive work on Erasmus+ mobility. The university library has moved to a larger space, and several research rooms for students were newly built during the post-earthquake reconstruction.

(c)

Improvement in cooperation with the labor market and students’ employability: Current student employment rates are very high (98%). This is further enhanced by obligatory traineeships in some programs (tourism management and physiotherapy), enabled through cooperation with the alumni association and the career development center.

(d)

Improvement in communication with students through digital communication and an AI assistant that helps students with administration and procedures.

However, the interview results show that the HEI does not actively or systematically follow or measure student and alumni testimonials, which could be a valuable source of information on important issues that need to be improved. Still, the interview participants claim they did not notice any important negative testimonials. Another underutilized possibility is the lack of consistent interactive communication and marketing campaigns, which belongs to the group of marketing and branding efforts changes.

3.4. Quantitative Research

Sample Description and Sampling Procedure

The sample in the quantitative part of the study includes two groups of students from the same private HEI in Croatia: one from the study conducted in 2020 and one from the study in 2025. They represent two different cohorts, as the study period is 3 + 2 years. In both cases, 500 randomly selected students (100 from each year of the study) were invited to participate in the survey. In group 1 (2020), 201 students took part in the survey, and in group 2 (2025), 200 students participated, resulting in a response rate of 40% in both cases. The HEI had a total of 2051 students in the academic year 2019/2020 and 2315 in the academic year 2024/2025, when both surveys were conducted, making the samples 9.8% (2020) and 8.6% (2025) of the total number of students at the HEI.

Characteristics of both sample groups are presented in

Table 2. Sample characteristics.

	Group 1 (2020)	%	Group 2 (2025)	%	Total	%
Gender
Female	114	57%	127	64%	241	60%
Male	87	43%	73	36%	160	40%
Age
18–25	159	79%	178	89%	337	85%
26–32	31	15%	9	4%	40	10%
33 and more	6	6%	13	7%	19	5%
Year of study
1st	88	44%	24	12%	112	28%
2nd	31	15%	83	41%	114	28%
3rd	33	16%	47	23%	80	20%
4th	27	14%	19	10%	46	11%
5th	22	11%	27	14%	49	12%

.

The reliability test (Cronbach’s alpha) was used to test all dimensions of the Aakers’ model. The results are presented in

Table 3. Cronbach’s alpha values.

	Cronbach’s Alpha	Number of Items
Brand awareness	0.68	4
Perceived quality	0.79	5
Brand associations	0.95	31
Brand loyalty	0.88	5
Other proprietary brand assets	0.85	10

.

As can be seen from the table, four dimensions show strong reliability. The only exception is brand awareness, but in case of exploratory studies such is this one, it is acceptable if it is equal to or above 0.60 (Straub et al., 2004).

According to Aakers’ model of brand equity, we tested differences between the two groups of respondents according to following dimensions: brand awareness, perceived quality, brand associations, brand loyalty and other proprietary brand assets. The t-test for independent samples was used. The results are presented in

Table 4. Comparison of perceived HEI brand value between Group 1 (2020) and Group 2 (2025).

	Mean	SD	p-Value
Brand awareness
Group 1	3.57	0.49	0.7297
Group 2	3.55	0.55
Perceived quality
Group 1	3.69	0.41	0.4898
Group 2	3.66	0.59
Brand associations
Group 1	3.48	0.57	0.1100
Group 2	3.39	0.61
Brand loyalty
Group 1	4.06	0.80	0.2671
Group 2	3.97	0.87
Other proprietary brand assets
Group 1	3.85	0.66	0.3302
Group 2	3.78	0.72

.

As results in Table 4 show, no significant differences between two groups of respondents regarding separate dimension of brand value were found. Although all dimensions show slight decreases in the second group of respondents (2025), the overall results, i.e., the differences in perceived brand value, are not statistically significant. The largest difference is found in the brand associations and brand loyalty dimensions (0.09 points lower). Moreover, even the ranking of dimensions remained the same, with brand loyalty the highest ranked, followed by other proprietary assets, perceived quality, brand awareness and brand associations as the lowest ranked dimension in both groups of respondents.

As the two groups of respondents are not fully comparable by age and year of study, an additional t-test for independent samples was made in order to identify possible differences in the influence of level of study on students’ HEI brand value perceptions between the two groups of respondents. The results are presented in

Table 5. Comparison of HEI brand value perception by level of study between Group 1 and Group 2.

HEI brand value perception—undergraduate studies
	N	Mean	SD	p-value
Group 1	151	3.61	0.55	0.4592
Group 2	148	3.56	0.59
HEI brand value perception—graduate studies
	N	Mean	SD	p-value
Group 1	50	3.62	0.48	0.1419
Group 2	52	3.46	0.58

.

Obtained results indicate that there are no statistically significant differences (p > 0.05) regarding perceived HEI brand value between the two groups of respondents by their level of study (undergraduate and graduate).

4. Discussion

Despite the fact that the overall grading shows no statistically significant differences and that total grading is above the average (3.75 for Group 1 and 3.67 for Group 2 on 1–5 scale), which can be perceived as satisfactory from HEI management perspective, the results should call for attention. As it can be seen from the qualitative part of the study, a number of efforts have been made within the last five years to increase the quality of different dimensions that should be relevant for better perception of university brand value. However, this has not happened. For example, although library service, career development and physical facilities as supporting brand dimensions were determined as important for creating a strong university brand in some studies (Pinar et al., 2014), it was not recognized in our study by either of the groups. This means that the students do not perceive the efforts made as something contributing to any of the dimensions of brand value. This could be due to several factors. One of them could be external—increased competition from new HEIs that put more efforts into marketing and branding activities to get recognition in the highly competitive market. As was mentioned in the introduction, in a ten-year period three new public and one new private university were established, while the general and student populations showed steady declines. In this case, university management should actively work on identification of its unique selling point and promote it. This supports the definition of HEI brand by Bennett and Ali-Choudhury (2007), which emphasizes the features that distinguish it from others. From the students’ perspectives, the internal changes made in this case might have been perceived as something “already seen” or present in other HEIs (for example, the PhD program), and thus not distinguishing the HEI brand from others. HEI management should consider both functional and rational, as well as emotional and identity-based factors, that contribute to brand equity strength. In addition, scientific output, although proven to be a significant element in improving brand value, might not be as visible to students as it is to academic staff. However, it could become more visible if research results are used and highlighted in teaching. Some HEIs publicly announce the high-quality research outputs and publications of their academic staff through websites, social networks, or information showcases.

In this study, internal factors that should help increase HEI brand value perception among students did not appear to be managed effectively. Students have apparently not recognized any of the efforts—such as the new PhD program, improved library facilities, study tours, or the AI assistant—as significant contributions to any dimensions of brand value, or these efforts were not communicated effectively. Although there are some studies that found no direct impact of marketing communications on HEI brand evaluation (Mourad et al., 2011), a Vietnamese study (Tran et al., 2020) claims that universities should focus on developing their communication and image to build brand trust and create brand loyalty—elements that significantly contribute to brand value. High-quality communication and interaction between academic staff and students were found to be major elements of perceived quality (Pinar et al., 2014), and it seems that they are the major missing points here. The qualitative results from the interviews indicate that the university needs to adopt a more proactive approach to communication with students, alumni, and the external environment, using their feedback and information as market research tools for both identifying important issues to address and as testimonials for promotion. A consistent, interactive, and authentic digital presence is essential for shaping today’s students’ brand perceptions.

The HEI should pay particular attention to student loyalty as an important dimension of HEI brand value. In this study, this was the dimension with largest decline (0.09 points) in the situation where the PhD program was introduced. Although not significant, this calls for attention. Well-known studies emphasize loyalty as a result of student satisfaction and HEI reputation (Helgesen & Nesset, 2007). Those should be systematically investigated and improved.

5. Conclusions

Branding represents a key element of creating HEI recognition and competitive advantage in the dynamic higher education market. While brand generally addresses emotional relation and trust with consumers, in a higher education context it additionally relies on organizational identity complexity and the communication compliance of all internal stakeholders. Perceived quality is one of the most important issues in HEI branding that needs to be enhanced and communicated. It encompasses many different items: from academic staff, through curriculum and infrastructure, to the emotional environment that shapes students’ experience and HEI brand value perception.

This study shows that several different factors can contribute to HEI brand value perception change. They need to be well-understood by HEI management. In our research, HEI management has invested a lot of efforts and resources in improving elements that seemingly did not contribute to brand value perception increase on one hand and on the other, it did not efficiently use positive external changes to improve the HEI brand value. Despite the fact that brand value perception has not significantly worsened in the studied five-year period, in the long run this could change if the proper, above-recommended strategies are not implemented.

Overall, the study has illustrated the complexity of HEI branding in the dynamic higher education market and changes that occur in it. It increasingly functions as a governance mechanism, moving fast and far from the traditional approach where branding was predominantly based on promotional activity. This study focuses on a dynamic approach to changes in HEI brand value perception by students as its prime stakeholders, which contributes to narrowing the research gap and presents useful empirical implications. It also attempts to analyze the relationship between external and internal changes and changes in perceived HEI brand value, which we expect to enrich the existing literature on the topic. In an applicative sense, this study provides evidence on misalignment between HEI management efforts and students’ evaluations, and can be used for the purpose of branding strategy improvement for the particular HEI, and probably also for other HEIs faced with similar challenges.

6. Research Limitations and Further Research

A few limitations of this study should be mentioned. First of all, it used only one specific HEI in the analysis, so the findings might not be applicable to other HEIs. Therefore, inclusion of other HEIs, both private and public, is a possible avenue for further research. Secondly, in order to empirically assess the perception changes over time, it would be necessary to conduct longitudinal research on the same respondents, which is not possible in this case since the study period is five years. Using different respondents definitely creates methodological limitations in this study. Moreover, the two groups of students engaged in research are not fully comparable according to year of study and age. Although the analysis shows no statistically significant differences between different levels of study in either group, other existing differences might have affected the results and their moderating effects are not included in this study, so new studies could include the specific influences of socio-demographic variables on university brand value perceptions.

Although the study uses a mixed-methods approach, the qualitative study served only to explain the possible reasons for no significant changes in students’ HEI brand value perception, despite numerous external and internal changes, and not to capture both the rational and emotional perceptions of HEI brand value among the HEI management.

Since a five-year period is a rather short one, further studies should be made in the future. They might include focus groups of students to explore their recognition of internal and external changes regarding the HEI in order to derive more in-depth insights into their opinions and attitudes. It is also suggested to encompass employees, as internal stakeholders crucially important for HEI branding, and compare their perceptions with those of students. Moreover, since external stakeholders (employers and alumni) represent a significant element of branding in higher education, research on their perceptions could provide valuable insights and different perspectives that could help HEI management in brand value creation.