Flowers feed bees, and industries feed other industries. Higher education is no exception. Case in point: Colleges support the thriving rankings industry, led by U.S. News & World Report. In turn, this annual ratings ritual supports what one might call the tout industry, which supports colleges by helping them promote their rankings—for a fee.
Colleges have long paid for the right to use the official U.S. News “badge” in print materials. This year, for the first time, colleges must also pay to reproduce the copyrighted image online. The badge includes the magazine’s logo, the phrase “Best Colleges 2011,” and the name of one of 13 categories, such as “Liberal Arts Colleges” or “Up-and-Comers.”
Previously, college officials could download the images for free from the U.S. News Web site. Over the years, some institutions have used the logo online despite receiving relatively low scores in the rankings. Now, only colleges that rank in the top half of a given category may obtain a badge from U.S. News. First they must pay a licensing fee to a third-party company that has an exclusive contract with the magazine.
“More and more of our business is digital now, and we realized that we wanted to have some control over this thing,” says Brian Kelly, the magazine’s editor. “We wanted to give institutions the opportunity to use our brand, but we want them to do it in a responsible way.”
Prior to the release of rankings, on Tuesday, the magazine sent colleges an e-mail that described the new badge “distribution and licensing” process. The message included a link to the Web site of Wright’s Media, a company in Texas that specializes in reprints. “Congratulations on being recognized as one of [the] Best Colleges by U.S. News & World Report,” says a message on the company’s site. “Take advantage of our proven marketing tools to enhance your current marketing campaign.”
Wright’s Media controls and monitors how institutions may use the copyrighted badges. Colleges that wish to slap the logo on Web pages or brochures (or anywhere else) must sign a licensing agreement with the company, which verifies their eligibility. The company also sells framed reprints, plaques, and posters (in black or cherry), as well as lapel pins bearing the “Best Colleges” logo. You know, the kind of thing that a president might wear to a fundraiser.
“It’s a great way to leverage products and services,” says Nicholas Iademarco, director of sales at Wright’s Media.
On Monday, Mr. Iademarco said the phones in his office had been ringing all afternoon as colleges called to place their orders. He laughed, though, when I asked him about the pricing structure, and he refused to send me a rate sheet. “That information is available to the people who need it,” he said.
A college media-relations director was happy to send me the price list on Tuesday, however. It reveals that costs vary depending on how—and where—colleges intend to use the badge. According to the list, colleges may use the image on their Web sites for 12 months for $700. Unlimited electronic use of the badge (including e-mail blasts and newsletters) costs $3,500. Unlimited print use (including advertisements, posters, and banners) runs $5,750.
Unlimited use of any kind? That will cost you $8,200. Colleges may also order customized reprints, in two- or four-page layouts, for between $3,479 and $9,130. A customized “e-print” layout, with a badge, runs $3,000.
Hundreds of colleges a year buy some kind of reprint from U.S. News, according to Mr. Kelly. He says that the magazine splits the profits 50-50, or thereabouts, with Wright’s Media. “It’s a nice little business for us, but it’s not a huge revenue generator,” he says.
The arrangement is hardly unique. The walls of American restaurants, for instance, are loaded with framed reprints of favorable reviews published in magazines and newspapers. In many cases, publications and reprint companies alike make a few nickels on those items along the way. (My editors tell me that The Chronicle does not charge colleges for the use of our Great Colleges to Work For logo, but we do generate some revenue each year from reprints, which are handled by a third party.)
This year, some college officials were taken aback by the news that the U.S. News badges were no longer free for online use. A couple of them told me that their institutions would never pay to put the image on their Web sites. One said he had opted to copy-and-paste a U.S. News logo he found via Google, which is one way around the whole licensing thing.
Others were undeterred by the new arrangement. On Monday, Ann Marie Varga secured the Web-only rights to the badge after learning that her employer, Rollins College, had topped the U.S. News list of top regional universities in the South for the sixth straight year. The image appears in a news release published on the college’s Web site.
“From a graphical standpoint, it’s a nice visual,” says Ms. Varga, the college’s assistant vice president for public relations and community affairs. “And the cost wasn’t significant.”
The college plans to continue mentioning its U.S. News rating in other media—viewbooks, e-newsletters, and a billboard near Orlando International Airport—without using the badge. Those communications are all testaments to the peculiar power of rankings.
For all the criticism of U.S. News in higher education, the fact is that plenty of colleges use those ratings to bolster their messaging. For better or worse, it’s how the marketing ecosystem works.


12 Responses to The ‘U.S. News’ Seal of Approval Isn’t Free
lhincker - August 18, 2010 at 7:53 am
I could care less about using their logo on my website. But it annoys me that US News has increased the questionnaire to more than 500 questions and expects universities to spend dozens of staff hours collecting and verifying data for them. But now we get only once month’s access to the website of data! Many public universities have begun to charge for FOIA requests when the work exceeds a certain a certain level. Maybe we all ought to start charging US News for the information they now get for free from us.
11147066 - August 18, 2010 at 8:53 am
“Marketing tools,” “leverage our product:” why are legitimate and even distinguished educational institutions cooperating with this elaborate scam? Post number 1 is “annoyed” and suggests charging USN&WR for data. That is a reasonable reaction, but it is inadequate. Again, if college presidents stated outright that this illegitimate “ranking” system has no place in helping students to make decisions about college, and then refused to fill out the surveys, USN&WR would have to end its production of this guide. Maybe then we could start a more intelligent discussion of how to support students and institutions in working together in a clear and honest climate.
22280998 - August 18, 2010 at 9:14 am
If we pay more, can we get a higher ranking?
bwebs16 - August 18, 2010 at 9:30 am
Dear Ethics, we miss you already.Time will tell if the nonpaying institutions slowly creep out of the rankings and are replaced by institutions willing to foot the bill. Up to $8200 this year alone (and potentially more in the future if colleges choose to buy in on this marketing tactic)? I won’t get into whether the rankings system was ever all that helpful for prospective students or in comparing colleges, but it is becoming abundantly clear that it’s all about perceived prestige and who is willing to pay for it. Show me the money.
converse - August 18, 2010 at 11:15 am
This new effort on the part of U.S.News to profit from the rankings at the expense of the colleges is disturbing. U.S.News already benefits greatly from the visibility of the rankings, and from each time their badge is promoted in conjunction with them by a college. The publication’s notion that the licensing fees are helping schools to use the badge “in a responsible way” is a laughable excuse for seeking a money-making opportunity. Particularly in a time of economic crisis for education as a whole, schools cannot and should not allocate resources in such a manner. These fees are exorbitant for colleges and the attempt to sell them is offensive. This entire initiative smacks of questionable ethics that further negates the validity of the rankings.
_perplexed_ - August 18, 2010 at 11:42 am
Well at the very least our libraries could cancel their subscriptions…
jhpryor - August 18, 2010 at 12:49 pm
In addition to charging for this logo, US News has also rescinded year-round free access to the database that is full of the information that schools spent hours and hours compiling for US News in favor of a one-month access. Clearly the penny pinchers at US News are not aware of the huge boost they get to their organization by all these colleges and universities doing their work for them at no cost. If US News continues to go down this route, they should consider compensating the institutions for all the effort it takes to complete their requests. And I suspect that would have a much greater impact on the bottom line that lost revenue from logo placement and data access.
cmail4brian - August 18, 2010 at 3:55 pm
Whatever the change in policy is, no one ever has to buy the content. It’s okay to disagree but slamming the decision is not right. I don’t slam my school when they increase my tuition. It is what it is.
jeff1 - August 18, 2010 at 5:12 pm
We as an industry do not have our act together on this and our hands are dirty. We rightly criticize the source of the grime . . . but that does not make us any cleaner!
rickinchina09 - August 19, 2010 at 2:58 am
The USNWR annual college rankings are a sham and this story only serves to substantiate the charge. Institutions of higher learning should take a real hard look at whether they want to engage in such dubious corporate branding despite the potential public relations benefits.The criteria they use is not comparable to The Gourman Report, either. When one compares rankings of national universities, one finds more public universities near the top in this report. And this report uses 15 criterion for selection, and has been around a lot longer. But it doesn’t have the cachet of the USNWR rankings because it is a specialized publication.I’ve often wondered how the list of the top ten can fluctuate every year. How can anyone justify such fluctuation with any degree of certainty?
xtrcrnchy4 - August 26, 2010 at 10:44 am
There is much about the rankings/reputation game that is silly, unethical, and untrue, but it permeates so much of life attached to higher ed. So, teenagers and their parents look to rankings to see what schools have the endorsement of others. Even if they know the rankings are poor sources of analysis, they know others are watching the rankings, others such as grad schools who pay attention to what colleges feed their graduate programs. They also know employers want to hire the most prestigious colleges’ graduates. In turn, colleges and universities, through their faculty and staff recruiting committees, want to hire graduates of these prestigious and highly ranked programs. How many deans and senior faculty have their chests swell with pride when they can introduce the new hire from an Ivy League institution? Don’t some folks at least feel their institution has now been validated by attracting such a lustrous person? Plus, how many student advisors tell their students to aim for those top-ranked grad and professional schools. Have you ever heard an advisor tell a student not to look at a “second-tier instituion” for grad school? Employers of all sorts look at these rankings and are influenced in their hiring patterns, wanting to say they have employees from the top schools. Some law firms even say they will only hire from the Top 10 schools. With all this silly reliance, it’s no wonder so many people pay attention to the rankings, even if, personally, they find them meaningless. It’s right to turn away from it, but it will take more institutional and personal courage than many folks seem to have.
davi2665 - September 20, 2010 at 4:09 pm
Some of the USNWR rankings are a farce. The “reputation” component of hospitals is based on a miniscule number of raters (many who likely vote for their own institution) whose decisions massively drive rankings (e.g. 1 or 2 votes can make huge differences in scores- it’s a popularity contest among the elite) and are not even close to being a statistically valid sampling. In addition, some of the best “data” occur when a hospital is ranked #1 for the 17th year (e.g. pulmonary medicine) but turns out to have only 7 patient discharges over the time period in question (compared with thousands in the major university medical centers); and surprise, surprise, with 7 discharges one has a good shot at 0 mortality, further boosting the rating. The system is a rigged ranking system of the elite, by the elite, for the elite, so it is not surprising that USNWR has decided to cash in on the marketing angle. Too bad that the rankings have precious little to do with rating the best CLINICAL care sites, where you would want to take a family member with a potentially fatal diagnosis. But the rating lemmings continue to run off the cliff striving to maximize their rankings. Pathetic.