Andrew,

I believe that everyone understands that the acronym is intended to be Missouri S&T. However, generally most acronyms include ALL of the words in the title. Despite the large scale (sarcasm) $200k marketing campaign, I believe many people will refer to it as MUST.

Working in industry daily for the past 10 years tells me that $200k won't even scratch the surface of a full-fledged marketing campaign to grind Missouri S&T into everyones brain. With that being said, when there is a marketing budget over-run, who will fund it? Or, will the Chancellor opt for watered down campaign that won't achieve his initial goal of attracting more students to MUST?

As a side note, in my opinion, the "science and technology" addition is the worst possible choice of any of the choices.

Dave:

You're correct: a $200,000 budget for marketing is minuscule by any standards -- especially by corporate standards. As a side note, we haven't publicly discussed any dollar figures for a marketing campaign. The dollar figures we have discussed have been related to the cost of implementing the name change. Marketing the university, regardless of the name, is a separate issue.

Missouri Science and Technology, whether or not it contains the word "University" sounds like a Vo-Tech school to me. I graduated in 1991, but when people ask me where I went to college, I've told them I went to the Missouri School of Mines. I will continue to do so.

Andrew,

The "cost of implementing the name change" and "school marketing campaign" may need to be defined with fuzzy logic. Where does one end and the other begin?

This is what I assume is covered in the "cost of implementing the name change" billboards, posters, minor website adjustments, stationary, signage, course catalogs, pamphlets etc. Is this right so far?

In my opinion, it is going to take far more "marketing" budget than typically allocated to educate the name change to MST from UMR to the world. For this MST needs an integrated marketing strategy. For example, Mass E-mail marketing to guidance counselors during spring reflecting the change, MAJOR Web Development, Search engine media development, etc. at key points in time.

My point is that there will need to be an exponential increase in MST's marketing budget in SP'08 just to get the word out that UMR changed. Who will pay for that?

Over the years, I've been to every state in the Union exepting Hawaii and often wore my UMR T-shirt. On two separate occasions I had strangers come up to me and tell me what a good school I went to. Once in Kentucky and once in New Mexico. On the other hand, I think the University of Missouri gets more out of the relationship than UMR, as at least twice I've seen items credited to U of Missouri that should have been credited to UM-Rolla. My preference would be to do away with any name with University of Missouri in it, go back to MSM or how about Rolla Inst. of Tech. (RIT) - naw we might get confused with Rochester Institue of Techn. which made the Doonesberry Cartoon, or Missouri Inst. of Tech. naw we might get confused with MIT Missouri Illinois Tractor. I've got it Missouri Tech, like Georgia Tech. now Georgia tech has a good reputation and there would be no confusion problems.

To avoid some of the pitfalls pointed out in the prevcious comments, I would suggest "Missouri Technolgical Institute" which could be abbreviated as MTI, or if this is felt to be a "copycat" of MIT, it could be MTU-- Missouri Technological University

"Missouri University of Science and Technology" is Great!! ... But why not M.U.S.T. or MUST.edu?

M.U.S.T. seems a lot more obvious and appealing than "Missouri S&T" or "MST" - just imagine we are supporting our athletes or trying to talk to our neighbors. What do you think?

M.U.S.T. would also potentially save much of the marketing campaign money... the catchy name itself would attract millions of news!!

Go MUST.edu !!

Other USTs:

(1) HKUST: http://www.ust.hk
(2) UST of China: http://www.ustc.edu.cn/en/
(3) MUST news link: http://www.kansascity.com/mld/kansascity/news/breaking_news/16962135.htm?source=rss&channel=kansascity_breaking_news

Dave, you wrote:

This is what I assume is covered in the "cost of implementing the name change" billboards, posters, minor website adjustments, stationary, signage, course catalogs, pamphlets etc. Is this right so far?

Correct, plus sports uniforms.

In my opinion, it is going to take far more "marketing" budget than typically allocated to educate the name change to MST from UMR to the world.

I agree, and so do the decision makers on campus.

For this MST needs an integrated marketing strategy. ...

That is in the plans.

My point is that there will need to be an exponential increase in MST's marketing budget in SP'08 just to get the word out that UMR changed. Who will pay for that?

We plan to raise private funds to cover some of these costs. Some of the costs could also be covered through reallocations -- shifting current marketing funds. As you mentioned in your first comment under this subject, $200,000 won't begin to address what we need to market this change correctly. (A friend of mine at a major comprehensive university, who formerly led marketing for Harley-Davidson, told me that his university's marketing budget was less than H-D would spend for a weekend HOG -- Harley Owners Group -- event.) So we know what we're up against. UMR has a reputation for squeezing everything we can out of a dollar, and we will do as much as we can with what we have, or what we receive from donors who are willing to back this effort.

Hey Andrew, I think it's difficult for anyone, especially engineers, to accept change with something they have an intimate relationship with.

That said, as much as I would've loved to go back to MSM, I guess MST will have to do. The fact that we will now officially be known as a technology university is great. It's about time.

Good luck with the trolls.

Andrew, I applaud you for responding over the weekend to these posts especially since you are the only one who is making an attempt to try to explain the situation. However, as Dave pointed out above, I do not believe no matter how you tell the students that the "official" abbreviation is MST, the students will use MUST. The students will use it to such a manner that no matter how much money is poured into the name change (albeit billboards, brochures, etc.), it will not prevent colorful uses of MUST. For example, one could say that they are going to a MUSTY university where the life was pretty MOLDY and CRAPPY.

I did read the faq before I commented and one of the concerns that I have is that UMR defined what technology is. Item 5 on the definition says that liberal arts and humanities thrive so as to compliment and lend context to the technological strengths of the university. I know that UMR is mainly engineers, scientist, biologist, etc., and I am one of them; however, the way that this definition is written, it makes it sound as if those disciplines are only there to serve those that are scientist and engineers. The definition gives the perception that anyone who receives anything, other than engineering or science, works for or aids engineers and scientists beyond college. Now I am sure that is not the intent, nor is it the intent to degrade the other degrees at the University, but I believe that it could be construed negatively against the University. Can someone please explain?

No matter the name, it is still a branch of MU through the UM System. If this school wants to be better at recognition and obtaining the top notch students, UMR has to be noticed. An example is when nano technology was topic on everyone’s tongue. UMR, when I was on campus, was doing some good work in nano technology, but it was never talked on the national level. The appearance was that MIT was the first to create this technology. Maybe it did, but coverage could have come from anywhere, including UMR, but was never discussed.

My mom always told me..."Haste makes waste"...hopefully this name change was not made in haste.

I graduated AE 96 and I am not surprised that my comment was not posted. Absolutley amazing

I said it before and I will say it again.

You can put lipstick on a pig, but it still is a pig.

I think the whole idea of getting input from the various parties was a farce - I think the decision was made prior to the bogus and flawed survey results. Changing the name to MST isn't going to make a student more likely to come to UMR or to get something put on TV or in a research journal. I equate this situation to the sponsorship of a losing race team. You can repaint the car, change the logo, but if the car/team keeps losing - that's all anyone remembers. Get a winning car/team and the sponsorship will follow.

It is the achievements of the organization that get noticed - not the name.

I think they blew this one - I hope they have a honest survey/analysis a few years down the road to see if Alumni donations are affected by this debacle.

I would urge the Curators to re-think the name and acromyn.

Ok. Most don't like the name change, but we will get over it "if" it makes since.

UMS&T. University of Missouri Science and Technology. Much better than MST. You forgot the U which I think is pretty important.

UMS&E might be better as well. University of Missouri Science and Engineering. Don't lose the apparant relationship with the Missouri sister campuses.

Do what you think, but it will affect thousands of alumni!!

Woo-hoo! When can I buy a t-shirt with the new name? Will alumni be able to get new diplomas? I'd love to get a set with the new name! Ok, so I know you can't answer these questions yet, but I'm super excited!

Thanks!
Sarah Welch
B. S. Mgmt Systems '02
M. S. IS&T '06

David Clifton wrote:

I graduated AE 96 and I am not surprised that my comment was not posted. Absolutley amazing

David, our records show that you did post previously ("Since when did UMR become a vocational school"). That comment shows up under the media advisory post from last Thursday. Your comment appears right here.

If you posted another comment, I cannot find it. If it ended up in the spam comments for some reason, then I cannot retrieve it, as those comments have been purged. I apologize if I inadvertently deleted your comment. Feel free to re-post it. I will watch for it.

I guess I am a stick in the mud. I am one of the first 4 year life science major graduates. Throughout my career when ever I have said I graduated from UMR people ask me what kind of engineer I am, but they never ask me where is UMR or what kind of school is that. Occasionally I get asked "didnt that used to be the Missouri School of Mines?" I have always been proud to be one of the nonengineer graduates and prouder to be a graduate of UMR. UMR's reputation is known world wide. I have worked in Europe, Asia, and the Caribbean and while I have to explain where Missouri is, if I am working with engineers and scientists, I never have to explain where UMR is. I will support UMR whatever the name, but I will oppose vigerously the change to MUST. If we have to change it lets either go back to MSM or go to Missouri Institute of Technology or how about Missouri Polytechnic.

Michael W. McMenus
Life Science 81

Missouri S&T is difficult to say and does intuitively communicate the university's focus - what is "S&T". A better shortened name should have been "Missouri Tech".

If Georia Institute of Technology (which is well known & respected) refers to itself as Georgia Tech why can't Missouri University of Science and Technology be referred to as Missouri Tech - people like short and sweet.

What a stupid idea, I agree if you dress up a dragon in a leotard it's still going to be a dragon. Woa! Curators have to much time on their hands to be changing names on everyone. UMR- has always been a prestigous school and now you all are making it sound like a vocational school, like RTI (no offense, RTI), Someone needs to maybe think of ways to make the university more "people friendly" and not so high tech.