GUEST COLUMN: Why university branding must change in the age of AI and uncertainty

In this article, Nivedita Anand, head of branding and strategic communications at the Thapar Institute of Engineering and Technology, reflects on a growing shift in higher education branding. She makes the case for trust-building over reputation management as universities navigate artificial intelligence, uncertainty and heightened stakeholder expectations.

PATIALA: For much of modern history, the branding of universities has been largely organic. Reputation accumulated slowly through alumni success, scholarly output, and institutional longevity. Trust, in this model, was implicitly assumed rather than deliberately cultivated. However, in an age marked by institutional scepticism, information overload, and rapid technological change, this passive model of branding is no longer sufficient. Traditional higher education institutions must now move from organic reputation-building to proactive trust-building.

An instructive lens for this transition comes from the work of Japanese social scientist Toshio Yamagishi, whose research fundamentally distinguished trust from assurance. In stable, closed systems, behaviour is guided by assurance people act cooperatively because norms are enforced, defection is punished, and long-term relationships constrain opportunism. Trust, by contrast, emerges in open systems where such guarantees are weak. It rests on voluntary vulnerability, transparency, and consistent signals of benign intent. 

Higher education today has moved decisively from an assurance-based to a trust-based environment. Students are no longer captive consumers. Faculty are globally mobile. Knowledge is no longer monopolised by universities. Parents, employers, regulators, and society at large are asking harder questions: Will this institution genuinely care for my child? Will it act ethically when under pressure? Will it adapt responsibly to artificial intelligence, global competition, and social fragmentation? 

In this context, branding can no longer be reduced to rankings, infrastructure, or glossy brochures. It must be understood as a long-term trust project. 

The Thapar Institute of Engineering and Technology (TIET), a traditional and highly respected Indian university, offers an illustrative example of how such a shift can be undertaken thoughtfully. Rather than relying solely on historical prestige or legacy perception, TIET is consciously transitioning from organic branding to proactive trust-building. This shift is neither cosmetic nor rhetorical; it is rooted in institutional behaviour. Three principles are central to this approach: consistency, openness, and compassion. 

Consistency is the most underappreciated dimension of trust. Stakeholders do not trust institutions because they occasionally do the right thing; they trust them because they do so predictably. At TIET, this translates into alignment between stated values and everyday decisions whether in admissions practices, faculty recruitment, student support, or academic governance. Trust grows when students and faculty can anticipate institutional responses and find them fair, humane, and principled over time. 

Openness, the second pillar, is particularly critical in higher education, where asymmetries of information have traditionally favoured institutions over learners. Proactive trust-building demands a reversal of this posture. Transparency in academic expectations, assessment practices, grievance redressal, and even institutional limitations sends a powerful signal: that the university respects its stakeholders as mature partners rather than passive recipients. Openness also extends to intellectual life encouraging debate, dissent, and pluralism rather than enforcing ideological conformity. 

The third and perhaps most distinctive pillar is compassion not as episodic charity, but as consistent compassion for humanity. In a hyper-competitive educational ecosystem, compassion is often dismissed as softness. In reality, it is a strategic trust asset. Students today navigate anxiety, uncertainty, and rapid social change. Faculty face intensifying performance pressures and role overload. An institution that responds with structured care, pastoral systems, mental health support, flexible pathways, and dignity-preserving processes signals that human wellbeing is not subordinate to metrics. 

Importantly, this compassion is not selective. Trust erodes quickly when care is perceived as discretionary or performative. Consistent compassion means that policies are designed assuming human fallibility, not exceptional resilience. It recognises that excellence is most sustainably achieved when individuals feel psychologically safe, respected, and supported. 

From a branding perspective, this represents a profound shift. Traditional branding seeks admiration; trust-based branding seeks credibility. Admiration can be manufactured quickly; trust accumulates slowly through repeated, observable actions. In Yamagishi’s terms, trust flourishes when institutions willingly expose themselves to scrutiny and still behave responsibly. 

For Indian higher education, this transition is particularly timely. As regulatory frameworks evolve, student expectations rise, and AI reshapes learning and employment, universities must compete not just on outcomes but on values. Those that treat branding as storytelling will struggle. Those that treat branding as institutional character revealed through consistency, openness, and compassion will endure. 

In the end, trust is not something an institution claims. It is something others grant, cautiously and incrementally. Universities that understand this distinction will not merely survive the coming disruptions; they will redefine what it means to be credible, humane, and relevant in the 21st century.

Note: The views expressed in this article are solely the author’s and do not necessarily reflect our own.