Most Kansas University alumni and friends would be quick to agree the university needs to do a much better job of telling its story. At one time, KU was looked upon as the 600-pound gorilla in Kansas higher education and, if not THE flagship university of the Big Eight Conference, one of just a few such institutions.

Something happened, however, and KU lost its swagger. Either the other schools got better and narrowed the gap or KU slipped. Or it could be that KU is just as good and continues to be a flagship school, at least among the former Big Eight schools, but has not done a good job of sharing its many positive stories and successes.

Whatever the case, KU officials, particularly Chancellor Robert Hemenway, decided to do a better job of telling the KU story. Maybe this was his own idea, or maybe it was spurred by an exhaustive study of how the university is perceived by alumni, faculty, students, parents of students, high school placement directors, state lawmakers, students who were accepted at KU but decided to attend another university, so-called people of influence and many others.

It was not a very flattering report.

Last week, Hemenway announced his universitywide marketing and sales campaign at the annual convocation for staff and faculty. It is unfortunate that only “several hundred” of the thousands of faculty and staff members attended. Hemenway’s message was important, and the poor attendance tells a story.

Nevertheless, he announced publicly that a consultant had been hired about a year ago to design and oversee the school’s marketing plan. It will involve many university faculty members and will cover a wide range of programs, activities and operations of the university. There will be a major effort to “brand” the university, giving it a new logo that likely will minimize or eliminate biblical references, perhaps minimizing the use of the Jayhawk, creating a consistent look for all printed materials, standardizing lettering and colors on all athletic uniforms and other efforts.

There probably are many other examples of how the “branding” effort will be implemented. Some alumni and friends, as well as faculty, will like the plan and some won’t. For example, reduced emphasis on the university seal or the Jayhawk could prove contentious even though some at KU apparently think the nationally recognized bird does not present the image of a sophisticated, intellectual institution.

Time will tell how these efforts work out and whether such branding techniques will improve the telling of KU’s story. However, the branding effort would seem to only scratch the surface of what’s needed, and it should be noted the branding recommendations are just one part of the master plan.

The important thing is to get university personnel out across the state to share the story and success of the school. The consultant and Hemenway both realize this is terribly important. It doesn’t matter what kind of business card a KU employee presents, but it does matter that more KU people will get out of their chairs and offices and tell the KU story throughout the state — not just in the Kansas City and Topeka areas.

The outside consultant says he intends to encourage administrative officers to buy into his plan for getting KU representatives out across the state, and this would seem to be a top priority, more important than a new logo or getting all of the university’s stationery to look alike.

It takes good, effective, genuine, enthusiastic, knowledgeable spokespeople, good salespeople, to get the job done. Likewise, it requires a combination of top performances by KU faculty members and a good, well-motivated student body to present the picture of a top-flight university. It’s far easier to sell a story of excellence than one of mediocrity. KU officials have turned far too much of the state over to other state universities, including Kansas State University, Wichita State University and Fort Hays State University. These other schools have taken advantage of KU’s complacence or laziness.

Competition these days among institutions of higher education is getting increasingly intense, and there is no justification for any university to think it has the only game in town or that the public and lawmakers will automatically recognize and appreciate its excellence without being told.

Unfortunately, this has been the case and attitude of too many at KU. For example, one KU faculty member was honest enough to acknowledge she “hated to admit it,” but Hemenway’s plan sounded good.

It is hoped that large numbers of KU people will buy into the marketing consultant’s plan. It is a step in the right direction, but it seems that mobilizing an effective, highly respected, enthusiastic and active university “sales crew” would get more positive results than committing time and resources to a new university logo, giving less significance to the Jayhawk, making sure the lettering on all KU athletic gear is the same and other such efforts.

Go, KU!