Corporate Rebranding: Best Practices to Maintain Brand Equity Throughout Transitions in Brand...

7/27/2019 Corporate Rebranding: Best Practices to Maintain Brand Equity Throughout Transitions in Brand Identity

1/69

Corporate Rebranding:

Best Practices to Maintain Brand Equity Throughout Transitions in Brand Identity

A Senior Project

Presented to

The Faculty of the Journalism Department

California Polytechnic State University, San Luis Obispo

In Partial Fulfillment

Of the requirements for the Degree

Bachelor of Science in Journalism

By

Kelsey Elise Hollenbeck

June 2013

Kelsey Elise Hollenbeck 2013


2/69

Hollenbeck 2

ABSTRACT

Few things are worse for a corporation than a rebranding disaster. The loss of coveted

brand equity is costly in so many ways and oftentimes the reputational damage takes years to

recover. While C-suite executives might easily justify a brand refresher be it in name, look and

feel, or both loyal and longtime customers might feel confused or worse, betrayed, by the

changes. Losing money on preliminary research and development or updated merchandise is one

thing, but losing the publics trust and business is quite another and should obviously be avoided.

That said, rebranding is a normal and often vital stage in a brands lifecycle. Whether its a

change in structure or management, a merger, a new sub-brand or merely a refreshed look,

change is inevitable.

If rebranding is necessary, it should be done correctly to minimize risk. First and

foremost, corporations must be absolutely certain of their motivation for rebranding and strategy

for doing so. This includes taking into account existing brand equity and connotations,

accounting for consumer skepticism and resistance to change, as well as determining a solid

strategy for making and announcing changes, no matter how small. Additionally, it is important

to understand what makes a successful brand, how to build brand equity and how to maintain it.

Finally, recent corporate rebranding case studies both successful and unsuccessful should be

closely examined. This paper will do just that in an attempt to outline the best practices and the

tactics to avoid in order to ensure a seamless, well-received and profitable rebranding effort.


3/69

Hollenbeck 3

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Chapter 1: Introduction.4

1.1 The Problem4

1.2 Purpose of the Study...5

1.3 Research Questions.....5

1.4 Definition of Terms.6

Chapter 2: Review of Literature ...9

2.1 Successful Branding9

2.2 Successful Rebranding..14

2.3 Motivations for Rebranding ..20

2.4 Worth the Risk?.........................................................................................................22

2.5 Keep Consumers in Mind..24

Chapter 3: Methodology..27

Chapter 4: Data Analysis.....29

4.1 Questionnaires...........29

4.2 Research Questions....38

4.3 Rebranding Data.42

Chapter 5: Summary.....55

Works Cited..58

Appendix A..61

Appendix B..64

Appendix C..68


4/69

Hollenbeck 4

CHAPTER 1: Introduction

1.1 The Problem

Rebranding is a reality for corporations and companies of all sizes and in all industries.

There comes a time in the life of every brand when an image refresher becomes both natural and

necessary. Managing brands for the long run may involve rebranding. Almost any expenditure

on rebranding is considered fully justifiable and, in some cases, is actually essential to survival

(Kaikati & Kaikati, 2003). Sometimes this initiative is brought about by some internal change in

structure or management, which might affect the corporations identity or values. Other times it

is the product of a new marketing effort to better a companys image or increase sales.

If its natural and necessary, whats the issue? Change. Rebranding by definition implies

a change to the existing brand image, whether its a slightly modified logo, a new name, or a

massive restructuring and repositioning campaign. While change can certainly be good,

unsuspecting and loyal consumers do not always welcome it. They might feel confused or worse,

betrayed by these changes, especially if they are caught off guard or kept in the dark during the

transition process. The resulting consumer skepticism and loss of trust can lead to a sizeable hit

to the brands equity, and few things are worse. The process carries a high level of reputation

risk as well as being a very costly exercise (Muzellec & Lambkin, 2006).

In the past three years, many giant corporations have done rebrands that have been badly

executed, incorrectly conceived or hastily done, resulting in either no effective change, no

change in customer perception or worse, a weakened brand with lost sales, smaller markets or

reduced consumer confidence (Brier, 2013). Rebranding is extremely risky, but if done carefully

and correctly, it can truly pay off. It provides a golden opportunity for a complete

transformation, but it should not be used for papering over cracks (Kaikati & Kaikati, 2003). It is


5/69

Hollenbeck 5

essential that companies and corporations recognize these risks and take precautions to minimize

them. To avoid expensive and embarrassing blunders, brand managers should learn from their

competitions triumphs and mistakes. The why is just as important as the how when it comes

to rebranding and corporations would be wise to invest in exhaustive research and development,

carefully communicate throughout the brand transition and understand public skepticism and

coping mechanisms. These considerations are just as important as the new name and/or new

logo, though they are often overlooked.

1.2 Purpose of the Study

The primary purpose of this research study is to conclude the best practices and blunders

to avoid in the corporate rebranding process through qualitative research and a close examination

of recent rebranding case studies (both successes and failures), as well as relevant academic

research studies and literature. Qualitative interviews with industry experts will be conducted in

an attempt to better understand rebranding. The information gathered will help inform companies

and corporations of the proper ways to go about rebranding with minimal risk and maximum

reward.

1.3 Research Questions

This study was organized around finding answers to the following research questions.

1.

What makes a successful brand?

2. What does rebranding entail? What are the steps in the process?3. Why rebrand?4. What are the consequences of rebranding gone wrong? Risks? What to avoid?5. How do consumers respond to rebranding? Why should brands care?


6/69

Hollenbeck 6

1.4 Definition of Terms

An understanding of the following terms is crucial to an understanding of the rebranding process.

Brand:

As defined by the American Marketing Association (AMA), a brand is a name, term, symbol,

design or combination of them intended to identify goods or services of one seller or group of

sellers to differentiate them from those of competitors. A brand is a mark of ownership that

represents products, services, people and even places. It is also a bundle of attributes (Geller,

2012) and a collection of perceptions (Larson, 2011) associated with a particular product of

service that can make or break it.

Branding:

Corporate branding is a systematically planned and implemented process of creating and

maintaining a favorable image and consequently a favorable reputation for the company as a

whole, by sending signals to all stakeholders and by managing behavior, communication and

symbolism (Muzellec & Lambkin, 2006). If a brand is the idea or image surrounding a product

or service, branding is the marketing or advertising of these ideas and images so that people will

come to associate that name, logo, or tag line with a particular product or service, thereby

differentiating it from a sea of competitors.

Rebranding:

Rebranding is the marketing strategy of revitalizing and repositioning a brand through gradual,

incremental modification of the brand position and marketing aesthetics (Muzellec & Lambkin,


7/69

Hollenbeck 7

2006). This includes the creation of a new name, term, symbol, design or combination of them

for an established brand with the intention of developing a differentiated and new position in the

mind of stakeholders and competitors (Muzellec & Lambkin, 2006). Etymologically speaking,

rebrand is a neologism including the prefix re which implies that the action of branding is

being done again. There are two general types of rebranding: evolutionary and revolutionary.

Evolutionary rebranding refers to relatively minor developments in a brands positioning or

aesthetic. Sometimes these changes are so subtle that outside observers hardly notice them; their

primary purpose is to keep the brand relevant and modern without making any drastic changes.

On the other hand, revolutionary rebranding describes bigger, more identifiable changes in image

or positioning that fundamentally redefine the entity. In either case, rebranding is carried out

through a change in visual identification communicated through conventional corporate

communications media (Muzellec & Lambkin, 2006).

Brand Equity:

Brand equity is defined as the marketing and financial values linked with a brands strength in

the market, including actual proprietary brand assets, brand name awareness, brand loyalty,

perceived brand quality, and brand associations (Severi & Ling, 2013). Essentially it is an

umbrella term for any added value beyond actual form or function of a product or service itself.

A study by theAsian Social Science Journal breaks down brand equity into five dimensions:

brand awareness, perceived quality, brand loyalty, brand association and proprietary brand assets

(Severi & Ling, 2013). This value can be analyzed from two different points of view: a financial

perspective and a customer perspective. The financial perspective refers to the companys

monetary brand value (i.e. sales, and profit), whereas the customer perspective measures equity


8/69

Hollenbeck 8

based on marketing decision-making and perceived brand value. Both types of brand equity are

crucial to brand success, and both are subject to taking hits if rebranding goes poorly.


9/69

Hollenbeck 9

CHAPTER 2: Review of Literature

This literature review is a compilation of existing research on all aspects of the

rebranding process, including: brand authenticity, maintenance of brand equity, risks associated

with rebranding, motivations for undergoing the process, strategies for success, mistakes to avoid

and consumer reactions to change.

2.1 Successful Branding

Defining the concept a brand can be somewhat challenging as the term can be

interpreted to represent many different things. As defined by the American Marketing

Association, a brand is a name, term, symbol, design or combination of them intended to

identify goods or services of one seller or group of sellers to differentiate them from those of

competitors. A brand is a mark of ownership that represents products, services, people and

even places. But it is also a bundle of attributes (Geller, 2012) and a collection of perceptions

(Larson, 2011) associated with a particular product of service that can make or break its

reputation and contribute to its ultimate success of failure.

In order to understand how to rebrand, it is crucial to understand what makes a brand

successful in the first place. What makes one brand more successful than another? This is the

million-dollar question that has inspired many a market researcher to study the answer. While

research has varied, some general concepts overlap. Visiting scholar and professor of brand

management and marketing at the Kellogg School of Management, Frank Goedertier, surveyed

hundreds of companies and broke down eight keys to successful branding. According to

Goedertier, brands must be memorable, meaningful, likeable, transferrable, protectable,

authentic, simple, and adaptable (Symonds, 2012). Nigel Hollis, chief global analyst at the


10/69

Hollenbeck 10

marketing research firm Millward Brown, has determined that there are five components to

brand success: a great brand experience, clear and consistent positioning, dynamism, authenticity

and a strong corporate culture (Hollis, 2008).

Brands must be memorable if they hope to have any longevity in the marketplace.

Becoming memorable and staying relevant is becoming increasingly challenging these days, as

more and more messages are bombarding consumers through rapidly evolving media channels.

According to Jay Walker-Smith, president of the marketing firm Yankelovich, people in the 21st

century are completely saturated with advertising messaging vying for their attention (Johnson,

2009). Market researchers have attempted to qualify this assault on the senses and have

determined that Americans may see as many as 5,000 brand logos and/or advertisements each

day (Johnson, 2009).

In order to compete and stand out, any of a brands external elements (slogan, logo,

name) should be easy to recognize and even easier to remember. Professors Chiranjeev Kohli

and Doulgas LaBahn of California State University, Fullerton researched brand naming in their

report for Penn States Institutes for the Study of Business Markets. They surveyed 101

companies to determine how important a brands name is to its success (Kohli & LaBahn, 1995).

Brand names and any associations they elicit make up a huge component, at least initially, of

consumer understanding of the brand. Names also function to differentiate brands from their

competitors with similar products. In fact, many brand managers believe that brand names

influence sales more than packaging, and are consequently more important (Kohli & LaBahn,

1995). This survey concluded, brand names are critical to the success of a new product,

consumer and industrial goods companies place similar emphasis on the brand naming task, and

a detailed and systematic process is used in the creation of the brand names (Kohli & LaBahn,

1995). Brand managers go through extensive screening processes for potential names, in order to


11/69

Hollenbeck 11

determine connotations, associations and alignment with branding objectives and rightfully so.

Dawn Lerman and Ellen Garbarino noticed that being memorable was a common suggestion

for brand names, but they wanted to go deeper, so they studied the cognitive memory processing

associated with recalling brand names in their research article for Psychology & Marketing. They

determined that there are two types of brand names: word and non-word (Lerman & Garbarino,

2002). Word brand names, such as Tide or Always, can rely on dictionary definitions to

suggest certain qualities of their products fairly easily, and are easier to recall because they are

more obvious. On the other hand, non-word names, such as Exxon, can be more flexible in

their word associations and are oftentimes easier to reposition and legally protect, though they

may not be as easy for consumers to recall (Lerman & Garbarino, 2002).

There is something to be said for embracing simplicity in branding and rebranding,

especially in this age of information overload and shortened attention spans. According to

Marketing Magazine UK, todays consumers are overwhelmed with multiple messages, choices

and responsibilities. Brands that focus on simplicity are able distinguish themselves from all of

this noise and gain a competitive advantage (Kemp, 2013). Another interesting trend consumer

psychologists are noticing is that people are increasingly looking towards brands that are (or

seem to be) trusted experts in a single field, as opposed to brands that have over-extended

themselves in search of a quick profit. Judy Mitchem, managing director and chief marketing

officer of Ogilvy Group, a massive international marketing, advertising and public relations

group, believes many brands are simply sending too many messages, and should attempt to

define themselves as much by what they dont say, as by what they do say (Kemp, 2013).

Brands must recognize the finite nature of consumers attention spans and brand managers must

have the gravitas to edit or risk being overlooked (Kemp, 2013).


12/69

Hollenbeck 12

Furthermore, successful brands are meaningful brands and meaningful brands are those

that enhance the wellbeing of individuals, communities and the environment (Havas, 2012).

Branding elements must emphasize key points of difference and special benefits beyond a

functional product or useful service. More than ever before, consumers are demanding more

from brands. Havas Worldwide London, an international advertising agency, conducted a

Meaningful Brands Survey in an attempt to quantify this growing preference for brands that go

above and beyond. Havas surveyed 30,000 consumers in fourteen countries; the results are

telling. Only 20% of the brands consumers interact with actually have a positive impact on their

lives, and consumers agreed that nearly 70% of brands could disappear entirely from the

marketplace without them so much as noticing, let alone caring (Havas, 2012). Havas Medias

chief executive, Russ Lindstone, suggests that the secret to creating meaning is shifting the focus

from the brand itself, and focusing on outcomes that benefit the consumer:

Did this brand make you fitter, wiser, smarter, closer? Did it improve your personal

outcomes? Did it improve your community outcomes? Were trying to get beyond did

this company make a slightly better product to a more resonant, meaningful questions:

Did this brand actually impact your life in a tangible, lasting, and positive way? The key

is to emphasize this impact (Havas, 2012).

This same study also created a meaningful brand index in which a higher meaningful

brand index score translates to more brand attachment and ultimately, more brand equity.

Lindstone suggests that brand managers should focus on how their brand increases individual

wellbeing and/or community wellbeing by emphasizing unique attributes. He suggests touching

on some of following general concepts that the survey suggests are highly valued: fitness, health,


13/69

Hollenbeck 13

happiness, learning new things, being a part of something, helping people help others, improving

skills, looking and feeling good, recycling, transparency, ethics and corporate responsibility

(Havas, 2012). Fast Company editor, Morgan Clendaniel, says this Havas study proves that there

exists a huge opportunity for brands to increase their impact on consumers lives beyond creating

a decent product, and this should be carefully factored into the rebranding process, particularly in

relation to slogans and advertising campaigns (Clendaniel, 2012).

One other important factor to consider in the branding and rebranding processes is

transferability. All elements of a brands identity must understood and accepted on a universal

basis, if the corporation hopes to compete in international markets (Kaikati & Kaikati, 2003).

This necessitates conducting extensive research to ensure that brand names, slogans, logos and

colors will be interpreted and translated appropriately, and to avoid potentially disastrous

consequences. Miscommunication due to language barriers is an all too common example of lack

of attention to transferability. Michael White, executive director of the Foreign Trade

Association of Southern California, examines this concept in his book, A Short Course in

International Marketing Blunders. For example, Coors beer experienced a miscommunication

like this back in the 1990s with their Turn it Loose! tagline. While it was successful at selling

beer in the U.S., it was not so well received in Mexico, where the slogan was translated to

Suffer from Diarrhea! (White, 2009). Similarly, Procter and Gamble failed to sell Puff tissues

in Europe, as it was discovered after the fact that the term Puff is a German colloquialism for a

house of prostitution and widely used in the UK as a derogatory term for homosexuals (White,

2009). Language can play tricks on marketers who dont respond to cultural differences

marketers must examine not just the spoken word, but all the elements of culture that form a

barrier to mutual understanding (White, 2009). Even color can be lost in translation. Professors

Thomas Madden, Kelly Hewitt and Martin Roth of the University of South Carolina, Columbia


14/69

Hollenbeck 14

researched this for the Journal of International Marketing. They conducted an eight-county study

on color meanings and preferences with regards to products, packaging, logos and other

marketing collateral (Madden, Hewitt & Roth, 2000). They asked subjects to match colors with

product logos and found that about half the time the combinations suggested consistency in

meaning, and the other half of the time, the color and its meaning were interpreted in ways they

were not intended; this proves that there is in fact a margin for global miscommunication. For

instance, while white represents purity, freshness and cleanliness in Western cultures, it is the

traditional color of mourning death in most of Asia (Madden, Hewitt & Roth, 2000).

2.2 Successful Rebranding

The aforementioned components are crucial to building a brand and building equity, but

what about changing the identity of an existing brand? Rebranding has been a fairly hot topic in

the business press, especially in the 21st century, where there seems to have been a growing trend

towards updating brand image to remain relevant. Rebranding around the world increased by 7%

from 2000 to 2001, and the U.S. led the world with a total of 1,716 corporation name changes

within the year (Kaikati & Kaikati, 2003). For such a seemingly popular business practice,

academic studies on the subject remain fairly scarce. There is relatively little empirical research

on how the process affects consumers attitudes, despite the high level of uncertainty and cost

associated with rebranding (Ing, 2012).

Laurent Muzellec and Mary Lambkin of University College Dublin seek to answer the

question of whether rebranding destroys, transfers or builds brand equity. They acknowledged

that rebranding is risky and should therefore be informed by strong theory and research, however

a comprehensive literature search indicated that most of the writing on this topic so far is

journalistic in nature, with almost nothing appearing in academic journals. This is a deficit this


15/69

Hollenbeck 15

paper seeks to begin to address (Muzellec & Lambkin, 2006). They took a cross-sectional

sample of 166 international rebranded companies to provide descriptive data on the context in

which the rebranding occurs and to generally shed light on the process (Muzellec & Lambkin,

2006). They define rebranding as the marketing strategy of revitalizing and repositioning a

brand through gradual, incremental modification of the brand position and marketing aesthetics

(Muzellec & Lambkin, 2006). This includes the creation of a new name, term, symbol, design or

combination of them for an established brand with the intention of developing a differentiated

and new position in the mind of stakeholders and competitors.

Corporate rebranding is a complex and multi-faceted process. The decision to make

changes to a brands identity is not reached without much careful deliberation, and the process

itself can be costly, lengthy and risky. After all, a brand has conceivably built up equity through

consumer association of its name, tagline or logo with certain superior qualities. What happens

when their aforementioned name, tagline and/or logo is changed? A loss of equity would be

devastating, both for that brands market share and its reputation. At the same time, rebranding is

often necessary either to solve a problem, reflect a structural change or simply keep up with the

times. This is why corporations must do their research and enlist the help of a seasoned branding

agency to ensure a smooth transition from the old brand identity to the new.

While circumstances certainly vary, experts have attempted to outline potential

approaches to the rebranding process. It is important to note, that prior to making any changes,

marketing and brand managers must evaluate why they feel compelled to change and identify

what it is about their current brand identity that is not working. Jack Kaikati and Andrew Kaikati

stress this in their 2003 technical paper for theJournal of Business Strategy. Before deciding to

rebrand a product or even to tweak its logo and look, corporate managers should ascertain what

the customers think of it (Kaikati & Kaikati, 2003). David Brier, a Fast Company blogger and


16/69

Hollenbeck 16

award-winning brand identity specialist, suggests that decision-makers ask themselves the

following questions prior to beginning the rebranding process:

1. Why are we doing a rebrand?2. What problem are we attempting to solve?3. Has there been a change in the competitive landscape that is impacting our growth

potential?

4. Has our customer profile changed?5.

Are we pigeonholed as something we (and our customers) have outgrown?

6. Does our brand tell the wrong (or outdated) story?7. What do we want to convey? To whom?8. Why should anyone care about our brand?9. Have we isolated exactly who should care about our brand?10.Have their needs, or the way they define them, changed?11.Are we asking our customer to care more about our brand (and what it means) than

we do?

12.Is our brand associated with something that is no longer meaningful?13.Is our brand out of step with the current needs and desires of our customers?14.Are we leading with our brand direction?15.

Are we following with our brand direction?

16.Is the goal of this rebrand a steppingstone (evolutionary) or a milestone(revolutionary)?

17.Will this solution work in five, ten and fifteen years based on what we can anticipate?


17/69

Hollenbeck 17

18.If we were starting our business today, would this be the brand solution we wouldcome up with?

These questions are intended to help corporations delve deeper into their motivations for

rebranding and the unique context in which it will potentially occur (Brier, 2013). After

thoroughly asking and answering these questions, brand managers will need to determine which

rebranding strategy is most appropriate for their corporations situation. The Kaikati brothers

outline six options for implementing a rebranding strategy: (1) phase in/phase out, (2) combined

rebranding strategy via one umbrella brand, (3) translucent warning strategy, (4) sudden

eradication strategy, (5) counter-takeover strategy and (6) retrobranding.

During the phase-in stage of option one, the new brand remains tied to the existing brand

for a designated introductory period, after which time the old brand is gradually phased out. This

option provides stakeholders with a buffer time and helps ease the shock of sudden changes.

Disney utilized this strategy in the 1990s when transitioning from Euro Disney to Disneyland

Paris. Over a period of two years, the theme parks name went from Euro Disney to

Euro Disneyland to Euro Disneyland Paris and then finally to Disneyland Paris (Kaikati &

Kaikati, 2003). This slow and steady approach allowed for a more gradual transition while still

accomplishing the corporations goal of emphasizing the parks precise location in Europe.

The second of the aforementioned strategies, umbrella branding, effectively combines

multiple existing brands under a single (oftentimes global) banner brand. This applies to

mergers and acquisitions, as well as the creation of new subset brands. Before rebranding as

Visa, National BankAmericard used to issue cards under twenty-two different names around the

world. In the interest of expanding brand recognition, the corporation consolidated under the

name Visa (Kaikati & Kaikati, 2003). It is worth noting that the worlds leading payment


18/69

Hollenbeck 18

network chose its name because it is pronounced the same in most languages (Kaikati & Kaikati,

2003). This approach makes it easier for consumers to identify the primary brand without getting

bogged down and confused by multiple subsidiaries.

The next option relies on being very transparent in communicating a rebrand by alerting

customers before and after the actual branding changes take place (Kaikati & Kaikati, 2003).

These warnings are most often carried out through intensive promotion and advertising

campaigns, as well as in store displays and special graphics on product packaging (Kaikati and

Kaikati). This strategy is effective because corporations are able to almost hold the customers

hands and walk them through the transition, rather than simply making the switch to a new

name/and or logo and hoping that the public will catch up. Snickers was able to avoid a

potentially devastating drop in sales after changing its name from the well-known Marathon

Bar in the UK, by communicating all throughout the shift. Prior to the start of the rebranding

campaign, Marathon wrappers read known worldwide as Snickers and after the name change,

they read formerly known as Marathon (Kaikati & Kaikati, 2003). Because of this aggressive

advertising strategy and because the packaging design and product were otherwise left the same,

this transition was relatively seamless.

The sudden eradication strategy is appropriately if not dramatically named, as it refers to

situations in which corporations need to disassociate themselves immediately from a brand

identity with a negative connotation (Kaikati & Kaikati, 2003). Dropping the old brand identity

almost overnight and immediately replacing it with something new and different, without any

sort of transition period or warning, can accomplish this. This strategy is also suited for ailing or

dying brands that are out of other viable options for resuscitation, though it caries the risk of

consumers feeling betrayed or confused. This strategy inherently destroys any existing brand

equity, but it also offers the promise of a clean slate to rebuild a more favorable image.


19/69

Hollenbeck 19

The counter-takeover strategy is usually implemented following a merger or, more often,

an acquisition. Normally, acquirers choose to hold onto their original brand identity to

communicate their dominance, but in this strategy the roles are reversed. If the acquired brand is

more popular and respected than the acquiring brand, it is wiser to adopt the new brand identity

to reap the benefits of its recognition and equity, rather than holding onto the old identity for the

sake of a corporations ego. This strategy may not be as compelling as the others, but it is

relevant as more competing corporations fight for clout and traction in the global market (Kaikati

& Kaikati, 2003).

The final possible strategy is retrobranding, which occurs when corporations revert back

to their original brand identity after a failed attempt at rebranding. It is indicative of a somewhat

drastic about-face, in hopes of regaining original brand equity and salvaging the brands image

(Kaikati & Kaikati, 2003). A recent example of retrobranding is Netflix. In the wake of

consumer backlash over fee increases, Netflix made a rash decision to separate its online

streaming and DVD delivery services, with the latter service being rebranded under the name

Qwikster (Pennington, 2011). The plan backfired in a classic example of misusing a

rebranding campaign in an attempt to solve unrelated problems. The division essentially required

users to update two accounts and do twice the work on separate websites, which they were none

too happy about. To make matters worse, Netflix failed to secure the @Qwikster Twitter handle

prior to announcing the new brand, which turned out to be controversial as it was discovered the

owner of the handle was someone who chose to represent themselves [with a photo of] Elmo

smoking a jointreal classy (Pennington, 2011). Customers were not amused and voiced their

disapproval via social media, leaving 15,826 mostly negative comments within 24 hours of the

rebranding announcement (Pennington, 2011). Netflix, realizing their mistake, quickly scrapped

Qwikster and reverted back to its original name and brand identity.


20/69

Hollenbeck 20

Gap has also recently gone through a bit of a retrobranding experience with their logo. In

2010, Gap released a radically different, modern-looking logo on their Facebook page in an

effort to signal a fresher, newer direction for the brand, which has struggled for years with

painfully sluggish sales. Despite executives well-intentioned desire to signal change, it was an

unfortunate example of one change too many (Zmuda, 2012). After an overwhelmingly negative

response, Gap executives attempted to actively join in the discussion while also gaining

consumer input by announcing a crowd-sourcing project to find a new logo. This also backfired,

particularly among the design community, who saw it as a ploy for free logo ideas. Within a

week of the initial announcement, it was determined that Gap should return to their original logo

(Zmuda, 2012). Even the colossus Coca-Cola retrobranding. After introducing New Coke in

1985, the beverage giant was met with harsh consumer backlash and ended up reverting back to

their classic design.

2.3 Motivations for Rebranding

With so many inherent risks and costs associated with the process, its a wonder so many

corporations are choosing to rebrand. Saleh Alshebil sought to identify these motivators in his

2007 thesis for the University of Texas. There are many motivators for rebranding, but on a very

basic level, they fall into one of two categories: have to vs. want to (Alshebil, 2007). Muzellec

and Lambkins cross-sectional study of 166 rebranded companies also attempted to gather more

concrete data on the context in which rebranding occurs. The findings are as follows:

The main drivers for rebranding are, therefore, decisions, events or processes causing a

change in a companys structure, strategy or performance of sufficient magnitude to

suggest the need for fundamental redefinition of its identity. Such events can vary from


21/69

Hollenbeck 21

sudden, total structural transformation following a merger or acquisition to a gradual

erosion of market share or firms reputation due to changing demand patterns or

competitive conditions. These drivers fall into four main categories: (1) change in

ownership structure, (2) change in corporate strategy, (3) change in competitive position

and (4) change in the external environment (Muzellec & Lambkin, 2006).

These communicated reasons for change are insightful. The aforementioned study

aggregated press releases, website and blog postings, and press conference statements and

separated the corporations communicated justification for the rebrand into two broad categories.

The first category of explanations emphasizes the point that the brand changes are driven by

changes that have affected the companys structure or organization. These rebranding ventures

are generally non-marketing related and are more of an administrative necessity (Muzellec &

Lambkin, 2006). Mergers and acquisitions top the list of drivers toward rebranding. In fact, 75%

of the 2976 U.S. corporations that changed their names in 2000 resulted from mergers and/or

acquisitions (Muzellec & Lambkin, 2006). The other category addresses the need for

corporations to foster a new image or rationalize the brand portfolio and reveal a rebranding

approach that is strategic in its own right (Muzellec & Lambkin, 2006). The latter category also

pertains to corporations that seek to distance themselves from a negative reputation or scandal.

However, it is important to remember that while rebranding offers a golden opportunity, it

should not be attempted with the intention of papering over existing cracks. It is a fresh start but

not a cure-all.


22/69

Hollenbeck 22

2.4 Worth the Risk?

If brand equity is built over time, through the maintenance of a consistent and high-

quality product or service, and a careful maintenance of brand reputation, what happens when a

corporation makes changes to its brand identity? There is a paradoxical relationship between

rebranding and the notion of brand equity; that is they seem to be at odds with each other.

Stephen Greyser and colleagues articulate this apparent disconnect in their article for the

European Journal of Marketing, titled Corporate Marketing: insights and integration drawn

from corporate branding, corporate identity, corporate communication, corporate reputation and

visual identification.

At first sight, rebranding practice may appear to contradict the marketing and corporate

reputation literature. The main inconsistency revolves around the notion of brand equity.

Some additional challenges appear with regards to rebranding gestation, involvement of

personnel and means of communication. Brand equity is a set of assets linked to a brand

name and symbolshence, rebranding can be seen as a corporate marketing

transformation, i.e. a very strong formal signal to stakeholders and consumers that

something about the corporation has changed. (Greyser & Jenster, 2006).

Take a name change, for example. In order to launch a new name, the old name has to be

abandoned. This action brings with it the potential to nullify years of concentrated branding

efforts to gain recognition and build awareness. Along with a brand name comes a series of

attached associations (which as previously discussed, are crucial to the building of equity) that

may very well be lost with the phasing out of the original name (Greyser & Jenster, 2006). Name

awareness is a key component of brand equity, so rebranding involving a change of name can be


23/69

Hollenbeck 23

damaging if not done correctly. The same risks exist for visual rebranding campaigns. What if

tomorrow, Nike changed its iconic logo? Even Nikes CEO, Phil Knight, has been quoted

admitting without the Swoosh, wed be nowhere (Muzellec & Lambkin, 2006). The sports

powerhouses brand recognition would significantly decrease, reducing it to just another athletic

gear manufacturer, even if the product remained unchanged.

Graeme Martin and Cary Cooper examine the risks associate with rebranding in their

book Corporate Reputation: Managing Opportunities and Threats. Beyond equity loss, there is a

great financial risk associated with executing a large scale rebranding campaign (Martin &

Cooper, 2011). Rebranding has been estimated to cost from thousands to millions of dollars

(Alshebil, 2007). Consider all of the subsequent changes that need to be made following a

change in name or logo. After AT&T revitalized and reinvigorated its logo in 2005, they had

to update nearly 50,000 company vehicles, 6,000 buildings, 40,000 uniforms and hardhats worn

by employees, millions of monthly bill statements, business cards, pamphlets and the website

(Alshebil, 2007). All this to say that brand managers had better be certain that their new brand

identity will be well received before taking the plunge, lest they learn the hard way and lose

millions.

Similarly, experts have deduced that rebranding can be classified depending on level of

intensity as either evolutionary or revolutionary, where evolutionary rebranding describes minor

changes to positioning and aesthetics, and revolutionary rebranding describes major,

recognizable changes (Muzellec & Lambkin, 2006). The latter category of rebranding is

substantially riskier, as it represents a much more dramatic departure from stability and a greater

possibility of equity loss and damage to the brands reputation. The impact of a rebranding

exercise on brand equity is a very complex issue with both qualitative and quantitative


24/69

Hollenbeck 24

dimensions, and significant financial repercussions. The process challenges elementary

marketing theory and principles (Ing, 2012).

Existing literature on the subject of rebranding does confirm that while the process itself

can be very risky, a brand refresher can almost always be justified for one reason or another and,

if done correctly, can be very beneficial. The Journal of Business Strategy articulates this

concept:

Robust brands have always had to evolve to remain desirable. Managing brands for the

long run may involve rebranding. Carefully crafted monikers, designed by reputable

brand consultants, are supposed to contemporize companies and their products by

providing them with updated identities. Thus almost any expenditure on rebranding is

considered fully justifiable and, in some cases, actually essential to survival. Rebranding

is expected to provide a golden opportunity for a complete transformation. (Kaikati &

Kaikati, 2003).

Muzellec and Lambkin of theEuropean Journal of Marketing agree that revitalizing and

repositioning (frequently used terms synonymous with rebranding) a brand through gradual,

incremental modification of the brand proposition and marketing aesthetics can be considered a

natural and necessary part of the task of brand management.

2.5 Keep consumers in mind

It is absolutely crucial for brand managers to always keep their consumers in mind prior

to making any changes, big or small. Its easy for C-Suite executives to sit behind a desk and


25/69

Hollenbeck 25

justify a rebranding venture, but how will their loyal customers react? How will it affect them?

Ultimately, its the consumers and their purchasing decisions that will determine whether a brand

is a success or a failure in the marketplace.

The fact of the matter is, most consumers do not like change and are fairly

skeptical of rebranding. Mentioning the word rebrand can trigger some negative energy.

Following the rebranding of the European Telecom Eirann, Internet users expressed their

skepticism: Lets fool everyone into believing were new and dynamic, by spending millions on

a new image! (Muzellec & Lambkin, 2006). Grace Ing, in her recent study for theInternational

Journal of Business and Society, asserts, despite the high cost and unsure outcomes, empirical

research on the impacts of corporate rebranding strategy on consumers attitude structure is

scarce (Ing, 2012). She conducted 138 questionnaires consisting of a pre-test and a recall test

comparing high and low familiarity brand names to determine attitudes pre-rebrand, during re-

brand and post-rebrand. Her findings suggest that consumer attitude structures vary according to

the levels of product familiarity, but that the imposed element of the rebranding strategy might

induce skepticism among stakeholders and further influence their brand attitudes (Ing, 2012).

Saleh Alshebils dissertation attempts to answer the same question, but examines logo

changes rather than name changes. Alshebil conducted in depth interviews with people of

varying demographics to obtain their feedback, deducing that consumers are generally suspicious

of change (Alshebil, 2007).

If a logo change is done right and it is favorably viewed even if it is a drastic

change consumers would likely be more interested in it, as well as less

questioning of it. The lower level of questioning would contribute to less

skepticism about it, and would contribute to the consumers improved attitude


26/69

Hollenbeck 26

toward the brand. Of course, if a logo change is not done right and is unfavorably

viewed, multiple penalties would accrue when consumers apply their coping

process to the change. In such a case, the consumers attitude toward the brand

would decline (Alshebil, 2007).

His study also determined that highly-brand committed people had more negative attitudes

toward the brand after a logo change, but weakly-committed people had more positive brand

attitudes after the logo change (Alshebil, 2007).

While rebranding can be symbolic of a new beginning and can certainly help

corporations reposition their products to reach new consumers, it is a mistake to forget those that

have stood by them and may be attached to the existing name, look and feel. This is where focus

groups, market research and a carefully crafted communication strategy come into play, to help

ease consumers through the brand transition while still reaping the benefits of a refreshed image.

When it comes down to it, consumers and customers will determine the success or a failure of a

rebranding campaign. Their buy in or rejection of the changes translates to sustained or increased

brand equity and/or increased sales, so it is crucial to get their input and communicate throughout

the changes.


27/69

Hollenbeck 27

CHAPTER 3: METHODOLOGY

Qualitative interviews with industry experts were conducted and analyzed to inform the

remainder of this study. This method was chosen as it typically elicits responses that would be

harder to obtain through a traditional survey design.

Each of the three professionals interviewed was asked the same set of questions. These

questions were designed to obtain responses that would answer the original research questions

that make up the premise of this study.

The interview participants were marketing experts with extensive knowledge of and

experience with branding and rebranding. Mary Verdin is the president of Verdin, a full-service

PR, marketing and branding agency located in San Luis Obispo, California. She has more than

twenty years of experience in the industry and has helped hundred of clients navigate the

rebranding process, in addition to rebranding her own business in 2011. Mary is also the

professional advisor for the Cal Poly Public Relations Student Society of America. Alexia

Haynes is an Account Executive at Clearpoint Public Relations, a boutique PR and marketing

firm in San Diego, California. She has a deep understanding of media relations, having worked

in PR for the past seven years, and working in radio and TV production in years prior. She has

worked with many clients, both established businesses and start-ups, in the technology and

finance fields and has managed on brand transitions, both big and small. Kristin Kenney is a Cal

Poly journalism alumna (Winter 2013) who has spent two years working as the Media &

Communications Coordinator for the Center for Innovation and Entrepreneurship. There she acts

as a brand manager, and is currently working on rebranding CIE in addition to handling all of

their external communication. Additionally, Kristin was the student manager of Central Coast

PRspecitves, Cal Polys on-campus PR firm.


28/69

Hollenbeck 28

The following questions were asked to interview participants in order to elicit responses

about the best rebranding practices:

1. What are the components of a strong, successful brand?2. What does the rebranding process entail? How do you go about the process?3. What are your [clients] motivations for rebranding? Does this influence the process?4. What are the risks associated with making changes to an existing brand identity? How

do you combat them?

5.

What should generally be avoided when rebranding?

6. How important is communication in rebranding?

The interviews were recorded using an audio recorder, then transcribed into direct

quotations although some responses were paraphrased for added clarity. Interviews with Mary

Verdin and Kristin Kenney were conducted in person; the interview with Alexia Haynes was

conducted over the phone due to her location in San Diego.


29/69

Hollenbeck 29

CHAPTER 4: DATA ANALYSIS

This chapter will focus on analyzing interview responses to provide insight into the

rebranding process and to attempt to answer the research questions.

4.1 Questionnaires

Question 1: What are the components of a strong, successful brand?

This question was asked to gain insight from experts on what the ideal brand should look like.

Mary Verdin: One of the biggest things that resonates with people is the

idea of a brand coming from branding cattle. Is the brand the metal

instrument that I use to put the mark on the cow? No. The brand is the

impression that is left behind. Its not your logo or your slogan; its the

promise you make to your customer and what they think about you. Three

key elements of a brand are that people recognize you, that they know

what you offer and what you promise, and that they know what you

deliver (this is the one you can manage but not control). Consistency is

key for achieving this. Consistent font, logo, colors, imagery,

taglineeverything consistent. (Appendix B).

Alexia Haynes: A successful brand really communicates clearly what thecompany does, and for whom, and why they are different, special or

unique. Its so much more than just a tagline or just a logoits really

everything that they do communicates those things. (Appendix C)

Kristin Kenney: Its important to remember that your brand isnt justyour name and your logo, its really your value set. Brands should


30/69

Hollenbeck 30

naturally grow out of value propositions. The value set isnt something

that customers or the general public needs to know about necessarily, but

it should be the foundation for choosing a name and logo and it should

really guide the growth of a company - at least internally. You should

come up with a brand that has deeper roots than just a cool logo or even a

visual representation. The strongest thing you can do is stay true to your

values as an organization (Appendix A).

Question 2: What does rebranding entail? How do you go about the process?

This question was asked to encourage industry experts to articulate the concept of rebranding and

share their process for successful rebranding campaigns.

Mary Verdin: We have a rebranding process called the 4-BA process. Wecreate whats called a Brand Architecture that addresses overall brand

equity. The top of the pyramid, so to speak, represents internal work: brand

character, why do people believe in your brand, what do you promise, this a

lot of times becomes the mission statement. Then comes the external part: the

new logo, website, ads, anything that communicates a change in look or

messaging for a company. Weve been using this for probably three years.

The principles are still solid. The four steps we go by are as follows: 1)

Discovery: Strengths, Weaknesses, Opportunities and Threats (SWOT)

analysis. What do people thing about this company? Where do you stand out?

Are you capitalizing on that? 2) Visioning: Where do you want to go? What

are your goals for the brand? 3) Activation: This is where we actually deliver

a new name, new logo, new tagline, new website, etc. 4) Analytics: A lot of


31/69

Hollenbeck 31

people forget about this step, but its crucial. All people in our industry talk

about anymore is ROI. This step is ongoing because its a continual process of

checking up on analytics (Appendix B).

Alexia Haynes: Since we are a PR firm, we like to start with the words wework with a contracted graphic designer to focus on the visual brand identity

so we figure out what does the company want to communicate? What

messages do they want to put out and how will they change with a rebrand?

Like I said, the brand needs to communicate the essence of a company so in

rebranding we want to first assess that. Who are you? How are you unique?

What can you offer your customers? So I think the short answer is it is case-

by-case but we do have certain elements we make sure to look at every time. I

think most companies are pretty smart when they do different types of

rebranding when they somehow reflect the old and slowly change. Its like the

rebranding we as consumers see in grocery stores, you know. Same great

product, new and improved package! (Appendix C).

Kristin Kenney: For us, we need to rebrand to end the confusion of havingone umbrella brand (CIE) that contains so many other subset programsit

gets confusing really quickly. We have too many logos and not enough unity

so were working on that. Weve been talking with University Advancement

to find a way to visually communicate the relationship and differences

between these different organizations and do it in a way that is easy for people

to understand. It needs to be quick and easy to understand that is our major

hurdle. And it cant be just throwing logos together. Its figuring out a way to


32/69

Hollenbeck 32

link them all that communicates how theyre all related but also different

(Appendix A).

Question 3: What are your [clients] motivations for rebranding?

This question was asked to get a better sense of the conditions under which corporations decide

to go through a rebrand and make changes to their brand identity.

Mary Verdin: As we updated our web design and copy, we started to realizethat we had evolved and our brand no longer accurately representing our

company. When we started, it was just meas we expanded we grew to a

staff of 12 people with two in-house designers and our goal was to expand

outside of SLO County. Ive been in this community so long and people here

know me and what Verdin does, but in other places you have to start from

scratch. We mostly wanted to better represent ourselves and come up with a

more sophisticated look that matched the company we had grown into Its

different and kind of case-by-case. One case comes to mind for a mailing

software company called Accuzip. Essentially they had a goal of becoming

more global, both in terms of expanding from just mailing, but also

geographically, they wanted to be successful outside of the U.S. so they

needed to make some changes and we helped them do that (Appendix B).

Alexia Haynes: A big one that we see a lot is if the ownership has changed in

some way. So if were looking at a merger or an acquisition, some change in

ownership structure, thats a good reason to make a change. The company has

literally changed in some way and they need to reflect that. Another big

reason is elevating a company image. A lot of times well see that from a


33/69

Hollenbeck 33

start-up company that has evolved over say five or ten years and theyll say,

you know what, were not a teeny tiny fledgling company anymore, weve

grown up so they need a brand identity that reflects that more sophisticated,

grown-up version of themselves. Those are really the main reasons weve seen

rebrandingwe also see it with milestones in a company. For instance, we

[Clearpoint Agency] actually rebranded for our 10-year anniversary. It wasnt

a huge brand overhaul but we definitely reassessed. Who are we? Is this still

who we are? Have our goals changed? (Appendix C).

Kristin Kenney: Going back to value propositionsyou need to really look

at why youre rebranding. One of our start-ups, RepairTech is going through a

bit of a rebrand right now. They have great existing branding but theyre

current logo is a little too playful and doesnt necessarily match their goals.

They hope to become a national company that is a little more serious and

communicates that they are a tool for professionals rather than a couple

college kids that can fix computers. Thats a situation in which it makes sense

and is appropriate to make changes to your brand identity. They are tweaking

things to better reach their target market (Appendix A).

Question 4: What are the risks associated with rebranding? How do you combat them?

This question was asked to determine and acknowledge some of the risks and fears associated

with undergoing a change in brand identity, as well as the things to do in order to minimize these

risks.

Mary Verdin: A client might come to us and say we have this new name,now we need a new logo. Ill response with but, do you know what people


34/69

Hollenbeck 34

think about you now? If youre going to take that risk of changing your brand

identity and putting yourself out there, you really want to take the time to do it

right so you can resonate with your customers. You cant do that unless you

find out what they think of you. They might like something that you dont

think they like, that could be your point of differentiation that you should be

capitalizing on. I think it is easy to skip research because it can be expensive

and brand managers think they have all of the answers already. Equity loss is

a big fear too. They think, gosh, weve had this brand identity for 20 years.

Are people going to think weve sold? Especially in this economy recently,

companies dont want to look like they needed saving or needed to be bought.

Thats why you have to plan a launch for a rebrand, you cant just do it

without explanation (Appendix B).

Alexia Haynes: It is something that has to be looked atif a big companydecides to do a brand overhaul they should absolutely take stock of their

existing equity and find out what they might lose if they make big changes.

Ive seen clients who have thought about a big change then decided it wasnt

worth it, so its really an important first step to ask why you want to make a

change and do your research. Make sure you communicate very clearly with

all of your audiences or else theyll be taken off guard and might become

skeptical. (Appendix C).

Kristin Kenney: The issue is when you dont have a legitimate reason forjeopardizing your equity and you change for the sake of changingthere just

needs to be solid reasoning and a lot of through that goes into rebranding.

Being contemporary is not good enough, in my opinion. Businesses probably


35/69

Hollenbeck 35

feel pressure to change with the times, but if youve done the initial legwork,

your brand identity should be relatively timeless.For example, so many

start-ups have dumb names because they want to seem cool and different but

thats not the way to distinguish your brand. A good brand goes beyond a

name and logo, though those are important since they are what people see. A

big thing to remember is your value statement. Why does your company

exist? What does it promise consumers? What associations do people have

with it? What makes it stand out? You need to answer those questions and

build a brand identity from that (Appendix A).

Question 5: What should generally be avoided when rebranding?

This question was asked to determine red flags and common mistakes in the process that should

be avoided.

Mary Verdin: Like New Coke and Gap? It amazes me how many bigcorporations arent in tune with their audience. Theyre the ones buying your

product, so what they think and feel and want should be at the forefront of

brand managers minds when making any changesIt can be easy to skip

research because it can be expensive but it is a mistake not to get a 360 degree

view of your brand and its environment prior to beginning a rebrand. And

back to consistency. If you saw the Pepsi logo and it was green and yellow

and a square instead of a circle but said Pepsi youd think it didnt look right

because it isnt consistent. And youd probably switch to Coke or something

(Appendix B).


36/69

Hollenbeck 36

Alexia Haynes: Yeah, I really think communication and a slow rollout iscrucial. Sure you should have everything ready ahead of time, but prepare

people! But from the PR perspective it can be a great thing to talk about. Hey

weve rebranded! Why? Let us tell you. Its a great opportunity for press.

Conversely, if you dont explain it or give people time to get used to the idea

and adjust to the new look and feel it can be disastrous (Appendix C).

Kristin Kenney: Yes Ive definitely witnessed a lot of start-up failures in myyears at CIE. There was one fledgling idea from Start Up weekend I cant

remember the initial name but they started out as a crowd-sourcing

application to tell people where to sit if they want to catch fly balls. By the

end of the weekend they had developed into a crowd-sourced ticketing

application, which had a lot of potential, but their initial name was Swizz.

Swizz! Thats just awful I think and doesnt give any indication of what the

application does. It was a good illustration of this point: of course you have to

have a good product to be successful, but your name is also very important. It

should be something that is short, easy to remember, and also not stupid. Also,

do your research and figure out why you want to change. If you do something

like Gap did a while back and just tweak the logo for no reason, just to seem

relevant, people will not respond well. There wasnt anything wrong with the

existing logothere just needs to be solid reasoning and a lot of thought that

goes into rebranding. Being contemporary is not good enough, in my opinion

(Appendix A).


37/69

Hollenbeck 37

Question 6: How important is communication to the success of a rebranding campaign?

This question was asked to get a professional opinion on the importance of communicating

throughout all stages of a change.

Mary Verdin: Dont keep your key audiences in the dark! [When werebranded] we said heres why we rebranded, heres our new logo. Then after

the party we sent another e-blast to everyone on our list explaining that our

look was refreshed but our service would stay as good if not better than it had

been in the past. That night we switched over all of our social media pages to

match the new and improved brand identity, the new colors, new logo, new

name. We also sent out a press release and even purchased ads in local papers

for the following morning. We had 3 color ads saying, fall is in the air. Its a

great time for a change. Verdin Marketing Ink is now Verdin (Appendix B).

Alexia Haynes: I think the most important thing is to make sure youre beingvery communicative throughout the whole process. Its like the rebranding we

as consumers see in grocery stores, you know. Same great product, new and

improved package! Its the same thing for a company. Youll slowly see a

logo change over time. Or youll email customers who are confused and really

explain heres our new logo, this is why we changed, heres what it means for

you. Make sure you communicate very clearly with all of your audiences. You

want to talk to your customers, but its important how you communicate the

change to your internal audience, your employees and how you communicate

to stockholders or investors or even your competitors. Theres a lot of


38/69

Hollenbeck 38

different audiences to consider and a lot of different ways to communicate to

those audiences (Appendix C).

Kristin Kenney: Thats really the essence of my whole job at CIE. If peopleare confused by our current, multiple logo situation, imagine how theyd be if

we changed it all drastically without any explanation! I think rebranding

oftentimes seems like internal work, like the company needs to just figure it

out on its own and hope for the best but Ive learned that its better to really

break it down for your audience. Let them know how it will affect them

(Appendix A).

4.2 Research Questions

For this research project, the following six research questions were created to better understand

the varying components of rebranding campaigns, as well as to determine best practices and

mistakes to avoid.

Research Question 1: What makes a successful brand?

A name, term, symbol, design or combination of them intended to identify goods orservices of one seller or group of sellers to differentiate them from those of competitors

(AMA, 2012).

It is important to remember that a brand is also a bundle of attributes (Geller, 2012).

The five components to brand success: a great brand experience, clear and consistentpositioning, dynamism, authenticity and a strong corporate culture (Hollis, 2008).


39/69

Hollenbeck 39

Brand names are critical to the success of a new product, consumer and industrial goodscompanies place similar emphasis on the brand naming task, and a detailed and

systematic process is used in the creation of the brand names (Kohli & LaBahn, 1995).

Meaningful brands are those that enhance the wellbeing of individuals, communities andthe environment (Havas, 2011).

Brands that focus on simplicity are able distinguish themselves from all of this noise andgain a competitive advantage (Kemp, 2013).

Language can play tricks on marketers who dont respond to cultural differencesmarketers must examine not just the spoken word, but all the elements of culture that

form a barrier to mutual understanding (White, 2009).

Research Question 2: What does rebranding entail? How is it done successfully?

The marketing strategy of revitalizing and repositioning a brand through gradual,incremental modification of the brand position and marketing aesthetics (Muzellec &

Lambkin, 2006).

Rebranding is always carried out through a change in visual identificationcommunicated through conventional corporate communications media (Muzellec &

Lambkin, 2006).

Before deciding to rebrand a product or even to tweak its logo and look, corporatemanagers should ascertain what the customers think of it (Kaikati & Kaikati, 2003).

six options for implementing a rebranding strategy: (1) phase in/phase out, (2)combined rebranding strategy via one umbrella brand, (3) translucent warning strategy,

(4) sudden eradication strategy, (5) counter-takeover strategy and (6) retrobranding

(Kaikati & Kaikati, 2003).


40/69

Hollenbeck 40

During the phase-in stage of option one, the new brand remains tied to the existing brandfor a designated introductory period, after which time the old brand is gradually phased

out. This option provides stakeholders with a buffer time and helps ease the shock of

sudden changes (Kaikati & Kaikati, 2003).

This strategy is effective because corporations are able to almost hold the customershands and walk them through the transition, rather than simply making the switch to a

new name/and or logo and hoping that the public will catch up (Kaikati & Kaikati,

2003).

Research Question 3: Why rebrand?

There are many motivators for rebranding, but on a very basic level, they fall into one oftwo categories: have to vs. want to (Alshebil, 2007).

The main drivers for rebranding are, therefore, decisions, events or processes causing achange in a companys structure, strategy or performance of sufficient magnitude to

suggest the need for fundamental redefinition of its identity. Such events can vary from

sudden, total structural transformation following a merger or acquisition to a gradual

erosion of market share or firms reputation due to changing demand patterns or

competitive conditions. These drivers fall into four main categories: (1) change in

ownership structure, (2) change in corporate strategy, (3) change in competitive position

and (4) change in the external environment (Muzellec & Lambkin, 2006).

75% of the 2976 U.S. corporations that changed their names in 2000 resulted frommergers and acquisitions (Muzellec & Lambkin, 2006).

[Need to] foster a new image or rationalize the brand portfolio and reveal a rebrandingapproach that is strategic in its own right (Muzellec & Lambkin, 2006).


41/69

Hollenbeck 41

Research Question 4: What are the risks associated with rebranding? What should be

avoided?

At first sight, rebranding practice may appear to contradict the marketing and corporatereputation literature. The main inconsistency revolves around the notion of brand equity.

Some additional challenges appear with regards to rebranding gestation, involvement of

personnel and means of communication. Brand equity is a set of assets linked to a brand

name and symbolshence, rebranding can be seen as a corporate marketing

transformation, i.e. a very strong formal signal to stakeholders and consumers that

something about the corporation has changed (Greyser & Jenster, 2006).

Along with a brand name comes a series of attached associations (which as previouslydiscussed, are crucial to the building of equity) that may very well be lost with the

phasing out of the original name (Greyser & Jenster, 2006).

There is a great financial risk associated with executing a large scale rebrandingcampaign (Martin & Cooper, 2011).

Rebranding has been estimated to cost from thousands to millions of dollars (Alshebil,2007).

Despite executives well-intentioned desire to signal change, it was an unfortunateexample of one change too many (Zmuda, 2012).

However, it is important to remember that while rebranding offers a golden opportunity,it should not be attempted with the intention of papering over existing cracks (Muzellec

& Lambkin, 2006).


42/69

Hollenbeck 42

Research Question 5: How do consumers respond to rebranding? Why should brands

care?

Following the rebranding of the European Telecom Eirann, Internet users expressed theirskepticism: Lets fool everyone into believing were new and dynamic, by spending

millions on a new image! (Muzellec & Lambkin, 2006).

If a logo change is done right and it is favorably viewed even if it is a drastic change consumers would likely be more interested in it, as well as less questioning of it. The

lower level of questioning would contribute to less skepticism about it, and would

contribute to the consumers improved attitude toward the brand. Of course, if a logo

change is not done right and is unfavorably viewed, multiple penalties would accrue

when consumers apply their coping process to the change. In such a case, the consumers

attitude toward the brand would decline (Alshebil, 2007).

The imposed element of the rebranding strategy might induce skepticism amongstakeholders and further influence their brand attitudes (Ing, 2012).

Customers were not amused and voiced their disapproval via social media, leaving15,826 mostly negative comments within 24 hours of the rebranding announcement

(Pennington, 2011).

4.3 Rebranding Data

For this study it was important to consult experts in the fields of branding and marketing

to gain their professional opinions on how to go about the rebranding process in the best possible

way. The three respondents handle brand management on a daily basis and have insight to share

on the subject. Mary Verdin, Alexia Haynes and Kristin Kenney were each asked a series of


43/69

Hollenbeck 43

questions to aid in clarifying the existing literature, as presented in Chapter 2, as well as to

answer the original research questions.

What are the components of a successful brand?

This question was formulated to elicit a clear response and get the experts opinion on

this million-dollar question. It is crucial to understand what makes a strong successful brand in

order to aspire to it during a rebrand. Existing literature offers up a plethora of attributes that may

aid in brand success, from staying consistent and emphasizing unique attributes, to keeping the

companys name, look and messaging very simple and meaningful.

The experts echoed some of the same points expressed in the literature. All three agreed

with the literature, in that a brand is much more than just a name, logo or tagline. Mary Verdin

suggested that a brand is more the impression that is left behind, while Alexia Haynes believes a

brand is a clear understanding of what a company does and what makes it unique. Kristin

Kenney suggested that strong brands are those that grow out of solid value statements, and the

importance communicating that sense of meaning and purpose in all aspects of branding. Mary

Verdin also emphasized the importance of staying consistent in all aspects of branding,

messaging and positioning. She agreed that fonts, logos, colors, taglines, etc. should be presented

consistently every time to build up equity. Verdin also said that a strong brand has the following

three key elements: people recognize you, people know what you offer and what you promise,

and people know what you deliver.


44/69

Hollenbeck 44

Table 1: What are the components of a successful brand?

Respondent What is a brand? What makes it strong?

Mary Verdin Not logo or slogan, but the

promise you make to yourcustomers and what they thinkof you.

Consistency, being

recognizable and understood.

Alexia Haynes Much more than name or logo. Communicates clearly who acompany is, what they do, andwhat makes them unique ordifferent.

Kristin Kenney Isnt just name or logo, its areflection of company valuesets.

Strongest thing you can do isstay true to your values as anorganization.

What does rebranding entail? How do you go about the process?

This question was asked to prompt experts to articulate exactly what rebranding is and

what it entails, in addition to sharing their individual processes. Existing literature is in

agreement that rebranding is a change in the identity of a brand, prompted by one of many

reasons generally either because the existing brand identity doesnt match the essence of the

company or because of a tangible, structural change. Both the existing literature and the experts

mentioned the necessity of really understanding why a corporation feels compelled to rebrand,

prior to making any changes. Some literature even suggests that brand managers provide detailed

answers to dozens of difficult questions before even deciding to rebrand (Brier, 2013). Alexia

Haynes asks her clients similar questions to better understand their unique situation and kick start

the process. She also likens corporate rebranding to supermarket packing redesign and believes

the communication of the change in brand identity should say something to the effect of same

great product, new and improved look (Appendix C).


45/69

Hollenbeck 45

Mary Verdin follows a four-step process for successful rebranding that echoes the

suggestions of existing literature. The first step is discovery, which is research intensive and

helps better understand the strengths and weaknesses of the current brand identity. Next she

suggests visioning to determine the end goals. Finally she suggests activation, the unrolling of

the new brand identity, and analytics for measuring success.

Kristin Kenney highly values logic and communication and attributes these strategies to a

rebranding campaigns success, over a pretty logo or fancy name. She does mention the

importance of a brand name that is simple and explains what the company does, an important

point explored in the literature (Lerman & Garbarino, 2002).

Table 2: What is rebranding? How do you go about the process?

Respondent What is a rebranding? How?

Mary Verdin Has internal and externalcomponents.

Rebuild brand architecturethrough discovery, visioning,activation and analytics.

Alexia Haynes Same great product, new andimproved package.

Figure out what messagescompany wants to

communicate. Reflect the oldand slowly change.

Kristin Kenney Not just a new logo, more or anew communication strategy.

Need solid reasoning andthought process. Answerquestions.

What are your [clients] motivations for rebranding?

This question was asked to obtain responses that could be cross-referenced against the

motivations listed in the existing literature. It is helpful to understand why a corporation might

want or need to rebrand. Existing literature lists four main drivers: (1) change in ownership

structure, (2) change in corporate strategy, (3) change in competitive position and (4) change in


46/69

Hollenbeck 46

the external environment (Muzellec & Lambkin, 2006). An overwhelming majority of

rebranding case studies seem to have been prompted by a merger or acquisition.

Alexia Haynes also cites mergers and acquisition as the primary reason her clients choose to

rebrand. That said, she also thinks rebranding can elevate a companys image if done correctly,

which is desirable. The latter reasoning aligns with the literature: fostering a new image or

rationalize the brand portfolio and reveal a rebranding approach that is strategic in its own right

(Muzellec & Lambkin, 2006).

Mary Verdin and Kristin Kenney are in agreement that rebranding should occur if the

existing brand identity no longer adequately represents the company, whether that is literal due

to a change in management or more figurative in the sense that the current identity is not clearly

communicative or is being misinterpreted. Mary Verdin shared her experience rebranding her

own business and said We mostly wanted to better represent ourselves and come up with a more

sophisticated look that matched the company we had grown into (Appendix B). She also noted

that her clients sometime have to reevaluate their branding to make themselves more widely

understood and global. Kristin Kenney also shared a case study of a start-up she works with that

is changing their logo to better reach and communicate with their target audience.

Both the experts and the literature reached the consensus that changing for the sake of

change is ill advised and rarely successful when it comes to branding.

Table 3: What is rebranding? How do you go about the process?

Respondent Motivations for rebranding

Mary Verdin If existing brand identity no longer accurately representscompany and its goals.

Alexia Haynes Mergers and acquisitions, to elevate company image or tosignify company milestone.

Kristin Kenney To better communicate essence of company and its values,to better reach target market.


47/69

Hollenbeck 47

Question 4: What are the risks associated with rebranding? How do you combat them?

Existing literature and case studies have shown that undergoing a rebrand can be very

risky. Changing a brands identity, whether that change is minor or major, puts them in the

spotlight and opens the doors for potentially negative feedback. These risks threaten both the

company and the brands reputation and equity, and their potential profits (Brier, 2013). This

question was asked to prompt experts to articulate the risks they encounter when rebranding and

the ways they work to minimize them.

Mary Verdin agreed with existing literature that loss of brand equity and all that comes

with it is probably the biggest risk and fear associated with rebranding. They think, gosh, weve

had this brand identity for 20 years. Are people going to think weve sold? Especially in this

economy recently, companies dont want to look like they needed saving or needed to be bought.

Thats why you have to plan a launch for a rebrand, you cant just do it without explanation

(Appendix B). Alexia Haynes adds to this concept and recommends that companies

Corporate Rebranding: Best Practices to Maintain Brand Equity Throughout Transitions in Brand...

Documents

Transcript of Corporate Rebranding: Best Practices to Maintain Brand Equity Throughout Transitions in Brand...