Upload
kelseyhollenbeck
View
228
Download
0
Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
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
7/27/2019 Corporate Rebranding: Best Practices to Maintain Brand Equity Throughout Transitions in Brand Identity
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.
7/27/2019 Corporate Rebranding: Best Practices to Maintain Brand Equity Throughout Transitions in Brand Identity
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
7/27/2019 Corporate Rebranding: Best Practices to Maintain Brand Equity Throughout Transitions in Brand Identity
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
7/27/2019 Corporate Rebranding: Best Practices to Maintain Brand Equity Throughout Transitions in Brand Identity
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?
7/27/2019 Corporate Rebranding: Best Practices to Maintain Brand Equity Throughout Transitions in Brand Identity
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,
7/27/2019 Corporate Rebranding: Best Practices to Maintain Brand Equity Throughout Transitions in Brand Identity
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
7/27/2019 Corporate Rebranding: Best Practices to Maintain Brand Equity Throughout Transitions in Brand Identity
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.
7/27/2019 Corporate Rebranding: Best Practices to Maintain Brand Equity Throughout Transitions in Brand Identity
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
7/27/2019 Corporate Rebranding: Best Practices to Maintain Brand Equity Throughout Transitions in Brand Identity
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
7/27/2019 Corporate Rebranding: Best Practices to Maintain Brand Equity Throughout Transitions in Brand Identity
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).
7/27/2019 Corporate Rebranding: Best Practices to Maintain Brand Equity Throughout Transitions in Brand Identity
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,
7/27/2019 Corporate Rebranding: Best Practices to Maintain Brand Equity Throughout Transitions in Brand Identity
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
7/27/2019 Corporate Rebranding: Best Practices to Maintain Brand Equity Throughout Transitions in Brand Identity
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
7/27/2019 Corporate Rebranding: Best Practices to Maintain Brand Equity Throughout Transitions in Brand Identity
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
7/27/2019 Corporate Rebranding: Best Practices to Maintain Brand Equity Throughout Transitions in Brand Identity
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?
7/27/2019 Corporate Rebranding: Best Practices to Maintain Brand Equity Throughout Transitions in Brand Identity
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
7/27/2019 Corporate Rebranding: Best Practices to Maintain Brand Equity Throughout Transitions in Brand Identity
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.
7/27/2019 Corporate Rebranding: Best Practices to Maintain Brand Equity Throughout Transitions in Brand Identity
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.
7/27/2019 Corporate Rebranding: Best Practices to Maintain Brand Equity Throughout Transitions in 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
7/27/2019 Corporate Rebranding: Best Practices to Maintain Brand Equity Throughout Transitions in Brand Identity
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.
7/27/2019 Corporate Rebranding: Best Practices to Maintain Brand Equity Throughout Transitions in Brand Identity
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
7/27/2019 Corporate Rebranding: Best Practices to Maintain Brand Equity Throughout Transitions in Brand Identity
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
7/27/2019 Corporate Rebranding: Best Practices to Maintain Brand Equity Throughout Transitions in Brand Identity
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
7/27/2019 Corporate Rebranding: Best Practices to Maintain Brand Equity Throughout Transitions in Brand Identity
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
7/27/2019 Corporate Rebranding: Best Practices to Maintain Brand Equity Throughout Transitions in Brand Identity
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.
7/27/2019 Corporate Rebranding: Best Practices to Maintain Brand Equity Throughout Transitions in Brand Identity
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.
7/27/2019 Corporate Rebranding: Best Practices to Maintain Brand Equity Throughout Transitions in Brand Identity
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.
7/27/2019 Corporate Rebranding: Best Practices to Maintain Brand Equity Throughout Transitions in Brand Identity
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
7/27/2019 Corporate Rebranding: Best Practices to Maintain Brand Equity Throughout Transitions in Brand Identity
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
7/27/2019 Corporate Rebranding: Best Practices to Maintain Brand Equity Throughout Transitions in Brand Identity
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
7/27/2019 Corporate Rebranding: Best Practices to Maintain Brand Equity Throughout Transitions in Brand Identity
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
7/27/2019 Corporate Rebranding: Best Practices to Maintain Brand Equity Throughout Transitions in Brand Identity
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
7/27/2019 Corporate Rebranding: Best Practices to Maintain Brand Equity Throughout Transitions in Brand Identity
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
7/27/2019 Corporate Rebranding: Best Practices to Maintain Brand Equity Throughout Transitions in Brand Identity
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).
7/27/2019 Corporate Rebranding: Best Practices to Maintain Brand Equity Throughout Transitions in Brand Identity
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).
7/27/2019 Corporate Rebranding: Best Practices to Maintain Brand Equity Throughout Transitions in Brand Identity
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
7/27/2019 Corporate Rebranding: Best Practices to Maintain Brand Equity Throughout Transitions in Brand Identity
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).
7/27/2019 Corporate Rebranding: Best Practices to Maintain Brand Equity Throughout Transitions in Brand Identity
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).
7/27/2019 Corporate Rebranding: Best Practices to Maintain Brand Equity Throughout Transitions in Brand Identity
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).
7/27/2019 Corporate Rebranding: Best Practices to Maintain Brand Equity Throughout Transitions in Brand Identity
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).
7/27/2019 Corporate Rebranding: Best Practices to Maintain Brand Equity Throughout Transitions in Brand Identity
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
7/27/2019 Corporate Rebranding: Best Practices to Maintain Brand Equity Throughout Transitions in Brand Identity
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.
7/27/2019 Corporate Rebranding: Best Practices to Maintain Brand Equity Throughout Transitions in Brand Identity
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).
7/27/2019 Corporate Rebranding: Best Practices to Maintain Brand Equity Throughout Transitions in Brand Identity
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
7/27/2019 Corporate Rebranding: Best Practices to Maintain Brand Equity Throughout Transitions in Brand Identity
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.
7/27/2019 Corporate Rebranding: Best Practices to Maintain Brand Equity Throughout Transitions in Brand Identity
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