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

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.

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

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

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?

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,

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 the Asian 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

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.

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

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

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).

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,

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

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

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 the Journal 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

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?

Hollenbeck 17 18. If we were starting our business today, would this be the brand solution we would come 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

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.

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.

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

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.

Hollenbeck 22 2.4 Worth the Risk? If brand equity is built over time, through the maintenance of a consistent and highquality 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

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

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 the European 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

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 the International 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 rebrand 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

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.

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.

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.

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 the company 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 just your name and your logo, its really your value set. Brands should

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. We create 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

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 we work 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 caseby-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 having one 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

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 realize that 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

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

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 company decides 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 for jeopardizing 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

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 big corporations 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).

Hollenbeck 36 Alexia Haynes: Yeah, I really think communication and a slow rollout is crucial. 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 my years 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).

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 we rebranded] 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 being very 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

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 people are 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 or services 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 consistent positioning, dynamism, authenticity and a strong corporate culture (Hollis, 2008).

Hollenbeck 39 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). Meaningful brands are those that enhance the wellbeing of individuals, communities and the environment (Havas, 2011). Brands that focus on simplicity are able distinguish themselves from all of this noise and gain a competitive advantage (Kemp, 2013). 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).

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 identification communicated through conventional corporate communications media (Muzellec & Lambkin, 2006). 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). 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).

Hollenbeck 40 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 (Kaikati & Kaikati, 2003). 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 (Kaikati & Kaikati, 2003).

Research Question 3: Why rebrand? 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). 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 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 from mergers and acquisitions (Muzellec & Lambkin, 2006). [Need 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).

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 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). 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). 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). Despite executives well-intentioned desire to signal change, it was an unfortunate example 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).

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

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

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.

Hollenbeck 44 Table 1: What are the components of a successful brand? Respondent Mary Verdin What is a brand? What makes it strong?

Alexia Haynes

Kristin Kenney

Not logo or slogan, but the Consistency, being promise you make to your recognizable and understood. customers and what they think of you. Much more than name or logo. Communicates clearly who a company is, what they do, and what makes them unique or different. Isnt just name or logo, its a Strongest thing you can do is reflection of company value stay true to your values as an sets. organization.

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).

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 Mary Verdin What is a rebranding? Has internal and external components. Same great product, new and improved package. How? Rebuild brand architecture through discovery, visioning, activation and analytics. Figure out what messages company wants to communicate. Reflect the old and slowly change. Need solid reasoning and thought process. Answer questions.

Alexia Haynes

Kristin Kenney

Not just a new logo, more or a new communication strategy.

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

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 Mary Verdin Alexia Haynes Kristin Kenney Motivations for rebranding If existing brand identity no longer accurately represents company and its goals. Mergers and acquisitions, to elevate company image or to signify company milestone. To better communicate essence of company and its values, to better reach target market.

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 take stock of their existing equity and really understand what they stand to lose if rebranding goes wrong. She has watched clients decide against rebranding because of the potential risks. Kristin Kenney is more optimistic, believing that if you do the legwork and have a justifiable reason for changing, you should be successful. The issue is when you dont have a legitimate reason for jeopardizing 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 (Appendix A). All three experts agreed with existing literature that the best way to combat these risks is to have a strategic plan for launching the new and improved brand identity. This aligns with Kaikati and Kaikatis translucent warning strategy in which publics are kept informed throughout all phases of the rebrand so they have time to adjust and feel included rather than taken off guard or betrayed.

Hollenbeck 48 Table 4: What are the risks associated with rebranding? How do you combat them? Respondent Mary Verdin Risks Loss of equity, hit to brands reputation. How to combat?

Alexia Haynes Kristin Kenney

Have a strategy for launching new brand. Explain reasoning and what it means to customers. Potential loss of existing Do your research and inform equity if rebranding is not well your varying audiences. received. Jeopardizes equity if you are Need legitimate reasoning not rebranding for the right behind rebranding. reasons. Communicate it.

Question 5: What should generally be avoided when rebranding? This question was asked to gain the experts perspective on what should absolutely be avoided in any rebranding situation. Respondents shared their personal observations as well as opinions on larger-scale case studies of rebranding gone wrong. Both Mary Verdin and Kristin Kenney mentioned Gaps retrobranding incident, in which they made one change too many and ended up reverting back to their original logo after the new one was met with harsh criticism by consumers. However, Verdin and Kenney had slightly different analyses of this case study. Verdin saw this as an example of being out-of-touch with your customers, while Kenney saw it as a brand making the all-too-common mistake of changing simply for the sake of change. The literature suggests that Gap updated their logo to give off a fresh vibe after years or stagnant sales, and that they did so much too rapidly and without warning, without so much as testing with focus groups or even explaining their reasoning to customers (Zmuda, 2012). Alexia Haynes agrees that moving too quickly and keeping your audiences in the dark is a big mistake: I really think communication and a slow rollout is crucial. Sure you should have

Hollenbeck 49 everything ready ahead of time, but prepare people! If you dont, it can be disastrous (Appendix C). It is also 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). Finally, Mary Verdin stressed the important of doing your research to determine if and how to rebrand. She has noticed many brand managers skipping out on research because they think they already know everything and because it can be expensive, but asserts that its worthwhile in the long run. Table 5: What should generally be avoided when rebranding? Respondent Mary Verdin Alexia Haynes Kristin Kenney What to avoid when rebranding? Being out-of-touch with your audiences, failure to communicate change, lack of research. Keeping your audiences in the dark and moving too quickly without warning. Changing for the sake of change.

Question 6: How important is communication to the success of a rebranding campaign? Existing literature touches on the need to communicate heavily throughout a rebrand, but neglects to outline exactly what companies should be explaining, how and to whom. This question was asked to ascertain feedback from communications professionals. All three respondents heavily emphasized the need to cover all bases when it comes to communicating change. When Mary Verdin rebranded her company, she made sure the news reached all relevant audiences, from her own customers, to local community members. 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

Hollenbeck 50 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 agreed, adding that all audiences should be informed, including customers, employees, investors and even competitors. I think the most important thing is to make sure youre being very communicativetheres a lot of different audiences to consider and a lot of different ways to communicate to those audiences (Appendix C). Kristin Kenney echoes this, understanding that sometimes companies feel that rebranding is more of an internal issue but also realizing that its best to really break it down for your audience and spell out how the change will affect them. Existing literature has shown that customers react poorly to a rebrand if they are surprised by it or feel that they have no say in the matter. Consequently, they become skeptical of the brand and lose trust in the company, which results in a damaging hit to the brands equity (Ing, 2012). Communication is as important as the new name, logo or tagline, if not more important. Table 6: How important is communication to the success of a rebranding campaign? Respondent Mary Verdin How important? Crucial. How to communicate? Make sure you are reaching all relevant audiences to inform them of reasoning behind change and its implications. Consider all of your audiences and make sure to reach all of them. Best to break it down and let public know how it will affect them.

Alexia Haynes Kristin Kenney

The most important aspect of rebranding. Very important.

Hollenbeck 51 Research Questions The questions asked of the industry experts were intentionally similar to the original research questions, and were designed to elicit relevant and insightful answers.

Research Question 1: What makes a successful brand? All three experts agreed that a brand is much more than just a name, logo or tagline. When it came to breaking down the components of a successful brand, they each had slightly different responses. Mary Verdin argues that staying consistent and being recognizable and understood is the key to brand success. Alexia Haynes suggested a strong brand is one that clearly communicates what it does and what makes it unique, and Kristin Kenney said that strong brands are those that grow out of and stay true to their value propositions. The literature offers up varying responses to this question. Research backs up the experts in articulating that a brand is more a bundle of attributes and impressions than it is a tangible visual representation of a product or service (Geller, 2012). Literature added that brands should strive to highlight what makes them unique and meaningful, while staying relatively simple (Havas, 2012). It also touched on the challenge of coming up with brand names that are simultaneously descriptive, short and easy to remember a point that Kristin Kenney also made. In conclusion, companies should strive for the aforementioned qualities of strong brands when handling their own rebranding.

Research Question 2: What does rebranding entail? How is it done successfully? Just like a brand is more than just a logo, a rebranding effort consists of more than just developing a new logo. The experts were in agreement on this point, though they articulated their answers slightly differently. Mary Verdin acknowledged that rebranding has internal and

Hollenbeck 52 external components, and outlined Verdins 4-step process for rebranding: discovery, visioning, activation and analytics (Appendix B). Alexia Haynes emphasized the messaging component of the rebranding process and likened it to the old adage: same great product, new and improved look! (Appendix C). Kristin Kenney agreed that rebranding is largely a messaging and communication strategy, and she urged brand managers to start with a solid reasoning to justify changes to brand identity. The research affirms that there are both internal and external parts of the rebranding process. Kaikati and Kaikati outlined 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). All but one of these options requires some level of external communication with the public, as well as a heavy initial research stage and the actual development of a new name, logo and/or tagline. In conclusion, companies should be aware of their potential options for implementing a rebranding strategy, and should generally begin with research and end with analytics.

Research Question 3: Why rebrand? This question elicited nearly identical answers from the three respondents. Mary Verdin and Kristin Kenney both mentioned an instance in which brand identity and brand values do not match and cited that as a main driver of rebranding. Alexia Haynes added mergers and acquisitions, elevating company image and company milestones to the mix. The literature mentions all of these motivators and more. Muzellec and Lambkin agree than misrepresentation of brand identity is a compelling reason to rebrand. They also found that a

Hollenbeck 53 large majority of companies that rebranded did so because of a merger or acquisition situation, which supports Alexias point. (Muzellec & Lambkin, 2006). In conclusion, companies should carefully evaluate why they feel compelled to rebrand and check to see if their motivations align with those that researchers and experts have deemed worthy of taking such a big risk. If a company cannot articulate why they want to rebrand or support their decision with adequate research, its safe to say they should not be rebranding to begin with.

Research Question 4: What are the risks associated with rebranding? What should be avoided? All three experts admitted that rebranding is a risky undertaking, due to its potential for falling flat or worse, diminishing or destroying existing brand equity by changing a familiar name or altering a traditional logo. Mary Verdin and Alexia Haynes focused primarily on the reputation risk, and Kristin Kenney acknowledged the risk but was confident it could be minimized with careful planning. The research addressed the potential reputation risk, but also examined the risk of diminished markets and profits, as well as the actual cost of undergoing the rebranding process. Saleh Alshebil determined it costs between thousands and millions of dollars for a major corporation to rebrand and update all visible materials, from marketing collateral, to buildings, cars, website, etc (Alshebil, 2007). Martin and Cooper concurred that there is a noteworthy financial risk. The experts came up with three overall mistakes to avoid: keeping your audiences in the dark/failing to communicate, changing too rapidly without doing the proper research, and changing simply for the sake of changing. The research focuses more on the risks than how to overcome them, but does emphasize research and communication.

Hollenbeck 54 In conclusion, companies should be familiar with the inherent reputation and financial risks that come with making a big change to brand identity. That said, they should not be afraid to undergo the process if their reasoning is sound and they are making the best use of their available resources.

Research Question 5: How do consumers respond to rebranding? Why should brands care? The experts found that the rebranding campaigns they have worked on were all overwhelmingly positive, and attributed this success to targeted, meaningful and frequent communication with all relevant audiences. Literature supports this idea, showing in case after case that consumers reacted badly largely because they felt taken off guard and left out of the loop, or werent made to understand why a brand had changed so drastically on them. Saleh Alshebils thesis research concluded that for the most part, consumers prefer stability to change in brand identity. However, the literature has confirmed that rebranding is a natural and oftentimes necessary occurrence in the lifecycle of any successful brand (Kaikati & Kaikati, 2003). Times change, companies evolve and brands would be wise to make changes when it is appropriate (Brier, 2013). Alshebils study also determined that if a rebrand is done correctly and favorably viewed, consumers would likely be more interested and less skeptical, but the opposite holds true if the change is unfavorably viewed (Alshebil, 2007). In conclusion, companies should understand the power that their audiences and consumers have to make or break a rebranding campaign. With this in mind, brand managers should involve actual consumers and/or customers as often as possible in the process and communicate early and often to allow time for feedback and adjustment.

Hollenbeck 55 CHAPTER 5: SUMMARY

The purpose of this study was to shed light on the complicated process of corporate rebranding and provide suggestions to steer brand managers towards success. This study addresses the issue of increasingly unsuccessful rebranding ventures in recent years. Qualitative interviews of industry experts were conducted to supplement an in-depth review of existing literature on the subject. This research was guided the following overarching 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?

Its challenging to create protocol for rebranding that is perfectly applicable for every companys goals. Each company facing the possibility of a rebrand has a unique situation and similarly unique needs, depending on their size, sector, target consumers and long-term goals. However, it is crucial that brand managers and marketing executives are as informed as possible about the basics prior to diving into the costly and risky process of rebranding if they want to come out on top. By examining relevant literature and consulting industry experts, some general conclusions can be drawn which answer the aforementioned research questions. Both the experts and the literature agree that the first step should always be determining why, exactly, the corporation feels the need to make changes to its brand identity and what consumers think about the existing branding. This exercise is designed to weed out corporations that are looking for a quick fix for an unrelated issue or feeling compelled to update their look

Hollenbeck 56 simply because it is seemingly trendy (Brier, 2013). According to literature and experts, most often rebranding is sparked by a change in corporate structure or an existing brand identity that does not accurately communicate a companys essence and values. If after a thorough discussion about motivation, the corporation has determined a rebrand is still appropriate, they must begin working (internally or with a contracted branding agency) to come up with a new, suitable identity. While the crafting of the new look and feel is certainly a creative process, it is important to remember the value of research (Appendix B). A name, color or logo cannot be chosen simply for the reason that it sounds nice or looks pretty especially if it belongs to a global brand. Mockups should be thoroughly tested in focus groups and researched to ensure they will not be lost in translation among varying markets and consumers. At this point, brand managers should also take care to make sure the proposed new brand identity is strong. Again, the experts and literature are in agreement that a strong brand is one that clearly communicated its meaning and value, emphasizes its unique attributes and authentic characteristics, and keeps messaging simple. These are highly valued attributes in the eyes of consumers (Havas, 2011). Emphasizing these characteristics will help maintain, if not increase, the brands equity despite the impending changes. Depending on the circumstances, the corporation should develop a strategic communication plan for unveiling their new brand identity. The existing research and expert interviews both emphasized the necessity of clear and consistent communication throughout any brand transition. In most cases, consumers (especially the loyal ones) need to be coddled and slowly transitioned between identities otherwise they will feel as though the rug has pulled out from under their feet. Companies should take care to identify all relevant audiences and employ measures to communicate with all of them, to explain the reasoning behind their rebranding and its implications lest they risk their customers becoming skeptical or responding negatively to the

Hollenbeck 57 change (Appendix C). In select few cases (where the goal is distancing the brand from a negative image, for example), it may be better to make the switch without any warning or buffer time, though this approach carries its own risks (Kaikati & Kaikati, 2003). Once the rebrand has gone live, corporations can do little but wait it out and pay close attention to consumers reactions by monitoring analytics (Appendix B). Because of the nature of rebranding, it may take some time to measure the changes effect on equity. Loyal consumers need time to adjust and new customers need time to build loyalty. If the rebranding is not well received, brand managers should employ retrobranding strategies as damage control. Despite the inherent risks associated with rebranding, it is fundamentally a fresh start and, if done carefully and conscientiously, it can help corporations revitalize their brands and evolve for the better.

Hollenbeck 58 WORKS CITED

Alshebil, Saleh A. "Consumer Perceptions of Rebranding: The Case of Logo Changes." Diss. The University of Texas at Arlington, 2007. Research Commons Home. Aug. 2007. Web. 5 May 2013. Brier, David. "How to Rebrand: 18 Questions to Ask Before You Start." Weblog post. DBD International. N.p., n.d. Web. Clendaniel, Morgan. "The Brands That Survive Will Be The Brands That Make Life Better." Co.Exist. Fast Company, June 2012. Web. 08 June 2013. Geller, Lois. "Why A Brand Matters." Forbes. Forbes Magazine, 23 May 2012. Web. 1 June 2013. Greyser, Stephen A., and Per Jenster. "Corporate Marketing: Insights and Integration Drawn from Corporate Branding, Corporate Identity, Corporate Communication, Corporate Reputation and Visual Identification." Ed. John MT Balmer and Avinandan Mukherjee. European Journal of Marketing 40.7 (2006): n. pag. Emerald Insight, 2006. Web. 1 June 2013. Hollis, Nigel. The Global Brand: How To Create and Develop Lasting Brand Value in the World Market. N.p.: Macmillan, 2008. Google Books. 30 Sept. 2008. Web. 1 June 2013. Ing, Grace P. "Corporate Rebranding and the Effects on Consumers' Attitude Structure. International Journal of Business & Society 13.3 (2012): n. pag. EBSCO Host. Web. 24 May 2013. Johnson, Caitlin A. "Cutting Through Advertising Clutter." CBSNews. CBS Interactive, 11 Feb. 2009. Web. 1 June 2013.

Hollenbeck 59 Kaikati, Jack G., and Andrew M. Kaikati. "A Rose By Any Other Name: Rebranding Campaigns At a Glance." The Journal of Business Strategy 24.6 (2003) ProQuest. Web. 15 May 2013. Kemp, Nicola. "Tuning Out: Why Brands Need to Disconnect and Embrace the New Simplicity." Marketing Magazine UK. N.p., 26 Mar. 2013. Web. 8 June 2013. Kohli, Chiranjeev, and Douglas LaBahn. Creating Effective Brand Names: A Study of the Naming Process. Rep. no. 12-1995. N.p.: California State University Fullerton, n.d. ProQuest. Web. 1 June 2013. Larson, Deanne. "Global Brand Management: Nike's Global Brand." ISM Journal of International Business 1.3 (2011): n. pag. ProQuest. Web. 15 May 2013. Lerman, Dawn, and Ellen Garbarino. "Recall and Recognition of Brand Names: A Comparison of Word and Nonword Types." Diss. Fordham, 2002. Wiley Periodicals, Inc., 2002. Web. 5 May 2013. Madden, Thomas, Kelly Hewitt and Martin Roth. Managing Images in Different Cultures: A Cross-National Study of Color Meanings and Preferences. Journal of International Marketing: Winter 2000. Web. 1 July 2013. Martin, Graeme, and Cary L. Cooper. "Ch 14: Corporate Rebranding." Corporate Reputation: Managing Opportunities and Threats. By Ronald J. Burke. N.p.: Gower, 2011. 281-95. Print. "Meaningful Brands." Havas Media. Havas Media, 7 Nov. 2011. Web. 24 May 2013. Pennington, Brian. "What Do Gap, Tropicana and Netflix Have in Common?" Web log post. Pivot Marketing. N.p., 21 Sept. 2011. Web. 13 May 2013.

Hollenbeck 60 Muzellec, Laurent, and Mary Lambkin. "Corporate Rebranding: Destroying, Transferring or Creating Brand Equity?" European Journal of Marketing 40.7 (2006): n. pag. ProQuest. Web. 30 May 2013. "Resource Library - Dictionary." Marketing Power. American Marketing Association, n.d. Web. 12 June 2013. Severi, Erfan, and Kwek C. Ling. "The Mediating Effects of Brand Association, Brand Loyalty, Brand Image and Perceived Quality on Brand Equity." Asian Social Science 9.3 (2013): n. pag. EBSCO Host. Web. 1 June 2013. Symonds, Matt. "The 8 Keys to Successful Branding - Why 'Mad Men' and Whisky Are Not Going To Cut It." Forbes. Forbes Magazine, 30 May 2012. Web. 12 May 2013. White, Michael. "Language and Translation Barriers." A Short Course in International Marketing Blunders. 3rd ed. N.p.: World Trade, n.d. 31-42. Google Books. IndieBound, 2009. Web. 1 June 2013. Zmuda, Natalie. "Filling in the Gap of a Rebranding Disaster." Advertising Age 81.37 (2012): n. pag. ProQuest. Web. 1 June 2013.

Hollenbeck 61 APPENDIX A INTERVIEW TRANSCRIPT Respondent: Kristin Kenney Cal Poly journalism alumna (2013), Center for Innovation and Entrepreneurship Communications Coordinator, Former student manager of Central Coast PRspecitves Date of interview: 7/8/2013 Kelsey Hollenbeck: Can you start by describing your involvement and experience with branding and rebranding? Kristin Kenney: Sure. Ill start with CIE [Center for Innovation and Entrepreneurship]. You kind of already know what I do, which is pretty much anything and everything communications related and web related. As far as branding, were trying to figure out our [CIE] branding right now. The issue is that we have pretty much two separate organizations and then the Hot House, which is probably the strongest and most recognizable brand that we have but its just a place. So its kind of a mess. Were just figuring out how to combine all of these aspects into one brand that is clearly defined but still representative of the individual parts. Right now people are confused. KH: I can understand why. In your opinion, what makes a strong brand? KK: Its important to remember that your brand isnt just your name and your logo, its really your value set. Brands should 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. KH: What are some of the risks involved in rebranding? KK: Yeah. The SBDC, which is the Small Business Development Center, provides a lot of our funding so we have to give them exposure and they require two of their logos to be on all of our materials. This makes it confusing because we have to give everyone their due exposure, if you will, but we end up with a bar of like 5 or 6 logos on every piece of marketing collateral and that is just confusing for people. That said, change can certainly be good and sometimes you just have to take that risk because it can pay off. In our case, its worth the initial confusion because in the end well have a more logical set of brand identities and our target publics will have a better understanding of who we are and what each of our divisions does. Change can be scary, especially for an established company with a well-known brand, but if youve done the proper research and have solid reasoning behind it, it should be a win-win. KH: So how is CIE going about this process of rebranding?

Hollenbeck 62 KK: We commissioned iiiDesign to do the brand identity for the Hot House a while back, but they havent yet come up with a solution to our problem aside from the logo bar that is admittedly confusing. 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 link them all that communicates how theyre all related but also different. KH: What is your motivation for rebranding? KK: Yeah pretty much everyone is confused. Even I get confused from time to time and Im in charge of all the messaging so thats not a good sign. I do all of the CIE newsletters and external communication and a lot of the time my boss will want to put in SBDC events which arent technically associated with CIE but may involved using the Hot House, which is run by CIE. It gets pretty tricky pretty quickly and even I sometimes struggle with identifying which logo goes where and who is sponsoring which event. Imagine how confusing that would be to the outside observer! KH: Yeah, Ive been to a few CIE events and couldnt tell you the difference between CIE, the Hot House, Accelerator, SBDC, and Start-Up Weekendbeyond the fact that one is an event and one is a building. Right? KK: Exactly my point. That the problem and its worth fixing. KH: What elements make a brand successful, in your opinion? KK: Yes Ive definitely witnessed successes and failures in my years at CIE. There was one fledgling idea from Start Up weekend I cant remember the 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 app, 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 app 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. 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. KH: Good advice. Any specific examples of this principle? KK: Neighbor Favor/Favor comes to mind. This is a Cal Poly start-up turned nationally successful app where friends could request favors of each other. It has since evolved into a fooddelivery service with a fleet of drivers to do favors. Anyway, their product did change a little bit and now theyre just called Favor, but I think Neighbor Favor (abbreviated Neighb Fav) was a

Hollenbeck 63 little more playful and frankly better communicated what they set out to do. Favor doesnt really tell you what they do. Favor could mean a lot of things. Favor isnt a bad name, its shorter and simpler which is always good, but I think they should have kept the old name. The change hasnt really affected them all that much but thats one of those things where there are a million food delivery apps and Favor doesnt sound too unique to me. Besides the name change, they went through a long process and did lots of focus groups to come up with their logo and tagline, and overall look and feel. Thats the cool thing about CIE is we have lots of resources and experts in the subjects of entrepreneurship and marketing to guide start-ups in and set them up for success. KH: Can you think of anything specific to avoid when rebranding? KK: 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. The issue is when you dont have a legitimate reason for jeopardizing your equity and change for the sake of changing. 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 through that goes into rebranding. Being contemporary is not good enough, in my opinion. Businesses probably feel pressure to change with the times, but if youve done the initial legwork, your brand identity should be relatively timeless. KH: Thank you so much for your help. KK: Anytime!

Hollenbeck 64 APPENDIX B INTERVIEW TRANSCRIPT Respondent: Mary Verdin President and Founder of Verdin Marketing Date of interview: 7/9/2013 Kelsey Hollenbeck: Ill start by asking you what you think makes a strong brand? Mary Verdin: I often talk to student groups about this topic and one of the first things I do is explain what a brand is. One of the biggest things that resonate 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. I think a lot of people dont like that because you can manage it to some extent but you cant control it altogether. The 3 elements of a brand are 1) That they recognize youthis comes from your name, your logo, your color scheme and consistent imageryeverything we do for Blue Rooster Telecom, for example, is going to have this same color blue and the same fonts. 2) I know what you offer and what you promisethats what marketing does. Marketing tells people what the company does, it informs. 3) I know what you deliver. Thats the part that marketing cant necessarily deliver. Its what the public thinks of a company based on their individual experience. For example, if I got to FedEx and absolutely need something delivered overnight but half the time I do this, it doesnt get there on time they can advertise overnight delivery all they want but I wont believe it, Ill be skeptical. Thats their brand to me. These are the things that feel make up a brand. Another key is consistency: consistent font, logo usage, color, typography, tagline, service. I had a client years ago and we showed them a few potential logos and they said, we like them all cant we just use all of them? and I was shocked. What a nightmare, no way can you have three different looking logos. Consumers will be so confused. 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. KH: What are some risks of rebranding? MV: Equity loss is a big fear, I think. 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 and sometimes a rebrand signifies that. Thats why you have to plan a launch for a rebrand; you cant just do it without explanation.

Hollenbeck 65 KH: Whats an example of a successful rebrand that youve been a part of? MV: Well we actually rebranded a couple years ago. I really think we did a good job. It was an interesting process and it really helped us refine our rebranding process for clientswe had to live it so that was insightful. We obviously had all of the new identity decided ahead of time, and then we officially went live with it on a Friday. September 22, 2011 to be exact. Earlier that week we sent out an e-blast to clients only. First we were going to say Oooh, something exciting is happening, we have a surprise for you but we decided to be more transparent because part of our brand is not talking too much about ourselves and keeping the focus on our clients. We wouldnt exist without them so we wanted to clearly communicate what this rebrand would mean for them and their businesses. We decided to just say that were rebranding and invite them to come see it first. We thought if we got ten people to show up it would be a success but we ended up with about 25, so that was great. We had repainted the lobby to match our new color scheme. 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. KH: How were you able to determine whether or not the rebranding campaign was a success? MV: Of course we measured everything. We had analytics on all of our pages, our webpage and social media platforms. We actually changed out the big sign on the building facing Tank Farm Rd. and that got a lot of attention because its a busy road for locals and while they may never have noticed it before, they noticed that it was different. It was really successful. Thats key to not having confusion. You want to be sure youre hitting people from different angles so that as many people as possible are made aware of the change and the motivation behind it. We hit people from lots of angleswe had the e-blast, we sent postcards, we had the launch party, ads in the paper, the signall within a weeks period theyre seeing all of this. KH: What motivated you to rebrand Verdin? MV: It all started with us needing to update our website. Every two or three years you need to update your websiteyou know technology changes. As we updated our web design and copy, we started to realize that we had evolved and our brand no longer accurately represented our company. When we started, it was just me, and I brought a strategic planning expertise. I opened as a full-service marketing firm and worked with outsourced designers and ad-buyersthat was Verdin Marketing Ink. As 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. I worried people in other areas would think l I was a printing company, because of the Ink play on Inc and obviously I didnt want that. 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.

Hollenbeck 66 KH: What are some of the reasons that your clients come to you wanting to rebrand? What are their motivations? MV: Its different and kind of case-by-case. One case comes to mind for a company called Accuzip. They are basically a national software company that provides solutions for mailing for big companies. But they had also recently developed some software that the average person could use, with applications outside mailing. So they wanted to expand and be seen as more than a mailing company. Their original logo is very reminiscent of the USPS, its got red and blue with a flag-like motif. Some of their other materials even had an eagle on them. 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. We have a rebranding process called the 4-BA process. We create whats called a brand architecture (See Appendix ___) 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. We did a lot of surveying for them of their entire customer database, anonymously, so we could find out what they think about Accuzip, what they like and dont like, etc. We had a gift card incentive, which worked really well, we got hundreds of responses. We also did some one-on-one interviews over the phone with a diverse sampling of customers, ranging from different sized businesses or different industries to even customers who expressed interest in Accuzip products but ended up going with another company to find out what held them back to get 360 degree view of what the existing brand means to people, what were the weaknesses and selling points. The new crated a brand report and worked on some new logos. KH: Tell me a little more about the logo development process: MV: We wanted to introduce some new things but also keep some aspects of the existing look. Im kind of a fan of that approach; I like seeing evolution of a logo that still harkens back to the brands history. Theyve been around for 22 years so they have a lot of history. We always start in black and white, so no one gets distracted by colors. They ended up choosing the one that has the similar shape and feel of the original, incorporated in a new way. They then chose from four color palettes and we whipped up a brand style guide so they could produce consistent collateral. KH: Do you foresee making any changes to your existing rebranding protocol? MV: Sure. Its like anything; weve been using this for probably three years. The principles are still solid. The four steps we go by are as follows: 1) Discovery: 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 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. Having measurable metrics, whether theyre anecdotal or

Hollenbeck 67 quantitative (web traffic numbers). After we rebranded I was actually invited to speak at a SLO Chamber meeting. They were like, you know, we saw that you rebranded, youve been around for several years and youre obviously evolving with the times and showing progress and betterment, wed like you to speak about that. For me that was a huge marker of success. Not only did people notice that we had rebranded, they deemed it successful. KH: Can you think of anything major to avoid when rebranding? MV: I think one thing thats hard for clients to understand is the importance of research. A lot of times, businesses will come to us and say they need an ad. And well explain that we cant just create a singular ad. I need to know about the business, about its competitive environment, about its target audience and target marketso that first ad might cost $2000, not because the ad space is expensive, but because we have to take the time to do the research and make it successful. The subsequent ads might only cost $300. Its the same idea for rebranding. 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 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 its easy to skip research because it can be expensive and brand managers think they have all of the answers already. Like New Coke and Gap. It amazes me how many big corporations 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 changes. KH: Awesome. Thank you for taking the time to talk to me! I really appreciate it. MV: No problem, I hope I gave you some good answers.

Hollenbeck 68 APPENDIX C INTERVIEW TRANSCRIPT Respondent: Alexia Haynes Account Executive, Clearpoint Public Relations Date of interview: 7/28/2013 Kelsey Hollenbeck: Good morning, Alexia! Could you please start by describing your personal experience with branding and rebranding? Alexia Haynes: Sure! I have worked at a PR agency for the past seven years and we have helped numerous clients both through big brand transitions and smaller, subtler changes. So I definitely feel qualified to talk about this subject. KH: What would you say makes a strong brand? LH: A successful brand really communicates clearly what the company 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 that I just mentioned. KH: So does your agency have a set protocol for rebranding? LH: Its really more on a case-by-case basis because different companies will have different reasons for rebranding. Sure we have certain things we like to do but it is based on their individual reasons for rebranding. Since we are a PR firm, we like to start with the words we work with a contracted graphic designer to focus on the visual brand identity 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. KH: What are some motivations your clients have had for rebranding? LH: 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 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? You see that to some extent too.

Hollenbeck 69 KH: What are some risks associated with rebranding? What should be avoided? LH: I think the most important thing is to make sure youre being very communicative throughout the whole process. But it is something that has to be looked atif a big company decides 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. But 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! 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 also 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 different audiences to consider and a lot of different ways to communicate to those audiences. Yeah, I really think communication and a slow rollout is crucial. 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. KH: Thank you so much! LH: No problem, Kelsey. Youre totally welcome.