Name Joris Hoogenboom
Supervisors J. Labadie R. Pruppers
Student number 10247246
Date 04/08/2016
Version Second version
MAKING A FIRST
IMPRESSION FOR THE
SECOND
TIME
The effect of changing primary brand elements on the evaluation of
a problem brand and the brand’s established associative network
Statement of Originality
This document is written by Student Joris Hoogenboom who declares to take full responsibility for the contents of this document.
I declare that the text and the work presented in this document is original and that no sources other than those mentioned in the text and its references have been used in creating it.
The Faculty of Economics and Business is responsible solely for the supervision of completion of the work, not for the contents.
Abstract
Changing primary brand elements has the potential to positively or negatively influence the evaluation of the brand. This is especially useful when a brand faces problems and rebranding is a serious option. This study is aimed to discover the effect of changing the brand name and/or logo on the overall evaluation of a brand and the attitude towards a brand. Besides this, the researcher will describe the shifts in the established associative network of the consumers caused by such changes as well. Although the risk and the importance of a success of a rebranding process are high, previous research fails yet to combine the existing knowledge of rebranding with the consequences of visual and verbal changes in the image of the brand. An experimental survey was conducted to discover whether or not respondents evaluated a brand significantly different before primary brand element changes (PBEC) compared to after primary brand element changes. Due to the experimental nature of the survey, the researcher was able to test the differences in evaluations between the three possible conditions, which were a brand logo change, a brand name change and a brand name and logo change. Many external factors play a significant role on the effect of changing primary brand elements on brand attitude. And the most effective solution to increase the evaluation of a problem brand depends on the type of problem of the brand.
Table of contents
1.
Introduction ... 1
1.1.1. General introduction: Changing primary brand elements ... 1
1.1.2. Specific introduction: The unique opportunity of a company ... 2
1.2. Problem definition ... 4
1.3. Contributions ... 5
1.3.1. Theoretical contributions ... 5
1.3.2. Managerial implications ... 6
1.4. Delimitations of this study ... 6
1.5. Outline of this paper ... 7
2.
Branding and rebranding ... 8
2.1. Branding: Brands, brand equity and the building process ... 8
2.2. Rebranding ... 11
2.2.1. The concept of rebranding and how it differs from branding ... 11
2.2.2. Reasons to change ... 12
2.2.3. The rebranding process ... 13
3.
The role of primary brand elements in building brand image ... 15
3.1. Primary brand elements and the criteria for evaluation ... 15
3.2. Processing primary brand elements ... 16
3.3. The different primary brand elements ... 17
3.4. The effect of primary brand elements ... 18
4.
Brand associations as part of the image of the brand ... 19
4.1. Brand associations and the dimensions of brand associations ... 19
4.1.1. The concept of brand associations ... 19
4.1.2. The dimensions of brand associations ... 20
4.1.3. Brand positioning ... 22
4.2. The associative network ... 23
4.3. Transfer of associations ... 24
5.
Hypotheses development... 25
5.1. The effect of primary brand element changes on the evaluation of a problem brand ... 25
5.2. The differences between an incremental and an incidental problem brand ... 26
5.5. Association analysis ... 30
5.5.1. The strength of the associations ... 31
5.5.2. The favourability of associations ... 31
5.5.3. The uniqueness of the associations ... 32
5.5.4. The desired shifts in the associative network ... 32
6.
Methodology ... 33
6.1. Research design ... 33
6.2. Research sample ... 35
6.3. Data collection ... 36
6.4. Stimuli development: Selection of problem brands and brand elements ... 37
6.4.1. Selecting the problem brands ... 37
6.4.2. Selection of new primary brand elements ... 39
6.5. Procedure ... 41
6.5.1. Brand associations ... 42
6.5.2. The evaluation of the brand elements ... 42
6.5.3. The evaluation of the brand in general ... 43
6.6. Measures ... 43
6.6.1. The pre-test ... 43
6.6.2. Brand associations ... 45
6.6.3. The evaluation of primary brand elements ... 46
6.6.4. The effect of changing primary brand elements on the brand evaluation ... 46
6.6.5. Control variables... 47 6.6.6. Demographic variables ... 47 6.7. Results pre-test... 47
7.
Results ... 50
7.1. Sample characteristics ... 50 7.2. Data preparation ... 51 7.2.1. Frequency checks ... 52 7.2.2. Reliability analysis... 52 7.2.3. Factor analysis ... 547.2.4. Computing mean scales ... 56
7.2.5. Control variables... 57
7.2.6. Manipulation checks ... 58
7.2.6.2. The evaluation of the problem brands before primary brand element changes .. 63
7.2.6.3. The strength, favourability and uniqueness of the associations before changes . 64 7.2.7. Correlation analysis ... 65
7.3. Hypotheses testing ... 67
7.3.1. The main effect of primary brand element changes on a problem brand’s evaluation 69 7.3.2. The effect of type of problem brand on the evaluation of a problem brand ... 72
7.3.3. The effect of type of change on the evaluation of a problem brand ... 73
7.4. Association analysis ... 79
7.4.1. The number and content of the associations ... 79
7.4.2. The strength, favourability and uniqueness of the associations ... 82
8.
Discussion ... 88
8.1. General discussion ... 88
8.2. Discussion association analysis ... 93
8.3. Theoretical contributions ... 93
8.4. Managerial implications ... 94
8.5. Limitations of this study ... 95
8.6. Directions for future research ... 97
References ... 99
Appendix ... i
Section 1: The experimental survey ... i
Section 2: Results pre-test ... xxv
Section 3: Demographic variables ... xxxiv
Section 4: Data preparation ... xxxv Section 5: Results Hypotheses testing... lxiii Section 6: Results Association Analysis ...lxxxiii
1. Introduction
1.1.1. General introduction: Changing primary brand elements
BackRub and Blue Ribbon Sports, most people have never heard of them and have no clue what these two companies do or sell. However, both companies are listed in Forbes Magazine as powerful and valuable brands with a tremendous amount of brand value (“The world’s most valuable brands”, 2016). So, why does nobody know these well-established organizations? First of all, a distinction needs to be made between a company and a brand. BackRub and Blue Ribbon Sports still exist, but both companies have decided to change the name and the logo of the company in early stages. Today, we know them as Google and Nike (Guiliano, 2015). Although the exact reason to change is unknown, most logical to assume is that the (former) executives of both companies changed the primary brand elements purely based on the believe that another name and logo might suit the company and the objectives of the company better.
The change of primary brand elements do happen in practice perhaps more than you realize even though primary brand elements choices are assumed to be stable and inflexible. An existing company can have several reasons to change primary brand elements and according to Bolhuis (2015) and Muzellec and Lambkin (2006), these underlying reasons can be categorized into two perspectives, namely an internal and an external perspective. A change of ownership and a change of corporate strategy are common internal reasons for change. A well-known example of a change of ownership is the merger between two Dutch telecommunication companies UPC and Ziggo (Getik, 2015). Besides structural changes, like mergers and acquisitions, internalisation and expansions are internal reasons for change which occur frequently as well. The objective of both of the internal drivers behind the change is to reflect a new identity. The external perspective focus primarily on creating a new image (Muzellec et al., 2006). Such changes occur less often compared internal focused changes and they evolve gradually over time. There are two different external reasons which could lead to the change of primary brand elements. The first reason is an outdated image or
problems with the current reputation of the brand. In other words, the competitive position of the brand is changed (Muzellec et al., 2003). For example, the Royal Mail of the United Kingdom decided to change both their name and logo. However, the new name Consignia with corresponding logo failed to build a strong brand for unknown reasons. The process to re-change their name to Royal Mail costed another £1.0 million after they already spent £2.5 million on the first rebranding process (Muzellec et al., 2006). The second externally focused reason to change primary brand elements is a change in the business environment (e.g. major catastrophes and crises). Being associated with a catastrophe could seriously damage a brand. The private security service company Blackwater was associated with major human right violations after employees in service were found guilty of
murdering innocent citizens. The company decided to change their name to Xe Services in 2009 (“The worst on rebranding,” 2015) to distance themselves from these incidents. However, the new primary brand elements could either not get rid of the associations related to the scandal or the new primary brand elements itself carry insufficiently strong and/or favourable associations, because people still associated the new brand with the old brand Blackwater. In 2011, Xe Services changed their name and logo again to Academi (Hodge, 2011) in the hope that this name and logo will be received more favourable. As mentioned before, changes to create a new image are relatively rare, but such
changes send a strong signal to stakeholders of the company that the company is shifting its strategy. The entire rebranding process eventually reaches a critical point at which a redefinition of the
business is called for, often symbolized by a new name and new identity (Muzellec et al., 2003).
1.1.2. Specific introduction: The unique opportunity of a company
Making a first impression for the second time is something that sounds too good to be true. Although many people would love to have such an opportunity in certain situations, it is simply not possible. However, companies do have such a possibility. Companies can go through a rebranding process to make a new impression. And they could benefit enormously from this unique opportunity, especially when the internal or external environment has changed. Keller (1992) describes several primary
brand elements; however, the name and logo of the brand often form the public face of the company (Male, 2010). Changing the public face of a brand could positively influence the current position of a brand. Besides advantages, there are also a few disadvantages which the company should keep in mind at all time when considering such a rebranding process. It is a dangerous process that could potentially destroy the entire brand (Muzellec et al., 2006). Changing primary brand elements can cause a company more trouble than it is worth (Fairchild, 2013). The stakes are high.
The brand name and logo are often the centrepiece of marketing activities and contributes toward brand recognition and helps to communicate a brand’s image (Keller, Heckler & Houston, 1998). The underlying value of the primary brand elements is its set of associations (Aaker, 1991). These associations should be strong, unique and favourable to positively influence the image of the brand (Keller, 1993). But this is not always the case, as seen in the previous examples. Changing primary brand elements could update these associations. A company has several options, because there are several primary brand elements (Keller, 1993). The option could be categorized into two groups. First of all, a company can decide to change all the primary brand elements and in this way cut the link with the old brand completely. However, there are less extreme possibilities as well. The company could also decide to change only a few primary brand elements. There is still a link with the old brand when a company do not change all the primary brand elements. For example, the
American restaurant iHop reported its strongest second-quarter sales in over a decade a few months later after they changed the logo (Feloni, 2015). Perhaps this increase is not entirely thanks to the change, but it most likely played a part in it. Unfortunately, there is a thin line between success and failure. The employment website Monster.com changed their logo as well, but pretty much ignored the current trend in logo design (“2016 Logo design trends forecast”, 2016). It is sometimes better to stick with a well-known logo (Sandu, n.d.), because the new logo of Monster.com was not well received by the consumers. The associations related to the logo are part of the entire associative network of the consumers. It is relevant for companies to research the effect of the change of
primary brand elements on the existing associative network of consumers, because the associations basically create brand value.
1.2. Problem definition
It becomes clear that changing the primary brand elements plays an important role in the complete rebranding strategy. As face of the company, the name and logo generate associations. And by changing these elements, regardless of the underlying reason, a company is trying to improve the current position of the company. However, the effect of changing primary brand elements on the existing associative network of consumers remains an under researched topic in the existing literature. Even though the stakes are high and a company rarely gets a third change to make an impression. In other words, the changes need to lead to an improved associative network and attitude towards the brand. In the most optimal situation, the change in the associative network is threefold. First of all, the new primary brand elements should add strong, favourable and/or unique associations to the existing network. Second, unfavourable associations should be weakened without being activated. And third, the existing strong, favourable and/or unique associations should be transferred to the new brand as well. Besides that, changing primary brand elements lead to variety of outcomes and not always the preferred one. The existing literature is yet unable to explain these differences. Although changing primary brand elements is part of a broader rebranding strategy, it is the most prominent change in the eyes of the consumers. The following research question is
developed:
‘What is the effect of changing primary brand elements on the evaluation of a problem brand and the brands´ established associative network?’
Two important sub-questions are implicitly mentioned in the research question. First of all, what types of changes are there? And which change is more effective in improving the overall evaluation
of a problem brand. Besides that, it is very unlikely that every underlying problem can be solved by the same solution. In other words, does the type of problem influences this effect as well? And if so, what are the precise differences?
1.3. Contributions
This study has both managerial implications and theoretical contributions. The results of this study will help and educate managers in the rebranding process and will add an importance piece of the puzzle in the current knowledge of the rebranding process and the importance of primary brand elements.
1.3.1. Theoretical contributions
Besides managerial implications, this research has important contributions in the existing literature as well. Many parts of (re)branding strategies are well-researched. For example, sufficient literature can be found regarding building a brand. Several researchers have developed brand building tools. Keller developed several brand building tools, for example the customer-based brand building pyramid (2001) and the brand value chain (Keller & Lehmann, 2003). However, the effect of changing primary brand elements on already established associative networks remains fairly untouched in the current literature. Little can be found on the three folded process of building a brand, cut the connection with strong, but negative associations as well as adding new desired associations. Knowing the effect of primary brand elements on the evaluation of a brand before and after a rebranding process will help to gain insight in the overall effect of rebranding strategies in general. The results of this study will add another piece to our current knowledge about rebranding
strategies. There is yet not much research about the effect of primary brand element changes (PBEC). We still do not know if changing primary brand elements is able to update the associative network and weaken the existing strong, negative and/or unique associations.
1.3.2. Managerial implications
The effect of changes in primary brand elements has important managerial implications. Primary brand elements form the face of the company and changing one or more of these elements go hand in hand with the generation of new associations. As mentioned earlier, there are many reasons why managers could decide to change primary brand elements. But whatever the underlying reason is, it is for managers helpful to know how these changes affect the existing associative network of the customers. Besides that, already established associations, both favourable and unfavourable, will be affected by this change as well. Researching this effect has important implications for brand
managers. Changing primary brand elements is a critical element of a rebranding process (Dale et al, 2004). So, managers need to fully understand the effect and the potential consequences of the changes in order to choice the most effective solution for the specific problem brand. This study will help managers to gain insight in this rebranding process. Managers could make well-informed decision based on the results of this paper. It is a costly process and making a mistake could destroy the entire brand. At the moment, many rebranding campaigns fail to generate new associations.
1.4. Delimitations of this study
It is important to set boundaries in order to create reliable expectations. The first distinction that has to be made is between building a brand from scratch and rebuilding an existing brand. A new brand does not have to deal with an established associative network. The only associations consumers have with a new brand are autonomous associations. This study focuses on rebuilding a brand. An existing brand already has strong associations and most likely strong and unfavourable associations,
otherwise brand would not go through the risky process of rebranding.
A consequence of using existing brands is determining which type of brands should be investigated. In other words, what is the underlying reason for change of the brands used in this study? The researcher decided to focus on brands that are trying to create a new image. As
process is to improve the associative network of consumers and it is therefore interesting to take the external perspective and look how consumers react on the changes of primary brand elements.
Besides these two important distinctions, the researcher also decided to focus only on the brand name and logo. It is recognized that there are more primary brand elements; however, the name and the logo of the brand are arguably the most prominent elements. Changing the name and/or logo of a brand will most likely be noticed by every consumer even when a consumer does not frequently purchase this brand. And finally, this paper will not give specific guidelines about renaming a brand and designing a brand logo. The focus is on the change itself and the consequences of this change.
1.5. Outline of this paper
This study is structured in the following chapters. Chapter two will discuss the brand and rebranding process. Chapter three will give the current knowledge about the role of primary brand elements. The next chapter will review the literature about brand associations. Chapter five will explain the role of primary brand elements and how these elements help building associations to positioning a brand. These four chapters form the theoretical framework of this study and will discuss established
theories from different sciences as well as recently developed theories. After reviewing the existing literature, hypotheses will be developed based on the relevant literature. The conceptual framework will be presented in this chapter as well. The seventh chapter of this paper will be dedicated to the methodology used to test the hypotheses. The results of the test are presented in the eighth chapter. After this chapter, the empirical findings will be discussed. And finally, the study ends with
managerial implications, the literature contribution of the results, important limitations of this study and suggestions for future research.
2. Branding and rebranding
Almost everybody deals with brands in their day-to-day activities and many people can easily come up with a list of brands they are loyal to or despise. This is not a difficult task, however, only a few people will be able to give a definition of a brand. The boundaries of what a brand could be are broader than most people expect. Clothing brands are well-known, but a country or a person could be a brand as well. In this chapter, the existing knowledge about branding, building a brand and brand equity will be summarized to give a foundation for the following chapters. This chapter will begin with definitions and descriptions of brand, brand equity and the building process. Ones the branding process is described thoroughly, it is time to explain the concept of rebranding and how it differs from the branding process.
2.1. Branding: Brands, brand equity and the building process
When people think about a brand, they immediately can think of the name of a brand they know. However, it seems that giving a definition of a brand is a lot harder than expected. The reason why giving a definition is not as easy as it might seems, might be due to the fact that people do not know where the boundaries are of what could represent a brand. And it is indeed not easy, because many things could represent a brand. Kotler (1991) defines a brand as a name, term, sign, symbol or design, or combination of them which is intended to identify the goods and services of one seller or group of sellers and to differentiate them from those of competitors. Brands serve several valuable functions and this definition implicitly incorporates all of them. First of all, brands serve as markers for the offerings of the firm (Keller & Lehmann, 2006) and it therefore contributes in reducing the risk of making a purchase mistake and create trust in the expected performance of the product (Fischer, Völckner & Sattler, 2010). The impact a brand has on its customers, as described above, is closely related to the impact of a brand on the product market (Keller et al., 2006). As described in the definition, a brand differentiates the products and services of a firm from those of the
competitors. Finally, a brand also functions at financial level as well. A strong brand will be reflected in higher firm valuation (Simon & Sullivan, 1993). A brand has impact on several levels and it is therefore one of the most valuable assets that firms have (Keller & Lehmann, 2003). Much attention has been devoted on the concept of branding and the development of tools that will help managers to build a strong brand.
The goal of building a strong brand is the creation of brand equity and therefore creates financial value for a firm (Keller et al., 2003). Farquhar (1989) defines brand equity as the added value with which a given brand endows a product. A brand enhances the value of a product beyond its functional purposes. However, this study focuses on brand effects on the individual consumer. And therefore the concept of customer-based brand equity is more suitable for this study. Keller (1993) defines customer-based brand equity as the differential effect of brand knowledge on consumer response to the marketing of a brand. In other words, a brand has positive customer-based brand equity if consumers react favourable to any marketing mix elements of the brand than they do to the same elements when it is attributed to another brand, both fictitiously or an unnamed version of the product or service. The brand adds value to the product or service in the eyes of the consumers. To do so, a company has to build a strong brand, but what is a strong brand? When do we consider a brand strong? With the definition of customer-based brand equity in mind, a brand is strong when a consumer prefers the branded product or service above all other products or service that are able to fulfil the same need. To accomplish this, the product must be from significant quality to deliver a superior performance to the consumer in order to achieve a positive evaluation of the brand in the mind of the consumer. Quality is the cornerstone of a strong brand (Farquhar, 1989). The second element for building a strong brand is the attitude accessibility. Basically, consumers have to retrieve information about the brand stored from the mind easily and quickly. This element is related to brand awareness. And brand awareness is related to the strength of the brand node in the mind of the consumer, as reflected by the ability of the consumer to identify the brand under different conditions (Rossiter & Percy, 1987). The awareness of a brand is high when the likelihood
Figure 1: The customer-based brand equity pyramid by Keller (2001)
that a brand will easily come to mind. Keller (1993) makes a distinction has to made between brand recall (consumer’s ability to correctly generate the brand from memory) and brand recognition (consumer’s ability to correctly discriminate the brand as having been seen or heard previously). The last element of building a strong brand is a consistent brand image (Farquhar, 1989). According to Ogilvy (1983), brands have personalities. Image means personality. And consistency of the brand’s personality is part of managing the relationship between the brand and the consumer. Just like people have to manage the relationship with friends and family. The ultimate goal of a strong brand is to build up a relationship with the consumers. The idea of brand image will be further explained in chapter four ‘Brand associations’.
The next step is to describe mechanisms that will help managers to build a strong brand to create customer-based brand equity. A strong brand will benefit a firm in several ways, such as increased marketing communication effectiveness and greater customer loyalty (Keller, 2001). The objective of a brand building process, from a consumer perspective, is to create value and
relationships (Urde, 2003). The ultimate outcome is a truly loyal customer. Loyalty is defined as a deeply held commitment to rebuy or repatronize a preferred product/service consistently in the future, thereby causing repetitive same-brand or same brand-set purchasing, despite situational influences and marketing efforts having the potential to cause switching behaviour (Oliver, 1999). The most commonly used model for building a brand is the customer-based brand equity model by Keller (2001):
The first level is brand salience. This relates to the aspects of customer awareness of the brand. The second step, brand meaning, consists of the functional performance of the product (brand
performance) and how the brand deals with the extrinsic properties of the product or service (brand imagery). The idea behind the pyramid shape is the fact that the second level could only be satisfied when the criteria of the first level are met. So, brand meaning could only happen when there is brand salience. The third level is brand responses, which consists of brand judgements (customer’s personal opinions and evaluations with regard to the brand) and brand feelings (customer’s emotional
responses and reactions with respect to the brand). If all the criteria of all blocks are met, brand resonance could be created. Brand resonance refers to the nature of the relationship that customers have with the brand. This final step of the model focuses on the creation of loyal customers,
customers who rebuy products/services from the brand despite marketing activities from competitors (Keller, 2001).
2.2. Rebranding
2.2.1. The concept of rebranding and how it differs from branding
The process of building a strong brand requires time and money, it may take years of investments to establish such as position. The creation of brand equity and the development of a brand image is a demanding process. And when done right, a brand is a valuable asset, communicating a clear set of value to its stakeholders (Daly & Moloney, 2004). The choice of changing the identity of brand must be seen as a serious strategic decision. However, when shifting the focus from branding to
rebranding, less academic literature can be found. Rebranding remains a fairly untouched topic of research even though the process of rebranding carries a high level of reputation risk as well as being extremely costly (Clavin, 1999; Dunham, 2002).
Before diving deeper into the process of rebranding and the underlying reasons, the concept of rebranding needs some additional clarification. Simply looking at the term itself, it becomes clear that rebranding is made up of two well-defined terms: re and branding. Re is a well-known synonym
for again or new. With the traditional definition from Kotler (1991) of a brand in mind, rebranding is the creation of a new name, term, symbol, design or combination of them for an established brand with the intention of developing a differentiated (new) position in the mind of stakeholders and competitors (Muzellec et al., 2006). The first part of this description discusses the dilemma of changes in brand elements and the question whether or not all the elements have to be changed. The second part of the description relates to the positioning of the brand and whether this position changes compared to the previous position. Both parts pointing out that change must be made. Merrilees and Miller (2008) define rebranding as the change between an initially formulated brand and a new formulation. And this seems contradicting to existing marketing and branding principles. The main inconsistency revolves around the notion of brand equity (Muzellec et al, 2006). The company most likely losses desired associations as well due to such prominent changes. Rebranding could theoretically whip out existing brand equity and there appear to be more failures than
successes (Stuart & Muzellec, 2003).
2.2.2. Reasons to change
The variety of possible outcomes and the potential fatal consequences makes changing primary brand elements a back-breaking decision for managers. The underlying reason to change must be from substantial importance. There are different levels of change and different factors that
influences the decision. The overall stimulus for rebranding is to send a signal to the marketplace and communicate to competitors and stakeholders that something has changes (Stuart et al., 2003). Muzellec et al. (2003) described four drivers of change and they differ in underlying objective and process. The first two drivers are both internally focused and the overall objective is to reflect a new identity. The first driver is the most common reason for rebranding, namely a change in ownership structure. A rebranding process is primarily provoked by structural changes, such as mergers and acquisitions (Muzellec et al., 2003). The second driver of rebranding is change in the corporate strategy, such as diversification, internalisation and expansion. The final two drivers of rebranding
shift from an internal focus to an external focus and the objective of these drivers is to create an entire new brand image. The third driver is a change in the business environment. For example, catastrophes and crises are well-known drivers behind rebranding strategies. And finally, the fourth driver of rebranding is a change in the competitive position. A company can decide to go through a rebranding process because the current brand image is outdated or the reputation is unfavourable. An important differences between the third and fourth reason is the fact that the third reason to change is incidental and the fourth reason is a more structural and incremental problem. A bad reputation is a problem which develops over time. A crises or catastrophe suddenly happens. One specific event can push a brand into rebranding (Muzellec et al., 2003). Rebranding might help the company to distance themselves from social and moral baggage and to present a new socially responsible image (Stuart et al., 20303).
The different types of changes will be discussed in the next chapter ‘The role of primary
brand elements in building brand image’. A company has several options when it comes to
rebranding depending on the amount of primary brand element changes. Regardless of the
underlying reason, rebranding should be planned carefully (Daly et al, 2004) and only be done when the underlying reason is from significant importance. It could destroy the brand and the existing brand equity (Fairchild, 2013).
2.2.3. The rebranding process
There is no blueprint for a rebranding process. All the brand building tools could be used to create a new brand. However, the company has to keep in mind that it has to deal with an already established associative network. Consumers already know the old brand and its associations. Daly and Moloney (2004) have developed a rebranding framework that integrates three well-known marketing
domains. The three different stages are analysis, planning and evaluation. The first stage consists of a situation analysis (market analysis, brand audit and opportunity identification). During this stage, managers have to decide as well which brand elements should be maintained permanently and
which ones should be removed. So basically, the new identity of the brand has to be chosen. The second stage is the planning stage. The planning stage is twofold. Both the internal and external customers have to be identified for the rebranding campaign. A marketing plan has to be developed for the external customers and a communication strategy has to be implemented for the internal customers. And finally, the last stage of the rebranding framework is the evaluation stage. All the different campaigns have to be evaluated to make sure the company does not miss any
opportunities.
The rebranding process is a dynamic process and differs from company to company. There are other frameworks available in the existing literature, for example the steps developed by Merrilees and Miller (2008). These steps are somewhat similar to the stages described above. Their process starts with a revision of the brand, which is similar to the analysis stage. The new brand built on the previous brand associations (Merrilees et al., 2008), so the choose of brand elements plays an important role. The second step is building the internal marketing process to develop the
stakeholders’ commitment. After these processes are developed, it is time to implement the rebranding strategy. The essence of implementation requires the alignment of the functional components to the revised corporate brand. And finally, the last step is to evaluation to whole process as well. These two frameworks conceptually do not differ that much from each other; the authors just used different terminology.
3. The role of primary brand elements in building brand image
The brand building process is inextricably linked with managing brand elements. Decision related to choosing brand elements has major impact on the brand building process discussed in the previous chapter. The next step is to explain the role of the primary brand elements. This chapter will discuss the influence of primary brand elements in the mind of the consumer. It is also helpful to explain how consumer process exposure to brand elements. This will help in understanding the effect of primary brand elements.
3.1. Primary brand elements and the criteria for evaluation
There are several brand elements and the definition of a brand by Kotler (1991) already mentioned most of them. A brand element is trademarkable visual or verbal information that identifies and differentiates a product or service (Keller, 2005). So basically, the brand elements form the identity of a brand (Keller, 1993). Everything a consumer can see, hear or feel can be a brand element. The most common brand elements are names, logos, symbols, characters, slogans and packaging (Keller, 2005). These elements are uniquely associated with a brand and are therefore most commonly referred to as primary brand elements. Another way to build brand equity is to leverage secondary associations. A brand could also be linked to other sources of information that are not directly related to the product or service. Almost everything could be indirectly to a brand; the most common secondary associations are other brands, people, places and things (Keller, 2005). This study focuses on the primary brand elements, because they are related to the brand and the company have control over them. In this paper, the terms primary brand elements and brand elements are both used to describe the name, logo etc. of a brand. It will be explicitly mentioned when the researcher means secondary brand elements.
Before the effect of primary brand elements will be discussed, it is necessary to explain the criteria for evaluation of the brand elements. It is logical to assume that some elements favourably
influence customer-based brand equity and other elements might harm the brand. Keller (2005) developed six criteria for evaluation of brand elements. These six criteria are:
1. Memorability: How easily can consumers recall the brand element? 2. Meaningfulness: How credible is the brand?
3. Likability: How aesthetically appealing is the brand element?
4. Transferability: Can the brand element be used to introduce products in the same or different categories?
5. Adaptability: How flexible and easy to update is the brand element? 6. Protectability: Can marketers legally protect the brand element?
Especially the first three criteria are important for building a brand. If the combination of several brand elements is memorable, meaningful and likeable, they will lead to a favourable brand identity. More specifically, memorability will lead to brand awareness, meaningfulness to brand associations and likability to brand attitude (Keller, 2005). And awareness, the creation of associations and brand attitude are basically the building blocks of the customer-based brand equity (Keller, 2001). The idea is to develop brand elements, which can properly communicate about brand and its point of
differences from competing brands (Farhana, 2012).
3.2. Processing primary brand elements
Previous research has primarily focused on the brand name. Evidence is available that a more favourable brand name leads to a more positive evaluation of the products and services (Aaker & Keller, 1990; Rao & Monroe, 1989) and a brand name influences purchase intentions (Grewal, Krishnan, Baker & Borin, 1998). But there are more primary brand elements besides the name. And to understand the effect of primary brand elements in the mind of the consumer, it is helpful to explain how consumers process primary brand elements. Primary brand elements are often the centrepiece of marketing communication activities and advertisements (Keller et al., 1998) and
automatically create associations when consumers are exposed to them. The goal of advertising is to influence people’s behaviour (Petty & Ciacioppo, 1983). Primary brand elements are used to
persuade people’s behaviour. The Elaboration Likelihood Model developed by Petty and Ciacioppo (1983) describes two routes how consumers process persuasive messages depending on the level of motivation and ability to process the information. If a person is both able and motivated to process content, he or she follows the central route and therefore diligently considers the message. If either a person is not able to think or motivated to process the content, he or she follows the peripheral route and uses cues to evaluate a communication (Petty et al., 1983). Brand elements are in essence peripheral cues (Maheswaran, Mackie & Chaiken, 2009) and are therefore processed via the
peripheral route. They simply reduce the burden on marketing communication (Keller, 2005).
3.3. The different primary brand elements
Several primary brand elements exist. According to Keller (2005), the most common brand elements are names, logos, symbols, characters, slogans and packaging. Each brand element has its own advantages and disadvantages. And it is therefore important to ‘mix and match’ them to maximize their collective contribution to brand equity. For the majority of brands, the brand name is the strongest brand element. When a brand name is distinctive, easily recalled and easily pronounced, it contributes to reinforce brand equity (Robertson, 1989). The brand logo is, just as the brand name, a crucial element and especially for to generate brand awareness (Keller, 2005). A powerful, yet overlooked brand element is the slogan. Slogans are an efficient, short-hand means of building brand equity (Keller, 2005). However, slogans are often easier recalled than brands. People find it difficult to match the slogan with the correct brand (Dahlén & Rosengren, 2005). The slogan is more flexible compared to the brand name and logo; however, it is less distinctive and easier to change over time. Symbols, characters and packaging are often even less distinctive, but they do complete the image of the brand. When choosing and designing brand elements, it is important that brand elements are mutually reinforcing and share some meaning in order to build a brand (Keller, 2005).
3.4. The effect of primary brand elements
Brand elements contribute to reinforce brand equity and each element has its own advantages (Keller, Apéria & Georgson, 2008). This study primarily focuses on the brand name and the logo of the brand. The effect of these two brand elements will be explained in more detail than the other elements. The brand name is the basis for awareness and communications effort (Aaker, 1991). Brand names need to be actively managed in order to influence external stakeholders (Farhana, 2012). The brand name has to be memorable to reinforce an important benefit association that makes up its product positioning. Consumers immediately generate association when exposed to the brand name (Keller, 2003). The name itself carries essentially all of the brand equity (Farhana, 2012) and should therefore be viewed as long-term commitments. As mentioned before, changing the brand name is risky and costly (Muzellec et al., 2006). The brand logo is perhaps the second most important brand element. It plays a crucial role in building equity as well, especially in terms of brand awareness (Keller, 2003). A logo has two functions (Farhana, 2012). First of all, it is a marker for finding a specific offering (identification). And second, it differentiates the products or service from other offerings. Logos are often devised as symbols to reinforce the brand meaning in some ways and when logos convey meaning, they will be more easily remembered. Logos can more easily be changed over time than brand names (Farhana, 2012). Concluding, both the brand name and logo are primarily important for creating brand awareness. Brand awareness (or brand salience) is the first building block of the customer-based brand equity (Keller, 2001). And this step needs to be satisfied in order to go up a level in the pyramid. A brand name and logo change causes a real disturbance in the brand building process.
4. Brand associations as part of the image of the brand
Consumers have to recognize and recall the brand when needed. Companies could influence this process with the use of marketing communication activities. However, brand awareness is just one of the concepts that important in creating brand equity. Another important aspect of brand knowledge is brand image. Brand image is defined as perceptions about a brand reflected by the brand
associations held in consumer memory and brand associations are the informational nodes linked to the brand node in memory and contain the meaning of the brand for consumers (Keller, 1993). Brand associations are pieces of information that comes to mind when exposed to certain brand elements. And the underlying value of primary brand elements is its set of associations (Aaker, 1991). This chapter discusses different dimensions for associations, brand positioning, the concept of the associative network and the idea of transfer of associations.
4.1. Brand associations and the dimensions of brand associations 4.1.1. The concept of brand associations
Brand associations can vary broadly and take different forms (Keller, 1993). It is therefore useful to categorize brand associations to make it more accessible. One way to classify them is by their level of abstraction (Chattopadhyay & Alba, 1988). Along this dimension, Keller (1993) classifies brand associations into three major categories of increasing scope. The first category is attributes. Attributes are those descriptive features that characterize a product or service. Attributes could be categorized as well (Myers & Shocker, 1981) and one way to do so is to distinguish them according to how directly they relate to the product or service performance. Product-related attributes are defined as the ingredients necessary for performing the product or service function sought by consumers (Keller, 1993). These associations are pieces of information about how well the product performs and if it fulfils the need it has to fulfil in the eyes of the consumer. Keller (1993) defines non-product related attributes as external aspects of the product or service that relate to its
purchase or consumption, such as price, packaging, user imagery and usage imagery. The second major category of a brand association is benefits. Benefits are the personal value consumers attach to the product or service attribute. The level of abstraction is increased. Benefits could be further distinguished as well; one way to do so is by the underlying motivations to which they relate (Park, Jaworski & MacInnis, 1986). Three possible subcategories are functional benefits (intrinsic
advantages of the consumption), experiential benefits (the experience of the consumption) and symbolic benefits (extrinsic advantages of the consumption). The first two types of benefits are usually related to the product-related attributes and the symbolic benefits are usually related to the non-product-related attributes (Keller, 1993). The final major category is called brand attitudes and these are the most abstract brand associations. Brand attitudes are defined as consumers’ overall evaluation of a brand (Wilkie, 1986). Brand attitudes are an extensively researched topic. Many authors have dived into this field of research and discover that attitudes can be related to the functional and experiential benefits (Zeithaml, 1988) but to the symbolic benefits as well (Rossiter & Percy, 1987). Concluding, the different types of brand associations are making up the brand image (Keller, 1993).
4.1.2. The dimensions of brand associations
Brand associations could vary according to three dimensions; these dimensions form the foundation for this study. The three dimensions are favourability, strength and uniqueness. Associations could either be favourable or unfavourable. However, the evaluations of brand associations may be situationally or context-dependent (Miller & Ginter, 1979). The second dimension is strength.
Associations can be characterized by the strength of connection to the brand node (Keller, 1993). The strength depends both on quality (the manner in which a person thinks about the information) and quantity (how much a person thinks about the information). Finally, the third dimension is
The goal is to create strong, favourable and unique associations. However, this is difficult to accomplish. And based on the three dimensions, there are eight different possibilities and they all differ in the level of danger for the brand. Of course, the favourable associations do not cause any harm to the brand, but they could destroy a brand when the associations are not there.
Unfavourable associations cause a negative brand image. However, if the associations are not unique, they do not fully damage a brand because the associations are shared with the competitors. Labadie and Pruppers (2012) developed a useful overview of the different possibilities:
Table 1: Categorization of brand associations based on the three dimensions
Favourable Unfavourable
Distinctive Shared Distinctive Shared
Strong Points of differences
Points of parity Strong Branding problem Categorisation problem
Weak Potential points of differences
Potential points of parity
Weak Threat of branding problems
Threat of categorisation problem
Points of differences (PoDs) can be used to differentiate a brand from its competitors and enables the brand to stand out from the product category. Points of parity (PoPs) are associations that are not unique to the brand, but are shared with the product category and competitors (Krishnan, 1996). Points of parity are necessary associations to compete in a certain product
category. If these associations are missing, the meaning of the brand might be unclear and consumer might not understand the brand and its existence. Points of differences and points of parity are the positive associations. However, if these associations are weak, than they have potential, but need to be remembered (Haveman et al., 2003). Shared and unfavourable associations, both strong and weak, cause categorisation problems (C.P.). Every brand in the product category has to deal with the same unfavourable associations. A clear example of such an association is the fact that people will
associate fast-food with unhealthy. Every fast-food company is associated with unhealthy food. Perhaps the least preferred association is a strong, unfavourable and unique association. These associations cause branding problems (B.P.). These problems in the associative network cause difficulties in building a strong brand. Brands may fail to meet one or more criteria of a strong brand. The associations a brand might not be strong, unique or perhaps even worse, the associations are unfavourable. Haveman et al. (2003) defined twelve types of problems, which differ in their underlying causes and severity. Related to chapter two, all twelve kinds of problems could be a reason to change primary brand elements.
4.1.3. Brand positioning
Brand positioning involves establishing key brand associations in the mind of customers and other stakeholders to differentiate the brand and establish competitive superiority (Keller, Sternthal & Tybout, 2002). It starts with establishing a frame of reference, which signals to consumers the goal they can expect to achieve by using the brand. And choosing the proper frame is important, because it dictates the types of associations that will function as points of parity and points of differences. Brand positioning is important because it sets the direction of marketing activities and programs (Keller et al., 2004). The creating of brand awareness is not very helpful before a clear brand position is established. Many companies fail to do so (Keller et al., 2002). In the marketing activities, the brand should communicate the points of differences. This will generate the favourable associations and creates competitive superiority. However, a company should not rely too heavily on these points of differences. There are three types of brand differences: brand performance associations, brand imagery associations and consumer insight associations (Keller et al., 2002). A position could be based on any of these brand differences. Consumer insight associations are generally used when the other two types of brand differences do not differ much from those of the competitors.
4.2. The associative network
A network approach to the representation of brand associations can provide a clear overview and a better understanding of the perceptions consumers have of brands (Henderson, Iacobucci & Calder, 1998). An associative network consists of the brand associations and basically represents what happens in the mind of the consumer. Collins and Loftus (1975) developed the concept of spreading activation. This theory discussed the process of the activation of nodes. When a person is reminded of specific stimulus, activation of the node corresponding to that stimulus occurs (Henderson et al., 1998). In other words, when a person is reminded of exposed to a certain association, he or she automatically connect this association with other related association. Mapping the associative network is an useful tool to visualize the process, for example:
Figure 2: Aaker’s (1996) associative network
Association who are stronger connected will come to mind more easily than associations who are weaker connected with the stimulus. When people think about McDonalds, they will most likely associate the brand with meals and burgers. And McDonalds would like to accomplish brand recall. In the associative network, burgers are indirectly connected with McDonalds via products and meals. If
a consumer thinks about a burger, he or she might associate a burger with McDonalds. And if a McDonalds is nearby, he or she might purchase a burger at McDonalds. This is of course the ideal situation, but such connections are made in the mind of the consumer. An associative network that has strong, favourable and unique associations can help the brand in building customer-based brand equity.
4.3. Transfer of associations
The concept of associations leverage primarily focuses on brand extensions (Aaker, 1990; Aaker & Keller, 1990; Dwivedi, Merrilees & Sweeney, 2010; Park, Milberg & Lawson, 1990). The established associations of an existing brand could transfer to other brands (Keller, 2003). In chapter two, rebranding is defined as the creation of a new name, term, symbol, design or combination of them for an established brand with the intention of developing a differentiated (new) position in the mind of stakeholders and competitors (Muzellec et al., 2006). The associations generated by the old name, term, symbol etc. could transfer to the new brand. Association leverage is a two-way street. In the case of brand extensions, the image of the parent brand is an important determinant of the success of the extension (Dwivedi, 2010). So, the image of brand influences the success of another (sub) brand or extension of the brand. The image of a brand is determined by types of associations discussed earlier in this chapter and whether these associations are strong, favourable and unique (Keller, 1993). With this idea in mind, it could be said that the negative associations that causes problems for a brand might transfer to the new brand. These negative associations could be the driver behind the decision to rebrand. So, if the negative associations transfer to the new brand, the image of the new brand does not differ that much from the brand image of the old brand. This might be detrimental to the new brand.
5. Hypotheses development
The branding process and especially the rebranding process should be clear at this point of the study. Primary brand elements play an important role in building a strong brand and in creating a desired position in the mind of the consumers. Previous chapters have explained these different concepts in more detail. It is now time to narrow down our focus and develop several hypotheses. The
hypotheses are developed based on the information from previous chapter as well as more context-related information. This chapter consists of two parts. First, it begins with formulating the
expectations of the quantitative study. This part ends with the conceptual framework, which visualizes the story of this study. The second part of this chapter is dedicated to the qualitative side of this study, namely the creation of an associative network and the different dimensions of the associations. This part will end with a visual representation of the desired shifts in the associative network.
5.1. The effect of primary brand element changes on the evaluation of a problem brand
This study starts with the big picture and examines whether or not primary brand element changes could improve the overall evaluation of a problem brand, regardless of the type of change and the type of problem brand. The overall evaluation of a problem brand is most likely below average. The management of a brand should only consider changing primary brand elements when the problem they are facing is a severe problem. Rebranding is a risky process which could destroy the brand (Stuart et al., 2003). The goal of rebranding is to achieve a new and better position in the mind of the consumers (Muzellec et al., 2006). A prominent state in the entire process, which is highly visible as well, is the change of one or several primary brand elements (Muzellec et al., 2003). As mentioned before, companies have the unique opportunity to create a new identity by changing primary brand elements. However, this process goes hand in hand with losing the existing brand equity which was already established by the old primary brand elements (Stuart et al., 2003). But the image of the
problem brand discourage and hold potential consumers back to purchase a service or a good from the brand or perhaps even consider the brand as a serious option. In other words, the brand does not add sufficient value, which causes problems with the brand equity (Farquhar, 1989). The fact that a product or service is from a specific brand does not enhance the value of the product or service beyond its functional purposes anymore. So in essence, the brand does not give consumers a reason to purchase that specific brand. Changing primary brand elements is a method to differentiate the brand again from its competitors and therefore enhances the brand equity. The current position of the problem brand could be improved by changing primary brand elements. It is important to keep in mind that changing primary brand elements is a risky method and a brand should only consider this when the problems they are facing a substantial and they do not see another option which might be effective as well. So, the brands in questions are considered as problem brands.
So, changing primary brand elements could improve the overall evaluation of the problem brand. The strength of this effect depends on several factors. However, analysing the big picture will already indicate the usefulness of primary brand element changes, regardless of the type of change and the type of problem brand. This expectation has led to the first hypothesis of this study:
𝐻𝐻1 : The evaluation of a problem brand is higher after primary brand element changes compared to
before primary brand element changes.
5.2. The differences between an incremental and an incidental problem brand
The first distinction that is made in this study is between the types of problem brand. The existing literature gives many underlying reasons of situations when a company could consider a rebranding process. Muzellec et al. (2003) combined many reasons and developed four drivers behind primary brand element changes. Two of these drivers have an internal perspective and two drivers have an external perspective. An important distinction that has to be made between the two drivers with an
environment could happen due to a sudden event, like a crises or catastrophe. If this is the case, the brand has an incidental problem. A change in the competitive position is a problem which develops over time and could therefore be considered a structural or incremental problem. A brand does not get out of touch overnight, such developments are long term. Unfortunately, the existing literature has not yet made a clear distinction between the effects of changing primary brand elements for both types of problem brands. The underlying reasons are explained and described; however, it is not yet clear if a rebranding process works differently for an incremental problem brand compared to an incidental problem brand. According to Bhat and Reddy (1998), developing, communicating and maintaining a brand’s image is crucial to its long-term success. Fombrun (1996) describes reputation as the strategic concept centred on long-term impressions of the organizations. With this idea in mind, it is perhaps more difficult for an incremental problem brand to improve the overall evaluation of the brand by changing primary brand elements simply because the problem of the brand is already developed over a longer period of time. The problem is perhaps established deeper within the associative network. Besides that, one sudden event does not automatically mean that the operations of the entire organization are unsatisfactory. On the other, consumers might expect primary brand element changes of an incremental problem brand. Especially because the problem is structural, they might expect changes. The existing literature does not have the answer to this discussion. The second hypothesis of this study is based on the notion that a structural and long-term problem can only be solved by a radical solution. This expectation is formulated as follows:
𝐻𝐻2: The effect of primary brand element changes on the brand evaluation (𝐻𝐻1) is stronger for an
incidental problem brand compared to an incremental problem brand.
5.3. The effect of the different solutions on the brand evaluation of a problem brand
The second distinction made in this study is between the different types of change. Due to the fact that this study incorporates two primary brand elements (i.e. the brand name and logo),there are
three possible solutions (i.e.) a brand logo change, a brand name change and a brand name and logo change). The effect of the change depends on the strength of the specific primary brand element.
The brand name is the basis upon which the brand equity is built (Aaker, 1991). The brand name itself can bring inherent strength to a brand (Kohli & Labahn, 1997). The brand name is able to affect consumers’ perceptions of the products (Farhana, 2012). The fact that the brand name carries essentially all of the brand equity makes it a dangerous decision to change it. However, building brand equity is a problem for brands with an undesirable position in the mind of the consumer. It is expected that a brand name change will help the company to achieve a better position. The brand name is arguable the most powerful brand element, but also the most difficult brand element to change, it is therefore expected that a brand name solution is the most effective solution for a problem brand to improve the overall evaluation of the brand.
The brand logo is arguable the second most influential brand element. The brand logo is the visual aspect of the brand identity and it is developed to be highly memorable, easily recognizable and should trigger consumers to build associations between the brand itself and its chosen position (Farhana, 2012). Visual brand elements, like the brand logo, play a crucial role in building brand equity, especially in terms of awareness (Keller, 2003). It is important that a logo convey meaning, this will help to logo to be more readily remembered and recognized (Farhana, 2012). If the brand logo is recognizable, it only takes a glance to be reminded of the brand (Aaker, 2002). The effect of a brand logo change on the overall evaluation of the brand is expected to be less powerful because logos can more easily be changed over time than brand names (Farhana, 2012).
Changing both the brand name and brand logo is expected to have the largest effect on the overall evaluation of the brand. By changing both these primary brand elements, the company is trying to cut the connection with the old brand completely. If the new primary brand elements are considered to be an improvement compared to the old primary brand elements, changing the public face of the company will positively influence the overall evaluation of the brand.
In conclusion, the brand name is (in most cases) the strongest primary brand element, followed by the brand logo. It is therefore expected that a brand name change has a more positive effect on the evaluation of the brand compared to a brand logo change. However, changing both the name and logo of the brand is considered to be a more profound method in increase the brand evaluation of a problem brand. In other words, the brand name solution is expected to be more effective in increasing the overall evaluation of the problem brand compared to the brand logo solution. But changing more than one primary brand element (in this study the brand name and logo) is expected to have a more positive effect on the overall evaluation of the problem brand compared to changing only one primary brand element. These expectations have led to the following two hypotheses:
𝐻𝐻3𝑎𝑎 : The effect of primary brand element changes on the evaluation of a problem brand (𝐻𝐻1) is
stronger when the brand name is changed compared to when the brand logo is changed.
𝐻𝐻3𝑏𝑏 : The effect of primary brand element changes on the evaluation of a problem brand (𝐻𝐻1) is
stronger for a brand name and logo change compared to a brand name or a brand logo change (𝐻𝐻3𝑎𝑎).
5.4. The conceptual framework
A visual representation is always helpful to understand what a study is trying to investigate. A conceptual framework basically visualizes the story of the study. It is expected that the overall evaluation of a problem brand can be improved by changing primary brand elements. The improvement depends on the type of change and the type of problem brand. Figure 3 shows the conceptual framework of this study:
Figure 3: The conceptual framework
5.5. Association analysis
The second part of this chapter focuses on the associations which come to mind when thinking about the problem brand. Because besides an improved overall evaluation of the, the changes of primary brand elements have an effect on the associative network as well. As mentioned before, the underlying value of the primary brand elements is its set of associations (Aaker, 1991). The new primary brand elements should improve the already established associative network and this process is threefold. First of all, the unfavourable associations should be weakened without being activated. Strong and unfavourable associations are arguably the worst type of associations for a brand. Consumers know the brand based on negative associations. Second, the favourable associations should transfer to the new brand. It is highly unlikely that the established associative network consists only of unfavourable associations. A brand already has some favourable associations which already created brand equity. These types of associations are valuable. And third, the new primary brand elements should add more favourable associations to the existing associative network to make it an even stronger network and therefore a stronger brand. The associations are measured on three
Brand name change Brand name + logo change Brand logo change
Incidental
problem
brand
Incremental
problem
brand
Type of problem brand
Primary brand
element changes
evaluation
Brand
𝐻𝐻
1+
𝐻𝐻
2Type of change
dimensions (i.e. strength, favourability and uniqueness) and could therefore be used in statistical procedures. Several hypotheses are developed based on the three dimensions. Each dimension will be briefly explained in more detail below.
5.5.1. The strength of the associations
Strong associations are preferred but only if they are favourable as well. Strong and favourable associations are the point of differences for a brand. A brand can achieve competitive advantage based on these points of differences. It is therefore important that the brand associations are strong. It is expected that the new primary brand elements generate strong associations. However, a
problem brand can have strong associations as well, but still have substantial problems. The
hypothesis is developed based on the idea that strong associations are preferred. However, the next hypothesis regarding the favourability of the associations needs to be kept in mind as well.
𝐻𝐻4 : The associations of a problem brand are stronger after primary brand element changes
compared to before primary brand element changes.
5.5.2. The favourability of associations
The favourability of the associations is an important dimension. A brand has problems when the majority of the associations in het entire network are unfavourable. The position of the brand in the mind of the consumer is unfavourable as well if this is the case. In order to improve the position, it is important that the unfavourable associations are weakened out without being activated and that new favourable associations are added to the existing associative network. In other words, the overall favourability of the associations needs to be improved due to the changes of primary brand elements. This has led to the following hypothesis:
𝐻𝐻5 : The associations of a problem brand are more favourable after primary brand element changes
