Content area
Full Text
Introduction
Cases of corporate rebranding, also termed brand revitalisation (Merrilees, 2005), have been frequently noticed across countries and sectors in recent years (see among others, Ing, 2012; Markham, 2007; Rubenstein, 2009). Examples include Philip Morris in the USA, KPMG Consulting in the UK, UFSoft Engineering in China, UTI Bank in India, Unimarc Grocery Store in Chile, and KGI Securities in Taiwan. According to Muzellec et al. (2003), firms seeking corporate rebranding may do so as a consequence of suffering changes in their competitive position. Also, the motives for corporate rebranding might be changes in ownership structures, corporate strategies, and external environments. Given these significant circumstances, the exercise of corporate rebranding is imperative for firms to convey their brand revitalisation to stakeholders, especially consumers, thus moving their brands forward to regain brand preference (Merrilees, 2005), i.e. to be rechosen and reused among competing brands (Chomvilailuk and Butcher, 2010).
Corporate rebranding can be conceptualised as the practice of modifying existing or further building up new brand elements aiming to create a new image or differentiated position in the mind of stakeholders and a distinctive identity from competitors (Merrilees and Miller, 2008; Muzellec and Lambkin, 2006; Muzellec et al., 2003). Therefore, corporate rebranding can take the form of minor, evolutionary modifications in a firm's logo and slogan accompanied by only some changes in the firm's position and marketing aesthetics. Moreover, it can be revolutionary transformation resulting in the creation of a totally new corporate brand name and major changes to the firm's position and marketing aesthetics (Muzellec and Lambkin, 2007). The former case is termed evolutionary rebranding while the latter is known as revolutionary rebranding (Stuart and Muzellec, 2004). Evolutionary rebranding is relatively less perceptible to outside observers, while revolutionary rebranding is easily identified by a fundamental redefinition or renaming of the corporate brand (Muzellec and Lambkin, 2006). Although corporate rebranding can facilitate the transformation of a firm's position and marketing aesthetics (Lomax and Mador, 2006), its exercise has an inherently high cost (Stuart and Muzellec, 2004). As the exercise of corporate rebranding wipes out a set of attributes and meanings associated with the original corporate name, it may jeopardise and worsen corporate reputation and image (Muzellec and Lambkin, 2006). Therefore, it is essential to understand consumer...