Brand name substitution and brand equity transfer

Pages117-125
Published date13 April 2012
DOIhttps://doi.org/10.1108/10610421211215562
Date13 April 2012
AuthorVéronique Pauwels Delassus,Raluca Mogos Descotes
Subject MatterMarketing
Brand name substitution and brand equity
transfer
Ve
´ronique Pauwels Delassus
Department of Marketing, IESEG School of Management - Catholic University of Lille - LEM Research Center - CNRS (UMR 8179),
Lille, France, and
Raluca Mogos Descotes
ESSCA School of Management, ESSCA Knowledge Research Center, Paris, France
Abstract
Purpose – Despite the prevalence with which firms change the brand names they use, this research stream has received little academic attention.
Managers confronted with brand name substitutions fear most a loss of brand equity, which would decrease their market share. This research aims to
identify key influences that might enable companies to minimise their brand equity losses in response to brand name substitutions.
Design/methodology/approach – A preliminary qualitative investigation (20 semi-directive interviews) pertained to better understand how brand
equity loss might be minimised in the case of a brand name substitution. This qualitative research and a relevant literature review provided input for the
questionnaire design. Furthermore, the resulting survey data from a sample of 300 consumers served for the test of the research propositions.
Findings – This study identifies five key influence factors that marketing managers can use to transfer brand equity in the case of brand name
substitution, based on consumers’ knowledge of the brand change, attitude toward brand change, perceived similarity between the old and new
brands, degree of attachment to the initial brand, and recognition of the presence of an umbrella brand. Finally, the brand equity dimensions are
interrelated, such that the transfer of perceived quality and brand image influences loyalty transfer, and brand quality transferimproves brand image
transfer.
Originality/value – This research represents a first attempt to answer the pressing question: how can firms transfer brand equity successfully in the
case of brand name substitution? The study also identifies for the first time key influence factors that favour brand equity transfer from an old to a new
brand.
Keywords Brand name substitution, Brand equity transfer, Brand management, Brand names, Consumer behaviour, Product image, Brand identity
Paper type Research paper
An executive summary for managers and executive
readers can be found at the end of this article.
1. Introduction
Brand name substitutions have become a frequent
phenomenon, and companies confronted with rebranding
are often mentioned in the business press (Muzellec and
Lambkin, 2009). Several well known examples of brand name
substitutions are Treets-M&M’s, Chambourcy-Nestle
´and
recently Thomson-Technicolor. Brand name substitution
consists of changing the name of a product or service which
is marketed by a company (Muzellec and Lambkin, 2006;
Muzellec and Lambkin, 2007).
Several factors can motivate brand name substitutions.
During 2000-2002, Unilever suppressed nearly 75 percent of
its brands to increase the concentration of its communication
efforts, avoid product cannibalisation and improve the brand
awareness of its 12 most well-known billionaire brands
(Dinkovski, 2008). Thomson became Technicolor as of 2010,
likely in an attempt to reinforce its positioning in the LCD
television market. Yet, regardless of the reasons, the practice
of changing or substituting brand names is extremely risky for
companies (Kapferer, 2007). Consumers might not recognise
their usual product or doubt its quality, which could induce
them to stop buying it. In turn, the most frequent negative
consequence of brand name substitution is the brand equity
loss that is engendered by decreased market share, which itself
results from consumers’ failure to recognise the product.
Confronted with a brand name substitution, consumers may
lose their mental associations, brand image perceptions,
product quality perceptions, awareness and loyalty toward the
brand. If they then choose to purchase another brand, the
focal brand loses market share and profits. These drastic
potential consequences of brand substitutions require
marketing managers to find ways to transfer brand equity
from an old to a new brand and thus minimise brand loyalty
losses.
Despite the importance of these strategic issues, literature
relating to product and brand deletions is relatively sparse.
Varadarajan et al. (2006) focus on the organizational and
environmental drivers of brand deletion propensity and the
predisposition of a firm to delete a particular brand from its
brand portfolio. Muzellec and Lambkin (2006) tend to
understand the drivers of the corporate rebranding
phenomenon and analyse their impact on corporate brand
equity. Few studies address brand name substitutions from a
consumer perspective. Delassus (2005) considers the transfer
of associations when the canned vegetable brand Marie
The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available at
www.emeraldinsight.com/1061-0421.htm
Journal of Product & Brand Management
21/2 (2012) 117–125
qEmerald Group Publishing Limited [ISSN 1061-0421]
[DOI 10.1108/10610421211215562]
117

To continue reading

Request your trial

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT