rebranding ama2009

7/29/2019 Rebranding AMA2009

1/52

Consumer Perceptions ofRebranding:

The Case of Logo Changes

Saleh AlShebilMark Peterson

AMA 2009

August 8, 2009


2/52

Agenda

Research Study Overview Qualitative Research

Model & Hypotheses

Research Methodology

Results & Findings

Limitations

Theoretical Contribution

Managerial Implications Future Research


3/52

Research Study Overview

Rebranding Importance Many companies, teams, universities, regions &

countries are rebranding Tremendous cost involved $! Lack of academic research

Main Research Question: What doconsumers think of rebranding? How do consumers process and cope with a

brand logo change?


4/52

Qualitative Research

In Depth Interviews 12 Interviews: Semi-structured 45 mins to 1 hour for each interview

Perceived degree of logo change Whoa! wow!.. wow! thats differentwow!......I probably thought it was

a new shoe brand coming out. ..I would not have thought it was thesame.

Curiosity Why did they do it?....Yeah whats the purpose of spending all that money

to change everything around? I am used to the old logo, so why changeit?

Skepticism I dont believe that they changed their product or anything at all. They are

just trying to make it seem like something new and its probably not.

Resistance to Change Baskin Robbins to me has been around for 50 years, leave it alone. Its

fine!


5/52

Model & Hypotheses


6/52

Perceived Degree of Logo Change Perceived Valence of Logo Change

Skepticism Toward

Logo Change

Resistance Toward

Logo Change

Brand Attitude

After Logo

Change

Perceptions of Logo Change

Curiosity Toward Logo Change

Deprivation

Curiosity

Interest

CuriosityInitial Coping

Secondary Coping


7/52


H1a

Skepticism Toward

Logo Change

Resistance TowardLogo Change


Deprivation

Curiosity

Interest

Curiosity

H2

H3


Deprivation

Curiosity

Interest

Curiosity

H6

H4 H5a H5b

H1bH8

H9

H7bH7a

Brand Attitude

After LogoChange

H12

H11

H10a

H10b


8/52

Perceived Degree of Logo Change

Skepticism Toward

Logo Change

Resistance Toward

Logo Change


Deprivation

Curiosity

Interest

Curiosity

H2

H3

Resistance Toward

Logo Change

Deprivation

Curiosity

Interest

Curiosity

H1b

H1a Perceived Degree of Logo Change Deprivation Curiosity Toward Logo Change (+)H1b Perceived Degree of Logo Change Interest Curiosity Toward Logo Change (+)H2 Perceived Degree of Logo Change Skepticism Toward Logo Change (+)H3 Perceived Degree of Logo Change Resistance Toward Logo Change (+)

H1a+

+

+ +


9/52

Skepticism Toward

Logo Change

Resistance Toward

Logo Change


Deprivation

Curiosity

Interest

Curiosity

Resistance Toward

Logo Change

Deprivation

Curiosity

Interest

Curiosity

H6

H4 H5a H5b

H4 Skepticism Toward Logo Change Resistance Toward Logo Change (+)H5a Deprivation Curiosity Toward Logo Change Resistance Toward Logo Change (+)H5b Interest Curiosity Toward Logo Change Resistance Toward Logo Change (-)H6 Deprivation Curiosity Toward Logo Change Resistance Toward Logo Change (+)

+

+

-

+


10/52

Perceived Valence of Logo Change

Skepticism Toward

Logo Change

Resistance Toward

Logo Change


DeprivationCuriosity

InterestCuriosity

Resistance Toward

Logo Change


InterestCuriosity

H8

H9

H7bH7a

H7a Perceived Valence of Logo Change Deprivation Curiosity Toward Logo Change (-)H7b Perceived Valence of Logo Change Deprivation Curiosity Toward Logo Change (+)H8 Perceived Valence of Logo Change Skepticism Toward Logo Change (-)H9 Perceived Valence of Logo Change Resistance Toward Logo Change (-)

-

-

+-


11/52

Skepticism Toward

Logo Change

Resistance Toward

Logo Change



InterestCuriosity

Resistance Toward

Logo Change


InterestCuriosity

Brand Attitude

After Logo

Change

H12

H11

H10a

H10b

H10a Deprivation Curiosity Toward Logo Change Brand Attitude After Logo Change (-)H10b Interest Curiosity Toward Logo Change Brand Attitude After Logo Change (+)H11 Skepticism Toward Logo Change Brand Attitude After Logo Change (-)

H12 Resistance Toward Logo Change Brand Attitude After Logo Change (-)

- -

+

-


12/52

Hypotheses SummaryNo. Hypotheses

H1a Perceived Degree of Logo Change Deprivation Curiosity Toward Logo Change (+)H1b Perceived Degree of Logo Change Interest Curiosity Toward Logo Change (+)H2 Perceived Degree of Logo Change Skepticism Toward Logo Change (+)H3 Perceived Degree of Logo Change Resistance Toward Logo Change (+)H4 Skepticism Toward Logo Change Resistance Toward Logo Change (+)

H5a Deprivation Curiosity Toward Logo Change Resistance Toward Logo Change (+)H5b Interest Curiosity Toward Logo Change Resistance Toward Logo Change (-)H6 Deprivation Curiosity Toward Logo Change Resistance Toward Logo Change (+)H7a Perceived Valence of Logo Change Deprivation Curiosity Toward Logo Change (-)H7b Perceived Valence of Logo Change Deprivation Curiosity Toward Logo Change (+)

H8 Perceived Valence of Logo Change

Skepticism Toward Logo Change (-)

H9 Perceived Valence of Logo Change Resistance Toward Logo Change (-)H10a Deprivation Curiosity Toward Logo Change Brand Attitude After Logo Change (-)H10b Interest Curiosity Toward Logo Change Brand Attitude After Logo Change (+)H11 Skepticism Toward Logo Change Brand Attitude After Logo Change (-)H12 Resistance Toward Logo Change Brand Attitude After Logo Change (-)


13/52

Research Methodology

Between subject design survey

study:

2 brands/2 logo changes Pilot Study

Sample Size: 73

Manipulation check

Reliability >0.90


14/52

Brand Logo Changes Used

Brand1Minor Change

Brand1

Major Change

Brand2

Minor Change

Brand2

Major Change
http://www.baskinrobbins.com/


15/52

Main Study

Total sample collected: 427 Final working sample: 406

21 removed-incompletes

Manipulation Check Balanced sample A one way ANOVA: Minor and Major logo change

Baskin Robbins (F= 127.97, P


16/52

Analysis

Structural Equation Modeling (SEM)

2 Method approach (Anderson & Gerbing, 1988) Measurement Model

Structural Model

LISREL 8.72


17/52

Measurement Model

Item purification

Convergent validity, Factor loadings > 0.5 most >0.7

Significant loadings (p 0.5

AVE > 2 - Squared Correlations between Constructs

Reliability > 0.8 and most > 0.9


18/52

Construct Reliability & AVE

Code Construct Alpha AVE #Items

PDLC Perceived Degree of Logo Change 0.95 0.86 3

PVLC Perceived Valence of Logo Change 0.97 0.92 3

SKEP Skepticism Toward Logo Change 0.89 0.69 4

CURI Interest Curiosity Toward Logo Change 0.96 0.87 4

CURD Deprivation Curiosity Toward LogoChange

0.85 0.68 3

RESIS Resistance Toward Logo Change 0.91 0.67 5

NBATT Brand Attitude After Logo Change 0.98 0.95 3


19/52

Measurement Model Fit

Fit Indices Value

Chi-Square 538.60 (P


20/52


21/52

Structural Model Fit

Fit Indices Value

Chi-Square 629.38 (P < 0.05)Df=258

RMSEA 0.060

NFI 0.96

CFI 0.97

RMR 0.34

GFI 0.89


22/52


Skepticism Toward

Logo Change



Deprivation

Curiosity

Interest

Curiosity


Deprivation

Curiosity

Interest

Curiosity

Brand Attitude

After Logo

Change

.11**

.13**-.53**

.11*

.21**

-.50**

.17**

.31** .18**

-.25**

.19**

.09* -.28**

*< 0.05

**< 0.01

___ Significant

----- Not Significant


23/52


Skepticism Toward

Logo Change



InterestCuriosity

.11**

H3Resistance Toward

Logo Change


InterestCuriosity

.13**.11*

No. Hypotheses S/N.S Estimate t-value

H1a Perceived Degree of Logo Change Deprivation Curiosity Toward Logo Change (+) Supported 0.11 2.00H1b Perceived Degree of Logo Change Interest Curiosity Toward Logo Change (+) Supported 0.13 2.80H2 Perceived Degree of Logo Change Skepticism Toward Logo Change (+) Supported 0.11 2.70H3 Perceived Degree of Logo Change Resistance Toward Logo Change (+) Supported 0.09 2.29

.09*


24/52

Skepticism Toward

Logo Change

Resistance Toward

Logo Change


Deprivation

Curiosity

Interest

Curiosity

Resistance Toward

Logo Change

Deprivation

Curiosity

Interest

Curiosity

.17**

.31**.18**


H4 Skepticism Toward Logo Change Resistance Toward Logo Change (+) Supported 0.31 5.98H5a Deprivation Curiosity Toward Logo Change Resistance Toward Logo Change (+) Supported 0.18 5.08H5b Interest Curiosity Toward Logo Change Resistance Toward Logo Change (-) Not Supported 0.03 0.75H6 Deprivation Curiosity Toward Logo Change Resistance Toward Logo Change (+) Supported 0.17 4.62


25/52

Perceived Valence of Logo Change

Skepticism Toward

Logo Change



InterestCuriosity

Resistance Toward

Logo Change


InterestCuriosity

-.53**

-.50**

.21**-.28**


H7a Perceived Valence of Logo Change Deprivation Curiosity Toward Logo Change (-) Supported -0.28 -4.50H7b Perceived Valence of Logo Change Deprivation Curiosity Toward Logo Change (+) Supported 0.21 3.77H8 Perceived Valence of Logo Change Skepticism Toward Logo Change (-) Supported -0.53 -11.32H9 Perceived Valence of Logo Change Resistance Toward Logo Change (-) Supported -0.50 -9.46


26/52

Skepticism Toward

Logo Change

Resistance Toward

Logo Change


Deprivation

Curiosity

Interest

Curiosity

Resistance Toward

Logo Change

Deprivation

Curiosity

Interest

Curiosity

Brand Attitude

After Logo

Change

-.25**

.19**


H10a Deprivation Curiosity Toward Logo Change Brand Attitude After Logo Change (-) Not Supported 0.09 1.87H10b Interest Curiosity Toward Logo Change Brand Attitude After Logo Change (+) Supported 0.19 3.96H11 Skepticism Toward Logo Change Brand Attitude After Logo Change (-) Supported -0.25 -3.86H12 Resistance Toward Logo Change Brand Attitude After Logo Change (-) Not Supported 0.12 1.85


27/52

Hypotheses SummaryNo. Hypotheses S/N.S Estimate t-value

H1a Perceived Degree of Logo Change Deprivation Curiosity Toward Logo Change (+) Supported 0.11 2.00H1b Perceived Degree of Logo Change Interest Curiosity Toward Logo Change (+) Supported 0.13 2.80H2 Perceived Degree of Logo Change Skepticism Toward Logo Change (+) Supported 0.11 2.70H3 Perceived Degree of Logo Change Resistance Toward Logo Change (+) Supported 0.09 2.29H4 Skepticism Toward Logo Change Resistance Toward Logo Change (+) Supported 0.31 5.98

H5a Deprivation Curiosity Toward Logo Change Resistance Toward Logo Change (+) Supported 0.18 5.08H5b Interest Curiosity Toward Logo Change Resistance Toward Logo Change (-) Not Supported 0.03 0.75H6 Deprivation Curiosity Toward Logo Change Resistance Toward Logo Change (+) Supported 0.17 4.62H7a Perceived Valence of Logo Change Deprivation Curiosity Toward Logo Change (-) Supported -0.28 -4.50H7b Perceived Valence of Logo Change Deprivation Curiosity Toward Logo Change (+) Supported 0.21 3.77H8 Perceived Valence of Logo Change Skepticism Toward Logo Change (-) Supported -0.53 -11.32H9 Perceived Valence of Logo Change Resistance Toward Logo Change (-) Supported -0.50 -9.46H10a Deprivation Curiosity Toward Logo Change Brand Attitude After Logo Change (-) Not Supported 0.09 1.87H10b Interest Curiosity Toward Logo Change Brand Attitude After Logo Change (+) Supported 0.19 3.96H11 Skepticism Toward Logo Change Brand Attitude After Logo Change (-) Supported -0.25 -3.86H12 Resistance Toward Logo Change Brand Attitude After Logo Change (-) Not Supported 0.12 1.85


28/52


Skepticism Toward

Logo Change



Deprivation

Curiosity

Interest

Curiosity


Deprivation

Curiosity

Interest

Curiosity

Brand Attitude

After Logo

Change


29/52


Skepticism Toward

Logo Change



Deprivation

Curiosity

Interest

Curiosity


Deprivation

Curiosity

Interest

Curiosity

Brand Attitude

After Logo

Change

.11**

.13**-.53**

.11*

.21**

-.50**.09*

-.28**

*< 0.05

**< 0.01

___ Significant



30/52

Results Discussion

Effect of the Perceived Degree of logo change: Bigger thelogo change More questions raised whys+whats More skepticism, distrust & doubt More resistance toward logo change

Effect of the Perceived Valence of logo change: More

favorable the logo change Less questioning about the necessity of the logo change- yet

more interest in it Less skepticism, less distrust and less doubt about it Less resistant and more accepting of it.

Critical Criterion to judge a new logo - perceived valence

of the logo change A logo change done right & favorably viewed - even if it is adrastic change

More interested in it, as well as less questioning of it. The lower level of questioning would contribute to less

skepticism about it, Consumers improved brand attitude.

Vice versa


31/52

Limitations

Brands used

Degree of Logo Change Minor/major- no middle

Scales used Created/adapted


32/52

Theoretical Contribution

A coping mechanism for a consumersresponse toward logo changes

Curiosity (deprivation and interest)

Skepticism

Resistance Curiosity as 2 different constructs (state)

Deprivation (-)

Interest (+)

Addition to the literature on Skepticism

Resistance to Change


33/52

Managerial Implications

Companies should really think of theirconsumers and see their side of the picture.

Marketing communication to their consumers Announcing such logo changes (especially drastic logo

changes)

Rationale and more information Perceived valence of the logo change more

critical criterion to judge a new logo than thedegree of logo change. Less Questioning/More interest

Less Skepticism Less Resistance-more acceptance Better brand attitude


34/52

Future Research

Post hoc analysis Moderating Role of Perceived valence of logo

change Mediating role of coping Mediating role of curiosity

Roles played by Individual factors Brand involvement Prior brand attitude Skepticism toward marketing Trait cynicism Change-seeking index

Moderating roles of fit Category fit, brand fit & company fit


35/52

Future Research

Does the coping model replicate for other types of rebranding-e.g. name changes? Effect of logo changes on perceptions of

Product changes Service changes Company changes.

Design:

Font change versus a symbol change Role that marketing communications

Reason vs. Not Different types of marketing communications:

factual information humor etc.

Organization perspectivegetting the employees perceptions

International side of rebranding Effect of culture on consumers views of rebranding/logo changes More or less accepting of change


36/52

Thank You!Questions?


37/52


38/52


39/52

Manipulation Check-Means

Version Type of Change Mean (SD)

1 Baskin Robbins- Minor Change 2.89 (SD= 1.45)

2 Baskin Robbins- Major Change 5.09 (SD= 1.31)

3 Payless Shoe Source- Minor Change 3.00 (SD= 1.36)

4 Payless Shoe Source- Major Change 5.99 (SD= 1.22)


40/52

Final Item LoadingsItem Code Loading Item Description

NBATT1 0.96 Brand Attitude After the Logo Change(Bad/Good)

NBATT2 0.99 Brand Attitude after the logo change(Dislike/Like)

NBATT3 0.97 Brand Attitude after the logo change(Unfavorable/Favorable)

PDLC1 0.94 Perceived Degree of Logo Change

(Little difference/Very different)

PDLC2 0.96 Perceived Degree of Logo Change(Minor modifications/Extensive modifications)

PDLC3 0.89 Perceived Degree of Logo Change(No change/Completely changed)

PVLC1 0.96 Perceived Valence of Logo Change(Considerably worse/Considerably better)

PVLC2 0.97 Perceived Valence of Logo Change(Negative change/Positive change)

PVLC3 0.95 Perceived Valence of Logo Change(More unfavorable/More favorable)

SKEP2 0.85 Skepticism Toward Logo ChangeI feel distrustful about this logo change.

SKEP3 0.96 Skepticism Toward Logo ChangeI feel skeptical about this logo change.


41/52

Final Item LoadingsItem Code Loading Item Description

SKEP4 0.9 Skepticism Toward Logo ChangeI feel doubtful about this logo change.

SKEP5 0.56 Skepticism Toward Logo ChangeI believe that this logo change is meant to deceive me.

CURI1 0.9 Interest Curiosity Toward Logo ChangeIm curious to know more about this new logo.

CURI2 0.97 Interest Curiosity Toward Logo Change

I would be interested to find out more about this logo change.

CURI3 0.95 Interest Curiosity Toward Logo ChangeIm eager to know more about this logo change.

CURI5 0.9 Interest Curiosity Toward Logo ChangeI would like to learn more about this logo change.

CURD2 0.81 Deprivation Curiosity Toward Logo ChangeI wonder what the problem was with the old logo.

CURD3 0.94 Deprivation Curiosity Toward Logo ChangeI want to know what was wrong with the old logo.

CURD4 0.71 Deprivation Curiosity Toward Logo ChangeI feel I need to know the reason for this logo change.

RESIS1 0.81 Resistance Toward Logo ChangeI don't want the logo to change because I'm used to the old logo.

RESIS2 0.88 Resistance Toward Logo ChangeIf I had a choice I would stick with the old logo.


42/52

Final Item Loadings

RESIS3 0.63 Resistance Toward Logo ChangeI'm not comfortable with this logo change without a good explanation for it.

RESIS4 0.92 Resistance Toward Logo ChangeI prefer they leave the logo alone rather than change it.

RESIS5 0.84 Resistance Toward Logo ChangeIf it were up to me, I wouldn't have changed the logo.

Item Code Loading Item Description

P i d D f L Ch P i d V l f L Ch


43/52


Skepticism Toward

Logo Change

Resistance Toward

Logo Change


Deprivation

Curiosity

Interest

Curiosity

Resistance Toward

Logo Change

Deprivation

Curiosity

Interest

Curiosity

Brand Attitude

After Logo

Change

-.48**.37**

-.42**

.12*

.27** .16**

-.17*

.19**

.13* -.19*

*< 0.05

**< 0.01

___ Significant


P i d D f L Ch P i d V l f L Ch


44/52


Skepticism Toward

Logo Change

Resistance Toward

Logo Change


Deprivation

Curiosity

Interest

Curiosity

Resistance Toward

Logo Change

Deprivation

Curiosity

Interest

Curiosity

Brand Attitude

After Logo

Change

.15**

.26**-.59**

.19*

-.52**

.21**

.33** .17**

-.28**

.24**

-.40**

*< 0.05

**< 0.01

___ Significant

----- Not Significant----- Not Supported


45/52

Brand Analysis

Baskin Robbins 10/16 hypotheses supported

Payless ShoeSource 11/16 hypotheses supported

Both brands seem to differ on Perceived Degree of logo change

Likely because of higher degree of change perceived for PSSthan BR

Effect of PVLC as a moderator Testing for mediating/moderating roles

Both Brands seem to agree on Perceived Valence of logo change

Relationships between curiosity, skepticism, & resistanceto change

Effect on Brand attitude after logo change


46/52

Unsupported Hypotheses

Hypotheses not significant H5b: Interest Curiosity Toward Logo Change Resistance Toward Logo

Change (-) H10a: Deprivation Curiosity Toward Logo Change Brand Attitude After

Logo Change (-) H12: Resistance Toward Logo Change Brand Attitude After Logo Change

(-)

Curiosity toward logo change

Correlation/Covariance Matrices seem to show the correct hypothesizedsign

Under high perceived degree of logo change High interest curiosity & high deprivation curiosity Some washing out effect-one prevails over the other on the effect on brand

attitude

Resistance toward logo change Correlation/Covariance Matrices seem to show the correct hypothesized

sign Perceived valence of logo change may mitigate any resistance effects

H5b Interest Curiosity Toward Logo Change Resistance Toward Logo Change (-) Not Supported 0.03 0.75H10a Deprivation Curiosity Toward Logo Change Brand Attitude After Logo Change (-) Not Supported 0.09 1.87H12 Resistance Toward Logo Change Brand Attitude After Logo Change (-) Not Supported 0.12 1.85


47/52

Hypotheses SummaryNo. Hypotheses S/N.S Estimate t-value

H1a The perceived degree of logo change will positively influence the deprivation curiosity toward the logo change. Supported 0.11 2.00

H1b The perceived degree of logo change will positively influence the interest curiosity toward the logo change. Supported 0.13 2.80

H2 The perceived degree of logo change will positively influence the skepticism toward the logo change. Supported 0.11 2.70

H3 The perceived degree of logo change will positively influence the resistance toward the logo change. Supported 0.09 2.29

H4 Skepticism toward a logo change will positively influence the resistance toward the logo change. Supported 0.31 5.98

H5a Deprivation curiosity toward a logo change will positively influence the resistance toward the logo change. Supported 0.18 5.08

H5b Interest curiosity toward a logo change will negatively influence the resistance toward the logo change. Not Supported 0.03 0.75

H6 Deprivation curiosity toward a logo change will positively influence the skepticism toward the logo change. Supported 0.17 4.62

H7a The perceived valence of logo change will negatively influence the deprivation curiosity toward the logochange.

Supported -0.28 -4.50

H7b The perceived valence of logo change will positively influence the interest curiosity toward the logo change. Supported 0.21 3.77

H8 The perceived valence of logo change will negatively influence the skepticism toward the logo change. Supported -0.53 -11.32

H9 The perceived valence of logo change will negatively influence the resistance toward the logo change Supported -0.50 -9.46

H10a Interest curiosity toward a logo change will positively influence the brand attitude after the logo change Not Supported 0.09 1.87

H10b Interest curiosity toward a logo change will positively influence the brand attitude after the logo change Supported 0.19 3.96

H11 Skepticism toward a logo change will negatively influence the brand attitude after the logo change. Supported -0.25 -3.86

H12 Resistance toward a logo change will negatively influence the brand attitude after the logo change. Not Supported 0.12 1.85


48/52

Structural Model

PDLC1.00

PVLC1.00

SKEP 0.65

CURI 0.92

RESIS 0.46

NBATT0.91

CURD 0.95

Chi-Square=639.17, df=258, P-value=0.00000, RMSEA=0.060

0.21

0.29

0.03

0.21

-0.250.19

0.12

0.10

0.12

-0.53

0.15

0.20

0.09

-0.47

0.11

-0.24

0.33


49/52

Results Discussion

Perceived degree of logo change Deprivation curiosity towardlogo change (+) Lowensteins (1994) information gap theory Logo change violation of expectations-Incongruity (old and new logo)

curiosity-Incongruity theories-people curious about unexpected events orthat they cant explain- asking "why" questions

New product advertising generated increased curiosity (Olson, Schlinger,and Young, 1982; Olson, Toy and Dover, 1981)


Skepticism Toward LogoChange (+) Experience advertising claim Greater skepticism was found for experience advertising claims than for

search claims (Ford et al., 1990; Feick and Gierl, 1996) Organizational change can generate skepticism and resistance in employees

(Folger and Skarlicki, 1999) Perceived Degree of Logo Change Resistance Toward Logo

Change (+) Greater resistance to change for strategic changes (radical) than

evolutionary changes (minor) (del Val and Fuentes, 2003) Greater resistance for new product innovation (Ram and Sheth, 1989; Ram,

1985).


50/52

Results Discussion

Skepticism Toward Logo Change

Resistance Toward Logo Change (+) Stanley, Meyer and Topolnytsky (2005) found that skepticism, accounted for a unique variance in theintention to resist change.

Deprivation/Interest Curiosity Toward Logo Change Resistance Toward LogoChange (-/+) Trait Interest dimension (Peterson and Seligman, 2004; Kashdan et al., 2004; Collins et

al., 2004) Trait Deprivation dimension (Litman and Jimerson, 2004; Litman and Silvia, 2006). Applicable to our state or situational case for logo changes. Prior evidence that logo changes are generally not preferred and disliked (Pimentel and

Heckler, 2003; Walsh et al., 2006) especially for extreme/drastic changes. why questions result ofan event that is negative and unexpected (Wong and

Weiner, 1981)- which a logo change seems to resemble.

Deprivation Curiosity Toward Logo Change Resistance Toward Logo Change (+) Reichers, Wanous and Austin (1997) state that cynicism may simply help people make sense of puzzling

events in their environment as when changes are announced with little groundwork explaining whythe changes are necessary.

Thus such people begin filling in information gaps with the explanation that things must not have gone welland they begin feeding their cynicism about change by creating such information that would help them

make sense of their world.

Exposed to a logo change why the logo has changed?begin filling in this knowledge gap with

possible skepticism.


51/52

Results Discussion

Perceived Valence of logo change curiosity, skepticism, resistance Attitude theory (Fishbein, 1967; Fishbein and Ajzen,

1975) Belief of some object x evaluative strength of that

belief will ultimately affect attitude towards that

object. E.g. employees who would have more positive views

about organizational change would likely have a betterattitude towards it

Based on our previous discussion on curiosity,skepticism and resistance to change, we would expectthat this employee would likely have less skepticism,more curiosity (positive) and be less resistant to thechange.

Similarly for a logo change


52/52

Results Discussion

Interest Curiosity Toward Logo Change BrandAttitude After Logo Change (+) Menon and Soman (2002) found that curiosity-based

processing of advertising resulted in better productevaluation and greater perceived novelty (p. 11).

Skepticism Toward Logo Change Brand Attitude

After Logo Change (-) Mostafa (2006) found that skepticism towardsenvironmental claims was negatively related toconsumers intention to buy green products

Indirectly we can say that skepticism would be negativelyrelated to brand attitude.

Obermiller & Spangenberg (1998) found that skepticism

toward advertising had a positive correlation with negativeattitudes toward advertising, The higher the skepticism towards advertising the more

negative the attitudes toward advertising.

rebranding ama2009

Documents