Introduction Richard Ettenson and Jonathan Knowles break down in their research Merging the Brand and Branding

the Merger, the various alternatives which organizations and their management can opt in the context of how to brand, a parent company and its target company in the event of a merge and acquisition. The merger and acquisition topic has been of great relevance due to the abundant scope of its literature which includes strategic management, corporate finance, and organizational behavior literature (Zollo & Meier, 2008). In additional, M&A represent massive change in the ownership and control of resources [a] causes and effects of subjects of intense interest (Kiymaz, College, & Baker, 2008) The authors of the research expose that inadequate branding strategies can:
be a huge blunder [and that] with no solid brand platform to work from, company integration will often be mismanaged, and communication to key constituencies will necessarily suffer. In the worst of situations, the relationship between the two organizations becomes contentious; promised synergies remain elusive; employees become distrustful and disgruntled; and customers grow cynical and dissatisfied. (Ettenson & Knowles , 2006)

But, despite the massive amount of research done, there is little or no agreement both across and within the disciplines on how to measure acquisition performance (Zollo & Meier, 2008). This fact has open a great debate for the establishment of a theoretical mothod on how to evaluate acquisition performance. In this research the authors attempt to stablish a theoretical concept using three key constituences in order to develop strategies for the successful creation of value on the merge and acquisition of two companies (Ettenson & Knowles , 2006). They also conclude that the success or creating value among the merge and acquisition lies not in incremental improvements

to existing practices but rather in the extension of the due-diligence process to include a class of assets ( namely, corporate brands) that have hitherto been systematically overlooked (Ettenson & Knowles , 2006). We do not completely agree with the authors assumptions parting from the lack of empirical evidense demonstrated in their research.

Merging the Brand and Branding the Merger Overview For this research, the authors evaluated 207 merger and acquisitions achieved from 1995 to the date of the research (approximately 2006); with valuation transaction that were greater than $250 million (Ettenson & Knowles , 2006). In addition, for this investigation the authors established a framework approach which involves key constituents, and the consequences in these constituents, from management branding decisions in the event of the merge and acquisition (Ettenson & Knowles , 2006). These key constituents can be look as the most important components of a company s stakeholders. The mentioned constituents include the companies: employees, customers and investors (Ettenson & Knowles , 2006). A reason for this approach which focus on the companies stakeholders can be that companies attempt to address the concerns of stakeholders groups, recognizing that failure to do so can have serious long-term consequences (Ferrell, Thorne , & Ferrell , 2010). This long-term consequences can result in a useful method for measuring the performance of these companies. Interviews were made with senior management of the companies evaluated; this in order to measure the results of the merge and acquisition (Ettenson & Knowles , 2006).