Consumer Perceptions of Rebranding: The Case of Logo Changes

Consumer Perceptions of
Rebranding:
The Case of Logo Changes
Saleh AlShebil
Mark Peterson
AMA 2009
August 8, 2009
Agenda
• Research Study Overview
• Qualitative Research
• Model & Hypotheses
• Research Methodology
• Results & Findings
• Limitations
• Theoretical Contribution
• Managerial Implications
• Future Research
Research Study Overview
• Rebranding Importance
– Many companies, teams, universities, regions &
countries are rebranding
– Tremendous cost involved $!
– Lack of academic research
• Main Research Question: What do
consumers think of rebranding?
– How do consumers process and “cope” with a
brand logo change?
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!… that’s different…wow!......I probably thought it was
a new shoe brand coming out. …..I would not have thought it was the
same.”
• Curiosity
– “Why did they do it?....Yeah what’s the purpose of spending all that money
to change everything around? I am used to the old logo, so why change
it?”
• Skepticism
– “I don’t believe that they changed their product or anything at all. They
are just trying to make it seem like something new and it’s probably not.”
• Resistance to Change
– “Baskin Robbins to me has been around for 50 years, leave it alone. It’s
fine!”
Model & Hypotheses
Perceptions of Logo Change
Perceived Degree of Logo Change Perceived Valence of Logo Change
Curiosity Toward Logo Change

Skepticism Toward
Logo Change Deprivation Interest
Initial Coping Curiosity Curiosity
Secondary Coping
Resistance Toward
Logo Change
Brand Attitude
After Logo
Change
H1a H7a H1b H7b

H8 H2
Skepticism Toward Curiosity Toward Logo Change
Logo Change H6 Deprivation Interest
Curiosity Curiosity
H4 H5a H5b
H3 H9
Resistance Toward
Logo Change
H12 H10a
H11 Brand Attitude

After Logo
H10b
Change
Perceived Degree of Logo Change
+ +
+ H1b
H2 H1a
Curiosity Curiosity
+
H3
Resistance Toward
Logo Change
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 (+)
Logo Change H6 Deprivation Interest
+ Curiosity Curiosity
H4 + H5a + H5b
-
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 (+)
Perceived Valence of Logo Change
- +
- H7a H7b
H8
Curiosity Curiosity
- H9
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 (-)
Curiosity Curiosity
Resistance Toward
Logo Change
-
- H12 - H10a
H11 Brand Attitude

After Logo +
H10b
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 (-)
Hypotheses Summary
No. 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 (-)
Research Methodology
• Between subject design survey
study:
– 2 brands/2 logo changes
• Pilot Study
– Sample Size: 73
– Manipulation check
– Reliability >0.90
Brand Logo Changes Used
Brand1
Minor Change
Brand1
Major
Change
Brand2
Minor Change
Brand2
Major
Change
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<0.05)
• Payless Shoe Source (F= 269.69, P<0.05).
• Demographics
– Age:
• 23.8
• 18-52
– Sex:
• 52% male
• 48% female
– Ethnicity:
• 45.8% Caucasian/White
– Education:
• 52% had some college
Analysis
• Structural Equation Modeling (SEM)
• 2 Method approach (Anderson & Gerbing, 1988)
– Measurement Model
– Structural Model
• LISREL 8.72
Measurement Model
• Item purification
• Convergent validity,
– Factor loadings > 0.5 most >0.7
– Significant loadings (p<0.01).
• Discriminant validity,
– AVE > 0.5
– AVE > Ф2 - Squared Correlations between Constructs
• Reliability
– > 0.8 and most > 0.9
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 Logo 0.85 0.68 3

Change
RESIS Resistance Toward Logo Change 0.91 0.67 5
NBATT Brand Attitude After Logo Change 0.98 0.95 3

Measurement Model Fit
Fit Indices Value

Chi-Square 538.60 (P <0.05)
Df=254
RMSEA 0.053
NFI 0.97
CFI 0.98
RMR 0.14
GFI 0.90
Measurement Model
0.08 NBATT1
0.02 NBATT2
0.06 NBATT3
0.12 PDLC1
0.94
0.96
PDLC 1.00
0.09 PDLC2
0.89
0.20 PDLC3 0.33
0.08 PVLC1 0.96 PVLC 1.00 -0.04

0.97
0.05 PVLC2 0.95
-0.53 0.21
0.10 PVLC3
0.28 SKEP2 0.85 SKEP 1.00 0.25 0.03

0.96
0.96
0.07 SKEP3 0.90
0.99 -0.06 0.02 -0.21
0.56
0.97
0.19 SKEP4
CURI
0.09 1.00 0.34 -0.63
0.68 SKEP5
0.90
0.97 0.20 0.44 0.60
0.19 CURI1
0.95
0.90
0.07 CURI2 CURD 1.00 0.02 -0.13
0.09 CURI3
0.42 0.23
0.81
0.19 CURI5 0.94
0.71 0.16
RESIS 1.00
0.35 CURD2
0.11 CURD3 0.03

0.81
0.50 0.88
CURD4
0.63 NBATT 1.00
0.35 0.92
RESIS1
0.84
0.23 RESIS2
0.61 RESIS3
0.15 RESIS4
0.29 RESIS5
Chi-Square=538.60, df=254, P-value=0.00000, RMSEA=0.053

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
.13**
-.53**
.09* -.28** .21**
.11**
.11*

.17**
Curiosity Curiosity
.31** -.50** .18**
Resistance Toward
Logo Change
-.25**
*< 0.05
**< 0.01 Brand Attitude .19**
___ Significant After Logo
----- Not Significant Change
Perceived Degree of Logo Change
.11* .13**
.11**
Curiosity Curiosity
.09*
Resistance
H3 Toward
Logo Change
No. Hypotheses S/N.S Estimate t-value
H1a Perceived Degree of Logo Change  Deprivation Curiosity Toward Logo Change (+) Supported 0.11 2.00
H1b Perceived Degree of Logo Change  Interest Curiosity Toward Logo Change (+) Supported 0.13 2.80
H2 Perceived Degree of Logo Change  Skepticism Toward Logo Change (+) Supported 0.11 2.70
H3 Perceived Degree of Logo Change  Resistance Toward Logo Change (+) Supported 0.09 2.29
Logo Change .17** Deprivation Interest
Curiosity Curiosity
.31** .18**
Resistance Toward
Logo Change
H4 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 5.08
H5b Interest Curiosity Toward Logo Change  Resistance Toward Logo Change (-) Not Supported 0.03 0.75
H6 Deprivation Curiosity Toward Logo Change  Resistance Toward Logo Change (+) Supported 0.17 4.62
Perceived Valence of Logo Change
-.28** .21**
-.53**
Curiosity Curiosity
-.50**
Resistance Toward
Logo Change
H7a Perceived Valence of Logo Change  Deprivation Curiosity Toward Logo Change (-) Supported -0.28 -4.50
H7b Perceived Valence of Logo Change  Deprivation Curiosity Toward Logo Change (+) Supported 0.21 3.77
H8 Perceived Valence of Logo Change  Skepticism Toward Logo Change (-) Supported -0.53 -11.32
H9 Perceived Valence of Logo Change  Resistance Toward Logo Change (-) Supported -0.50 -9.46
Curiosity Curiosity
Resistance Toward
Logo Change
-.25** Brand Attitude

After Logo .19**
Change
H10a Deprivation Curiosity Toward Logo Change  Brand Attitude After Logo Change (-) Not Supported 0.09 1.87
H10b Interest Curiosity Toward Logo Change  Brand Attitude After Logo Change (+) Supported 0.19 3.96
H11 Skepticism Toward Logo Change  Brand Attitude After Logo Change (-) Supported -0.25 -3.86
H12 Resistance Toward Logo Change  Brand Attitude After Logo Change (-) Not Supported 0.12 1.85
Hypotheses Summary
H1a Perceived Degree of Logo Change  Deprivation Curiosity Toward Logo Change (+) Supported 0.11 2.00
H1b Perceived Degree of Logo Change  Interest Curiosity Toward Logo Change (+) Supported 0.13 2.80
H2 Perceived Degree of Logo Change  Skepticism Toward Logo Change (+) Supported 0.11 2.70
H3 Perceived Degree of Logo Change  Resistance Toward Logo Change (+) Supported 0.09 2.29
H4 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 5.08
H6 Deprivation Curiosity Toward Logo Change  Resistance Toward Logo Change (+) Supported 0.17 4.62
H7a Perceived Valence of Logo Change  Deprivation Curiosity Toward Logo Change (-) Supported -0.28 -4.50
H7b Perceived Valence of Logo Change  Deprivation Curiosity Toward Logo Change (+) Supported 0.21 3.77
H8 Perceived Valence of Logo Change  Skepticism Toward Logo Change (-) Supported -0.53 -11.32
H9 Perceived Valence of Logo Change  Resistance Toward Logo Change (-) Supported -0.50 -9.46
H10b Interest Curiosity Toward Logo Change  Brand Attitude After Logo Change (+) Supported 0.19 3.96
H11 Skepticism Toward Logo Change  Brand Attitude After Logo Change (-) Supported -0.25 -3.86

Curiosity Curiosity
Resistance Toward
Logo Change
Brand Attitude
After Logo
Change
.13**
-.53**
-.28** .21**
.11**
.11*

Curiosity Curiosity
.09* -.50**
Resistance Toward
Logo Change
*< 0.05
**< 0.01 Brand Attitude
Results Discussion
• Effect of the Perceived Degree of logo change: Bigger the logo
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 a drastic change –
– More interested in it, as well as less questioning of it.
– The lower level of questioning would contribute to less skepticism about it,
– Consumer’s improved brand attitude.
– Vice versa
Limitations
• Brands used
• Degree of Logo Change
– Minor/major- no “middle”
• Scales used
– Created/adapted
Theoretical Contribution
• A “coping” mechanism for a consumer’s
response 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
Managerial Implications
• Companies should really think of their
consumers 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 the
degree of logo change.
– Less Questioning/More interest
– Less Skepticism
– Less Resistance-more acceptance
– Better brand attitude
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
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 perspective getting the employees’ perceptions
• International side of rebranding
– Effect of culture on consumers views of rebranding/logo changes
– More or less accepting of “change”
Thank You!
Questions?
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)

Final Item Loadings
Item 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)

(Minor modifications/Extensive modifications)
(No change/Completely changed)
PVLC1 0.96 Perceived Valence of Logo Change
(Considerably worse/Considerably better)
(Negative change/Positive change)
(More unfavorable/More favorable)
SKEP2 0.85 Skepticism Toward Logo Change
I feel distrustful about this logo change.
I feel skeptical about this logo change.
Final Item Loadings
I feel doubtful about this logo change.
I believe that this logo change is meant to deceive me.
CURI1 0.9 Interest Curiosity Toward Logo Change
I’m curious to know more about this new logo.
I would be interested to find out more about this logo change.

I’m eager to know more about this logo change.
I would like to learn more about this logo change.
CURD2 0.81 Deprivation Curiosity Toward Logo Change
I wonder what the problem was with the old logo.
I want to know what was wrong with the old logo.
I feel I need to know the reason for this logo change.
RESIS1 0.81 Resistance Toward Logo Change
I don't want the logo to change because I'm used to the old logo.
If I had a choice I would stick with the old logo.
Final Item Loadings
I'm not comfortable with this logo change without a good explanation for
it.
I prefer they leave the logo alone rather than change it.
If it were up to me, I wouldn't have changed the logo.
-.48**
.13* -.19* .37**

.12*
Curiosity Curiosity
.27** -.42** .16**
Resistance Toward
Logo Change
-.17*
*< 0.05
.26**
-.59**
-.40**
.15**
.19*

.21**
Curiosity Curiosity
.33** -.52** .17**
Resistance Toward
Logo Change
-.28**
*< 0.05
----- Not Significant
----- Not Supported
Change
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 PSS
than 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, & resistance
to change
– Effect on Brand attitude after logo change
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 hypothesized
sign
– 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
Hypotheses Summary
No. Hypotheses S/N.S Estimat t-
e 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 logo Supported -0.28 -4.50
change.
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
Structural Model
SKEP 0.6
0.2 5
1
0.1
2
1.0 PDLC 0.1 CURI 0.9

0 5 2
-
0.53
0.0 0.0
9 3
0.3 0.2
3 0 0.2
9 RESIS 0.4
0.2 6
- 1
0.47
1.0 PVLC 0.1 0.1
0 1 2
-0.1
0.25
9 NBATT 0.9
1
-
0.24
0.1
0
CURD 0.9
5
Chi-Square=639.17, df=258, P-value=0.00000,

RMSEA=0.060
Results Discussion
• Perceived degree of logo change  Deprivation curiosity toward
logo change (+)
– Lowenstein’s (1994) information gap theory
– Logo change  violation of expectations-Incongruity (old and new logo) 
curiosity-Incongruity theories-people curious about unexpected events or
that they can’t explain- asking "why" questions
– New product advertising generated increased curiosity (Olson, Schlinger,
and Young, 1982; Olson, Toy and Dover, 1981)
• Perceived Degree of Logo Change  Skepticism Toward Logo
Change (+)
– 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).
Results Discussion
• Skepticism Toward Logo Change  Resistance Toward Logo Change (+)
– Stanley, Meyer and Topolnytsky (2005) found that skepticism, accounted for a unique variance in the
intention to resist change.
• Deprivation/Interest Curiosity Toward Logo Change  Resistance Toward Logo
Change (-/+)
– 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 of an 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 why
the changes are necessary”.
• Thus such people begin filling “in information gaps with the explanation that things must not have gone well”
and 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.
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 better
attitude towards it
• Based on our previous discussion on curiosity,
skepticism and resistance to change, we would expect
that this employee would likely have less skepticism,
more curiosity (positive) and be less resistant to the
change.
• Similarly for a logo change
Results Discussion
• Interest Curiosity Toward Logo Change  Brand
Attitude After Logo Change (+)
– Menon and Soman (2002) found that “curiosity-based
processing of advertising resulted in better product
evaluation and greater perceived novelty” (p. 11).
• Skepticism Toward Logo Change  Brand Attitude
After Logo Change (-)
– Mostafa (2006) found that skepticism towards
environmental claims was negatively related to
consumers’ intention to buy green products
• Indirectly we can say that skepticism would be negatively
related to brand attitude.
– Obermiller & Spangenberg (1998) found that skepticism
toward advertising had a positive correlation with negative
attitudes toward advertising,
• The higher the skepticism towards advertising the more
negative the attitudes toward advertising.

Consumer Perceptions of Rebranding: The Case of Logo Changes

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Consumer Perceptions of Rebranding: The Case of Logo Changes

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Consumer Perceptions of

Perceived Degree of Logo Change Perceived Valence of Logo Change

Curiosity Toward Logo Change

H1a H7a H1b H7b

H11 Brand Attitude

H4 Skepticism Toward Logo Change  Resistance Toward Logo Change (+)

H11 Brand Attitude

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 (+)

H8 Perceived Valence of Logo Change  Skepticism Toward Logo Change (-)

H9 Perceived Valence of Logo Change  Resistance Toward Logo Change (-)

CURI Interest Curiosity Toward Logo Change 0.96 0.87 4

CURD Deprivation Curiosity Toward Logo 0.85 0.68 3

NBATT Brand Attitude After Logo Change 0.98 0.95 3

Fit Indices Value

0.20 PDLC3 0.33

0.08 PVLC1 0.96 PVLC 1.00 -0.04

0.28 SKEP2 0.85 SKEP 1.00 0.25 0.03

0.11 CURD3 0.03

Chi-Square=538.60, df=254, P-value=0.00000, RMSEA=0.053

Fit Indices Value

Skepticism Toward Curiosity Toward Logo Change

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

-.25** Brand Attitude

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

Skepticism Toward Curiosity Toward Logo Change

Skepticism Toward Curiosity Toward Logo Change

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)

PDLC2 0.96 Perceived Degree of Logo Change

CURI3 0.95 Interest Curiosity Toward Logo Change

Skepticism Toward Curiosity Toward Logo Change

Skepticism Toward Curiosity Toward Logo Change

1.0 PDLC 0.1 CURI 0.9

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

You might also like