Brand name change: Can trust and loyalty be transferred?

Abstract

In this article, the authors propose and test a model that aims to identify key determinants that could alleviate the degradation of consumer trust and loyalty to a brand in the case of a brand name change (examples of brand name change: Marathon changed to Snickers, Raider became Twix, Taillefine replaced Belvita and so on). The results identify five key influencing factors that marketing managers can use to reduce the degradation of trust and loyalty. Namely, (1) the consumers' degree of acceptance of the brand name change, (2) the perceived similarity between the old and new brand, (3) the degree of attachment to the initial brand, (4) the presence of an umbrella brand, and (5) consumers' awareness of the brand substitution. Each of these five key determinants has a direct or indirect impact on the transfer of perceived quality and trust towards the new, substitute brand. Furthermore, the transfer of the consumers' relationship to the new brand appears to be a sequential process. First, it is important to make sure that the perceived quality has been transferred so that the transfer of trust can be carried out effectively. Finally, a successful transfer of trust implies an efficient transfer of the consumers' loyalty.

Rebranding: the effect of team name changes on club revenue

“…The results derived from our analysis of MiLB name changes support the assertion of Dalakas and Rose (2014) and others that a name is an important branding element in influencing fan behavior. Moreover, these results align with previous research asserting teams that change names risk losing fans (Bouchet et al, 2013), goodwill (Aaker, 1991;Horsky & Swyngedouw, 1987), trust and brand loyalty (Chaudhuri & Holbrook, 2002;Pauwels-Delassus & Descotes, 2013), as well as history and memories of traditional team names and colors (Bauer et al, 2008;Funk & James, 2006).…”

“…As evidenced in this research and others (Aaker, 1991;Bauer et al, 2008;Bouchet et al, 2013;Chaudhuri & Holbrook, 2002;Funk & James, 2006;Horsky & Swyngedouw, 1987;Pauwels-Delassus & Descotes, 2013), consumers are generally negatively affected by changes in team names, although we find the effect depends on the type of rebranding with the loss of a local name having the strongest negative effect on attendance. We also find this negative effect is short lived, lasting only one year.…”

“…Replacing the brand can also negatively impact the trust a consumer has in the brand, thereby disturbing the loyalty relationship with a known brand (Chaudhuri & Holbrook, 2002;Pauwels-Delassus & Descotes, 2013). The presence of a known and relevant brand identity has previously been found to offer legitimacy, reduce perceived risk, and enhance consumer compliance (Rafaeli, Sagy, & Derfler-Rozin, 2008).…”

Creation of a brand model through SEM to predict users’ loyalty and recommendations regarding a public sports service

“…In the area of product consumption, which includes the consumption of sports services, trust is an element that significantly influences the relationship established between the buyer and the seller ( Kim and Walker, 2013 ), whereby trust makes the consumer-brand transaction-based orientation become a close, personal and lasting brand relationship ( Tong et al., 2018 ). Trusted brands reduce the perceived risk and are purchased more frequently ( Atulkar, 2020 ) so if we create trust in the purchase-sale process, the feeling of uncertainty in this relationship will be greatly reduced ( Frasquet et al., 2017 ), because trust is a means of minimizing that uncertainty ( Song et al., 2019 ); therefore, the greater the trust as perceived by users, the greater will be the certainty in predicting the intentions that the company will have ( Pauwels-Delassus and Descotes, 2013 ). This concept of trust, in addition to the aforementioned benefits, has been associated with other elements that are important for the success of a sports services brand, such as satisfaction and loyalty ( Choi and La, 2013 ) or perceived quality and satisfaction ( Gummerus et al., 2004 ).…”

Análisis sociodemográfico de la percepción de marca en un servicio deportivo público: del target al buyer persona (Sociodemographic analysis of brand perception in a public sports service: from target to person buyer)

“…Por tanto, esta confianza cobrará más importancia cuando la situación de compra entrañe un riesgo para el consumidor (Koller, 1988) ya que sin esa incertidumbre o sensación de riesgo la confianza no es tan necesaria (Moorman, Zaltman y Deshpande, 1992). Si la sensación de seguridad es más alta, el consumidor entenderá que la marca es fiable y que actúa de manera responsable, sintiéndose capaz de demostrar con certeza las expectativas en cuanto a las intenciones de la marca (Chaudhuri & Holbrook, 2001;Pauwels-Delassus & Descotes, 2013) y con la confianza de que si surgen problemas la marca intentará solucionarlos (Kim, Shin, & Koo, 2018). Este concepto de confianza en la marca ha demostrado ser un elemento predictor de la lealtad (Delgado-Ballester & Munuera-Alemán, 2005) y también un mediador influyente en la relación entre satisfacción y lealtad (Choi & La, 2013) y la calidad percibida y la satisfacción del usuario (Gummerus, Liljander, Pura, & Van Riel, 2004).…”