rebranding ama2009
TRANSCRIPT
-
7/29/2019 Rebranding AMA2009
1/52
Consumer Perceptions ofRebranding:
The Case of Logo Changes
Saleh AlShebilMark Peterson
AMA 2009
August 8, 2009
-
7/29/2019 Rebranding AMA2009
2/52
Agenda
Research Study Overview Qualitative Research
Model & Hypotheses
Research Methodology
Results & Findings
Limitations
Theoretical Contribution
Managerial Implications Future Research
-
7/29/2019 Rebranding AMA2009
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?
-
7/29/2019 Rebranding AMA2009
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!
-
7/29/2019 Rebranding AMA2009
5/52
Model & Hypotheses
-
7/29/2019 Rebranding AMA2009
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
-
7/29/2019 Rebranding AMA2009
7/52
Perceived Degree of Logo Change Perceived Valence of Logo Change
H1a
Skepticism Toward
Logo Change
Resistance TowardLogo Change
Curiosity Toward Logo Change
Deprivation
Curiosity
Interest
Curiosity
H2
H3
Resistance TowardLogo Change
Deprivation
Curiosity
Interest
Curiosity
H6
H4 H5a H5b
H1bH8
H9
H7bH7a
Brand Attitude
After LogoChange
H12
H11
H10a
H10b
-
7/29/2019 Rebranding AMA2009
8/52
Perceived Degree of Logo Change
Skepticism Toward
Logo Change
Resistance Toward
Logo Change
Curiosity 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+
+
+ +
-
7/29/2019 Rebranding AMA2009
9/52
Skepticism Toward
Logo Change
Resistance Toward
Logo Change
Curiosity 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 (+)
+
+
-
+
-
7/29/2019 Rebranding AMA2009
10/52
Perceived Valence of Logo Change
Skepticism Toward
Logo Change
Resistance Toward
Logo Change
Curiosity Toward Logo Change
DeprivationCuriosity
InterestCuriosity
Resistance Toward
Logo Change
DeprivationCuriosity
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 (-)
-
-
+-
-
7/29/2019 Rebranding AMA2009
11/52
Skepticism Toward
Logo Change
Resistance Toward
Logo Change
Curiosity Toward Logo Change
DeprivationCuriosity
InterestCuriosity
Resistance Toward
Logo Change
DeprivationCuriosity
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 (-)
- -
+
-
-
7/29/2019 Rebranding AMA2009
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 (-)
-
7/29/2019 Rebranding AMA2009
13/52
Research Methodology
Between subject design survey
study:
2 brands/2 logo changes Pilot Study
Sample Size: 73
Manipulation check
Reliability >0.90
-
7/29/2019 Rebranding AMA2009
14/52
Brand Logo Changes Used
Brand1Minor Change
Brand1
Major Change
Brand2
Minor Change
Brand2
Major Change
http://www.baskinrobbins.com/ -
7/29/2019 Rebranding AMA2009
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
-
7/29/2019 Rebranding AMA2009
16/52
Analysis
Structural Equation Modeling (SEM)
2 Method approach (Anderson & Gerbing, 1988) Measurement Model
Structural Model
LISREL 8.72
-
7/29/2019 Rebranding AMA2009
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
-
7/29/2019 Rebranding AMA2009
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
-
7/29/2019 Rebranding AMA2009
19/52
Measurement Model Fit
Fit Indices Value
Chi-Square 538.60 (P
-
7/29/2019 Rebranding AMA2009
20/52
-
7/29/2019 Rebranding AMA2009
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
-
7/29/2019 Rebranding AMA2009
22/52
Perceived Degree of Logo Change Perceived Valence of Logo Change
Skepticism Toward
Logo Change
Resistance TowardLogo Change
Curiosity Toward Logo Change
Deprivation
Curiosity
Interest
Curiosity
Resistance TowardLogo Change
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
-
7/29/2019 Rebranding AMA2009
23/52
Perceived Degree of Logo Change
Skepticism Toward
Logo Change
Curiosity Toward Logo Change
DeprivationCuriosity
InterestCuriosity
.11**
H3Resistance Toward
Logo Change
DeprivationCuriosity
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*
-
7/29/2019 Rebranding AMA2009
24/52
Skepticism Toward
Logo Change
Resistance Toward
Logo Change
Curiosity Toward Logo Change
Deprivation
Curiosity
Interest
Curiosity
Resistance Toward
Logo Change
Deprivation
Curiosity
Interest
Curiosity
.17**
.31**.18**
No. Hypotheses S/N.S Estimate t-value
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
-
7/29/2019 Rebranding AMA2009
25/52
Perceived Valence of Logo Change
Skepticism Toward
Logo Change
Curiosity Toward Logo Change
DeprivationCuriosity
InterestCuriosity
Resistance Toward
Logo Change
DeprivationCuriosity
InterestCuriosity
-.53**
-.50**
.21**-.28**
No. Hypotheses S/N.S Estimate t-value
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
-
7/29/2019 Rebranding AMA2009
26/52
Skepticism Toward
Logo Change
Resistance Toward
Logo Change
Curiosity Toward Logo Change
Deprivation
Curiosity
Interest
Curiosity
Resistance Toward
Logo Change
Deprivation
Curiosity
Interest
Curiosity
Brand Attitude
After Logo
Change
-.25**
.19**
No. Hypotheses S/N.S Estimate t-value
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
-
7/29/2019 Rebranding AMA2009
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
-
7/29/2019 Rebranding AMA2009
28/52
Perceived Degree of Logo Change Perceived Valence of Logo Change
Skepticism Toward
Logo Change
Resistance TowardLogo Change
Curiosity Toward Logo Change
Deprivation
Curiosity
Interest
Curiosity
Resistance TowardLogo Change
Deprivation
Curiosity
Interest
Curiosity
Brand Attitude
After Logo
Change
-
7/29/2019 Rebranding AMA2009
29/52
Perceived Degree of Logo Change Perceived Valence of Logo Change
Skepticism Toward
Logo Change
Resistance TowardLogo Change
Curiosity Toward Logo Change
Deprivation
Curiosity
Interest
Curiosity
Resistance TowardLogo Change
Deprivation
Curiosity
Interest
Curiosity
Brand Attitude
After Logo
Change
.11**
.13**-.53**
.11*
.21**
-.50**.09*
-.28**
*< 0.05
**< 0.01
___ Significant
----- Not Significant
-
7/29/2019 Rebranding AMA2009
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
-
7/29/2019 Rebranding AMA2009
31/52
Limitations
Brands used
Degree of Logo Change Minor/major- no middle
Scales used Created/adapted
-
7/29/2019 Rebranding AMA2009
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
-
7/29/2019 Rebranding AMA2009
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
-
7/29/2019 Rebranding AMA2009
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
-
7/29/2019 Rebranding AMA2009
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
-
7/29/2019 Rebranding AMA2009
36/52
Thank You!Questions?
-
7/29/2019 Rebranding AMA2009
37/52
-
7/29/2019 Rebranding AMA2009
38/52
-
7/29/2019 Rebranding AMA2009
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)
-
7/29/2019 Rebranding AMA2009
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.
-
7/29/2019 Rebranding AMA2009
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.
-
7/29/2019 Rebranding AMA2009
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
-
7/29/2019 Rebranding AMA2009
43/52
Perceived Degree of Logo Change Perceived Valence of Logo Change
Skepticism Toward
Logo Change
Resistance Toward
Logo Change
Curiosity 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
----- Not Significant
P i d D f L Ch P i d V l f L Ch
-
7/29/2019 Rebranding AMA2009
44/52
Perceived Degree of Logo Change Perceived Valence of Logo Change
Skepticism Toward
Logo Change
Resistance Toward
Logo Change
Curiosity 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
-
7/29/2019 Rebranding AMA2009
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
-
7/29/2019 Rebranding AMA2009
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
-
7/29/2019 Rebranding AMA2009
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
-
7/29/2019 Rebranding AMA2009
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
-
7/29/2019 Rebranding AMA2009
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)
Perceived Degree of Logo Change
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).
-
7/29/2019 Rebranding AMA2009
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.
-
7/29/2019 Rebranding AMA2009
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
-
7/29/2019 Rebranding AMA2009
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.