Lambkin’s (2006) model developed out of a study of 1 65 cases of rebinding focuses especially on driving forces and reasons for corporate re-branding, but suggest a model of the re-branding process. In their model, re-branding factors lead to the formulation of re-branding goals which reflect a new identity (internal: portrayed in employee’s culture) and create a new image (external: portrayed in stakeholders’ images). (McMullen & Lambkin, 2006) This model presents clear aims of the rebinding process, but neglects the end result of rebinding, which is brand equity (Go & Go, 2011).
However, studies such as consumer-based brand equity studies (e. G. Kim et al. , 2003; Parkas & Dive, 2000) have shown a stronger link between brand equity and an organization’s financial performance or market value (Anyone, 2008) On this note the Muzzle and Lambkin’s (2006) model cannot be adopted as the framework for this study. Daly and Maloney (2004) model on the other hand explains the general picture of the rebinding process and is suitable to function as a framework in establishing an overview of the different initiatives launched (Anyone, 2008).
The model will be used to explain the rebinding of the selected organizations as seen from the management perspective. According to the model a refrained company goes through three stages of analysis, planning and evaluation, which each consist of different sub- processes or initiatives (Daly and Maloney (2004). All the steps of the framework will be used to explore the complete case of the selected companies’ rebinding. The analysis stage will consider the background of the companies and what they were aiming for with the rebinding as stated n the research objectives.
The planning stage will describe all the different initiatives launched to reach the aims that were set in the analysis stage. If anally the evaluation stage will present how the management at the selected companies assess the rebinding. The second model that will be used is the brand equity measure categorization which belongs to Keller and Lehman (2001 Their model describes three large categories: – Customer mind-set measures, Product market measures, and Financial measures.
Customer mind-set measures costly assess awareness, associations, loyalty and perceived quality (Asker 1991, Keller 1993, you and Dutton 1997, Corticosteroids et al. 2006,). Their advantages are that they assess brand equity sources, can predict brand equity changes and predict a brand’s potential (Aladdin et al. 2003). By this we can assess how the rebinding affected the selected companies’ brand equity, and predict their future potentials. Product market measures assess brand equity in the brand’s market performance. The most common product- market measure is price premium (Randall et al. 98, Asker 1991, Augural and Raw 1996, Stentorian 2000). Further product- market measures use market share (Chuddar and Holbrook 2001) or revenue premium (Aladdin, Lehman and Inclines 2003) to define brand equity. The advantage of these measures is that they can measure the result of the process by which the brand name adds value to the product; that is, they quantify the performance due to the brand name (Anyone, 2011). Making use of the data that shall be made available by the selected companies, companies’ performance in the arrest can be assessed as a result of the new brand.
Financial market measures assess the value of a brand as a financial asset, establishing a financial value of a brand. Measures often use the discounted cash flow model to assess financial value (Interbrain). The advantage of the financial value is that it Can quantify future cash flow (Aladdin et al. 2003). According to the model, these three measures are the deterrents of the organizational performance with respect to brand equity which is the primary focus of every rebinding. This model is thus appropriate for this study.