Brand name substitution and brand equity

transfer
Veronique Pauwels Delassus
Department of Marketing, IESEG School of Management - Catholic University of Lille - LEM Research Center - CNRS (UMR 8179),
Lille, France, and

Raluca Mogos Descotes

ESSCA School of Management, ESSCA Knowledge Research Center, Paris, France
Abstract
Purpose Despite the prevalence with which firms change the brand names they use, this research stream has received little academic attention.
Managers confronted with brand name substitutions fear most a loss of brand equity, which would decrease their market share. This research aims to
identify key influences that might enable companies to minimise their brand equity losses in response to brand name substitutions.
Design/methodology/approach A preliminary qualitative investigation (20 semi-directive interviews) pertained to better understand how brand
equity loss might be minimised in the case of a brand name substitution. This qualitative research and a relevant literature review provided input for the
questionnaire design. Furthermore, the resulting survey data from a sample of 300 consumers served for the test of the research propositions.
Findings This study identifies five key influence factors that marketing managers can use to transfer brand equity in the case of brand name
substitution, based on consumers knowledge of the brand change, attitude toward brand change, perceived similarity between the old and new
brands, degree of attachment to the initial brand, and recognition of the presence of an umbrella brand. Finally, the brand equity dimensions are
interrelated, such that the transfer of perceived quality and brand image influences loyalty transfer, and brand quality transfer improves brand image
transfer.
Originality/value This research represents a first attempt to answer the pressing question: how can firms transfer brand equity successfully in the
case of brand name substitution? The study also identifies for the first time key influence factors that favour brand equity transfer from an old to a new
brand.
Keywords Brand name substitution, Brand equity transfer, Brand management, Brand names, Consumer behaviour, Product image, Brand identity
Paper type Research paper

likely in an attempt to reinforce its positioning in the LCD

television market. Yet, regardless of the reasons, the practice
of changing or substituting brand names is extremely risky for
companies (Kapferer, 2007). Consumers might not recognise
their usual product or doubt its quality, which could induce
them to stop buying it. In turn, the most frequent negative
consequence of brand name substitution is the brand equity
loss that is engendered by decreased market share, which itself
results from consumers failure to recognise the product.
Confronted with a brand name substitution, consumers may
lose their mental associations, brand image perceptions,
product quality perceptions, awareness and loyalty toward the
brand. If they then choose to purchase another brand, the
focal brand loses market share and profits. These drastic
potential consequences of brand substitutions require
marketing managers to find ways to transfer brand equity
from an old to a new brand and thus minimise brand loyalty
losses.
Despite the importance of these strategic issues, literature
relating to product and brand deletions is relatively sparse.
Varadarajan et al. (2006) focus on the organizational and
environmental drivers of brand deletion propensity and the
predisposition of a firm to delete a particular brand from its
brand portfolio. Muzellec and Lambkin (2006) tend to
understand the drivers of the corporate rebranding
phenomenon and analyse their impact on corporate brand
equity. Few studies address brand name substitutions from a
consumer perspective. Delassus (2005) considers the transfer
of associations when the canned vegetable brand Marie

An executive summary for managers and executive

readers can be found at the end of this article.

1. Introduction
Brand name substitutions have become a frequent
phenomenon, and companies confronted with rebranding
are often mentioned in the business press (Muzellec and
Lambkin, 2009). Several well known examples of brand name
substitutions are Treets-M&Ms, Chambourcy-Nestle and
recently Thomson-Technicolor. Brand name substitution
consists of changing the name of a product or service which
is marketed by a company (Muzellec and Lambkin, 2006;
Muzellec and Lambkin, 2007).
Several factors can motivate brand name substitutions.
During 2000-2002, Unilever suppressed nearly 75 percent of
its brands to increase the concentration of its communication
efforts, avoid product cannibalisation and improve the brand
awareness of its 12 most well-known billionaire brands
(Dinkovski, 2008). Thomson became Technicolor as of 2010,
The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available at
www.emeraldinsight.com/1061-0421.htm

Journal of Product & Brand Management

21/2 (2012) 117 125
q Emerald Group Publishing Limited [ISSN 1061-0421]
[DOI 10.1108/10610421211215562]

117

Brand name substitution and brand equity transfer

Journal of Product & Brand Management

Veronique Pauwels Delassus and Raluca Mogos Descotes

Volume 21 Number 2 2012 117 125

Thumas became Bonduelle in Belgium. Collange (2008)

includes four brand name substitutions in a study of the
evolution of French consumers purchase intentions across
product categories (i.e. laundry detergent, shower gel,
yoghurt and chocolate bars). These studies address the
transfer of associations and purchase intentions; they do not
address fully brand equity transfer.
In an attempt to identify key influence factors of the transfer
of brand equity in the case of brand substitution, we focus on
a brand change in the biscuit market. When Kraft bought the
biscuits division LU of Danone in 2007, it lost the right to the
brand name Taillefine, because Danone still uses Taillefine for
its milk-related products in France. Therefore, Kraft switched
the biscuits brand to Belvita.
This brand substitution was particularly risky. The brand
name substitution was accompanied by a radical change in the
product packaging (i.e. both picture and colours). The tagline
changed from balance to pleasure and balance. Despite
these radical changes, Kraft did not undertake any transition
phase to prepare consumers for the shift. Thus, consumers
likely had difficulty identifying the product on the
supermarket shelf and may have considered Belvita a new
product. This brand name substitution is particularly
interesting in terms of our study, in that it was likely to
cause brand equity loss.
In the remainder of this article, we begin by defining brand
equity, then identify the potential key influence factors of
brand equity transfer. Furthermore, we propose a research
model to explain how to transfer brand equity from the old to
the new brand. Subsequently, we present the research
methodology and results, along with a discussion of their
implications. Finally, conclusions, contributions, limitations
and prolongations of our research are discussed.

1991; Keller, 1993; Shocker and Weitz, 1988), perceived

quality (Aaker, 1991) and brand loyalty (Oliver, 1997; Yoo
et al., 2000). Although brand awareness is a key dimension of
brand equity (Aaker, 1991; Keller, 1993; Kapferer, 2005), we
do not use this concept, because the recently introduced,
substitution brand Belvita is not well known on the French
market.
We adopt Zeithamls (1988, p. 5) definition of perceived
quality as the consumers (subjective) judgment about a
products overall excellence or superiority. Higher perceived
product quality implies that through their long-term
experience, consumers recognise the superior differentiation
of that brand. For brand image, we follow Keller (1993) and
define it as consumer perceptions of the brand, as reflected
by brand associations held in consumer memory. A positive
overall perception generally leads to positive consumer brand
attitudes, which form the basis for brand choice. Finally,
Oliver (1997, p. 392) defines loyalty as a deeply held
commitment to rebuy or repatronise a preferred product or
service consistently in the future, despite situational
influences and marketing efforts having the potential to
cause switching behavior. Similar to Yoo et al. (2000) and
Beatty and Kahle (1988), we conceptualise loyalty as a
general commitment that causes consumers to purchase a
brand routinely and resist switching to another.

3. Key influence factors of brand equity transfer:

research model
The few studies pertaining to brand name substitution in
extant branding literature allow us to identify five key
influence factors of brand equity transfer: knowledge of the
brand substitution (Delassus, 2005), attitude toward or
degree of acceptance of the substitution (Delassus, 2005),
perceived similarity between the old and new brand
(Collange, 2008), attachment to the initial brand (Collange,
2008) and the presence of an umbrella brand (Aime-Garnier
and Lai, 2008).
We discuss the impact of each of these factors on brand
equity transfer. Then we address the relationship among three
brand equity dimensions, namely, brand image, perceived
quality and brand loyalty transfer.

2. Consumer-based brand equity

Consumer-based brand equity refers to the value that a brand
adds to a product from a consumer stand point (Farquhar,
1989). It results from the effects of all marketing activities,
designed to create positive, strong and unique associations in
consumers memory, so that they have a favourable
perception of and positive attitude toward the brand (Aaker,
1991; Keller, 1993; Yoo et al., 2000; Yoo and Donthu, 2001).
Brand equity consists of two distinct components (Guyon,
2008): functional and symbolic. The first dimension is
associated with functional features and the branded products
performance (Keller, 2001), such that it describes how the
product or service meets customers functional needs. The
second refers to more intangible aspects of the brand, such as
image associations, which link only indirectly to the real
characteristics of the product.
Several authors have tried to identify and define brand equity
dimensions. For example, Aaker (1991, 1996) identifies four
criteria: brand awareness, brand associations, perceived quality
and brand loyalty. Other authors suggest that brand equity also
encompasses dimensions such as the trust toward the brand
(Degado-Ballester and Munuera-Aleman, 2005), brand ethics
(Keller, 1993; Yoo et al., 2000), brand personality (Pappu et al.,
2005), etc. Thus, despite the availability of numerous
definitions in the literature, there is little consensus on what
exactly brand equity means (Pappu et al., 2005, p. 144).
Following Yoo et al. (2000), we retain the most widely used
dimensions of brand equity, namely, brand image (Aaker,

3.1 Knowledge of brand substitution and brand equity

transfer
In a longitudinal study of the substitution of the Marie
Thumas brand with Bonduelle in Belgium, Delassus (2005)
identifies several key success factors for brand substitution
management. Those results highlight the importance of
communication (information), with the goal of ensuring the
consumer is aware of the brand substitution, can recognise
the product and feels confident that its quality remains the
same. Thus, we propose:
P1a.

Knowledge of the brand substitution facilitates the

perceived quality transfer.

Delassuss (2005) research also shows that consumers who are

aware of the brand substitution transfer their associations
from the abandoned to the new brand. Because brand image
represents the perception of brand associations held in
consumers mind (Keller, 1993), we expect:
P1b.

118

Knowledge of the brand substitution facilitates the

brand image transfer.

Brand name substitution and brand equity transfer

Journal of Product & Brand Management

Veronique Pauwels Delassus and Raluca Mogos Descotes

Volume 21 Number 2 2012 117 125

Finally, knowing that the product stays the same despite the
brand substitution should make consumers loyal to the new
brand (Delassus, 2005), which they recognise as a simple
replacement for the original brand. We thus propose:

on an emotional, durable and inalterable link (Lacoeuilhe,

2000; Park et al., 2010). Attachment is known to affect
consumer behaviors (Thomson et al., 2005), and Collange
(2008) shows that consumers attachment to the initial brand,
negatively influences their product evaluations and buying
intentions. Consumers with the strongest emotional bonds to
the brand will be dissatisfied with the substitution. Therefore,
we expect them to reject transfers of image, quality and loyalty
to the new brand and propose:

P1c.

Knowledge of the brand substitution facilitates the

loyalty transfer.

3.2 Attitude toward and degree of acceptance of brand

substitution and brand equity transfer
In her study, Delassus (2005) also emphasises that consumers
who accept the brand substitution transfer their associations
from the old to the new brand more easily. Because product
quality often constitutes an important brand association, we
expect consumers to believe the substitution brand retains the
same quality, even with a new name. Therefore:
P2a.

P4a.
P4b.
P4b.

A positive attitude toward the brand substitution

positively influences the perceived quality transfer.

3.5 Presence of an umbrella brand and brand equity

transfer
Umbrella brands achieve two general goals (Iversen and Hem,
2008): an umbrella brand serves as a reduction of perceived
risk and as a guarantee of consistent quality across brand
partners (Laforet and Saunders, 1994; Rao et al., 1999).
Aaker (2004) finds that umbrella brands serve as overall
endorsers and provide additional brand equity to all brand
partners. Furthermore, Aime-Garnier and Lai (2008) note
that the presence of an umbrella brand facilitates consumer
migration toward a new brand, because consumers associate
the product with the quality and image of the umbrella brand.
Our qualitative interviews confirm the importance of the
presence of the existent logo, Lu, on Belvitas packaging; this
umbrella brand seemed to reassure consumers that the
product and its quality would stay the same and that they
could confidently purchase the new brand. Thus, we suggest
that the presence of an umbrella brand facilitates the process
of migration toward the new brand and brand equity transfer:

If brand image refers to the overall perception of brand

associations in the consumers mind (Keller, 1993) and the
attitude toward the change favours the transfer of
associations, we also suggest:
P2b.

A positive attitude toward the brand substitution

positively influences the brand image transfer.

Finally, regarding the link with loyalty, our interviews reveal

that if consumers accept the brand substitution, they will
agree to buy the rebranded product. Thus, we suggest:
P2c.

A positive attitude toward the brand substitution

positively influences the loyalty transfer.

3.3 Perceived similarity and brand equity transfer

In the context of brand extension and co-branding literature,
Collange (2008) suggests that a high level of similarity
between the substitute and the initial brand increases
consumers positive evaluations and buying intentions.
Thus, brand substitution can succeed, from a consumer
perspective, in certain conditions. First, the new brand must
appear similar to the old one, whether on a physical level
(e.g. products with same usage) or conceptually (e.g. same
image). If this condition is not met, consumers develop poor
perceptions of the brand name substitution. If consumers
believe that the two brands are similar, they will perceive the
products have a similar image and quality and agree to keep
buying the substitute brand (Collange, 2008). Thus, we
expect that similarity between the two brands increases the
transfer of brand equity and propose:
P3a.
P3b.
P3c.

Attachment to the old brand has a negative impact on

the transfer of perceived quality.
Attachment to the old brand has a negative impact on
the transfer of brand image.
Attachment to the old brand has a negative impact on
the transfer of brand loyalty.

P5a.
P5b.
P5c.

The presence of umbrella brand has a positive impact

on the transfer of perceived quality.
The presence of umbrella brand has a positive impact
on the transfer of brand image.
The presence of umbrella brand has a positive impact
on the transfer of brand loyalty.

3.6 Relationship of the three dimensions of brand equity

Aaker (1991, 1996) reveals that the various factors that
constitute brand equity combine in consumers minds to
determine the brands competitive advantage, its appeal, and
its capacity to induce brand loyalty. It seems likely that these
three dimensions of brand equity also are related. Delassus
(2005) observes for example that consumers had to be
reassured that the product quality remained the same when
the brand Marie Thumas became Bonduelle, before they
would accept the transfer of brand image or purchase. Thus
we expect:

The perceived similarity between the old and the new

brand facilitates the transfer of perceived quality.
The perceived similarity between the old and the new
brand facilitates the transfer of brand image.
The perceived similarity between the old and the new
brand facilitates the transfer of brand loyalty.

P6.
3.4 Attachment to the initial brand and brand equity
transfer
Collange (2008) also emphasises the importance of consumer
attachment to the initial brand as a barrier to buying intention
transfers. Attachment to a brand entails the psychological
relationship that consumers have with a brand, which is based

Perceived quality transfer facilitates brand image

transfer.

A characteristic of brands with high levels of equity is the

consumer loyalty they provoke. Loyalty is often associated
with the concept of brand equity (Aaker, 1991, 1996; Shocker
and Weitz, 1988), either because it has a positive effect on
brand equity (Delgado-Ballester and Munuera-Aleman,
119

Brand name substitution and brand equity transfer

Journal of Product & Brand Management

Veronique Pauwels Delassus and Raluca Mogos Descotes

Volume 21 Number 2 2012 117 125

2005) or is the result of it (Kapferer, 2004). Delassus (2005)

also suggests that if consumers believe the quality remains the
same, despite the brand name substitution, they feel confident
about staying loyal to the product. Our qualitative interviews
suggest the same links, so we propose:

transfer of brand equity as the Euclidian distance between the

measures of the items for Taillefine and Belvita.
Because the data we obtained were not normally distributed
according to the Shapiro-Wilks test (p , 0:05), we used
Kruskal-Wallis
tests
to
verify
if
respondents
sociodemographic characteristics influenced their answers.
We found no significant differences. We used the MannWhitney tests to check for a significant brand equity transfer
from Taillefine to Belvita. We found a significant (p , 0:001)
brand equity loss occurred after the brand name substitution,
as we show in Table I.

P7.

Perceived quality transfer influences brand loyalty

transfer.

In the same vein, if the consumer transfers positive overall

perceptions of the brand, it should facilitate a brand loyalty
transfer, and we suggest:
P8.

Brand image transfer facilitates brand loyalty transfer.

4.2 Psychometric properties of the measurement

instruments
We used PLS path modelling (PLSPM) for the hypotheses
tests and the assessment of the psychometric properties of the
measurement instruments. This method does not require
multivariate normal data, places minimum requirements on
measurement levels and is more suitable for small samples
and in the stages of early theory development (Chin, 1998;
Fornell and Bookstein, 1982).
In addition, PLSPM supports the assessment of the
psychometric properties of the measurement instruments:
reliability, convergent validity and discriminant validity (Chin,
1998; Fornell and Larcker, 1981). Convergent validity can be
evaluated by inspecting the factor loadings of the measures on
their respective constructs (Chin, 1998; Tenenhaus et al.,
2005). Every item should have a standardised loading that
exceeds 0.5. The purification of the measures led us to drop

We summarise these research propositions in Figure 1.

4. Methodology
4.1 Data collection
The causal nature of our research question suggested a
quantitative methodology. Nevertheless, to better understand
how consumers perceive brand equity transfer and which
factors influence the efficiency of this process, we conducted a
preliminary qualitative study with a sample of 20 women of
different ages and occupations.
Using the results from that study and our literature review,
we designed a questionnaire that we administered online on a
convenience sample of 300 consumers. To ensure an adequate
sample size for the analysis, we conducted a power test
(Green, 1991), using the R2 for the endogenous constructs.
Assuming a medium effect size (f 2 0:15; R2 0:13), a
maximum of seven predictors, a significance level (a) of 0.05
and a desired power (1 2 b) of 0.80, our analysis requires a
sample size of 103. Thus, we can conclude that our sample of
300 is sufficient to test the proposed research model.
Furthermore, the sample shows sufficient heterogeneity: It
is composed of 18 percent men and 82 percent women, with
ages ranging from 17 to 60 years (mean 30:4; standard
deviation 11:84). Approximately 53 percent of the
respondents are students, 26.6 percent executives, and the
rest have other occupations.
The measures of our variables appear in detail in the
Appendix. In particular, we note that we measured the

Table I Brand equity transfer from Taillefine to Belvita

Variables
Brand image
Perceived quality
Loyalty

Mean for Taillefine

Mean for Belvita

5.33 *
4.65 *
4.36 *

3.93 *
3.79 *
3.68 *

Notes: * Differences significant at a 0:001; The means values in Table I

are calculated as the means of the (manifest variables) MVs composing the
LV (latent variables) that captures the three dimensions of brand equity
transfer

Figure 1 Proposed research model

120

Brand name substitution and brand equity transfer

Journal of Product & Brand Management

Veronique Pauwels Delassus and Raluca Mogos Descotes

Volume 21 Number 2 2012 117 125

one image item, Biscuits X have a good reputation. This

item had a low loading for the measure of Belvitas image
(loading 0:21), as well as for the Euclidian distance
between Belvita and Taillefine (0.32).
We assessed the instruments reliability with composite
reliability and average variance extracted (AVE . 0:5; Chin,
1998). The AVE ranged between 0.538 and 0.917, greater
than the 0.5 cut-off value proposed by Fornell and Larcker
(1981). Composite scale reliability exceeded the cut-off value
of 0.7 suggested by Nunally and Bernstein (1994), with one
exception, that is, the perceived similarity between the old and
new brands (Cronbachs alpha 0:62, Dillon-Goldstein
Rho^ 0:81). Because Cronbachs alpha is sensitive to the
number of items (Roussel et al., 2002), and based on the value
of Dillon-Goldsteins Rho, we judged the reliability of the
perceived similarity scale acceptable.
Finally, we assessed discriminant validity by examining
whether each construct shared more variance with its
measures than with other constructs in the model (Barclay
et al., 1995; Chin, 1998). In other words, the AVE should be
higher than the squared correlation of any two LVs in the
model. This condition is fulfilled.

impact on image transfer. Nonetheless, it appears that brand

quality transfer mediates the impact of attachment to the
substituted brand and perceived similarity on brand image
transfer. Indirectly, by reinforcing perceived quality transfer,
both attachment to the initial brand (b 20:212) and
perceptions of similarity between Taillefine and Belvita
(b 0:116) significantly influenced brand image transfer.
5.3 Brand loyalty transfer
We find that 64.1 percent of brand loyalty transfer can be
explained by the five key determinants, together with the
effectiveness of the perceived quality and brand image
transfer. The main determinant was the transfer of the
perceived quality of the brand (b 0:621, p , 0:001). Brand
image transfer also enhanced the transfer of consumers
loyalty from the old to the new brand (b 0:165, p , 0:05),
though the impact of perceived quality transfer was stronger.
This finding suggested that the functional characteristics of
brand equity were more important (i.e. perceived quality
transfer) than the symbolic ones (i.e. brand image transfer) for
ensuring consumers loyalty transfers from the initial to the
new brand, at least initially. Among the five key determinants,
as we expected, the degree of acceptance (attitude) of brand
substitution (b 0:125, p , 0:05) and the presence of the
umbrella brand (b 0:110, p , 0:05) eased loyalty transfer,
whereas attachment to the old brand hampered loyalty
transfer (b 20:108, p , 0:05). Being aware of the brand
name substitution and perceiving the old and new brand as
similar did not facilitate loyalty transfer though. Even if
consumers are aware of the brand substitution or perceive the
brands as similar, in the end, they simply might not accept the
brand name substitution. Table II summarises these
validations of our research propositions.
We also applied Tenenhaus et al.s (2005) global goodness
of fit (GoF) index, adapted to PLSPM, which reflects the
geometric mean of the communality (equal to AVE in
PLSPM). Our model exceeded the cut-off point of 0.5
(GoF 0:51). The inner GoF index (influence paths) also
exceeded the cut-off point of 0.9 (0.91), and the outer GoF
index (measurement model evaluation) was very close of the
cut-off point 0.9 (0.89), which we deemed acceptable.

5. Analysis and results

Because the results of the qualitative research align with those
we obtained though our quantitative study, we present only
the results of the quantitative research, in three main parts:
1 perceived quality;
2 brand image; and
3 loyalty.
5.1 Perceived quality transfer
The five key determinants explain 22.1 percent of the variance
in the transfer of perceived quality, and they all have a
significant impact on perceived quality transfer. The strongest
determinants are the perceived similarity between Belvita and
Taillefine (b 0:285, p , 0:001) and attachment to the initial
brand Taillefine ( b 20:333, p , 0:001), followed by
knowledge of the brand change substitution (b 0:142,
p , 0:05) and the degree of acceptance of the substitution.
Finally, the presence of the umbrella brand (Lu) has a weak
impact at the 10 percent level (b 0:099, p , 0:1). However,
our qualitative research highlighted the importance of the
umbrella brand, in that it reassured consumers with regard to
their perception of the quality of the Belvita biscuits as a LU
product.

6. Conclusion, implications, limits and extensions

This research aims to answer a key question: How can brand
equity be transferred successfully in the case of brand name
substitution? The empirical results related to the substitution
of the biscuits brand name Taillefine with Belvita reveal that
to transfer brand equity:
1 consumers should be aware of the brand substitution;
2 they should have a positive attitude toward the
replacement of the initial brand;
3 they should perceive the old and the new brand as similar;
4 they should not be too much emotionally bound to the old
brand; and
5 the new brand should benefit from the presence of an
umbrella brand.

5.2 Brand image transfer

The five key determinants and the effectiveness of perceived
quality transfer explain 54.6 percent of the variance in brand
image transfer. As suggested by Delassus (2005), perceived
quality transfer facilitates the transfer of the image from the
old to the new brand; it represents the primary determinant
by far (b 0:638, p , 0:001).
Of the five key determinants of brand equity transfer, as we
expected, knowledge of the brand substitution (b 0:121,
p , 0:05), degree of acceptance of the change (b 0:121,
p , 0:05) and the presence of the umbrella brand (b 0:121,
p , 0:05) had the greatest influence. The strength of their
independent impacts on brand image is almost equivalent.
Surprisingly, attachment to Taillefine or the perception of
Belvita and Taillefine as similar had no significant direct

This research therefore has several managerial, theoretical and

methodological implications.
Marketing managers should make a checklist of these five
key determinants of brand equity transfer. With it, they could
precisely estimate the extent to which their brand equity is
transferrable during a brand name substitution. However,
121

Brand name substitution and brand equity transfer

Journal of Product & Brand Management

Veronique Pauwels Delassus and Raluca Mogos Descotes

Volume 21 Number 2 2012 117 125

Table II Research propositions test

Research propositions

P1a. Knowledge of brand substitution ! Perceived quality transfer

P1b. Knowledge of brand substitution ! Image transfer
P1c. Knowledge of brand substitution ! Loyalty transfer
P2a. Attitude toward brand substitution ! Perceived quality transfer
P2b. Attitude toward brand substitution ! Image transfer
P2c. Attitude toward brand substitution ! Loyalty transfer
P3a. Similarity between the old and the new brand ! Perceived quality transfer
P3b. Similarity between the old and the new brand ! Image transfer
P3c. Similarity between the old and the new brand ! Loyalty transfer
P4a. Attachment toward the old brand ! Perceived quality transfer
P4b. Attachment toward the old brand ! Image transfer
P4c. Attachment toward the old brand ! Loyalty transfer
P5a. Umbrella brand ! Perceived quality transfer
P5b. Umbrella brand ! Image transfer
P5c. Umbrella brand ! Loyalty transfer
P6. Perceived quality transfer ! Image transfer
P7. Perceived quality transfer ! Loyalty transfer
P8. Image transfer ! Loyalty transfer

Standardised regression coefficient

p-value

0.142 * *

0.007
0.020
n.s.
0.004
0.021
0.005
0.001
n.s.
n.s.
0.001
n.s.
0.007
0.078
0.043
0.039
0.001
0.001
0.002

0.121 * *

0.182 * *
0.121 * *
0.125 * *
0.285 * * *

2 0.333 * * *

2 0.108 * *
0.099 *
0.123 * *
0.110 * *
0.638 * * *
0.621
0.165

Notes: *Significant at the 10 percent level; * *significant at the 95 percent level; * * *significant at the 99 percent level

As does all research expanding into new grounds, this study

has several limitations. The most important are the limitation
of the results to the context of the brand name substitution we
selected and our use of a convenience sample. Further studies
should address these limits, such as by replicating our study in
another product category with a representative sample.

they also need to keep in mind that the five key determinants
do not play identical roles in brand equity transfer. Managers
therefore can and should manipulate all five determinants
considered in our research. They can ensure image transfer by
increasing consumers knowledge of the brand name
substitution, the degree of acceptance of the change and the
presence of the umbrella brand. Yet consumers attachment to
the initial brand and their perception of the similarity between
the old and the new brand also can indirectly enhance brand
image transfer by reinforcing perceived quality transfer. To
augment consumers loyalty transfers, managers should pay
attention to their degree of acceptance (attitude) of the brand
substitution, the presence of an umbrella brand and the level
of attachment to the old brand. Thus, managers could
prioritise their efforts for a brand substitution: Pay attention
to the key factors with the strongest impact on brand image,
perceived quality or loyalty transfer. Another important
managerial result of our study is the finding that loyalty
transfer relies mainly on perceived quality transfer, which also
affects brand image transfer. Delassus (2005) concurs that
brand name substitution is a process, such that perceived
quality should transfer first to guarantee that image and
loyalty also transfer. These results emphasise the importance
of the transfer of functional attributes of brand equity;
managers should ensure the perceived quality transfer is
efficient and facilitates image and loyalty transfer.
From a theoretical standpoint, extending previous studies
that explain how brand associations transfer (Delassus, 2005)
or purchase intention evolves (Collange, 2008), we offer an
initial consideration of brand equity transfers in the case of a
brand substitution. Moreover, the empirical results provide
satisfying answers to the research question.
Finally, from the methodological standpoint, our research
validates, once again, six measurement scales. In the
qualitative phase, we also were able to propose and test a
new measurement scale that captures the reassuring effect of
the umbrella brand in the case of a brand name substitution.

References
Aaker, D.A. (1991), Managing Brand Equity: Capitalizing on
the Value of a Brand Name, The Free Press, New York, NY.
Aaker, D.A. (1996), Measuring brand equity across products
and markets, California Management Review, Vol. 38,
Spring, pp. 102-20.
Aaker, D.A. (2004), Brand Portfolio Management, The Free
Press, New York, NY.
Aime-Garnier, I. and Lai, C. (2008), Le changement de
nom de marque: definition, clarification et proposition
dune typologie, Decisions Marketing, Vol. 49, janvier-mars,
pp. 33-45.
Barclay, D., Higgins, C. and Thompson, R. (1995),
The partial least squares approach to causal modelling:
personal computer adoption and use as illustration,
Technology Studies, Vol. 2, June, pp. 285-309.
Beatty, S.E. and Kahle, L.R. (1988), Alternative hierarchies
of the attitude-behavior relationship: the impact of brand
commitment and habit, Journal of Academic Marketing
Science, Vol. 16, Summer, pp. 1-10.
Chin, W. (1998), The partial least squares approach to
structural equation modeling, Modern Business Research
Methods, Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Mahwah, NJ.
Collange, V. (2008), Limpact de la substitution de marques
sur levaluation et lintention dachat du produit,
Recherches et Applications en Marketing, Vol. 23 No. 2,
pp. 1-17.
122

Brand name substitution and brand equity transfer

Journal of Product & Brand Management

Veronique Pauwels Delassus and Raluca Mogos Descotes

Volume 21 Number 2 2012 117 125

Delgado-Ballester, E. and Munuera-Aleman, J.L. (2005),

Does brand trust matter to brand equity?, Journal of
Product & Brand Management, Vol. 14 No. 3, pp. 187-96.
Delassus, V. (2005), Strategie dabandon de marque: analyse
de transfert des valeurs de la marque abandonnee vers la
nouvelle marquee, the`se de Doctorat en Sciences de
Gestion, Universite Lille 2, Lille.
Dinkovski, N. (2008), Think global act focal, The Grocer,
2 August, available at: www.thegrocer.co.uk/ (accessed
10 December 2010).
Farquhar, P.H. (1989), Managing brand equity, Marketing
Research, Vol. 1, September, pp. 24-33.
Fornell, C. and Bookstein, F.L. (1982), Two structural
equation models: LISREL and PLS applied to consumer
exit-voice theory, Journal of Marketing Research, Vol. 19,
November, pp. 440-53.
Fornell, C. and Larcker, D. (1981), Evaluating structural
equation models with unobservable variables and
measurement error, Journal of Marketing Research,
Vol. 18, February, pp. 39-50.
Green, S.B. (1991), How many subjects does it take to do a
regression analysis?, Multivariate Behavioral Research, Vol. 2
No. 3, pp. 499-510.
Guyon, H. (2008), Mieux integrer le capital-marque dans les
etudes sur les produits: une proposition de nouvelle
mesure, Decisions Marketing, Vol. 49, janvier-mars,
pp. 47-58.
Iversen, N.M. and Hem, L.E. (2008), Provenance
associations as core values of place umbrella brand a framework of characteristics, European Journal of
Marketing, Vol. 42 Nos 5/6, pp. 603-26.
Kapferer, J.N. (2004), Gerer le capital de marque: quelles
implications operationnelles?, Decisions Marketing, Vol. 1,
pp. 7-14.
Kapferer, J.N. (2005), The New Strategic Brand Management:
Creating and Sustaining Brand Equity Long Term, Kogan
Page, London and New York, NY.
Kapferer, J.N. (2007), Les Marques, Capital de lEntreprise,
4th ed., Les Editions dOrganisation, Paris.
Keller, K.L. (1993), Conceptualizing, measuring and
managing customer-based brand equity, Journal of
Marketing, Vol. 57, January, pp. 1-22.
Keller, K.L. (2001), Building customer-based brand equity,
creating brand resonance requires carefully sequenced
brand-building efforts, Marketing Management, Vol. 10,
July/August, pp. 14-19.
Lacoeuilhe, G. (2000), Lattachement a` la marque:
proposition dune echelle de mesure, Recherche et
Applications en Marketing, Vol. 15 No. 4, pp. 1-77.
Laforet, S. and Saunders, J. (1994), Managing brand
portfolios: how the leaders do it, Journal of Advertising
Research, Vol. 34, pp. 64-76.
Muzellec, L. and Lambkin, M.C. (2006), Corporate
rebranding: the art of destroying, transferring and
recreating brand equity?, European Journal of Marketing,
Vol. 40 Nos 7/8, pp. 803-24.
Muzellec, L. and Lambkin, M.C. (2007), Does Diageo
make your Guinness taste better?, Journal of Product
& Brand Management, Vol. 16 No. 5, pp. 321-33.
Muzellec, L. and Lambkin, M.C. (2009), Corporate
branding and brand architecture: a conceptual
framework, Marketing Theory, Vol. 9, pp. 39-54.

Nunally, J.C. and Bernstein, I.H. (1994), Psychometric Theory,

McGraw-Hill, New York, NY.
Oliver, R. (1997), Satisfaction: A Behavioral Perspective on the
Consumer, McGraw-Hill, New York, NY.
Pappu, R., Quester, P. and Cooksey, R.W. (2005),
Consumer-based brand equity: improving the
measurement empirical evidence, Journal of Product
& Brand Management, Vol. 14 No. 3, pp. 143-54.
Park, W.C., MacInnis, D.J., Priester, J., Eisingerich, A.B. and
Iacobucci, D. (2010), Brand attachment and brand
attitude strength: conceptual and empirical differentiation
of two critical brand equity drivers, Journal of Marketing,
Vol. 74, November, pp. 1-17.
Rao, A.R., Qu, L. and Ruekert, R.W. (1999), Signaling
unobservable product quality through a brand ally, Journal
of Marketing Research, Vol. 36, May, pp. 258-68.
Roussel, P., Durrieu, F., Campoy, E. and El Akremi, A.
(2002), Methodes dequations structurelles: recherche et
applications en gestion, Economica, Paris.
Shocker, A.D. and Weitz, B. (1988), A perspective on brand
equity principles and issues, in Leuthesser, L. (Ed.),
Defining, Measuring and Managing Brand Equity, Report
No. 88-104, Marketing Science Institute, Cambridge, MA,
pp. 2-4.
Tenenhaus, M., Vinzi, V.E., Chatelin, Y.M. and Lauro, C.
(2005), PLS path modelling, Computational Statistics
& Data Analysis, Vol. 48 No. 1, pp. 159-205.
Thomson, M., MacInnis, D.J. and Park, C.W. (2005),
The ties that bind: measuring the strength of consumers
emotional attachments to brands, Journal of Consumer
Psychology, Vol. 15 No. 1, pp. 77-91.
Varadarajan, R., DeFanti, M.P. and Busch, P. (2006), Brand
portfolio, corporate image, and reputation: managing brand
deletions, Journal of Academy of Marketing Science, Vol. 34
No. 2, pp. 195-205.
Yoo, B. and Donthu, N. (2001), Developing and validating a
multidimensional consumer-based brand equity scale,
Journal of Business Research, Vol. 52 No. 1, pp. 1-14.
Yoo, B., Donthu, N. and Lee, S. (2000), An examination of
selected marketing mix elements and brand equity, Journal
of the Academy of Marketing Science, Vol. 2 No. 2,
pp. 195-211.
Zeithaml, V.A. (1988), Consumer perceptions of price,
quality and value: a means-end model and synthesis of
evidence, Journal of Marketing, Vol. 52, July, pp. 2-22.

Further reading
Cegarra, J.-J. (1994), Gerer un portefeuille de marques,
De cisions Marketing, Vol. 3, Septembre-De cembre,
pp. 81-91.

Appendix. Variable measures

Brand image (Collange, 2008)
To what extent do you agree with the following statements?
(1 completely disagree, 7 completely agree)
.
I have a good image of biscuits X.
.
I have more positive than positive thoughts concerning
biscuits X.
123

Brand name substitution and brand equity transfer

Journal of Product & Brand Management

Veronique Pauwels Delassus and Raluca Mogos Descotes

Volume 21 Number 2 2012 117 125

About the authors

Perceived quality (Yoo et al., 2000)

To what extent do you agree with the following statements?
(1 completely disagree, 7 completely agree)
.
X is a quality brand.
.
Most of biscuits X are of extreme quality.
.
The probability biscuits X taste good is high.
.
The probability biscuits X worth trusting is high.
.
Biscuits X have a good consistency.
.
Biscuits X have a good price-quality balance.
.
Biscuits X worth their price.
.
The taste of biscuits X seems coherent with their price.
.
X proposes a large choice of biscuits.

Veronique Pauwels Delassus currently works as Associate

Professor of Marketing at IESEG School of Management.
Her main research interests are strategic brand management,
brand name substitution and brand equity. Prior to entering
the academic world, she was the European Marketing
Director for an international food company. Veronique
Pauwels Delassus is the corresponding author and can be
contacted at: [email protected]
Raluca Mogos Descotes currently works as Assistant
Professor of Marketing at Universite de Lorraine,
CEREFIGE (Centre Europeen de Recherche en Economie
Financie`re et Gestion des Entreprises). Her main research
interests are SMEs international performance, and export
market information and use and rebranding.

Loyalty adapted from Beatty and Kahle (1988) and

Yoo et al. (2000))
To what extent do you agree with the following statements?
(1 completely disagree, 7 completely agree)
.
The characteristics of biscuits X globally correspond to
what I am waiting for.
.
Changing biscuits brands would require too much energy
of me.
.
Biscuits X meet my requirements.
.
I can count on X to offer good products.
.
I consider myself, as a consumer, sensitive to brand Xs
values.

Executive summary and implications for

managers and executives
This summary has been provided to allow managers and executives
a rapid appreciation of the content of this article. Those with a
particular interest in the topic covered may then read the article in
toto to take advantage of the more comprehensive description of the
research undertaken and its results to get the full benefits of the
material present.

Knowledge of brand substitution (Delassus, 2005)

Did you know that the brand A was replaced by brand B?
Yes/No

Many leading companies have changed the name of some

established products or services. Various reasons behind the
decision to make such changes include preventing
cannibalization of products, improving brand awareness,
strengthen market position and refocus communication
activities.
However, brand name substitution represents a
considerable risk to firms adopting this strategy. Confusion
about the product may arise and prompt doubts about quality.
In addition, associations and perceptions held about the
brand could be lost. Customers might be hesitant to purchase
an item they fail to recognize and the potential for damage to
brand equity exists in the wake of falling profits and reduced
market share. Loyalty towards the brand is also likely to be
negatively affected.
Research into consumer-based brand equity has established
that it refers to consumer perception of what a brand name
adds to a product. Marketing plays an important role in
creating the necessary positive, strong and unique
associations that underpin these favorable impressions.
Scholars generally agree on the existence of both functional
and symbolic dimensions of brand equity. The first
component relates to product performance and the second
to less tangible brand aspects like image associations. Various
definitions of brand equity dimensions persist and the current
study adopts the most widely used. These are:
.
Perceived quality, which refers to the individuals
subjective belief in the products superiority.
.
Brand image. This represents how a consumer perceives
the brand based on memorized associations.
.
Loyalty, reflected by a buying commitment towards the
brand and resistance to possible alternatives.

Perceived similarity between old and new brands

(Collange, 2008)
To what extent do you agree with the following statements?
(1 completely disagree, 7 completely agree).
.
A and B are very similar brands.
.
A and B are very different brands.
Attitude toward brand substitution (Delassus, 2005)
I accept the brand substitution because: (1 completely
disagree, 7 completely agree)
.
I think brand Belvita has a better level of quality.
.
I think both brands are good quality brands.
.
I dont accept since I think product quality will change.
Attachment to the initial brand (Lacoeuilhe, 2000)
To what extent do you agree with the following statements?
(1 completely disagree, 7 completely agree)
.
I have a lot of affection for brand X.
.
Buying brand X gives me a lot of joy and pleasure.
.
I feel a certain comfort when buying products from brand
X.
.
I am very linked to brand X.
.
I feel attracted to brand X.
Umbrella brand reassurance (issued from the
qualitative research)
To what extent do you agree with the following statements?
(1 completely disagree, 7 completely agree)
.
The presence of the logo X reassures me we are talking
about the same brands.
.
The presence of the logo X indicates that the products
quality is good.
.
The presence of the logo X gives me confidence in brand X.

Brand name substitution has attracted only minimal research

interest. Academics have, however, ascertained that transfer
124

Brand name substitution and brand equity transfer

Journal of Product & Brand Management

Veronique Pauwels Delassus and Raluca Mogos Descotes

Volume 21 Number 2 2012 117 125

of equity between the original and renamed brand might be

influenced by:
.
Awareness of the brand substitution. Communication is
important to ensure consumers know the product remains
the same and can be confident about its quality. Such
reassurance increases the likelihood of continued loyalty.
Knowledge also enables transfer of associations from old
to new identity.
.
Attitude towards and acceptance of the change.
Consumers who accept brand substitution may trigger a
more ready transfer of associations of which product
quality is often a key one. When attitude is positive,
transfer of brand image is more probable. Acceptance also
makes consumers likely to buy the rebranded product.
.
Perceived similarity between the original and substitute
brands. If this is high, consumers evaluate the new brand
more positively and purchase intention increases. The
brands can be physically and/or conceptually similar and it
will prompt belief that image and quality will be
comparable too.
.
Attachment to the original brand. It is felt that customers
with strong feelings towards the initial brand will resist the
substitute and reject any transfer of image, quality and
loyalty. Scholars argue that correlation exists between the
strength of emotional bond and level of dissatisfaction.
.
Presence of an umbrella brand. Evidence suggests that an
umbrella brand serves to guarantee quality, lower risk
perceptions and transfer equity to brand partners.
Consumers believe that new products will be blessed
with the same qualities and image of the umbrella brand,
meaning that acceptance of a new brand becomes likelier.

This was followed by attachment to the initial brand,

knowledge of the brand change and the degree of
acceptance of the change. A weak effect was found for
the presence of the umbrella brand, Lu, although the
qualitative research indicated that it served to raise
consumer confidence in the quality of Belvita biscuits.
Where brand image transfer is concerned, the most potent
factors were knowledge of the brand substitution, degree
of acceptance and the umbrella brand. In contrast, the
direct effect of attachment to Talliefine and perceived
similarity between the brands was not significant. There
was some indication that the impact of these determinants
is mediated by brand quality transfer.
Brand loyalty transfer was affected most by the transfer of
perceived quality of the brand. Second strongest impact
was found for brand image transfer. This result points to
functional attributes of brand equity being more
influential than the symbolic ones. In relation to the five
determinants, degree of acceptance and the umbrella
brand encouraged loyalty transfer, while it was hindered
by attachment to the original brand. Loyalty was not
facilitated by awareness of brand name substitution or
perceived similarity between the two brands. One
conclusion here is that awareness does not automatically
guarantee acceptance.

Based on this study, Pauwels Delassus and Mogos Descotes

recommend marketing managers to pay attention to these five
key determinants of brand equity transfer when brand names
change. They are also reminded that each factor varies in its
influence. It is suggested that managers should manipulate
all the determinants. For instance, through making consumers
more aware of the brand name substitution, the degree of
acceptance and the identity of the umbrella brand. Attention
is also needed to make sure that attachment to the original
brand is not too strong. Overall, managers need to be aware of
which factors impact most on the transfer of brand image,
perceived quality or loyalty. The authors also point out the
sequential nature of brand name substitution in that perceived
quality transfers first so that image and loyalty follow suit.
Another important point is that the functional characteristics
of brand equity are transferred from the old brand to the new.
To address study limitations, similar research in other
product categories using representative samples is advised.

According to certain scholars, these three dimensions are

inter-related. They purport that the transfer of one dimension
from initial to new brand facilitates the transfer of another.
These issues are explored in the current study where
Pauwels Delassus and Mogos Descotes consider the brand
substitution that occurred when Kraft purchased the biscuits
division of Danone. Because Danone retained naming rights,
the brand name Taillefine was changed to Belvita.
Following a preliminary qualitative study, a questionnaire
was devised and administered online. A convenience sample
of 300 was obtained, with 18 percent being male and the rest
female. Respondents were aged between 17 and 60, and 53
percent were students.
Research propositions were devised and analyzing the
impact of the five key determinants revealed that:
.
For perceived quality transfer, perceived similarity
between Taillefine and Belvita had the greatest impact.

(A precis of the article Brand name substitution and brand equity

transfer. Supplied by Marketing Consultants for Emerald.)

To purchase reprints of this article please e-mail: [email protected]

Or visit our web site for further details: www.emeraldinsight.com/reprints

125