leveraging brand equity in business-to-business mergers and acquisitions

Industrial Marketing Management xxx (2010) xxx–xxx

IMM-06473; No of Pages 6

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Industrial Marketing Management

ARTICLE IN PRESS

Leveraging brand equity in business-to-business mergers and acquisitions

Mary C. Lambkin a, Laurent Muzellec b,⁎a UCD Michael Smurfit Graduate Business School University College Dublin, Carysfort Avenue, Blackrock, Co. Dublin, Irelandb Dublin City University Business School, Glasnevin, Dublin 9, Ireland

⁎ Corresponding author.E-mail addresses: [email protected] (M.C. Lamb

(L. Muzellec).

0019-8501/$ – see front matter © 2010 Elsevier Inc. Aldoi:10.1016/j.indmarman.2010.02.020

Please cite this article as: Lambkin, M.C., & MMarketing Management (2010), doi:10.101

a b s t r a c t
a r t i c l e i n f o
Article history:Received 31 October 2008Received in revised form 27 November 2009Accepted 11 December 2009Available online xxxx

Keywords:B2B brandingMergers and acquisitionsRebrandingBrand equity

Every acquisition provokes a brandingdecision—should the acquirer absorb the acquired business by renaming itunder its ownname toconvey to themarket thatownershipand thewayofdoingbusinesshas changed, or shouldit allow the acquired company to continue trading under its old name so as to avoid damage to its existingcustomer franchise? This is a complex management decision but one which apparently receives little attention.This paper draws on the B2B branding andM&A literatures to create amodel of brand equity transfer. Themodelassumes that rebranding of an acquired company under the name of the new parent can yield positive benefits ifthe new parent has higher brand equity than the acquired company. A case study of an acquisition of a nationalconstruction materials company by a larger international group provides an illustration of the transfer process.

kin), [email protected]

l rights reserved.

uzellec, L., Leveraging brand equity in busin6/j.indmarman.2010.02.020

© 2010 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction

Merger and acquisition (M&A) activity has increased exponentiallyover the last decade (Martynova and Renneboog, 2007; Hijzen et al.,2008). This wave of M&A activity has been a global phenomenon thathas particularly affected industrial markets (Andrade et al., 2001;PriceWaterhouseCooper, 2007). The net effect for the individualcompanies involved in all of theseM&Adeals has been the accumulationof products, brands and locations with widely varying heritages anddiffering levels of value. This runs the risk of a dilution in the coherenceof the original brandportfoliowhich sometimes reaches a pointwhere arebranding of all or some elements of the brand hierarchy becomes amanagerial necessity (Muzellec & Lambkin, 2006).

A review of the available evidence suggests, however, that brandequity is typically not handled very well, tending to be treated as anafter-thought compared to more pressing financial and operationalmatters (Hise, 1991; Kumar & Blomqvist, 2004; Homburg & Bucerius,2005). It is usually given low priority in merger negotiations and istypically decided on the basis of simple expediency after the deal isconcluded, to bring some order to the untidy collections of names andentities that are inherited as a result of combining two firms and theirrespective products and markets (Knudsen et al., 1997; Ettenson &Knowles, 2006).

Ideally, however, branding decisions should be driven by market-ing considerations, to use the opportunity to signal a new strategicfocus to the company's stakeholders and to extract synergies from thebrand equities of themerged entities. In particular, branding decisions

involved in M&A transactions should be subject to a kind of brandequity leveraging whereby a deliberate attempt is made to transferthe brand equity of the stronger partner to the weaker one, therebyadding value to the whole, combined entity.

The issues involved in the brand equity transfer process havereceived some attention in the B2C sector (Jaju et al., 2006; Muzellec &Lambkin, 2008), but it is yet to receive any exploration in a B2Bcontext. This paper addresses this gap by focusing on the issue ofbrand equity transfer following mergers and acquisitions among B2Bfirms. It starts by reviewing research on brand equity in industrialmarkets and links it with the literature on M&A. It then proposes amodel of brand equity transfer. A case study based on a large, inter-national constructionmaterials firmwhich acquired a relatively small,national firm is used to identify which brand equity variables may besuccessfully transferred in a situation where a dominant acquirerbrand is applied to the weaker acquired firm.

2. Leveraging brand equity in B2B markets

Companies will likely differ in the levels of brand equity that theybring to a merger (Capron & Hulland, 1999; Bahadir, Bharadwaj &Srivastava, 2008). The most typical situation is one in which a large,strongfirm acquires a smaller, weaker onewith the expectation that theperformance of the acquired firm can be improved by an infusion ofskills and resources from the acquirer, thereby providing a gain for thecombined entity (Capron&Hulland, 1999; Andrade et al., 2001; Bahadiret al., 2008).The challenge of managing brand equity in the context ofM&A is to be able to identify and measure the differences in the brandequity of the individualfirmsbefore the transaction, and tofindaway totransfer the brand equity from the stronger to the weaker firm after the

ess-to-business mergers and acquisitions, Industrial

mailto:[email protected]

mailto:[email protected]

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.indmarman.2010.02.020

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/journal/00198501


Fig. 1. Brand equity redeployment model.

2 M.C. Lambkin, L. Muzellec / Industrial Marketing Management xxx (2010) xxx–xxx

ARTICLE IN PRESS

deal is concluded. The next section considers how brand equity may beidentified, measured and transferred in B2B mergers and acquisitions.

2.1. Identifying and measuring brand equity in B2B markets

Almost all conceptualizations of brand equity agree that it involvesthe ‘value added to a product by consumers' associations andperceptions of a particular brand name (Aaker, 1991; Bendixen et al.,2004, Keller, 1993).Whilst the ‘added value’ of brand equity is viewed indiffering ways, there seems to be a general agreement among allresearchers that brand equity outcomes accrue to a product due to theset of associations symbolized by its brand name when compared withthose that would accrue if the same product did not have that brandname (Keller, 2008).

The most widely accepted brand equity model in the literature isKeller's customer-based brand equity (CBBE) model (1993; 2008).Brand equity has two key components: a high level of awareness andstrong, favourable and unique brand associations (Keller, 1993). ACBBE model for business markets, which focuses on the corporatebrand as the unit of analysis has been adapted by Kuhn et al. (2008).

The corporate brand is emphasized for B2B companies becausebusiness customers tend to assess, value, and make purchasing decisionsbased on company-specific images/perceptions (Aspara & Tikkanen,2008). The choice of a single corporate brand is also thought to reflect acustomer emphasis on risk-reduction rather than on emotional benefits,leading themto choosewell knownbrands fromreputable companies as arisk reduction strategy (Mudambi, 2002; Beverland et al., 2007; Cretu &Brodie, 2007).

In a corporate brand dominant system, the constructs of brandassociations and corporate reputation are intertwined (Argenti &Druckenmiller, 2004; Balmer & Greyser, 2006; Olins, 2000). However,since reputation is an aggregate construct with many components(Cravens, Oliver & Ramamoorti, 2003; Fombrun, Gardberg & Sever,2000), it is useful to identify the key variables involved in the brandequity transfer process in business markets.

The challenge of managing brand equity in the context of M&A is tobe able to identify and measure the differences in the brand equity ofthe individual firms before the transaction, and to find a way totransfer brand equity from one firm to the other..

2.2. Brand equity transfer in B2B mergers and acquisitions

Assuming that individual companies have different scores on thebrand equity measurement model at any point in time, then thelikelihood is that merging companies will differ in the levels of brandequity that they bring to the merger (Capron & Hulland, 1999; Bahadiret al., 2008). For example, in a study of large M&A transactions in theUnited States, Bahadir et al. (2008) found a very wide range of variationin brand value, from49% offirmvalue at one end of the spectrum(in thecase of P&G's acquisition ofGillette), to less than 1.51% in the acquisitionof Latitude by Cisco Systems.

The source of heterogeneity in the target firm's brand value may bedue to the fact that each brand involved in an M&A transaction has adifferent potential for generating future cash flows as a result ofdifferences in brand specific factors which might be summarised asdifferences in brand equity (Srivastava, Shervani & Fahey, 1998; Bahadiret al., 2008). Another explanation is that firms with stronger marketingcapabilities will attribute higher value to targets' brands because theirexpectations of future revenues from a brand portfolio will be higherthanfirmswith lowermarketing capabilities. This stems fromthenotionthat acquirers with stronger marketing capabilities are able to deploy atarget's brand portfolio more efficiently, which will affect the level,growth, and volatility of cash flow expectations from the target's brandportfolio (Bahadir et al., 2008).

The challenge of managing brand equity in the context of M&A is tobe able to find a way to transfer the brand equity from the stronger to

Please cite this article as: Lambkin, M.C., & Muzellec, L., Leveraging branMarketing Management (2010), doi:10.1016/j.indmarman.2010.02.020

the weaker party so as to achieve a positive synergy for the wholecombined entity.

2.3. Brand equity redeployment model

Existing researchonpost-merger behaviour and performance comesfrom several different disciplines making it quite difficult to develop acoherent picture of the current state of knowledge. Economists tend toconsider structural factors such as relative firm size and the relatednessof themerged businesses as key variables likely to influence the patternof resource deployment, the realisation of synergies, and post-merger/acquisition performance (Andrade et al., 2001; Kaplan, 2006). Manage-ment and organisation scholars tend to focus on the speed andeffectiveness of the post-acquisition integration process, including theimpact on the employees in the merged organisation (Haspeslagh &Jemison, 1991;Hitt,Harrison, Ireland&Best, 1998;Krishnan,Hitt &Park,2007).

The limited work by marketing researchers on the subject of M&Ahas tended to focus on the pattern of marketing resource deploymentfollowing an acquisition (Capron&Hulland, 1999; Homburg& Bucerius,2005), and on how customers and consumers might react to the newownership, specifically, whether the result may be a gain or loss inloyalty, as measured by attitude or behaviour (Jaju et al., 2008).

In a large study of M&A transactions over 30 years in the UnitedStates, Andrade et al. (2001) found that the acquirers were 10 timeslarger than their targets, on average. This suggests a scenario in whichlarge, strongfirms acquire smallerweaker ones to expand their businessand to exploit synergies in the combined entity (Capron & Hulland,1999; Basu, 2006). In those situations Capron andHolland (1999) foundthat redeployment of resources tends to be asymmetrical, with a highproportion of redeployment from acquirers to targets but very little inthe opposite direction. This sample of firms frequently redeployedinnovation, manufacturing, brand name and marketing resources fromacquirers to targets.

The general tendency in M&A therefore seems to be that a strongfirm acquires a weaker one and seeks to leverage its strength toenhance the value of the target, and thereby the value of the wholecombined entity. Translating this into the context of brand equitytransfer, we can surmise that the likelihood of rebranding the targetfirm with the brand name of the acquirer would also be inverselycorrelated with relative size and strength as shown in Fig. 1 below.Thus, we would expect a transfer of brand equity from acquirer totarget to be high for relatively small, weak targets and low forrelatively large, strong targets.

2.4. Implementation issues

It is widely recognised that many M&As fail because they payinadequate attention to “soft” issues such as vision and leadership,

d equity in business-to-business mergers and acquisitions, Industrial


3M.C. Lambkin, L. Muzellec / Industrial Marketing Management xxx (2010) xxx–xxx

ARTICLE IN PRESS

stakeholder communication, employee morale and retention, corpo-rate culture, and integration speed and momentum (Balmer & Dinnie,1999; Krishnan et al., 2007). During the integration phase, managerialenergy is often absorbed by internal issues, which can lead managersto neglect customer-related tasks (Hitt, Hoskisson, and Ireland 1990).This strong internal orientation is frequently accompanied by adecline in service quality (Urban & Pratt, 2000). This decline can causecustomers to question their future relationship with the mergingfirms leading to defection to competitors (Reichheld & Henske, 1991).

In the worst of situations, the relationship between the twoorganizations becomes contentious; promised synergies remainelusive; employees become distrustful and disgruntled; and custo-mers grow cynical and dissatisfied. With no solid brand platform towork from, company integration will often be mismanaged, andcommunications to key constituencies will necessarily suffer (Etten-son & Knowles, 2006, Krishnan et al., 2007). The establishment of astrong and clear corporate identity can help mitigate these problems,communicating what the company stands for to customers andemployees (Harris & deChernatony, 2001; Rosson & Brooks, 2004).Whether merging or acquiring companies take advantage of thisopportunity to use the corporate identity and communications in asystematic way to manage the transition and to help create a positiveculture for the new entity is an empirical question.

The modest amount of evidence that there is on this topic suggeststhat companies probably do not avail of this mechanism as well asthey might (Ettanson and Knowles, 2006; Basu, 2006). However, arecent study shows that consumers' judgment of the brand equity ofthe merged firm tended to be higher for firms following an acquirer-dominant strategy, that is, firms renamed under the acquirers' namerather than combined names or the target's name (Jaju et al., 2006).

Whether these findings also apply in B2B markets where tradecustomers are the target audience rather than consumers is anempirical question that this study will try to address.

3. Methodology

This research set out to investigate brand equity issues within aB2B context, in particular, how brand equity is transferred in adominant brand equity redeployment situation. A case studyapproach was chosen because of the exploratory nature of theresearch and of the empirical necessity to investigate the brand equityredeployment model within its real-life B2B context (Yin, 1994).Theoretically, we set out to investigate the applicability of theresource redeployment transfer model to brand equity in industrialmarkets and, practically, we tried to explore how brand equity istransferred in the context of a B2B acquisition transaction.

3.1. Data collection and analysis

Following Yin (1994) guidelines, a case study protocol was followedand included the following steps: Initial meeting with senior manage-ment to agree on research; outline of project, timing and objectives;identification of key informants; collection of data; company documen-tation collected on site; interviews conducted out of site and postinterview verification: results and report presented to senior manage-ment. The questions were inspired by Kuhn et al. (2008) method ofassessment of the CBBE in industrial markets.

In order to understand the brand equity transfer in this case, weinvestigated brand equity for three entities. “A” represents the brandequity of the acquirer (Cemex International), “B” represents the targetcompany (ReadyMix), and finally “AB” represented the targetcompany after its rebranding (Cemex Ireland). Data pertaining toCemex International and ReadyMix (A and B) were collected in June2006, a period which was after the merger but before the change ofname, data regarding Cemex Ireland (AB) were collected in June 2009,a year following the rebranding of Readymix as Cemex International.


The initial data set (cases A and B) consisted of a review ofcommunication materials including brochures, corporate websites andannual reports. Semi-structured interviews were also conducted with12 key stakeholders (five major customers (opinion leaders in theindustry); five employees; and two investment analysts from leadingstockbroker firms).

The second data set (case AB) consisted of a review of communi-cation materials including internal communications with employees,brochures, corporate websites as well as a two hour in-depth interviewwith the CEO of Cemex Ireland. In addition to the questions assessingbrand associations and values, questions pertaining to the rebrandingprocess were also covered.

3.2. The choice of Cemex/Readymix

This case explores brand transfer following a merger which occurredin 2005, when RMC, the majority shareholder of Readymix plc, wasacquired by Cemex SA DE CV. Cemex thereby became the majorityshareholder in Readymix with 62% of the shares.

The Cemex acquisition of Readymix had many features that made itsuitable for exploringbranding issues in aB2Benvironment followinganM&A transaction. Firstly, Cemex is verymuch larger than Readymix andtherefore met our requirement for size variation between acquirer andtarget. Cemex is a global building materials company that employs60,000 people, has amarket capitalisation of €10 billion, and operates inmore than 50 countries throughout the Americas, Europe, Africa, theMiddle East, Asia, and Australia. Readymix, in contrast, is an Irishcompany that serves only its domestic market with a small presence inthe UK, with 900 employees and a market capitalisation of €69 million.Secondly, Cemex andReadymix are in the same type of business and thisacquisition may be considered horizontal or closely related, that is, itsmain objective is to increase market power.

4. Research results

4.1. Target company B: the Readymix brand

Readymix plc is a public company quoted on the Irish StockExchange. It is a long established company in the building materialsindustry. Its main products are ready-mixed concrete, blocks, mortar,aggregates, concrete pipes, roof tiles and precast concrete products. Itoperates in the Republic of Ireland, Northern Ireland and the Isle ofMan.It has a small precast business in the south of England. Readymix has aproliferation of subsidiary brands in its portfolio (Readymix, RMC,Concrete pipes, Finlay Breton, Maynooth Tiles, Island Aggregates and soon) that lack a unifying theme and may benefit from being broughttogether under a coherentumbrella brand. Readymix enjoys a high levelof awareness in the Irish market because of its long history andestablished customer relationships. However, the survey of Readymixstakeholders suggested that Readymix was an old brand that hasevolved over time through a number of acquisitions which have beenpartially assimilated but not wholly, leaving a rather confused mix ofnames and product lines. The word “readymix” is a generic descriptionfor concrete but the company has a proprietary right to this name, thefindings indicated that this name retains some customer-based brandequity at the product level. The level of equity is attenuated, however, bya relatively poor record of customer service and a lack of strongpersonalised relationships with company personnel.

4.2. Acquirer A: the Cemex (international) brand

Cemex is a large company with an extensive international networkof companies in 50 countries across five continents. Globally its annualproduction capacity approximates 96 million metric tonnes of cement.It is quoted on both the NewYork andMexican Stock Exchanges (NYSE/Mex Bolsa). It has a strong resource base of technology, skills and




ARTICLE IN PRESS

knowledge that it has built up over the years. The company hasestablished a major R&D centre near its European headquarters inSwitzerland in 2001 which focuses on new product development,cement process technology, business processes and informationtechnology, sustainability, and energy and CO2 emissions reduction.

All customer interviewees were familiar with the Cemex namealthough they didn't knowmuch about the company other than that it is“large” and “international”. The stockbrokers were not aware of thename Cemex but once presented with a few facts about Cemexresponded positively to the prospect of a change of name to Cemex;they thought it would be a good idea if it could be seen to signal afundamental renewal of the company with the prospect of improvedperformance to follow. Employees felt that customers are already awareof Cemex as a large, international company and that this associationwould raise the stature of Readymix and allow it to stand shoulder-to-shoulder with larger competitors.

In sum, Cemex, was perceived as a very good brand name for acompany in the cement/building materials industry because it isdescriptive of the product category as well as being easy to spell,pronounce and recognise in any geographic region or language. It isalso known in the industry as a successful, international company andso brings an established reputation to whatever business it is appliedto.

4.3. New company AB: Cemex Ireland: brand transfer process

The rebranding of ReadyMix into Cemex Ireland was conductedgradually and in a low keymanner. Themost visible aspect of the brandtransfer was the change of name to Cemex on the company's stationeryand livery. Today 80% of their 183 trucks have been repainted in theCemex colours and carry the Cemex logo. The company considered thatthe visibility of their fleet on the roads of Ireland was the best way toinform the market about the rebranding and to build an awareness ofthe Cemex name. In addition to these visual changes, the change ofnamewas signified to external stakeholders through a letter whichwassent to customers and financial analysts. Due to financial constraints,however, no major event marked the launch of the new brand.

Cemex management was well aware of the importance of internalbranding and the internalisation of brand values and saw therebranding as an opportunity to update and renew commitment tothe Cemex brand values. To that end, the management ran focusgroups and did a major launch with the commercial team of thecompany: the salespeople, the credit controllers, and other peoplewho are in contact with customers. This was a one day work shopwhichwas not just about the new logo but really about the philosophybehind what is new about the company under the Cemex ownership.The theme was: “the colors have changed, now we need to change”.

The brand associations before the rebranding were, according tothe Cemex Ireland CEO:

• Cemex International: “global, professional, full of energy, driving…always moving ahead, dynamic”.

• ReadyMix: “local, stable, trustworthy”.

The desired brand associations for the future, following therebranding were for Cemex Ireland to be regarded as a trustworthyorganization as before, but also as a dynamic, innovative organization,combining the best of Cemex International with the establishedreputation of the local company.

Cemex Ireland also combined the rebranding with the launch of acorporate social responsibility program with local communities andgovernment agencies. They sponsored local sports and communityinitiatives in areas where they have quarries, cement factories anddistribution depots. They also engaged with government organiza-tions involved in research and policy on the built environment.


4.4. Cemex Ireland: brand transfer outcome

Themanagement of Cemex Ireland believe that the rebranding hashad a successful outcome with improvements in the level of brandawareness and a strengthening of brand associations particularlyamong the larger, more sophisticated customers which are the mostimportant segment of the market from Cemex's point of view. Theresults of the transfer following the M&A are examined under thefollowing headings: corporate reputation and corporate culture.

4.4.1. Corporate reputationTwo dimensions of corporate reputation have been identified as

particularly important in creating positive or negative brand associa-tions are: corporate ability (Brown & Dacin, 1997), and financialposition (Fombrun et al., 1993).

4.4.1.1. Corporate ability. Cemex Ireland serves two distinct marketsegments: residential and commercial/infrastructural. There has beena dramatic collapse in the residential market in Ireland and the onlysignificant growth area is in infrastructure projects. Cemex manage-ment believes that they have been gaining market share in theinfrastructural segment because of their size, reputation, expertiseand international connections. Big infrastructure projects are oftenmanaged as joint ventures between an international corporation anda local Irish contractor. The name of international brand enhancesbrand associations in terms of corporate ability as explained by theCemex Ireland CEO: “… what is happening is that the Internationalpartners have often worked with Cemex in Spain, in the UK, in Franceor Germany so when they arrive here they first say: “Oh! Cemex ishere…ok, we have worked with them before and they have been ableto deliver this type of stone, or concrete with those specifications”. Bigprojects also build the word of mouth reputation. Involvement iniconic projects such as a national football stadium or a large bridge, forexample, provides lots of publicity and this, in turn, generates furtherbusiness.

4.4.1.2. Financial position. An unanticipated negative transfer has beenthe weak financial reputation of Cemex on international markets. Thecompany was on the brink of bankruptcy at one point with debts of$15 billion in Australia and the US. Awareness of this fact led some oftheir suppliers in Ireland to refuse to give them credit even thoughCemex Ireland is technically quite separate from Cemex(International).

4.4.2. Corporate cultureThe arrival of international managers from Cemex International

brought very different work practices to Readymix and required ahuge cultural change. One illustration of this lies in the fact thatCemex International relies very heavily on systems and data formanaging their operations all around the world while the local Irishstaff were more used to informal practices. The new management ofCemex Ireland linked the reward system to this philosophy. Plantmanagers used to be paid by the amount of cubic meters leaving thedoors, rather than the quality, the cost, the accidents, the waste, thecleanliness of the plant, so, not surprisingly, they had 12% of wastedconcrete. The new tighter system is now starting to become acceptedand there are improvements in all of the key operational performancemetrics.

5. Theoretical and managerial implications: brand transfer in B2BM&A

5.1. Theoretical implications

The first objective of the study was to determine which elementsof brand equity may be considered transferable in a B2B context. The



5M.C. Lambkin, L. Muzellec / Industrial Marketing Management xxx (2010) xxx–xxx

ARTICLE IN PRESS

one immediate obvious answer is that the brand name is transferredand that this embodies the value that is described as brand equity.Evidence from our research, however, suggests that most acquisitionsinvolve a transfer of a wider range of marketing assets, often but notalways in support of a brand name transfer. For example, Capron andHulland (1999) examined the extent to which firms redeployed threekey marketing resources (brands, sales forces, and general marketingexpertise) following horizontal acquisitions.

Inour study someslightly different elements of brand equity transferwere also observed. First, perceptions of corporate ability—the com-pany's capabilities for producinghigh quality products—may improve asa result of a dominant brand redeployment exercise. The study showsthat what consumers know about the acquiring company can influencetheir beliefs about and attitudes toward new productsmanufactured bythe acquired company. From a brand management viewpoint, theacquirer company's expertise in producing and delivering its output canbe leveraged for a positive gain in equity. In this example, the expandedgeographic coverage as well as the ability to leverage on theinternational presence was associated with a positive brand redeploy-ment from acquirer to target.

Secondly, the financial position, which is a key variable in themeasurement of corporate reputation (Fombrun et al., 2000) can alsobe leveraged.

Adding these variables together with other know-how variablesgives us a model of brand equity transfer that suggests which variablesare likely to be transferred from acquirer to target. This is illustrated inFig. 2.

5.2. Managerial implications

The positive response of all three groups of respondents (employees,customers and financial community) towards the rebranding ofReadyMix under the acquirer's brand name (Cemex) contrasts withseveral rebranding failures in the B2C sectors. The rebranding of the UKpost office (to Consignia), BT Cellnet (to O2), ONdigital (to ITV Digital),Payless Drug Store (to Rite Aid) were catalogued as rebranding failuresbecause the change of name led to brand equity dilution (Haig, 2003).Similarly an experiment conducted by Jaju et al. (2006) demonstratedthat a dominant acquirer branding strategy could lead to a substantialdecrease in consumer-based brand equity where there was a bad fitbetween the firms and a mismatch in the attitudes of the customers ofthe merged entities.

The results of our study suggest a contrary view which is that B2Bstakeholders (customers, employees and financial analysts) welcomeacquirer brand redeployment, particularly where there is a perceivedbenefit from the infusion of value from the new owner. Although the

Fig. 2. Brand equity transfer following mergers/acquisitions.


brand power was not quantitatively assessed in this study, this wouldsuggest a strengthening of the brand equity.

Business stakeholders are also aware of the possible synergies amongthe various elements of a brand portfolio. Since corporate reputationdrives brand equity in B2B markets, the adoption of a single name acrossan entire product line is recognised as having somemajor benefit for bothbuyers and suppliers. Corporate rebranding following anM&A transactionmay also be better accepted in a B2B environment. A merger is a majorevent which seldom occurs in the lifetime of any corporation. This studyshows that, used as a means to signify a new strategic decision, a newcorporate name can be quickly accepted and endorsed by the internal andexternal stakeholders.

In sum, this case study provides a very positive view on the use ofrebranding as a strategic tool to rationalise and integrate a complexmixof businesses accumulated through a series ofmergers and acquisitions.It also demonstrates the symbolic value of an acquirer-dominantrebranding as a means of communicating positive intent both toemployees and the stockmarket. The conclusion thatwehave reached isthat, in a B2B environment, ambitious, acquisitive companies should goforward confidently to reconfigure their businesses so as to maximisecoherence and efficiency and should look to their brand strategy as a keytool in implementing their corporate strategy.

6. Conclusions and directions for further research

Although this study reports some interesting findings, there isobviously considerable scope for further research to validate thesefindings. First, although the qualitative nature of the research hasallowed us to explore the phenomenon in depth and appreciate itscomplexity, a large quantitative study would further validate our initialfindings. Our conclusion rests on the assumption that the brandreputation and associations are correlated to brand equity as posed incustomer brand equity models (Kuhn et al., 2008). A quantitativeapproach would confirm whether the observed weakening of brandassociations also corresponds to a loss of brand equity.

Acknowledgement

The authors wish to thank the reviewers and editors for theirconstructive comments.

References

Aaker, D. A. (1991). Managing brand equity — Capitalizing on the value of a brand name.New York: Free Press.

Andrade, G., Mitchell, M., et al. (2001). New evidence and perspectives on mergers.Journal of Economic Perspectives, 15(2), 103−120.

Argenti, Paul A., & Druckenmiller, Bob (2004). Reputation and corporate brand.Corporate Reputation Review, 6(4), 368−374.

Aspara, J., & Tikkanen, H. (2008). Significance of corporate brand for business-to-business companies.. Marketing Review, 8(1), 43−60.

Bahadir, S. C., Bharadwaj, S. G., & Srivastava, R. K. (2008, November). Financial value ofbrands in mergers and acquisitions: Is value in the eye of the beholder? Journal ofMarketing, 72, 49−64.

Balmer, J. M. T., & Dinnie, K. (1999). Merger madness: The final coup de grace. Journal ofGeneral Management, 24(4), 53−70.

Balmer, John M. T., & Greyser, Stephen A. (2006). Integrating corporate identity,corporate branding, corporate communications, corporate image and corporatereputation. European Journal of Marketing, 40(7/8), 730−741.

Basu, K. (2006). Merging brands after mergers.. California Management Review, 48(4),28−40.

Bendixen, M., Bukasa, K. A., et al. (2004). Brand equity in the business-to-businessmarket.. Industrial Marketing Management, 33(5), 371−380.

Beverland, M., Napoli, J., et al. (2007). Industrial global brand leadership: A capabilitiesview. Industrial Marketing Management, 36(8), 1082−1093.

Brown, Thomas J., & Dacin, P. A. (1997). The company and the product: Corporateassociations and consumer product responses. Journal of Marketing, 61(1), 68−84.

Capron, L., & Hulland, J. (1999). Redeployment of brands, sales forces, and generalmarketing management expertise following horizontal acquisitions: A resource-based view. Journal of Marketing, 63(2), 41−54.

Cretu, A. E., & Brodie, R. J. (2007). The influence of brand image and company reputationwhere manufacturers market to small firms: A customer value perspective..Industrial Marketing Management, 36(2), 230−240.




ARTICLE IN PRESS

Cravens, Karen, Oliver, Elizabeth Goad, & Ramamoorti, Sridhar (2003). The reputationindex: Measuring and managing corporate reputation. European ManagementJournal, 21(2), 201.

Ettenson, R., & Knowles, J. (2006). Merging the brands and branding the merger.. MITSloan Management Review, 47(4), 39−49.

Fombrun, Charles J., Gardberg, Naomi A., & Sever, Joy M. (2000). The reputationquotient: A multi-stakeholder measure of corporate reputation. Journal of BrandManagement, 7(4), 241−255.

Haig, M. (2003). Brand failures. VA, Kogan Pages: London and Sterling.Harris, F., & deChernatony, L. (2001). Corporate branding and corporate branding

performance. European Journal of Marketing, 35(3/4), 441−456.Haspeslagh, P. C., & Jemison, D. B. (1991). Managing acquisitions: Creating value through

corporate renewal. New York: The Free Press.Hijzen, A., Görg, H., et al. (2008). Cross-border mergers and acquisitions and the role of

trade costs. European Economic Review, 52(5), 849−866.Hise, R. T. (1991, July-August). Evaluating marketing assets inmergers and acquisitions.

Journal of Business Strategy, 46−51.Hitt, M., Harrison, J., Ireland, R. D., & Best, A. (1998). Attributes of successful and

unsuccessful acquisitions of US firms. British Journal of Management, 9, 91−114.Homburg, Christian, & Bucerius, Matthias (2005). A marketing perspective on mergers

and acquisitions: How marketing integration affects postmerger performance.Journal of Marketing, 69(1), 95−113.

Jaju, A., Joiner, C., et al. (2006). Consumer evaluations of corporate brand redeploy-ments.. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 34(2), 206−215.

Kaplan, S. (2006). Mergers and acquisitions: A financial economics perspective. January:US Antitrust Commission Economist's Roundtable on Merger Enforcement.

Keller, K. L. (1993). Conceptualizing, measuring, and managing customer-based brandequity. Journal of Marketing, 57(1), 1−22.

Keller, K. L. (2008). Strategic brand management: Building, measuring and managingbrand equity. Upper Saddle River: Pearson Prenctice Hall.

Knudsen, T. R., Finskud, L., et al. (1997). Brand consolidation makes a lot of economicsense. McKinsey Quarterly, 4, 189−193.

Krishnan, H. A., Hitt, M. A., & Park, D. (2007). Acquisition premiums, subsequentworkforce reductions and post-acquisition performance. Journal of ManagementStudies, 44(5), 709−732.

Kuhn, K. -A., Alpert, F., et al. (2008). An application of Keller's brand equity model in aB2B context. Qualitative Market Research: An International Journal, 11(1), 40−58.


Kumar, S., & Blomqvist, K. Hansted (2004). Mergers and acquisitions: Making brandequity a key factor in M&A decision-making. Strategy & Leadership, 32(2), 20−27.

Mudambi, S. (2002). Branding importance in business-to-business markets: Threebuyer clusters. Industrial Marketing Management, 31(6), 525−533.

Muzellec, L., & Lambkin, M. (2006). Corporate rebranding: Destroying, transferring orcreating brand equity? European Journal of Marketing, 40(7/8), 803−824.

Muzellec, L., & Lambkin, M. C. (2008). Corporate rebranding: Implications for brandarchitecture management. Journal Of Strategic Marketing, 16(4), 283−299.

Olins, Wally (2000). “How brands are taking over the corporation,” in the expressiveorganization: Linking identity. Reputation and the Corporate Brand: OxfordUniversity Press.

PriceWaterhouseCooper (2007). Producing value: Global industrial manufacturingmergers and acquisitions, 2005/2007 (pp. 29). : PWCwww.pwc.com/manufacturing.

Reichheld, Frederick F., & Henske, Brad (1991). The only sure method of recoupingmerger premiums. Journal of Retail Banking, 8(2), 9−17.

Rosson, P., & Brooks, M. R. (2004). M&As and corporate visual identity: An exploratorystudy. Corporate Reputation Review, 7(2), 181−194.

Srivastava, R. K., Shervani, T. A., & Fahey, L. (1998, January). Market-based assets andshareholder value: A framework for analysis. Journal of Marketing, 62, 2−18.

Urban, David J., & Pratt, Michael D. (2000). Perceptions of banking services in the wake ofbank mergers: An empirical study. Journal of Services Marketing, 14(2/3), 118−135.

Yin, R. K. (1994). Case study: Design and research. : Sage Publications.

Mary C. Lambkin is Professor of Marketing at the Smurfit School of Business atUniversity College Dublin. She has published widely in the leading marketing journalsincluding Journal of Marketing and the International Journal of Research in Marketing;she is also involved in the business world, serving as a non-executive director ofseveral major companies.

Laurent Muzellec is a marketing lecturer at Dublin City University and a brandconsultant. His articles on corporate branding have appeared in Marketing Theory, theCorporate Reputation Review, the Journal of Product and Brand Management and theEuropean Journal of Marketing.


http://www.pwc.com/manufacturing
