See

discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/280039391

The effect of resistance to change and brand

logo co-creation on consumers' evaluations of
redesigned brand logos
CONFERENCE PAPER JULY 2015

READS

78

2 AUTHORS, INCLUDING:
Patricia Harris
Kingston University London
24 PUBLICATIONS 405 CITATIONS
SEE PROFILE

Available from: Patricia Harris

Retrieved on: 20 January 2016

The Effect of Resistance to Change and Brand Logo Co-Creation on

Consumers Evaluations of Redesigned Brand Logos
Introduction
While logo redesigns are a commonplace in practically every industry, consumers do not
always welcome them (Dubberly, 1995; Zmuda, 2009; Connor, 2010). However, academic
literature has yet to provide a conclusive understanding of consumers response to logo
redesigns. Most studies have focused on identifying which design characteristics yield the
most positive response. Walsh, Winterish and Mittal (2010), however, explored the role of
brand commitment in consumers response to logo redesigns. Our research builds on this
work and incorporates the theory of resistance to change as an added factor that can influence
consumer response. Most importantly the value of our research extends to the fact that it
seeks to establish techniques that could assist the adoption of logo redesigns. Based on the
theory of co-creation we also explore the effect of engaging consumers in the logo redesign
selection process.
Research Context
Walsh et al (2010) state that annually one in every 50 companies will redesign its logo for a
number of different reasons. This might be down to mergers and acquisitions, the entrance
into global markets, the launch of brand extensions or the need to change/update the image of
a brand (Henderson and Cote, 1998; Pittard Ewing and Jevons, 2007; Lans, Cote, Cole,
Leong, Smidts, Henderson, Bluemelhuber, Bottomley, Doyle, Fedorikhin, Moorthy,
Ramaseshan and Schmitt, 2009). Logo redesign is extremely expensive. For example, BPs
logo redesign in 2000 is estimated to have cost 136 million (Davies and Paterson, 2000).
However, despite the time and money that companies are willing to spend in redesigning
their logo, the results are not always positive. BPs environmentally friendly logo redesign
infuriated consumers who saw petrol prices rising while the company was spending 136m
(Davies and Paterson, 2000). In addition consumers negative response is sometimes based
on their personal evaluation of how the redesigned logo looks. In some cases (Gap,
Tropicana) unhappy consumers have forced brands to withdraw the redesigned logo and
retain the original one (Baker, 2010). Connor (2010) identifies lessons to be learned from
such failure. He states that engaging consumers in the logo redesign process would increase
the chances of success since they are less likely to criticize something they were a part of. In
summary, there is a need to achieve a better understanding of consumers responses to logo
redesigns in order to find ways of easing their adoption of new logos. This need is
particularly pressing as logo redesigns are such a common occurrence and such a major
financial investment, and the potential for damage to an organisations reputation and image
is so high.
Melewar, Bassett and Simoes (2006) state that corporate visual identity (CVI) has gained
considerable attention and is considered to be a key component of organisations marketing
and communications strategies. Hynes (2009) states that a companys logo is the core of its
CVI. Logos play a critical role as a brand recognition aid because they speed up the
consumers selection process (Berry, 1989; Morrow, 1992). Visuals are a more pleasant and
effortless way for people to process information compared to text, therefore the human brain
pays more attention to visual stimuli and also processes them faster than text (Edell and
Staelin, 1983). As a consequence, logos become important tools because organisations
communications are often seen only for a short time (Henderson and Cote, 1998).
Ahluwalia, Burnkrant and Unnava (2000) examined the effect of brand commitment on
change in brand attitude arising from negative publicity about a brand. Using Nike as the
focal brand and fictional press articles which cast Nike in a negative light, they found that as
brand commitment increased, so did consumers tendency to resist, and argue against, the
negative information which challenged their prior brand attitude. Walsh et al (2010) also

examined the role of brand commitment, but their research analysed this construct in the
context of logo redesign. Using fictional redesigned logos for two real athletic shoe brands,
they found that brand commitment was negatively correlated with attitude to the redesigned
logo; the stronger the level of brand commitment, the more negatively the redesigned logo
was evaluated.
Despite the contribution made by Walsh et al (2010) to our understanding of how consumers
evaluate redesigned logos, knowledge gaps remain. It seems likely, for example, that the
consumers level of change resistance in general will have an effect on their evaluation of a
redesigned logo. In addition, it is possible that involving consumers in the process of logo
redesign in some way may cause them to feel more positive to the redesigned logo. We now
examine these ideas in more detail.
Conceptual Framework
Resistance to Change
Research on consumers responses to new things has been dominated by studies of the drivers
of and barriers to new product adoption (e.g. Rogers, 1976; Ram and Sheth, 1989; Bagozzi
and Lee, 1999; Heiskanen, Hyvonen, Niva, Pantzar, Timonen and Varjonen, 2007). Much of
this work has focused on identifying the characteristics of new products which affect the rate
of adoption, and is therefore not directly applicable to developing an understanding of
consumers acceptance of new, i.e. redesigned, logos. In addition, according to Sheth (1981)
the majority of consumers do not yearn for change; he argued that it would be more fruitful to
focus on understanding what drives resistance to change instead of adoption. A number of
studies have examined the personality traits that are associated with an individuals ability to
cope with change (Mumford, Baughman, Threfall and Uhlman, 1993; Judge, Thoresen, Pucik
and Welbourne, 1999; Wanberg and Banas, 2000). Oreg (2003) identified six personality
traits that affect resistance to change: (a) reluctance to lose control, (b) cognitive rigidity, (c)
lack of psychological resilience, (d) intolerance of the adjustment period associated with
change, (e) preference for low levels of stimulation and novelty, and (f) reluctance to give up
old habits, and developed a four-item scale as shown in Table 1.
Insert Table 1 here.
The value of Oregs (2003) scale is its diverse application because unlike the majority of
studies that focused on new product adoption or organisational change, this scale was not
designed to conform to a specific type of change but can be used in a variety of contexts. The
scales validity has been tested in different contexts such as organisational change, academic
schedule changes and users acceptance of digital libraries (Oreg, 2003; Nov and Ye, 2008).
However, the resistance to change construct has not been used in the context of logo redesign
and it is this gap which our study seeks to fill.
Engaging Consumers through Co-creation
In recent years there has been a power switch from companies to retailers and now to
consumers (Petty, 2008). Consumers determine the success or failure of brands and expect
that companies recognise and respect their power (Petty, 2008; Lawer and Know (2006);
Volckner and Sattler, 2006; Thomson, 2004). They are no longer passive receivers but
instead active and creative receivers who interpret messages as they wish (Christensen, Firat
and Cornelissen, 2009). Consequently researchers now argue that traditional marketing
principles and strategies need to be revisited (Payne, Storbacka, Frow and Knox, 2009).
Prahalad and Ramaswamy (2004) state that the traditional roles of companies (production)
and consumers (consumption) are no longer distinct. Consumers engage in dialogue and
interaction with their suppliers during product design, production, delivery and consumption
(Payne et al, 2009, p.380). The literature refers to these activities as co-creation (Wikstorm,
1996; Vargo and Lusch, 2004; Prahalad and Ramaswamy, 2004; Prahalad, 2004). Cocreation has been examined in the context of branding; for example, consumers are believed

to have co-created the Tommy Hilfiger brand when a different target audience than the one
intended by the company adopted the brand and altered its meaning (Christensen, Firat and
Cornelissen, 2009). We propose, therefore, to examine whether co-creation has an effect on
how consumers evaluate a redesigned logo.
Our conceptual framework, Figure 1, builds on that of Walsh et al (2010). Our contributions
are in the incorporation into this framework of resistance to change and brand logo cocreation. We operationalise resistance to change using Oregs (2003) scale. Brand logo cocreation is operationalised by offering consumers a range of redesigned logos to choose from.
Insert Figure 1 here.
Hypotheses
H1: The mean evaluation of logo redesigns when consumers have the option to choose
among different alternatives will be significantly more positive compared to the mean
evaluation of logo redesigns when consumers do not have the option to choose among
different alternatives
H2: There is a significant relationship between brand commitment and logo evaluation.
H3: There is a significant relationship between resistance to change and logo evaluation.
H4: There is a significantly positive relationship between logo evaluation and brand attitude.
Methodology
Respondents were selected using a non-probability sampling procedure. An online survey
was administered by sending respondents an email explaining the purpose of the research and
providing the link to the website where the online survey was hosted (http://logoresearch.noip.org). In order to increase the response rate an incentive of entering a draw for a chance to
win a 60 ASOS voucher was given. A follow up email was sent three weeks later to those
who did not respond initially. 810 consumers were contacted and the response rate was 26%.
The brands chosen for the study were Adidas and Nike. Five different logo redesigns were
created for each brand. Pilot testing with 10 respondents confirmed that the degree of change
suggested by each logo redesign was that intended by the researcher. The brand and logos
were presented to respondents in a random order to minimize the effect of the logos position
on the screen on respondents attitude and choice. In order to examine the effect of cocreation, respondents were either given one redesigned logo (no choice) to evaluate or a
choice of alternative logos. Respondents were asked to evaluate the new logo in comparison
with the existing logo. The scales used for each measure in our conceptual framework are set
out in Table 2. The analytical techniques used to test each hypothesis are presented in Table
3.
Insert Tables 2 and 3 here.
Findings
While the redesigned logos were consistently evaluated more poorly than the existing logo
(No choice mean = 2.85, Choice mean = 3.51, t=0.000), H1 was supported concluding that
engaging consumers in the logo redesign selection process results in more positive
evaluations. While no previous research has tested consumer engagement in logo redesigns,
the theory of co-creation has been researched in a variety of other contexts such as product
design with the example of Nike ID (Ramaswamy, 2008). Ramaswamy (2008) argues that
when consumers participate or somehow influence the design process of a product then the
risk of dissatisfaction is reduced. Our findings support this argument because even though
engaging consumers did not result in a positive evaluation, dissatisfaction was reduced
making a statistically significant positive difference. Therefore our research suggests that
consumer engagement can significantly enhance consumer adoption of logo redesigns.
H2 was supported, reporting a negative correlation (r=-0.352, =0.05 ) between brand
commitment and logo evaluation. This is in line with Walsh et als (2010) results that found
stronger brand commitment to be related to low logo evaluations and vice versa. Conversely

to Walsh et als (2010) this dissertation found a weak relationship between the two variables
(r<0.5). Therefore the practical application of these results is limited. However it is important
to note that we found low internal reliability of the brand commitment scale and this could be
distorting our results.
H3 was supported, reporting a negative correlation (r=-0.6, =0.05). The more resistant to
change the consumer, the more poorly they evaluated the redesigned logo.
H4 was supported (r=0.5, =0.05) and our results were in line with Walsh et als (2010)
findings. Specifically there was a strong, positive relationship between post-redesigned logo
exposure brand attitude and logo evaluation. Moreover testing and supporting this hypothesis
within a different sample than the one used in Walsh et als (2010) study provides further
credibility of this finding.
Conclusions
We have established that engaging consumers in the logo redesign selection process has a
positive effect on logo evaluations. In addition the degree of change in brand commitment
was negatively correlated with logo evaluations and therefore supported Walsh et als (2010)
findings. Moreover logo evaluations correlated positively with brand attitude providing
further support for Walsh et als findings. Another important contribution was expanding the
understanding of consumers response to logo redesigns through incorporating an additional
variable Resistance To Change which was found to be negatively associated with logo
evaluation. The overarching aim of this research was to achieve a better understanding of
consumer response to logo redesigns in an attempt to find ways that can ease the adoption of
logo redesigns. Therefore the findings of this study are of great importance to marketing
managers. It is proposed that finding ways to somehow engage consumers in the logo
redesign process can be a way to ease the adoption of logo redesigns. Moreover marketing
managers can focus their efforts on strongly committed consumers because these consumers
are not only their most important ones but also the ones that are more likely to resist a logo
redesign.
The biggest limitation of this study was the use of convenience sampling. Therefore the
findings suffer from systematic bias since the sample used is not representative of the entire
population. This limits the ability to make inferences about the entire population resulting in
this dissertation having low external validity. In addition the brand commitment scale had a
low internal reliability, which was only marginally accepted due to its proximity to the
recommended benchmark (0.6). However it is still not considered reliable and the findings
related to brand commitment suffer from inadequate statistical rigor.
Future research could provide a larger number of choices in order to test whether this could
achieve a positive evaluation. In addition consumer engagement in logo redesigns could be
researched using alternative techniques aside from offering choice. Future research could also
profile consumers scoring high/low on the resistance to change scale using demographic and
psychographic characteristics in order to assist marketing managers to predict their target
audiences response to logo redesigns. Lastly both this study and that of Walsh et al (2010)
study were done using athletic shoe brands. Therefore future research could focus on other
product categories.

References
Ahluwalia, R., Burnkrant, R. E. and Unnava, H. R. (2000). Consumer response to
negative publicity: the moderating role of commitment. Journal of Marketing Research,
37(2). 203-214.
Bagozzi, R. P and Lee, K. H. (1999). Consumer resistance to, and acceptance of
innovations, Advances in Consumer Research. 26. 218-225.
Berry, N.C. (1989). Revitalising brands. Journal of Consumer Marketing. 5(3). 15-20.
Christensen, L.T., Firat, A.F. and Cornelissen, J. (2009). New tensions and challenges
in integrated communications. Corporate Communications: An International Journal, 14(2),
207-219.
Connor, J. (2010). What brands can learn from Gaps logo debacle. Marketing Week.
(October). [Internet] <http://www.marketingweek.co.uk>. [Accesed 1st July 2011].
Davies, C. and Paterson, M. (2000). BP attacked over 136m logo as petrol prices
soar. The Telegraph. [Internet] <http://www.telegraph.co.uk>. [Accessed 30th July 2011].
Dubberly, J. (1995). Protecting Corporate Identity. Communication Arts. 36
(January/February). 14-18.
Henderson, P.W. and Cote, J.A. (1998). Guidelines for selecting or modifying logos.
Journal of Marketing, 62(2), 14-30.
Henderson, P.W., Cote, J.A., Leong, S.M. and Schmitt, B. (2003). Building strong
brands in Asia:selecting the visual components of image to maximize brand strength.
International Journal of Research in Marketing. 20. 297-313.
Judge, T. A., Thoresen, C. J., Pucik, V. and Welbourne, T. M. (1999). Managerial
coping with organisational change: A dispositional perspective. Journal of Applied
Psychology. 84. 107-122.
Lans, R., Cote, J.A., Cole, C.A., Leong, S.M., Smidts, A., Henderson, P.W.,
Bluemelhuber, C., Bottomley, P.A., Doyle, J.R., Fedorikhin, A., Moorthy, J., Ramaseshan, B.
and Schmitt, B.H. (2009). Cross-national logo evaluation analysis: An individual-level
approach. Marketing Science, 28(5), 968-985.
Lawer, C. and Know, S. (2006). Customer advocacy and brand development. Journal
of Product and Brand Management, 15(2), 121-129.
Melewar, T.C., Bassett, K and Simoes, C. (2006). The role of communication and
visual identity in modern organisations. Corporate Communications: An International
Journal. 11(2). 138-147.
Morrow, D.J. (1992). An image makeover. International Business. 5(3). 66-68.
Mumford, M. D., Baughman, W. A., Threfall, K. V. and Uhlman, C. E. (1993).
Personality, adaptability and performance: Performance on well-defined and ill-defined
problem solving tasks. Human Performance. 6. 241-285.
Nov, O. and Ye, C. (2008). Users personality and perceived ease of use of digital
libraries: The case for resistance to change. Journal of the American Society for Information
Science and Technology. 59(5). 845-851.
Oreg, S. (2003). Resistance to change: Developing an individual differences measure.
Journal of Applied Psychology. 88(4). 680-693.
Payne, A., Storbacka, K., Frow, P. and Knox, S. (2009). Co-creating brands:
Diagnosing and designing the relationship experience. Journal of Business Research. 62.
379-389.
Petty, R.D. (2008). Recognizing the rights of consumers as brand co-owners. The
Journal of Product and Brand Management, 17(6), 414-415.
Pittard, N., Ewing, M. and Jevons, C. (2007). Aesthetic theory and logo design:
examining consumer response to proportion across cultures. International Marketing
Review, 24(4), 457-473.

Prahalad, C. K. and Ramaswamy, V. (2004). Co-creation experiences: The next

practice in value creation. Journal of Interactive Marketing. 18(3). 5-14.
Ramaswamy, V. (2008). Co-creating value through customers experiences: the Nike
case. Strategy and Leadership. 36(5). 9-14
Ram, S. and Sheth, J. N. (1989). Consumer resistance to innovations: The marketing
problem and its solutions. The Journal of Consumer Marketing. 6. 5-14.
Rogers, E. (1976)
Thomson, C.J. (2004). Marketing mythology and discourses of power. Journal of
Consumer Research, 31, 162-180.
Vargo, S. L. and Lusch, R. F. (2004). Evolving to a new dominant logic for marketing.
Journal of Marketing. 68(1). 1-17.
Volckner, F. and Sattler, H. (2006). Drivers of brand extension success, Journal of
Marketing, 70, 18-34.
Walsh, M.E., Winterich, K.P. and Mittal, V. (2010). Do logo redesigns help or hurt
your brand? The role of commitment. Journal of Product and Brand Management. 19(2), 7684.
Wanberg, C. R. and Banas, J. T. (2000). Predictors and outcomes of openness to
changes in a reorganizing workplace. Journal of Applied Psychology. 85. 132-142.
Wikstorm, S. (1996). Value creation by company-consumer interaction. Journal of
Marketing Management. 12. 359-374.
Zmuda, N. (2009). Tropicana Line's Sales Plunge 20% Post-Rebranding. Advertising
Age. [Internet]. <http://adage.com>. [Accessed 30th July 2011].

Appendix
Table 1 Resistance to Change Scale
FACTORS

PERSONALITY TRAIT

Routine Seeking

Preference for low levels of stimulation and novelty and

Reluctance to give up old habits.

Emotional Reaction

Reluctance to lose control and Psychological resilience.

Short-Term Focus

Intolerance to the adjustment period involved in change and

Reluctance to lose control

Cognitive Rigidity

Cognitive Rigidity

Source: Oreg (2003)

Table 2 List of Scales Used

Measure

Developed by

Description

Brand

Beatty et al

Three-item Likert scale measured on a nine-point

Commitment

(1988)

scale (Appendix 1).

The internal reliability of this scale in Walsh et als
(2010) study was very good (Cronbach alpha
coefficient 0.88). In this dissertation the Cronbach
alpha coefficient was 0.586. The low reliability of
this scale (<0.6) was marginally accepted but was
considered to be a big limitation.

Brand Attitude

Ahluwalia et al

Four-item semantic differential scale measured on a

(2000)

seven-point scale (Appendix 1).

The internal reliability of this scale in Walsh et als
(2010) study was very good for both pre and post
exposure with Cronbach alpha coefficients 0.93 and
0.96 respectively. In this dissertation similar values
were achieved (0.92 and 0.93 respectively).

Logo Evaluation Henderson and

Cote (1998)

Five-item semantic differential scale measured on a

seven-point scale (Appendix 1).
The internal reliability of this scale in Walsh et als
(2010) study was very good (Cronbach alpha
coefficient 0.95). In this dissertation the Cronbach
alpha coefficient was 0.92.

Source: Adapted from Walsh et al (2010)

Table 3 Analytical Techniques

Hypothesis

Analytical Technique

H1

T-Test Paired Samples

H2

Pearson Correlation

H3

Pearson Correlation

H4

Partial Correlation

Figure 1 Conceptual Framework

Consumer Engagement

H1

Brand Commitment

Logo Evaluation

H2

H3
Resistance to Change

H4

Brand Attitude