Corporate Reputation Review Volume 8 Number 4
What is in a Name Change? Re-Joycing
Corporate Names to Create
Corporate Brands
Laurent Muzellec
Department of Marketing, University College Dublin, Republic of Ireland
ABSTRACT
Twenty years ago a corporate name was simply
a trade name that described an industry, a ser-
vice or a product (most often the corporate name
was the founder’s patronym). The study
reported in this paper reveals that as companies
are becoming increasingly aware of the impor-
tance of corporate reputation, they are managing
their corporate names more actively and treating
them as corporate brands rather than merely
trade names. Newly created brand names are
now consciously designed to evoke associations
with a set of core corporate values that typically
focus on themes such as life, competence, unity,
vision and performance. By focusing on values
that are common to most corporations, however,
corporate branding may fail in one of its fore-
most goals, which is to create differentiation.
This paper provides an analysis of the corporate
re-naming phenomenon and discusses its impli-
cations for corporate brand naming.
KEYWORDS: corporate brand, naming,
rebranding, identity change
INTRODUCTION
‘If all of Coca Cola’s assets were
destroyed overnight, whoever owned
the Coca Cola name could walk into a
bank the next day morning and get a
loan to rebuild everything.’
Carlton Curtis, VP Corporate
Communications, Coca Cola
Brand names are a fundamental marketing
and strategic device. For strong consumer
brands like Coca Cola, the name is arguably
the only valuable asset; outside its brand
context, the product, mostly made of water,
sugar and bubbles is a cheap commodity.
For corporations and corporate brands, the
name is a prism through which each stake-
holder perceives the company. The name
might be synonymous with a way of doing
business for suppliers, a distinctive in-house
culture for employees, an enjoyable experi-
ence for consumers, or a steady return on
investment for the financial community.
Academic articles which have tried to
answer the illustrious question ‘what’s in a
name?’ often come up with the answer of
reputation and brand identity (Fombrun
and Shanley, 1990; Perkins, 1995; Aaker,
1996; Tadelis, 1999). This indicates that
company names are the receptacle of cor-
porate brand and reputation. A brand
name is the basis upon which the brand
equity is built (Aaker, 1991) and a corpo-
rate name is the vehicle that conveys cor-
porate associations to the customer (Brown
and Dacin, 1997; Dacin and Brown, 2002).
Additionally, the name constitutes the link
between the corporate identity, understood
as what the company ‘is’, that is its values
and its behavior (Olins, 1979; Dowling,
1996; Balmer, 2001), and the corporate
image, which is thought of as the stake-
holders’ perceptions of corporate attitudes Corporate Reputation Review,
(Bernstein, 1984; Davies and Chun, 2002). Vol. 8, No. 4, 2006, pp. 305–321
# Palgrave Macmillan Ltd,
These various perspectives demonstrate 1479–1889/06 $30.00
Page 305
What is in a Name Change?
the key role played by corporate names as
strategic marketing assets. Replacing an
established name with an entirely new
name would therefore seem to go against
elementary marketing theory and practice.
Yet companies adopting new ‘branded
names’ are frequently reported in the busi-
ness press (McGurk, 2002; Lamont, 2003;
Wiggins, 2003). This phenomenon, some-
times referred to as corporate re-branding,
has been quantified by Enterprise IG,
which estimates that each year between
1,000 and 2,500 companies around the
world change their names.1
Structural factors precipitating a name
change such as corporate mergers and
acquisitions, or major changes in geo-
graphic scope or competitive corporate
strategy can partly explain the re-branding
phenomenon (Muzellec et al., 2003). How-
ever, while these factors may tell one why
re-branding occurs, they do not reveal the
extent to which corporate naming is con-
sidered as a strategic marketing variable in
its own right, or whether it is merely
viewed as an administrative expediency.
An additional point of interest, therefore, is
to investigate the marketing role, aim and
features of newly adopted names.
Studies pertaining to this area of research
have focused on the brand naming process
(Kohli and Labahn, 1997), on brand name
semantics and symbolism (Collins, 1977;
Robertson, 1989; Klink, 2001) and on the
types of associations evoked by new names
(Kohli and Hemnes, 1995; Delattre, 2002;
Glynn and Abzug, 2002). These studies are
either concerned with traditional (product)
brand naming strategies and their impact
on customers’ imagery or corporate name
patterns within industries. Yet, corporate
branding goes beyond traditional brand
theory and differs from corporate identity
(Balmer and Gray, 2003). In this paper, the
two perspectives are brought together to
provide a broad review of the corporate
re-naming phenomenon. The paper pro-
Page 306
vides an analysis of the recent wave of cor-
porate name changes and discusses the
academic and practical implications for
corporate brand naming.
The paper is divided into three sections.
First, the literature on brands and corporate
identity is reviewed to establish the predica-
ment of corporate brand naming. A data-
base of re-named companies is then
investigated and analysed in order to ascer-
tain the characteristics of a newly created
corporate (brand) name. The results are dis-
cussed and the comments of two brand-
naming specialists taken into account for
analysis purposes. The final section discusses
the managerial implications of the findings.
LITERATURE REVIEW
In order to understand the corporate re-
naming phenomenon in the emerging con-
text of corporate brands, the notion of cor-
porate branding is first reviewed. The
differences between the corporate identity
and traditional brand perspectives on
naming are then highlighted in order to
underline the challenges for corporate
brand naming.
Branding the Corporate Identity
There are many perspectives on corporate
branding in the literature (eg Schultz and
de Chernatony, 2002; Balmer and Greyser,
2003). Corporate brands can be seen as
communications, vision, identity, culture,
position, promise, image, or covenant
(Dunnion and Knox, 2004). However, two
broad approaches may be identified: one is
centered on the organization and the pro-
motion of internal values as well as culture
and vision (Hatch and Schultz, 2003; Ind,
2003; Urde, 2003); the other focuses on the
external audience and the marketing of the
brand (King, 1991; Keller, 2000; Aaker,
2004). This might be because the concept
of corporate brand is at the crossroads
between the idea of brand and the notion
of corporate identity.

Corporate identity refers to an organiza-
tion’s unique features, the way in which an
organization reveals its values and strategy
through communication, behavior and
symbolism (Leuthesser and Kohli, 1997;
van Riel and Balmer, 1997). In other
words, it is deeply rooted in the organiza-
tion persona and can be assimilated as a
‘statement of central character’ (Albert and
Whetten, 1985). By contrast, a brand could
be seen as a more contrived item, essen-
tially managed by the marketing depart-
ment. Indeed, a textbook definition of
brand sees it as ‘a name, term, symbol,
design or a combination of them intended
to identify goods or services of one seller
or a group of sellers and to differentiate
them from those of competitors’ (Kotler,
1992).2 Over the years, the brand con-
cept has stretched beyond its concrete
physical attributes to include intangible,
psychological aspects; the brand has
become ‘a collection of perceptions in the
mind of the consumer’ (Restall and
Gordon, 1993).
Those perspectives are brought together
when corporate branding is considered as
‘a systematically planned and implemented
process of creating and maintaining a
favorable image and consequently a favor-
able reputation for the company as a whole
by sending signals to all stakeholders and
by managing behavior, communication,
and symbolism’ (Einwiller and Will, 2002).
Above all, manipulating a key symbol such
as the name of the corporation is about
sending a powerful signal, that something
about the corporation has changed (Dowl-
ing, 1996; Stuart and Muzellec, 2004).
More importantly, with the old name
being discarded, so are its associations. The
new name gives the opportunity to build
up new associations. Yet depending on the
outlook taken on corporate branding, ie
brand or identity perspective, the mission
proposed for the new name could vary
significantly.
Muzellec
Brand Names versus Corporate Names
Defining a brand as ‘a name, term, symbol,
design or a combination of them’, implies
that the name forms the essence of the
brand concept (Aaker, 1991). The name is
a critical, core sign of the brand, the ‘basis
for awareness and communications effort’
(Aaker, 1991: 187). Since the name can
bring inherent strength to a brand (Kohli
and Labahn, 1997; Klink, 2001), brand
names need to be actively managed in
order to influence external stakeholders. In
a conventional branding perspective, the
name is an instrument at the disposal of the
marketing team, who can use symbolism
in order to affect consumers’ perceptions of
products or corporations’ attributes (Klink,
2001; Yorkston and Menon, 2004). Once
launched, however, the new name becomes
the psychological property of consumers
(Lerman and Garbarino, 2002).
Brand experts are still unsure about the
ideal properties of a brand name. Many
brand consultants believe that a brand
name should be unusual enough to attract
the attention of the external audience, such
as Xerox and Yahoo! (Ries and Ries, 1999;
Godin, 2002). Yet, academic research indi-
cates that names descriptive or at least sug-
gestive of the product’s relevant attributes
are more likely to be recalled and liked
(Keller et al., 1998; Klink, 2001). In sum,
an actively managed brand name should be
able to attract attention, provoke a high
level of recall and/or recognition and initi-
ate positive associations.
Identity is about behavior as much as
appearance (Olins, 1979); hence the reci-
procal influence of attitudes (‘inner iden-
tity’ — verbal school of thought) on the
outward show (‘projected identity’ —
visual school of thought). Identity (and
image) may be crafted by the management
of marketing aesthetics, ie the corporate
name, logo, design, colour, font etc (Mar-
gulies, 1977; Schmitt and Simonson, 1997).
Because the name is only a single, although
Page 307
What is in a Name Change?
quite visible element of the corporate visual
identity system, it will not modify a cor-
poration’s appearance on its own (Margu-
lies, 1977; Melewar and Saunders, 2000).
This suggests that a ‘name’ is less essential
to the constitution of associations in a cor-
porate identity context than in a brand
context. A new name along with a new
visual identity can nevertheless help to
create new associations as was done success-
fully, for example, with Lucent Technolo-
gies, a spin-off of AT&T (Schmitt and
Simonson, 1997).
Due to the importance of the behavioral
element of identity, the name is sometimes
seen as a trap that may catch the unwary
(Dowling, 1996; Balmer, 2001). Badly
handled, a change of name might just
widen the misalignment of the communi-
cated identity with the actual one (Balmer
and Greyser, 2002; de Chernatony, 2002).
The two schools of thought on identity are
therefore wary about the importance and
management of corporate names. The
visual or appearance school considers the
name as one single variable among many
other elements of the corporate visual iden-
tity system (Melewar and Saunders, 2000).
The verbal or behavioral school of thought
suggests that feelings towards a corporation
Table 1: Differences Between Brand Names and Corporate Names
Brand name
School of thought Branding
Importance in communication Central
mix
Primary audience Customers
Level of distinctiveness High: Capacity to attract
attention
Semantics Induce positive feelings in the
marketplace
Management Actively managed
Page 308
are formed based on historical perfor-
mance, organizational culture and employ-
ees’ attitudes, rather than generated by a
new name (Hatch and Schultz, 1997;
Stuart, 1999; Ind, 2003). This suggests that
a traditional corporate name, be it the
name of the founder (Ford, Michelin etc)
or the name of the place where the com-
pany was first set up (eg Evian, Raleigh),
reflects the corporation’s history and iden-
tity better than a new name will ever be
able to do. The characteristics of both
brand names and corporate names are sum-
marized in Table 1.
So far, corporate names have been stu-
died through their length, their descriptive
associations and their linguistic features
(Kohli and Hemnes, 1995; Delattre, 2002).
Conclusions in both studies were identical:
new names were generally shorter, product
and geographic associations were dropped,
and many coined words were created.
Organizational behaviorists Glynn and
Abzug (2002) reviewed historical naming
patterns and found that corporate names
are influenced by a web of institutionalized
practices. That is, organizations follow the
practices of other institutions from similar
industries when it comes to adopting a
new name.
Corporate name
Corporate identity
Secondary
Employees, customers, financial
community
Low: Capacity to be accepted
by a wide audience. Must not
shock
Reflect ‘inner’ identity or
culture
Inherited (unmanaged)

Corporate Brand Naming Challenges
Corporate branding goes further than the
traditional branding and the identity per-
spectives. First, it surpasses product brand-
ing by ignoring product features and
focusing on the underlying values and
vision of the corporation (Hatch and
Schultz, 2003; Urde, 2003). Secondly, cor-
porate branding goes beyond corporate
identity by fusing the internal and external
dimensions of corporations (Balmer and
Greyser, 2003). The branding of the cor-
poration has several implications therefore
for newly created corporate (brand) names
that must deal with a series of dichotomies
and challenges.
The first challenge pertains to the time-
frame. The corporate brand name must
take into consideration the heritage of the
corporation but should also set a direction
for the future, and maybe create a sense of
new departure, particularly following a
reputation crisis or a merger. Related to
this initial problem is the issue of the
degree of change a name can support.
Should continuity with the old name be
favored or, on the contrary, should a
totally new name be created signifying a
clear break from the past?
The second challenge concerns the target
audience; a new name must be noticed by
external stakeholders but must not alienate
the internal audience. Likewise, the values
induced by the new name should reflect
the actual identity of the corporation but
also appeal to the marketplace. As a result,
a corporate brand name has to be assigned
the mission to inspire and to carry the set
of values that define the corporation.
This leads to a related and final dichot-
omy; the choice between a corporate name
that evokes attributes that are industry-spe-
cific or one that induces universal values. If
the distinguishing core attributes for corpo-
rate brands are cohesion, uniqueness,
intangibility, complexity and responsibility
(Ind, 1998), a new corporate name must
Muzellec
bundle together a collective sense of pur-
pose, while encompassing the unique com-
bination of history, leadership, strategies
and values, and being accepted by the
varied stakeholders. The difficulty of meet-
ing all these objectives simultaneously is
self-evident and demonstrates the complex
challenge involved in corporate re-brand-
ing.
Corporate Brand Name Taxonomy
Brand consultancies usually employ taxo-
nomies of some kind to discuss alternative
names. Common among those taxonomies
are labels such as descriptive, suggestive or
associative, and arbitrary or freestanding
names. Interbrand (2005), for instance,
refers to descriptive, associative and free-
standing names. A descriptive name
describes the product or service for which
it is intended, eg Rent-A-Car. Associative
(or suggestive) names evoke associations
implicitly or explicitly with product fea-
tures (for instance, Jaguar brings associa-
tions with elegance and aggressiveness) or,
in the case of corporate brands, with a set
of corporate values. Freestanding (or arbi-
trary) names have no link with the product
or service that they refer to but might have
meaning of their own, eg Orange or Pen-
guin. In some cases, such names have no
intrinsic meaning at all, eg Kodak or
Xsara, in which case they may be called
abstract. Turley and Moore (1995) have
added two more categories of brand names
in their study of service brands, ie person-
based brands (patronymic name) and geo-
graphic names. In the case of corporate
brands, acronymic names historically con-
stitute another important category as the
success of IBM, GE or BP demonstrates.
Collins (1977) examined the relationships
between sound and sense. He set up two
opposing theories known as the ‘Juliet
principle’ and the ‘Joyce principle’. The
‘Juliet principle’ draws from the answer to
Shakespeare’s illustrious question: ‘What’s
Page 309
What is in a Name Change?
in a name? — That which we call a rose,
by any other name would not smell as
sweet’. The principle states that the mean-
ing of a name is not determined by its
verbal form but by the associations that
arise over time. The ‘Joyce principle’ states
that the phonetics of a word symbolize its
meaning. It is derived from James Joyce’s
creation of hundreds of new words that
sound to the reader somewhat like what he
meant them to denote. Accordingly, cor-
porate names might be classified along a
spectrum from totally descriptive to totally
freestanding, as shown in Table 2.
This review of the literature compares
the differences between the characteristics
of brand names as informed by branding
theory and the properties of corporate
names as implied by the corporate identity
literature. This reveals a series of challenges
for corporate brand naming which has
been analysed by reviewing a database of
166 re-named companies. Two main
aspects of name change were under consid-
eration. The type and level of name change
provide indications as to whether the heri-
tage of the corporation is taken into con-
sideration in the new name. The meaning
and connotations evoked by new corporate
names, particularly those derived from
Latin, were also considered to determine
whether new names are shaped to appeal
to the marketplace or to the internal audi-
ence; and whether they strongly differenti-
ate the company or are embodied in an
industry-specific isomorphism. More
importantly, the etymology of new corpo-
rate names can reveal the essence of newly
Table 2: Types of Corporate Brand Names
From the most ? ?
descriptive
Descriptive Geographic Patronymic
names names names
Page 310
constructed corporate brands.
METHODOLOGY
A sample of 166 companies was chosen for
the exploratory research. Using the search
engine Power Search on the Financial
Times website (www.ft.com), one can
retrieve articles on companies having chan-
ged their name. A search on ‘name
changes’ from January 1, 2001 to January
31, 2003 (a 25-month period) returned 314
articles. Due to redundancies of articles
and/or companies, this number was
reduced to 116 when it came to identifying
companies. Another 50 examples of re-
branded companies were found via other
secondary sources (newspapers, websites,
advertisements) and were added to reach a
critical sample size. Old and new names
were classified according to their name
type (descriptive, geographic, patronymic,
acronym, associative, freestanding). The
first four categories were easily assigned
but distinguishing between associative and
freestanding names proved to be a more
difficult exercise. Names were classified as
associative when an etymological study
provided some meaning and/or a plausible
name explanation was found on the com-
pany’s website; otherwise, names were
classified as freestanding. To reduce biased
interpretation, two independent readers
reviewed the categorization afterwards
and pointed out potential disagreements.
Consequently, 15 names were reclassified.
This approach allowed further investiga-
tion and categorization of the associative
names.
? ? to the most
abstract
Acronymic Associative Freestanding
names names names
 Muzellec

Replicating Delattre’s methodology the theme brought out by new corporate

(2002), the changes were also divided into
two levels: Level 1 comprises names that
display permanence or continuity. Perma-
nence is reflected in a change of spelling
(eg from Ebookers.com to Ebookers).
Continuity in the naming patterns refers to
a combinative change in which the system
is relatively unchanged; this includes sim-
plification, name lengthening, initialization,
or a combinative modification (eg from
Morgan Stanley Dean Witter to Morgan
Stanley or from S.J. Berwin & Co to
S.J.B.). Level 2 refers to names that have
been created from scratch and which have
no commonalities with the previous name
(eg from Andersen Consulting to Accent-
ure).
Since several business articles have
suggested that numerous companies adopt
Latin-coined words when they change
their names (Dickson, 2002; Kella
way, 2002; Lamont, 2003), a category
including Latin or Latin-based names was
created.
Finally a semantic analysis of associative
names was carried out in order to reveal
brand names.
RESULTS
Review of the Database
Type of name and type of change
The review of the database revealed that
previous names were predominantly
descriptive (31.8 per cent) or person-based
(24 per cent). Acronymic (14 per cent) and
geographic names (6.9 per cent) also feature
quite strongly among the old names. Free-
standing and associative names represent 15
per cent and 8 per cent, respectively, of the
old names. By contrast, the new names tend
to be more abstract. More than 60 per cent
of them are either freestanding (32.5 per
cent) or associative (32.5 per cent). Descrip-
tive names account for only 18 per cent and
geographic names are down to 1.2 per cent.
The data support the supposition that
corporations are moving along the spec-
trum from highly descriptive names to
highly conceptual names as demonstrated
by the graph in Figure 1.

Table 3: Name Types

Old name New name

Name type Frequency (%) Frequency (%)

Acronym 24 13.87 13 7.83

Associative 14 8.09 54 32.53
Descriptive 55 31.79 30 18.07
Freestanding 26 15.03 54 32.53
Geographic 12 6.93 2 1.20
Person-based 42 24.28 13 7.83
Total 173* 100.00 166 100.00

*The total number of old names is greater than the total of the re-branded companies because in
the case of a merger and when the two previous names belong to a different name category; the
names of both companies have been included.

Page 311
What is in a Name Change?

Figure 1: Evolution of corporate names

35
30
25
20 Old name
15 New name
10
5
0

As nym

e
so tive

ng
d

Ac ic

iv
se

di
at
ap
ip

ba

ro

an
ci
cr

gr
n-

so

st
es

eo

ee
D

G
r

Fr
Pe

Level of name change origin. Table 3 combines Latin or Greek

In total, 31 name changes (18.7 per cent)
displaying permanence or continuity were
classified as Level 1. A total of 135 new
corporate names (81.3 per cent) showed no
similarities with the previous name (Level
2 change).
Latin and Greek connotations
A total of 34 per cent (47 names) of the
names that had changed dramatically
(Level 2) did so to become Latin or Greek
in sound or in derivation. It is difficult to
define what makes a word sound Latin.
The ‘Latinity’ of a name is often suggested
through its ending, for instance ‘a’, ‘i’, ‘is’,
‘ys’ and ‘us’ are Latin or imply a Latin
names, names derived from Latin and
names attributed to Latin.
Etymological analysis of newly created
associative names
The meaning of the associative names is
now investigated. Corporate websites were
visited in search of an explanation for the
choice of a new name. Only 33 companies
actually provided any explanation of their
new name on their website. For 21 cor-
porations, the name meaning was revealed
through an etymological approach particu-
larly in the case of Latin and Greek names.
Table 5 provides some examples of the
explanations supplied by the companies

Table 4: Latin and Greek Coined Names

End with the letter ‘a’ Altria, Aga, Areva, Avaya, Aviva, Capitalia, Centrica,
Consignia, Dexia, Encana, Glambia, Izodia, Kelda,
Olimpia, Permira, Ramada, Sonera, Syngenta, Zeneca,
Xansa
End with ‘i’, ‘is’ and ‘ys’ Acambis, Acordis, Altadis, Aventis, Elementis, Enodis,
Invensys, Marconi, Misys, Novartis, Vernalis, Vivendi
End with ‘us’ Chorus, Corus, Lorus, Mobius, Thus, Rubus
Other Accenture, Agilent, Agere, Diageo, Lumen, Lucent,
Thales, Visteon, Verizon

Page 312
 Muzellec

Table 5: Meaning and Wishful Meaning of Brand Name

Name Meaning Source*

Accenture ‘Today we are re-named, redefined and reborn. The www.accenture.com

Accenture name connotes putting an ‘accent on the future’
Agilent Derived from the word ‘agile’, which means nimble and Etymology
well-coordinated
Altria ‘The name ‘‘Altria’’ derives from the Latin word www.altria.com
‘‘altus’’, meaning high. It connotes an enterprise that aims
for peak performance and constant improvement’
Aventis From avere (avens, aventis), which means ‘desiring www.aventis.com/
intensely’ or willing, with pleasure; eager etymology
Aviva ‘The Aviva name tested positively in consumer www.aviva.com
research around the world, bringing with it
associations of life, vitality and living well’
BearingPoint ‘Set direction, gain access to the right information, www.bearingpoint.com
transfer knowledge, and achieve results for their
long-term success’
Centrica ‘The name Centrica was selected because of its ease www.centrica.com
of use internationally. In many languages the word
Centrica is meaningless and therefore cannot conflict
with overseas language translations’{
Diageo ‘The word Diageo comes from the Latin word for ‘‘day’’ www.diageo.co.uk
and the Greek word for ‘‘world’’ or ‘‘every day, everywhere’’
Enodis Derived from Latin and means ‘solutions’ Etymology
Exelon ‘Exelon stands for experience and excellence, and www.exelon.com
that’s what the new company will be all about’
Kforce ‘In 1999, the company changed its name to Kforce, www.kforce.com
an abbreviation for Knowledgeforce, with the ‘‘K’’
representing knowledge, (. . .) and the ‘‘force’’ signifies the
knowledgeable team of people with a clear focus and
commitment to the goal’
Lucent Marked by ‘clarity’ or ‘glowing with light’ www.lucent.com
Novartis Novartis comes from the Latin term novae artes, www.novartis.com
which means ‘new arts’ or ‘new skills’
Permira Permira, a Latin word meaning ‘very surprising, www.permira.com
very different’
Thales Name of ancient Greek mathematician Etymology
Verizon Derived from the combination of ‘veritas’, which means Etymology
truth in Latin, and ‘horizon’
Vernalis Pertaining to spring; used to describe plants for Etymology
instance Adonis Vernalis
Visteon ‘Coined from the words visionary and eon, Visteon is of www.visteon.com
Latin derivation and therefore recognisable in many
languages’
Vivendi Latin gerundive, means ‘vivacity’ and ‘mobility’ Etymology
Xansa ‘The name is easy to say and read in all major market www.xansa.com
places and has clear phonetic links with ‘‘answer’’. The
other inspiration has been the Sanskrit word ‘‘sanskar’’,
which, among many meanings, also refers to culture and
values which are internalized from past experience and
determine future action’

*Websites were accessed between January 2003 and October 2003. {Although the name is clearly
derived from ‘centre’, it was classified as freestanding due to this explanation.

Page 313
What is in a Name Change?

themselves or found through an etymolo- combining synonymous and similar terms.

gical approach.
Some key ideas emerged as central to the
meaning of those new names. In order to
explore those ideas, a list of derived mean-
ings was established through an etymologi-
cal study of the corporate names, ie either
based on the proposed ‘etymology’ pro-
vided on the corporation’s website or based
on the researcher’s own use of French,
English and Latin dictionaries. The initial
investigation provided a list of 37 key-
words reflecting the ideas, concepts or
values induced by the 54 associative brand
names, shown below in Table 6.
The second step involved clustering
these keywords into general themes by
For instance, agreement is synonymous
with union and accord; high is synon-
ymous with superior, which is synon-
ymous with excellent and advanced, which
is similar to innovative, which is similar to
new. Ambition is related to dream, vision
and will, which then connects with force
and strength. Experience is synonymous
with knowledge and skill, which is also
similar to competence. Thanks to this tech-
nique, a map of derived values was con-
structed, as shown in Figure 2.
Five clusters of values were then identi-
fied: unity, life, performance, competence
and vision. In order to visualize how
organizational names fit back into this map

Table 6: Keywords Implied by New Corporate Names

accord being energy high lively strength

advanced central excellence important new superior
agile competence experience innovative oxygen unique
agreement direction force intelligence skill unity
ambition dream future knowledge solution vision
answer drive guidance light spring vivacity
will

Figure 2: The values underlying corporate names

Page 314

Figure 3: Corporate names and corporate values
of values, they were placed back in a simi-
lar framework (Figure 3). Fourteen associa-
tive or suggestive names were excluded
from this map because they did not suggest
values or ideas but were associated with
their respective industry (eg Capitalia,
Omnicom, Sonera, Liberty Media) and/or
their country of origin (eg Swiss, Eircom).
Essentially, corporations were moving
along the spectrum from highly descriptive
names to more conceptual names. Among
those, associative names display a great
level of similarity both in sound (use of
Latin terminology) and in symbolism (clus-
ter of five ‘common’ values).
DISCUSSIONS AND INTERPRETATIONS:
WHAT IS IN A CORPORATE BRAND
NAME?
In order to confront corporate brand name
inventors with these initial findings and to
generate discussion, two brand naming
specialists were consulted. Olivier Auroy is
the European brand name specialist at
Landor Associates, an internationally
recognized branding and design consul-
tancy. Marcel Botton, CEO and founder
Muzellec
of Nomen, a leading naming agency, cred-
ited with the creation of famous new cor-
porate names such as Wanadoo, Vivendi
and Thales. The following section inte-
grates their reactions.
The literature review indicated that if
corporate brand naming was to go beyond
corporate identity and traditional branding,
it would need to overcome a series of
dilemmas. The following summarizes the
researcher’s analysis and indicates how cor-
porations elude the corporate naming pre-
dicament.
A New Corporate Name for Tomorrow’s
Corporate Brand
The types of corporate new names suggest
that corporations are geared towards the
future, disregarding their roots by drop-
ping the name of the founder of the com-
pany, the place where it was first set up
and the sector of industry from which it
emerged. The evolution from industry
association to non-figurative association
reflects the ambition of companies to put
forward values rather than relying on his-
torical attributes.
Page 315
What is in a Name Change?
In addition, according to brand specia-
lists, naming decisions are often made by
top management. As a result, there is an
emphasis on vision and future; indeed
many corporations such as Visteon, Veri-
zon, Accenture and BearingPoint have
adopted names that suggest the idea of
vision. If corporate brand management is a
dynamic process that involves continuous
adjustments between vision, culture and
peoples’ images (Hatch and Schultz 2003),
preferring one element at the expense of
the other might become problematic.
A New Corporate Name for a Global
Corporate Brand
The large number of names that sound alike
(Accambis, Altadis, Altria, Aventis, Aviva,
etc.) suggests that names were selected on
their ability to be widely accepted by the
lowest common denominator in the mar-
ketplace. As explained by brand naming
specialists, Latin is the common denomina-
tor of all European languages, including
English, which is increasingly used as the
international business language:
‘Ok, so you think that all those names
sound Latin because of the suffix ‘‘is’’; so
let’s take Altadis, (the Hispano-French
tobacco company) for example, and the
core word ‘‘Altad’’: Altade, with a
voiceless ‘‘e’’, it’s necessarily French;
otherwise it’s Italian, Altadou, it’s also
French. Altada, Altadi, Altado, it’s Italian.
Altadas, Altada, it’s Spanish. Altadu, it’s
Romanian. Altady, Altadey it’s English.
Altader, Altaden, it’s German. Altadis, it’s
more international . . . However, for the
record, Altadis, it’s Alliance, Tabac and
Distribution.’ (Bottom, personal
interview, 06/02/2004).
The similarities in sound are due to a belief
that an international corporation must
not bear a name denoting its country of
origin.
Page 316
A New Corporate Name to Resonate
with all Corporate Brand Audiences
The process used to select the best name for
a corporation may also explain some simi-
larities between the new corporate names.
Names are not selected based on their sal-
ience but on their capacity to be accepted
by a wide audience (Kohli and Labahn,
1997). As a result, a dull name might be
more acceptable than an eccentric one.
‘The name that is selected in the end —
which is not always the one that we
recommended — is the result of a compro-
mise reached in a corporate committee.
Everybody has an idea about what consti-
tutes a good name; eventually, it ends up
with what I would call an ‘‘idiominys’’3
(An ‘‘ignominious’’ Latin-coined word
for ‘‘idiot’’, ‘‘idiom’’ and ‘‘mini’’). The
least audacious option wins!’. (Auray,
personal interview, 06/02/2004).
A New Corporate Name to Conform with
Prevalent Practices
The natural apprehension towards novelty
and the common inclination to repeat what
seems to have worked elsewhere constitutes
a related explanation. Corporations con-
form to prevalent practices in their industry
and create names that follow institutiona-
lized models that suggest category member-
ship (Glynn and Abzug, 2002). Just like ‘oo’
became the distinctive feature of internet
brand names (Yahoo, Google, Kelkoo,
Wanadoo etc), Latin-coined names may be
becoming the common feature of newly
created corporate brands. Since ‘Lucent,
Thales, Vivendi’ have arguably reached
high levels of awareness, it was believed that
followers like ‘Aventis, Aviva and Elemen-
tis’ would reach the same level of visibility
with similar names.
A New Corporate Name to Induce
Universal Corporate Brand Values
To initiate positive associations, brand

names suggesting key values are being
chosen. The semantic analysis revealed five
summary values that occur frequently: per-
formance, competence, unity, vision and
liveliness. The extent to which a name
actually succeeds in inducing positive
associations is beyond the scope of the pre-
sent research. A review of articles on the
re-naming of CGNU (Aviva), Scottish
Power (Thus) and KPMG Consulting
(BearingPoint), however, can certainly
help managers to identify the potential pit-
falls of tampering with established names,
at least in terms of public relations (Brier-
ley, 2002; Dickson, 2002; Kellaway, 2002).
Additionally, the fact that the underly-
ing meaning of newly created corporate
names can be narrowed down to five prin-
ciples suggests convergence rather than dif-
ferentiation. Surely, most companies want
to perform well, to be coherent and to dis-
play some level of competency in their
respective fields. They most likely want to
be seen as lively as well. Indeed, a survey
conducted by the American Management
Association (2002) revealed that profitabil-
ity, innovation and ‘have fun’ were among
the most cited values. Aviva for example is
associated with ‘vitality and living well’,
but can Aviva ‘own’ — to paraphrase Ries
and Trout (2001) — the terms ‘vitality and
living well’? It is difficult to understand
what constitutes the distinguishing features
of such companies. All those names seem
to be interchangeable. Could Altria be a
consulting firm company, Aviva a food
and tobacco holding and BearingPoint an
insurance group — probably.
MANAGERIAL IMPLICATIONS:
CREATING A NAME TO CAPTURE THE
CORPORATE BRAND ESSENCE
Developing a corporate brand is about
defining the organization in a way that is
unique and distinctive. The goal of corpo-
rate branding is indeed primarily to create
a favorable image and differentiate the cor-
Muzellec
poration (Ind, 1998; Einwiller and Will,
2002). The collection of perceptions that
defines a brand can be intrinsically influ-
enced by the semantics of the name (Klink,
2001). Three options are available to man-
agers when it comes to choosing the name
of the corporate brand.
The first option is to keep the current
name of the corporation. Just like most
brands were product names before they
became brands, corporate names can be
transformed into corporate brands without
being modified or with little modification.
For instance, the name Banco Bilbao Viz-
caya Argentaria (BBVA) went from being
a ‘simple instrument of recognition’ to
being assimilated to an explicit brand
experience (Alloza et al., 2004).
The second option is to use the Joyce
principle to define the organization. The
role of influencing stakeholders’ percep-
tions could very well be assumed by
descriptive and suggestive corporate brand
names. A descriptive or suggestive name
can infer what the corporation does (indus-
try-related attributes) or what it stands for
(business values/culture attributes).
Descriptive names displayed in the FT
database often described the organizations’
activity, for example, Ebookers, ITV Digi-
tal, EasyInternetCafe and Nationwide
Accident Repair Services, but never
depicted a feature of the corporation, ie
there was no corporation with a name such
as Greatcorp, SuperServ, or Fast&Reliable.
Descriptive names are diminishing in
popularity, essentially because they offer
the lowest level of protection in terms of
trade mark (Davies, 2002). A suggestive
name such as Capitalia (ex-Banca di
Roma) may also succeed in representing
the corporation’s sector of activity.
Expressing what the company ‘stands
for’ is done through the use of associative
brand names that refer to the company’s
way of doing business or, in other words,
its business culture. Corporate brands can
Page 317
What is in a Name Change?
be defined as internal meanings formed
within the organizational culture (Berg-
strom et al., 2002; de Chernatony, 2002).
According to the ‘Joyce principle’, names
can carry intrinsically positive values that
provide the basis for a corporate communi-
cation programme which will reinforce
initial beneficial associations. The name
Altria, which suggests ‘an enterprise that
aims for peak performance and constant
improvement’4 is typical of this category.
When the corporate brand is supposed to
resonate to a wide audience, it becomes
more difficult to find values that appeal to
all kinds of stakeholders. It is interesting to
note that many names suggesting perfor-
mance such as Altria, Altadis or Excellon
are being promoted mainly to investors.
These corporate brands do not deal directly
with consumers; they either hide behind
their brand portfolio or are solely engaged
in BtoB relationships. Corporate brands
suggesting the idea of life such as Aviva,
O2 or Vivendi are more exposed to consu-
mers and are being communicated through
mass media. For many corporate brands,
however, it seems difficult to determine
who is their primary audience. As seen ear-
lier, the cornelian choice between differen-
tiation and acceptance among a variety of
stakeholders has led many corporations to
articulate universal values in a universal
manner. Applying the Joyce principle
might sometimes be too constraining
because it forces corporations to induce
associations within a restrictive framework.
Initiating favorable associations, how-
ever, is only one of the two main goals of
corporate brand naming. An equally cru-
cial aspect of corporate branding is to dif-
ferentiate the corporation in a crowded
marketplace. This might be better per-
formed with names based on the ‘Juliet
principle’. This third option does not
necessarily mean employing newly created,
abstract, meaningless words such as Kelda
or Zeneca. It may also include the use of
Page 318
existing words that are easily remembered
but applied in a new context. For example,
a colour or a fruit like Orange is applied to
the context of a telecommunications com-
pany. This strategy presents some advan-
tages. Starting from a clean sheet might
give corporations the opportunity to build
an ad hoc identity and create differentiation.
If identity is an abstract concept (Czar-
niawska, 2000), then a name should be able
to carry the fashionable values that domi-
nate at a certain time and place, ie a green
company or a fun company.
An ‘empty vessel’ name, free of intrinsic
associations, combined with thematic cor-
porate branding campaigns allows some
variability in the positioning of the cor-
poration. For instance, today ‘Orange, an
innovative company’; tomorrow, ‘Orange,
a reliable partner’. The only thing Orange
might find difficult to claim is ‘Orange, a
green enterprise’! Unfortunately, since
‘empty vessel’ names are meaningless, they
do not necessarily provide the company
with a credible story to tell. The conse-
quences in terms of acceptance levels can
be dramatic, particularly among staff.
‘Monday’, the briefly adopted name of
PWC Consulting, is a freestanding name.
A public relations exercise was supposed to
explain that Monday stood for ‘fresh think-
ing, doughnuts and hot coffee’. Employees
and other stakeholders, however, started to
associate ‘Monday’ with less favorable
although quite amusing images:
‘The word on the street is that the PWC
board called their creatives last Friday,
‘‘Have you come up with a name yet?’’,
they asked, ‘‘Probably Monday’’, said
their contact’
or
‘A quick straw poll in the office reveals
that most peoples’ opinion is not ‘‘a fresh
start, a positive attitude’’, but ‘‘I hate
 Muzellec

Table 7: Corporate Brand Naming Options

Same name Names based on the Names based on the ‘Juliet

‘Joyce principle’ principle’

Main Focus on Focus on values such as: Ability to focus on anything

characteristics heritage Life
Vision
Performance
Unity
Competence
Disadvantages Stuck with Limited range of values that No story to tell. May
past negative may not equally appeal to all alienate internal stakeholders
associations stakeholders
Advantages Acceptance, Induce positive attributes Allow for greater variability
recognition, in positioning
equity

Monday’’. But that fits with their opinion
of management consultants too’.5
The managerial implications are summar-
ized in the simplified template in Table 7.
The template provides managers with a
framework, which informs them of the
advantages and disadvantages of each
naming option. If the corporation can be
defined by something genuinely distinctive,
it might be worth looking for a descriptive
or suggestive name that captures the
uniqueness of the organization. Unfortu-
nately, this study reveals that newly created
brand names often capture only the general
aspirations of any corporation, eg compe-
tence and performance. If managers want
their brand to achieve differentiation, they
should avoid those five corporate brand
clichés.
CONCLUSION
As companies are becoming increasingly
aware of the importance of corporate
reputation, they are managing their corpo-
rate names more actively and treating
them as corporate brands rather than
merely as trade names. This study is con-
sistent with previous studies regarding cor-
porate name changes. The contribution
resides essentially in the analysis of the
meaning of associative names. It reveals
that the values promoted by new corpo-
rate brands revolve around the key notions
of liveliness, competence, performance,
unity and vision. By inducing the same
types of values through the same medium
(the use of Latin-coined names), however,
newly created corporate brands fail to
create differentiation. The use of associative
names could well be too restrictive by
nature. Corporations might be better off
choosing less sophisticated names whose
associations can be shaped by a proficient
branding programme. A factor that should
influence naming decisions is who is going
to be the primary audience of the newly
created corporate brand. As the anecdotal
evidence suggests that either associative or
freestanding names can be successful, how-
ever, this paper does not conclude that
some name types are more suitable than
others. Evaluating what makes a corporate
brand name successful could offer a direc-
tion for further research, unless one accepts
the proposition that thriving brand names

Page 319
What is in a Name Change?
are the result of fine poetry rather than
obedient science.
NOTES
1 Source: Enterprise IG 2002, 2003, 2004.
2 This definition, which is often used, was first
proposed in 1960 by the American Marketing
Association.
3 Originally in French, ‘compromots’, ie a compro-
mise on words.
4 Source: Altria.com. Available at: http://www.
altria.com/about_altria/01_01_corpidenchange.asp
(accessed September 10, 2003).
5 Available at: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/
2035803.stm (accessible February 10, 2005).
REFERENCES
Aaker, D.A. (1991) Managing Brand Equity — Capita-
lizing on the Value of a Brand Name, Free Press,
New York, NY.
Aaker, D.A. (1996) ‘Resisting temptations to change
a brand position/execution: The power of consis-
tency over time’, Journal of Brand Management,
3(4), 185–206.
Aaker, D.A. (2004) ‘Leveraging the corporate
brand’, California Management Review, 46(3), 6–20.
Albert, S. and Whetten, D. (1985) ‘Organizational
identity’, Research in Organizational Behavior, 7,
263–295.
Alloza, Á., Conley, S., Prado, F., Farfán, J. and
Espantaleón, R. (2004) ‘Creating the BBVA
experience: Beyond traditional brand manage-
ment’, Corporate Reputation Review, 7(1), 66.
American Management Association (2002) ‘AMA
2002 corporate value survey’, AMA Research,
New York, NY.
Balmer, J.M.T. (2001) ‘The three virtues and seven
deadly sins of corporate brand management’,
Journal of General Management, 25(7), 1–17.
Balmer, J.M.T. and Gray, E.R. (2003) ‘Corporate
brands: What are they? What of them?’, European
Journal of Marketing, 37(7/8), 972–997.
Balmer, J.M.T. and Greyser, S.A. (2002) ‘Managing
the multiple identities of the corporation’, Califor-
nia Management Review, 44(3), 76–86.
Balmer, J.M.T. and Greyser, S.A. (2003) Revealing
the Corporation: Perspectives on Identity, Image,
Reputation, Corporate Branding and Corporate-Level
Marketing, Routledge, London, UK.
Bergstrom, A., Blumenthal, D. and Crothers, S.
(2002) ‘Why internal branding matters: The
case of Saab’, Corporate Reputation Review, 5(2/3),
133.
Bernstein, D. (1984) Company Image and Reality: A
Page 320
Critique of Corporate Communications, Holt,
Rinehart and Winston Ltd, Eastbourne, UK.
Brierley, S. (2002) ‘The cult of the manager and the
rise of stupidity’, Marketing Week, 15 August, 23.
Brown, T.J. and Dacin, P.A. (1997) ‘The company
and the product: Corporate associations and
consumer product responses’, Journal of Marketing,
61(1), 68–84.
Collins, L. (1977) ‘A name to conjure with’,
European Journal of Marketing, 11(5), 339–363.
Czarniawska, B. (2000) ‘Identity lost or identity
found? Celebration and lamentation over the
postmodern view of identity in social science and
fiction’, in Schultz, M., Hatch, M.J. and Larsen,
M.H. (eds) The Expressive Organization: Linking
Identity, Reputation and the Corporate Brand,
Oxford University Press, Oxford, UK.
Dacin, P.A. and Brown, T.J. (2002) ‘Corporate
identity and corporate associations: A framework
for future research’, Corporate Reputation Review,
5(2/3), 254.
Davies, I. (2002) ‘Radio Taxi Cabs (London)
Limited v Owner Drive Radio Taxi Services
Limited’, Journal of Brand Management, 9(4/5), 400.
Davies, G. and Chun, R. (2002) ‘Gaps between the
internal and external perceptions of the corporate
brand’, Corporate Reputation Review, 5(2/3), 144.
de Chernatony, L. (2002) ‘Would a brand smell any
sweeter by a corporate name?’, Corporate Reputa-
tion Review, 5(2/3), 114.
Delattre, E. (2002) ‘Business name changes: The
French experience’, Journal of Small Business Man-
agement, 40(4), 360.
Dickson, M. (2002) ‘Aviva arriva’, Financial Times,
24 April, London, UK.
Dowling, G. (1996) ‘Corporate identity traps’, Aus-
tralian Graduate School of Management Working
Paper 96-002, Sydney, Australia.
Dunnion, B. and Knox, S. (2004) Understanding and
Managing Corporate Brands: A System Dynamics
Perspective, 7th Irish Academy of Management,
Trinity College, Dublin, Republic of Ireland.
Einwiller, S. and Will, M. (2002) ‘Towards an inte-
grated approach to corporate branding — An
empirical study’, Corporate Communications, 7(2),
100.
Fombrun, C.J. and Shanley, M. (1990) ‘What’s in a
name? Reputation building and corporate
strategy’, Academy of Management Journal, 33(2),
233.
Glynn, M.A. and Abzug, R. (2002) ‘Institutionaliz-
ing identity: Symbolic isomorphism and organiza-
tional names’, Academy of Management Journal,
45(1), 267–280.
Godin, S. (2002) Purple Cow: Transform Your Business

by Being Remarkable, Do You Zom Inc., New
York, NY.
Hatch, M.J. and Schultz, M. (1997) ‘Relations
between organizational culture, identity and
image’, European Journal of Marketing, 31(5/6), 356.
Hatch, M.J. and Schultz, M. (2003) ‘Bringing the
corporation into corporate branding’, European
Journal of Marketing, 37(7/8), 1041.
Ind, N. (1998) Making the Most of Your Corporate
Brand, Financial Times Prentice Hall, London,
UK.
Ind, N. (2003) ‘Inside out: How employees build
value’, Journal of Brand Management, 10(6), 393.
Interbrand (2005) Available at: http://www.brand
channel.com/education_glossary.asp#N (accessed
January 25, 2005).
Kellaway, L. (2002) ‘Beyond parody’, Financial
Times, 17 June, London, UK.
Keller, K.L. (2000) ‘Building and managing corpo-
rate brand equity’, in Schultz, M., Hatch, M.J.
and Larsen, M.H. (eds) The Expressive Organiza-
tion: Linking Identity, Reputation and the Corporate
Brand, Oxford University Press, Oxford, UK.
Keller, K.L., Heckler, S.E. and Houston, M.J. (1998)
‘The effects of brand name suggestiveness on
advertising recall’, Journal of Marketing, 62(2), 48.
King, S. (1991) ‘Brand-building in the 1990s’, The
Journal of Consumer Marketing, 8(4), 43.
Klink, R.R. (2001) ‘Creating meaningful new brand
names: A study of semantics and sound symbo-
lism’, Journal of Marketing Theory and Practice,
9(2), 27.
Kohli, C. and Hemnes, T.M. (1995) ‘A corporation
by any other name . . .?’, Business Horizons, 38(6),
29–33.
Kohli, C. and Labahn, D.W. (1997) ‘Creating effec-
tive brand names: A study of the naming process’,
Journal of Advertising Research, 37(1), 67–75.
Kotler, P. (1992) Marketing Management, Prentice
Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ.
Lamont, J. (2003) ‘Name game threatens Thales’,
Financial Times, 21 January, London, UK.
Lerman, D. and Garbarino, E. (2002) ‘Recall and
recognition of brand names: A comparison of
word and nonword name types’, Psychology &
Marketing, 19(7/8), 621.
Leuthesser, L. and Kohli, C. (1997) ‘Corporate
identity: The role of mission statements’, Business
Horizons, 40(3), 53–66.
Margulies, W. (1977) ‘Make the most of your corpo-
rate identity’, Harvard Business Review, 55(4),
July–August, 66–77.
McGurk, H. (2002) ‘Is brand new always a good
move for companies’, The News Letter, Belfast, 6.
Muzellec
Melewar, T.C. and Saunders, J. (2000) ‘Global cor-
porate visual identity systems: Using an extended
marketing mix’, European Journal of Marketing,
34(5/6), 538.
Muzellec, L., Lambkin, M.C. and Doogan, M.
(2003) ‘Corporate re-branding — An exploratory
review’, Irish Marketing Review, 16(2), 31–40.
Olins, W. (1979) ‘Corporate identity: The myth and
the reality’, Journal of the Royal Society of Arts,
127, 209–218.
Perkins, A.G. (1995) ‘Corporate identity: What’s in a
name?’ Harvard Business Review, 73(2), 11–13.
Restall, C. and Gordon, W. (1993) ‘Brands — The
missing link; understanding the emotional rela-
tionship’, Marketing and Research Today, 21(2), 59.
Ries, A. and Ries, L. (1999) The 22 Immutable Laws
of Branding, Harper Collins Business, New York,
NY.
Ries, A. and Trout, J. (2001) Positioning: The Battle
for Your Mind, McGraw-Hill, New York, NY.
Robertson, K. (1989) ‘Strategically brand name
characteristics’, Journal of Consumer Marketing,
6(4), 61.
Schmitt, B.H. and Simonson, A. (1997) Marketing
Aesthetics: The Strategic Management of Brands,
Identity and Image, Free Press, New York, NY.
Schultz, M. and de Chernatony, L. (2002) ‘Introduc-
tion: The challenges of corporate branding’, Cor-
porate Reputation Review, 5(2/3), 105.
Stuart, H. (1999) ‘Towards a definitive model of the
corporate identity management process’, Corporate
Communications, 4(4), 200.
Stuart, H. and Muzellec, L. (2004) ‘Corporate make-
overs: Can a hyena be rebranded?’, Journal of
Brand Management, 16(4), 472–482.
Tadelis, S. (1999) ‘What’s in a name? Reputation as
a tradable asset’, The American Economic Review,
89(3), 548.
Turley, L. and Moore, P. (1995) ‘Brand name strate-
gies in the service sector’, Journal of Consumer Mar-
keting, 12(4), 42–50.
Urde, M. (2003) ‘Core value-based corporate brand
building’, European Journal of Marketing, 37(7/8),
1017.
van Riel, C.B.M. and Balmer, J.M.T. (1997) ‘Cor-
porate identity: The concept, its measurement and
management’, European Journal of Marketing, 31(5/
6), 340.
Wiggins, J. (2003) ‘A new identity for a new life’,
Financial Times, 23 October, London, UK.
Yorkston, E. and Menon, G. (2004) ‘A sound idea:
Phonetic effects of brand names on consumer
judgments’, Journal of Consumer Research, 31(1),
43.
Page 321