1、毕业论文（设计） 外文翻译 一、外文原文 标题： Principles of corporate rebranding 原文： Literature review In corporate branding, major classic works include Olins (1978, 1994), Gregory (1991),Dowling (1994), Fombrun (1996) and Ind (1997). Although invaluable and creative, they tend to follow a relatively traditional market
2、ing communication and planning framework. More recent books (Balmer and Greyser, 2003； Olins, 2003； Ind, 2004； Schultz et al., 2005； Schroeder and Salzer-Morling, 2006； de Chernatony, 2006) have focused on nuances such as living the brand, the role of experiences and internal branding. Recent specia
3、l issues of journals on the topic have extended the debate (Schultz and de Chernatony, 2002； Balmer, 2003； Balmer et al., 2006； Melewar and Karaosmanoglu, 2006). Although we refer to corporate brands, very similar properties apply to organisational brands, service brands (Berry, 2000； de Chernatony
4、and Segal-Horn, 2003； de Chernatony et al., 2005) and retailer brands (Birtwistle and Freathy, 1998； Burt and Sparks, 2002； Davies and Chun, 2002； Merrilees and Fry, 2002； Ailawadi and Keller, 2004), with a high degree of interchangeability across the terms. One way of summarizing the corporate bran
5、d literature is to contrast the nature of corporate brands with product brands. Firstly, the organization features more strongly and explicitly in corporate brands (Hatch and Schultz, 2003). Culture and structure are critical for corporate brands, not simply for implementation reasons, but as a majo
6、r part of the brand essence. Another way of expressing the organizational aspect is to emphasize the role of internal processes or internal branding as part of corporate branding (Bergstrom et al., 2002； Gapp and Merrilees, 2006； Vallaster and de Chernatony, 2006). Secondly, corporate brands are lik
7、ely to be more central and strategic, controlled by higher-level management such as the Chief Executive Officer (Hatch and Schultz, 2003). Thirdly, corporate brands are likely to be more abstract, representing higher-order values (like freedom or purity) compared to more functionally based product b
8、rands (de Chernatony, 2002； Urde, 2003). Fourthly, corporate brands are more complex, with potentially different brand meanings across different stakeholders (Balmer and Greyser, 2002). Most relevant literature deals with specific issues such as the potential gap between the espoused corporate brand
9、 and the actual brand image stakeholders may have of a company (Davies and Chun, 2002). However, Knox and Bickerton (2003) and Hatch and Shultz (2001, 2003) give useful frameworks for integrating components of corporate branding. Corporate rebranding can be contrasted to corporate branding, which re
10、fers to the initial coherent articulation of the corporate brand and can occur at any time. Corporate rebranding refers to the disjunction or change between an initially formulated corporate brand and a new formulation. The change in brand vision can be referred to as brand revision. The process of
11、executing the revision throughout the organization would most likely require a change management process. With corporate branding, organizational issues may well involve some changes, but the emphasis is on getting gall units to adhere consistently to policy and procedure specifications (such as com
12、mon letterheads or business cards, or the use of colors). However, with corporate rebranding, all units need to be moved from one mindset/culture to another. Shifting focus from corporate branding to corporate rebranding, we find less research or consensus. An early academic paper on rebranding was
13、Berrys (1988) summary of Ogilvy and Mathers brand revitalization program. A common trigger for revitalizing brands is under-performance (Kapferer, 1997). Using renaming, a narrow approach to rebranding, both Muzellec et al. (2003) and Muzellec and Lambkin (2006) found that structural factors such as
14、 mergers and acquisitions were the main drivers of rebranding, with brand image improvement ranked lower. Before focusing on rebranding success factors, we note Stuart and Muzellecs (2004) argument that rebranding may not be the solution to some problems. They suggest that rebranding considerations
15、include comprehensive assessment of potential benefits, clarity about what is being signaled, and checking that key stakeholders understand and support the proposed change. Four academic case studies make major contributions to understanding corporate rebranding. Ewing et al. (1995) studied the rebr
16、anding of Mazda (South Africa) with a change from a narrow focus on durability and reliability to a more complex and differentiating set of core values quality, technology and excitement. The main lessons were the needs for sensitivity to the existing customer base, strong advertising, and for inter
17、nal branding within the dealer network. These lessons were packaged as a simple marketing plan framework. Schultz and Hatch (2003) provide insights into the development processes undertaken by the LEGO Group in their corporate rebranding. The new brand values were articulated and followed by the int
18、erplay between the organizational culture and communicated image. The corporate brand traveled through a complex set of cycles in its new formulation, including the linkage across the three main elements (vision, culture, image), plus the involvement of all stakeholders and the integration of the th
19、ree elements. Interestingly, Schultz and Hatch (2003) conclude by posing paradoxes that require resolution if corporate rebranding is to succeed. Finally, Merrilees (2005) analyzed the rebranding of Canadian Tire, a major auto and leisure goods retailer, in response to competitive pressures. The stu
20、dy highlighted the roles of qualitative and quantitative market research, and company intuition to guide the new brand vision. Stakeholder management with staff, dealers, suppliers and management was featured, as was the role of a creative integrated marketing communication advertising strategy. The
21、 lessons were built into a theoretical framework, based on the three-stage process of changing the brand vision to brand-orientated commitment from stakeholders, and to brand strategy implementation including advertising and other changes to the marketing mix, linked to the new brand values. In summary, the current status of corporate rebranding theory is construed as an amalgam of the three dominant themes from the four case studies. Theme 1 is the need to re-vision the brand based on a solid understanding of the consumer, to meet
