企业重塑品牌的原则外文翻译.doc

企业重塑品牌的原则外文翻译毕业论文(设计)外文翻译一、外文原文标题：Principles of corporate rebranding原文：Literature reviewIn corporate bra nding, major classic works in elude Olins (1978,1994), Gregory (1991),Dowling (1994), Fombrun (1996) and Ind (1997). Although in valuable and creative, they tend to follow a relatively traditional marketi ng 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 bra nd, the role of experie nces and in ter nal bran ding. Rece nt special 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 bra nds, service bra nds (Berry, 2000; de Chernatony 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 bra nd literature is to con trast the n ature of corporate bra nds with product bra nds. Firstly, the orga nizati on features more strongly and explicitly in corporate bra nds (Hatch and Schultz, 2003). Culture and structure are critical for corporate brands, not simply for implementation reasons, but as a major part of the bra nd esse nee. Another way of expressi ng the orga nizati onal aspect is to emphasize the role of in ter nal processes or in ter nal bra nding as part of corporate branding (Bergstrom et al., 2002; Gapp and Merrilees, 2006; Vallaster and de Cher natony, 2006). Sec ondly, corporate bra nds are likely to be more central and strategic, controlled by higher-level management such as the Chief Executive Officer(Hatch and Schultz, 2003). Thirdly, corporate bra nds are likely to be more abstract, representing higher-order values (like freedom or purity) compared to more function ally based product bra nds (de Cher natony, 2002; Urde, 2003). Fourthly, corporate bra nds are more complex, with poten tially differe nt bra nd meanings across different stakeholders (Balmer and Greyser, 2002).Most relevant literature deals with specific issues such as the potential gap betwee n the espoused corporate brand and the actual bra nd 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 re bra nding can be con trasted to corporate brandi ng, which refers to the in itial cohere nt articulati on of the corporate brand and can occur at any time. Corporate re bra nding refers to the disjunction or change between an initially formulated corporate brand and a new formulation. The change in bra nd vision can be referred to as bra nd revisi on. The process of executi ng 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 consiste ntly to policy and procedure specificati ons (such as comm on 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.Shifti ng focus from corporate bra nding to corporate re bra nding, we find less research or conse nsus. An early academic paper on re bra nding was Berrys (1988) summary of Ogilvy and Mathers brand revitalization program. A comm on trigger for revitalizi ng bra nds is un der-performa nee (Kapferer, 1997). Using renaming, a n arrow approach to re bra riding, both Muzellec et al. (2003) and Muzellec and Lambkin (2006) found that structural factors such as mergers and acquisiti ons were the main drivers of re bra nding, with bra nd image improveme nt ran ked lower. Before focusi ng on re bra nding success factors, we note Stuart and Muzellecs (2004) argume nt that re bra nding may not be the soluti on to some problems. They suggest that re bra nding considerati ons include comprehe nsive assessme nt of pote ntial bene fits, clarity aboutwhat is being signaled, and checking that key stakeholders understand and support the proposed change.Four academic case studies make major contributions to understanding corporate re bra nding. Ewing et al. (1995) studied the re bra nding of Mazda (South Africa) with a change from a narrow focus on durability and reliability to a more complex and differe ntiati ng set of core values 一 quality, tech no logy and excitement. The main lessons were the needs for sensitivity to the existing customer base, strong advertising, and for in ter nal bra nding withi n the dealer network. These lessons were packa。