(The) classification and characteristics of brand problems of corporate visual identity in mergers and acquisitions : focused in cross-border mergers since 1990
저자
발행사항
[Seoul] : Graduate School, Yonsei University, 2018
학위논문사항
학위논문(박사) -- Graduate School, Yonsei University Department of Visual Communication Design 2018.8
발행연도
2018
작성언어
영어
주제어
발행국(도시)
서울
기타서명
인수합병시에 발생하는 기업비주얼아이덴티티 브랜드문제의 유형 및 특징 연구 : 1990년 이후의 국경간합병 사례를 중심으로
형태사항
xix, 247 p. : 삽화 ; 26 cm
일반주기명
지도교수: Sukil Hong
UCI식별코드
I804:11046-000000516532
소장기관
The purpose of this study is to investigate the Brand Problems of Corporate Visual Identity (CVI) in Mergers and Acquisitions (M&A). We examined and analyzed the usage of design elements of CVIs of 214 cross-border mergers. The preservation of their naming, brandmark/symbol, color and typeface/typography as analyzed, and their utilization was assessed.
First, there are a total of three types of CVI in a post-merger case: Dominated CVI, New CVI, and Hybrid CVI. Among all merger CVIs, there were the fewest instances of ‘New CVI’ with only 34 cases out of 137, equivalent to about 25%. Specifically, the evidence of ‘Dominated CVI’ and ‘Hybrid CVI’ were present in 39% and in 36% of total, respectively. From the data, it is evident that post-merger companies are reluctant to experiment in making an entirely new CVI. When looking specifically at each individual industry category, a ‘Hybrid CVI’ appeared in 46% of mergers in the Information industry and in 78% of mergers in the Mining, Quarrying and Oil and Gas Extraction industry. This indicates that the industry category of the company is a factor of the type of CVI, whether a ‘New CVI’, a ‘Hybrid CVI’, or a ‘Dominated CVI’, the company produces following a merger.
Secondly, there are a total of four types of CVI in a post-acquisition case: New CVI, Hybrid CVI, Acquirer CVI, where the design elements of the acquiring party is featured dominantly, and Target CVI, where that of the acquired party is featured dominantly. The most interesting fact was that there were a lot more ‘Target CVI’ cases than first anticipated. ‘Acquirer CVIs’ did appeared most frequently with 41% of total, as predicted prior to the study, but ‘Target CVI’ also appeared in 23% of total. It was also interesting to see that a ‘Hybrid CVI’ appeared in 26% of all cases, more than twice as often as a ‘New CVI’ which appeared in 10% of all cases. The below table indicates the distribution of preserved design elements of post-merger and post-acquisition CVIs.
Thirdly, when comparing the distribution of preserved design elements between 137 mergers and 77 acquisitions cases, it is evident that a higher percentage of company names are preserved as a result of mergers while acquisitions show a higher rate of preservation of symbols, color patterns, and typefaces. The difference in result can be attributed to the difference in inherent character of each process. Companies involved in mergers foremost tend to experiment with existing company names – a verbal element – in attempt to maximize the synergy between the involved parties. Meanwhile, such synergy is less important in acquisitions where the naming of an acquired party is often eliminated or relegated to a sub-brand position. Companies in acquisitions tend to work more with non-verbal elements instead.
This concludes that companies, in developing a new CVI, work most often with existing names. This consequently means the companies are least likely to develop a new name entirely from scratch. The company still favors re-employing at least some of the design elements of the former company even when the company is being acquired financially. This in return means that the recognition power of the acquired company brand is still an important factor in the entire acquisition process. The color appears the second most frequently overall, meaning companies tend to express their identity using their distinct colors over symbols or lettered brandmarks. It is important to note companies’ understanding of color over shape (i.e., symbol or typeface) as the effective tool in brand recognition to consumers. While both color and shape jointly constitute object recognition and people will most efficiently perceive objects when observing both shape and color, color provides more cognitive information about the object than shape.
Our analysis results were vastly different from the matrix based on Etterson and Knowles’ version of the strategy. The deficiency foremost was in their method of defining a CVI design element; Etterson and Knowles introduced 10 new brand strategies utilizing the combinations of only the names and symbols. However, our research has clearly indicated that, in both mergers and acquisitions, the chance of preserving colors was higher than that of preserving symbols and that the chance of preserving typography was also worth considering given the fact that some companies favor a logo composed only of letters without a shape or a symbol. Thus, it can be concluded that the basis for Etterson and Knowles’ brand strategy is inadequate from the perspective of a member of the design industry who engages in practical CVI-making. Etterson and Knowles’ strategy was indeed designed from a marketing perspective, but displays a degree of detachment from the reality a design industry expert has to face when dealing with the situation of a M&A.
The last study was to investigate the topic of recognizability of post-M&A CVI elements. A total of 4 hypotheses were presented and quantitatively tested using the survey and data analysis. The results demonstrated that the preservation of verbal and non-verbal design elements do influence the recognizability of entities being portrayed.
In response to the first hypothesis which states ‘the preservation and the use of CVI elements has a positive effect on the recognizability of company brands’, the data indicated that any preservation of either verbal or non-verbal design elements positively affects the level of recognizability. The combination of naming—the verbal element—, color, and symbol in particular drew out the highest level of recognizability and the difference across each of 8 combinations was statistically significant (p<0.05).
In answering the second hypothesis ‘the number of preserved CVI elements has a positive effect on the recognizability of company brands’, the result indicated that the preservation of multiple design elements from both pre-M&A entities proved to affect the recognizability. The highest strength was reported when using the verbal element and all three non-verbal elements, and the difference across 4 groups was statistically significant (p<0.05).
The third hypothesis—‘as for using two design elements, the combination of naming, a verbal element, and color, a non-verbal element, is the most efficient’—was not supported by evidence. Instead, the combination of naming and symbol, the same elements identified by Etterson & Knowles as the identity elements, proved to be the most recognizable style. The result was statistically significant (p<0.05).
The data supported the fourth hypothesis, which argued ‘as for using three design elements, the combination of naming, a verbal element, and color and symbol, non-verbal elements, is the most efficient.’ Interestingly, the combination of naming, color, and symbol proved to be more recognizable than the combination using all four design elements.
This study was dedicated in evaluating the effect of the preservation of CVI design elements on the company brand’s recognizability in both quantitative and qualitative sense. In addition, the study also measured the difference in the level of recognizability when the number of preserved elements was equal. The study, however, also contained a number of limits. First, there was the overlap between the definitions of design elements. The second limit was in understanding the difference in method of preservation between elements. The validity of this study is limited due to the overlap in the properties and the difference in the method of preservation of design elements. Thus, in order to investigate the preservation and recognizability of design elements, it is imperative to identify such multifaceted elements when designing a more specified survey and experiment procedure. Also, it is necessary to retest the hypothesis upon minimizing the possibility of confusion in recognizing those elements contained in the CVIs of the survey’s hypothetical companies.
서지정보 내보내기(Export)
닫기소장기관 정보
닫기권호소장정보
닫기오류접수
닫기오류 접수 확인
닫기음성서비스 신청
닫기음성서비스 신청 확인
닫기이용약관
닫기학술연구정보서비스 이용약관 (2017년 1월 1일 ~ 현재 적용)
학술연구정보서비스(이하 RISS)는 정보주체의 자유와 권리 보호를 위해 「개인정보 보호법」 및 관계 법령이 정한 바를 준수하여, 적법하게 개인정보를 처리하고 안전하게 관리하고 있습니다. 이에 「개인정보 보호법」 제30조에 따라 정보주체에게 개인정보 처리에 관한 절차 및 기준을 안내하고, 이와 관련한 고충을 신속하고 원활하게 처리할 수 있도록 하기 위하여 다음과 같이 개인정보 처리방침을 수립·공개합니다.
주요 개인정보 처리 표시(라벨링)
목 차
3년
또는 회원탈퇴시까지5년
(「전자상거래 등에서의 소비자보호에 관한3년
(「전자상거래 등에서의 소비자보호에 관한2년
이상(개인정보보호위원회 : 개인정보의 안전성 확보조치 기준)개인정보파일의 명칭 | 운영근거 / 처리목적 | 개인정보파일에 기록되는 개인정보의 항목 | 보유기간 | |
---|---|---|---|---|
학술연구정보서비스 이용자 가입정보 파일 | 한국교육학술정보원법 | 필수 | ID, 비밀번호, 성명, 생년월일, 신분(직업구분), 이메일, 소속분야, 웹진메일 수신동의 여부 | 3년 또는 탈퇴시 |
선택 | 소속기관명, 소속도서관명, 학과/부서명, 학번/직원번호, 휴대전화, 주소 |
구분 | 담당자 | 연락처 |
---|---|---|
KERIS 개인정보 보호책임자 | 정보보호본부 김태우 | - 이메일 : lsy@keris.or.kr - 전화번호 : 053-714-0439 - 팩스번호 : 053-714-0195 |
KERIS 개인정보 보호담당자 | 개인정보보호부 이상엽 | |
RISS 개인정보 보호책임자 | 대학학술본부 장금연 | - 이메일 : giltizen@keris.or.kr - 전화번호 : 053-714-0149 - 팩스번호 : 053-714-0194 |
RISS 개인정보 보호담당자 | 학술진흥부 길원진 |
자동로그아웃 안내
닫기인증오류 안내
닫기귀하께서는 휴면계정 전환 후 1년동안 회원정보 수집 및 이용에 대한
재동의를 하지 않으신 관계로 개인정보가 삭제되었습니다.
(참조 : RISS 이용약관 및 개인정보처리방침)
신규회원으로 가입하여 이용 부탁 드리며, 추가 문의는 고객센터로 연락 바랍니다.
- 기존 아이디 재사용 불가
휴면계정 안내
RISS는 [표준개인정보 보호지침]에 따라 2년을 주기로 개인정보 수집·이용에 관하여 (재)동의를 받고 있으며, (재)동의를 하지 않을 경우, 휴면계정으로 전환됩니다.
(※ 휴면계정은 원문이용 및 복사/대출 서비스를 이용할 수 없습니다.)
휴면계정으로 전환된 후 1년간 회원정보 수집·이용에 대한 재동의를 하지 않을 경우, RISS에서 자동탈퇴 및 개인정보가 삭제처리 됩니다.
고객센터 1599-3122
ARS번호+1번(회원가입 및 정보수정)