HISTORY

The predecessor to Burger King was founded in 1953 in Jacksonville, Florida, as

Insta-Burger King. After visiting the McDonald brothers' original store location in San
Bernardino, California, the founders and owners (Keith J. Kramer and his wife's uncle
Matthew Burns), who had purchased the rights to two pieces of equipment called "Insta-
machines", opened their first restaurants. Their production model was based on one of the
machines they had acquired, an oven called the "Insta-Broiler". This strategy proved to be so
successful that they later required all of their franchises to use the device. After the company
faltered in 1959, it was purchased by its Miami, Florida, franchisees, James McLamore and
David R. Edgerton. They initiated a corporate restructuring of the chain, first renaming the
company Burger King. They ran the company as an independent entity for eight years
(eventually expanding to over 250 locations in the United States), before selling it to
the Pillsbury Company in 1967.

Logo from May 1, 1969, until April 30, 1994

1
 Logo from May 1, 1994, until June 30, 1999

Logo from July 1, 1999, until January 6, 2021. Burger King intends to phase out this logo on
locations with the current brand.

Burger King Big Whopper meal (burgers wrapped)

Pillsbury's management tried several times to restructure Burger King during the late 1970s
and the early 1980s. The most prominent change came in 1978 when Burger King
hired McDonald's executive Donald N. Smith to help revamp the company. In a plan called
"Operation Phoenix", Smith restructured corporate business practices at all levels of the
company. Changes included updated franchise agreements, a broader menu and new
standardized restaurant designs. Smith left Burger King for PepsiCo in 1980 shortly before a
system-wide decline in sales.

Pillsbury's Executive Vice President of Restaurant Operations Norman E. Brinker was

tasked with turning the brand around, and strengthening its position against its main rival

2
McDonald's. One of his initiatives was a new advertising campaign featuring a series
of attack ads against its major competitors. This campaign started a competitive period
between Burger King, McDonald's, and top burger chains known as the Burger wars. Brinker
left Burger King in 1984, to take over Dallas-based gourmet burger chain Chili's.

Smith and Brinker's efforts were initially effective, but after their respective departures,
Pillsbury relaxed or discarded many of their changes, and scaled back on construction of new
locations. These actions stalled corporate growth and sales declined again, eventually
resulting in a damaging fiscal slump for Burger King and Pillsbury. Poor operation and
ineffectual leadership continued to bog down the company for many years.

Pillsbury was eventually acquired by the British entertainment conglomerate Grand

Metropolitan in 1989. Initially, Grand Met attempted to bring the chain to profitability under
newly minted CEO Barry Gibbons; the changes he initiated during his two-year tenure had
mixed results, as successful new product introductions and tie-ins with The Walt Disney
Company were offset by continuing image problems and ineffectual advertising
programs. Additionally, Gibbons sold off several of the company's assets in an attempt to
profit from their sale and laid off many of its staff members.

After Gibbon's departure, a series of CEOs each tried to repair the company's brand
by changing the menu, bringing in new ad agencies and many other changes. The parental
disregard of the Burger King brand continued with Grand Metropolitan's merger
with Guinness in 1997 when the two organizations formed the holding
company Diageo. Eventually, the ongoing systematic institutional neglect of the brand
through a string of owners damaged the company to the point where major franchises were
driven out of business, and its total value was significantly decreased. Diageo eventually
decided to divest itself of the money-losing chain and put the company up for sale in 2000.

An example of the 20/20 concept interior at a Burger King in Cork, Ireland

3
 The 21st century saw the company return to independence when it was purchased
from Diageo by a group of investment firms led by TPG Capital for US$1.5 billion in
2002. The new owners rapidly moved to revitalize and reorganize the company, culminating
with the company being taken public in 2006 with a highly successful initial public
offering. The firms' strategy for turning the chain around included a new advertising agency
and new ad campaigns, a revamped menu strategy, a series of programs designed to revamp
individual stores, a new restaurant concept called the BK Whopper Bar, and a new design
format called 20/20. These changes successfully re-energized the company, leading to a score
of profitable quarters. Yet, despite the successes of the new owners, the effects of
the financial crisis of 2007–2010 weakened the company's financial outlooks while those of
its immediate competitor McDonald's grew. The falling value of Burger King eventually led
to TPG and its partners divesting their interest in the chain in a US$3.26 billion sale to 3G
Capital of Brazil. Analysts from financial firms UBS and Stifel Nicolaus agreed that 3G
would have to invest heavily in the company to help reverse its fortunes. After the deal was
completed, the company's stock was removed from the New York Stock Exchange, ending a
four-year period as a public company. The delisting of its stock was designed to help the
company repair its fundamental business structures and continue working to close the gap
with McDonald's without having to worry about pleasing shareholders. In the United States
domestic market, the chain has fallen to third place in terms of same store sales behind Ohio-
based Wendy's. The decline is the result of 11 consecutive quarters of same store sales
decline.

In August 2014, 3G announced that it planned to acquire the Canadian restaurant and
coffee shop chain Tim Hortons and merge it with Burger King with backing from Warren
Buffett's Berkshire Hathaway. The two chains will retain separate operations post-merger,
with Burger King remaining in its Miami headquarters. A Tim Hortons representative stated
that the proposed merger would allow Tim Hortons to leverage Burger King's resources for
international growth. The combined company will be the third-largest international chain of
fast-food restaurants. The deal lead to a controversy over the practice of tax inversions, in
which a company decreases the amount of taxes it pays by moving its headquarters to a tax
haven, a country with lower rates but maintains the majority of their operations in their
previous location. As a high-profile instance of tax inversion, news of the merger was
criticized by U.S. politicians, who felt that the move would result in a loss of tax revenue to
foreign interests, and could result in further government pressure against inversions.

4
In 2019, Burger King reported that it planned to close up to 250 low-volume locations per
year, with closures coming into effect in 2020.

In February 2021, Burger King began testing a customer loyalty rewards program called
"Royal Perks" in Los Angeles, Miami, New York City, New Jersey and Long Island, New
York.

In March 2022, Burger King suspended all its corporate support, including operations,
marketing, supply chain, investments and expansion in Russia in response to the 2022
Russian invasion of Ukraine. It halted its corporate support to the more than 800 fully
franchised restaurant chains in Russia managed by a local master franchisee. However,
the International Consortium of Investigative Journalism revealed that Burger King retained
its stake in the Russian franchises through an offshore joint venture with the Russian state-
owned VTB Bank and a Ukrainian investment firm linked to corrupt deals with Ukraine's
former pro-Russian leader.

STRUCTURE AND OPERATIONS

Burger King restaurant in Bulacan, Philippines

Burger King Holdings is the parent company of Burger King, also known as Burger
King Corporation and abbreviated BKC, and is a Delaware corporation formed on July 23,
2002. A subsidiary, it derives its income from several sources, including property rental and
sales through company owned restaurants; however, a substantial portion of its revenue is
dependent on franchise fees. During the transitional period after the acquisition of the
company by 3G Capital, Burger King's board of directors was co-chaired by John W.
Chidsey, formerly CEO and chairman of the company, and Alex Behring, managing partner
of 3G Capital. By April 2011, the new ownership completed the restructuring of Burger
King's corporate management and Chidsey tendered his resignation, leaving Behring as CEO
and chair.

5
 The company operates approximately 40 subsidiaries globally that oversee franchise
operations, acquisitions and financial obligations such as pensions.  One example of a
subsidiary is Burger King Brands, Inc. which is responsible for the management of Burger
King's intellectual properties. A wholly owned subsidiary established in 1990, Burger King
Brands owns and manages all trademarks, copyrights and domain names used by the
restaurants in the United States and Canada. It is also responsible for providing marketing
and related services to the parent company.

AFTER 2011

In 2011, the majority of Burger King restaurants, approximately 90%, were privately
held franchises. In North America, Burger King Corporation is responsible for licensing
operators and administering of stores. Internationally, the company often pairs with other
parties to operate locations or it will outright sell the operational and administrative rights to
a franchisee which is given the designation of master franchise for the territory. The master
franchise will then be expected to sub-license new stores, provide training support, and
ensure operational standards are maintained. In exchange for the oversight responsibilities,
the master franchise will receive administrative and advertising support from Burger King
Corporation to ensure a common marketing scheme. The 3G Capital ownership group
announced in April 2011 that it would begin divesting itself of many corporate owned
locations with the intent to increase the number of privately held restaurants to 95%. As of
2016, the percentage of privately owned Burger King establishments grew to 99.5%.

As the franchisor for the brand, Burger King Holdings has several obligations and
responsibilities; the company designs and deploys corporate training systems while
overseeing brand standards such as building design and appearance. The company also
develops new products and deploys them after presenting them to its franchises for approval
per a 2010 agreement between itself and the franchise ownership groups. Burger King has
limited approval over franchise operations such as minimum hours of operation and
promotional pricing. Additionally, Burger King designates approved vendors and distributors
while ensuring safety standards at the production’s facilities of its vendors.

Burger King is headquartered in a nine-story office tower by the Miami International

Airport in unincorporated Miami-Dade County, Florida. Elaine Walker of the Miami
Herald stated that the headquarters has a "Burger King" sign that drivers on State Road
836 "can't miss". In addition, the chain planned to build a neon sign on the roof to advertise

6
the brand to passengers landing at the airport. On Monday July 8, 2002, 130 employees began
working at the Burger King headquarters with the remainder moving in phases in August
2002. Prior to the moving to its current headquarters in 2002, Burger King had considered
moving away from the Miami area to Texas; Miami-Dade County politicians and leaders
lobbied against this, and Burger King stayed. In August 2014, the future of the company's
Miami headquarters was again in doubt as reports surfaced that Burger King was in talks
about buying the Canadian restaurant chain Tim Hortons, with a view to relocating its
headquarters to Canada where the corporate tax rate was lower. The merger between Burger
King and Tim Hortons created the fast food company now known as Restaurant Brands
International Inc.

The company's previous headquarters were in a southern Dade County campus

located on Old Cutler Boulevard in the Cutler census-designated place. The former Burger
King headquarters as of 2007 houses rental offices for several companies.

Franchises

When Burger King Corporation began franchising in 1959, it used a regional model
where franchisees purchased the right to open stores within a geographic region.
These franchise agreements granted BKC very little oversight control of its franchisees and
resulted in issues of product quality control, store image and design, and operational
procedures.

During the 1970s, structural deficiencies in Burger King's franchise system became
increasingly problematic for Pillsbury. A major example was the relationship between Burger
King and Louisiana-based franchisee Chart House, Burger King's largest franchisee group at
the time with over 350 locations in the United States. The company's owners, William and
James Trotter, made several moves to take over or acquire Burger King during the 1970s, all
of which were spurned by Pillsbury. After the failed attempts to acquire the company, the
relationship between Chart House and Burger King soured and eventually devolved into a
lawsuit. Chart House eventually spun off its Burger King operations in the early 1980s into a
holding company called DiversiFoods which, in turn, was acquired by Pillsbury in 1984 and
absorbed into Burger King's operations.

As part of the franchising reorganization segment of Operation Phoenix, Donald N.

Smith initiated a restructuring of future franchising agreements in 1978. Under this new
franchise agreement, new owners were disallowed from living more than one hour from their

7
restaurants – restricting them to smaller individuals or ownership groups and preventing
large, multi-state corporations from owning franchises. Franchisees were also now prohibited
from operating other chains, preventing them from diverting funds away from their Burger
King holdings. This new policy effectively limited the size of franchisees and prevented
larger franchises from challenging Burger King Corporation as Chart House had. Smith also
sought to have BKC be the primary owner of new locations and rent or lease the restaurants
to its franchises. This policy would allow the company to take over the operations of failing
stores or evict those owners who would not conform to the company guidelines and
policies. By 1988, parent company Pillsbury had relaxed many of Smith's changes, scaling
back on construction of new locations, which resulted in stalled growth of the brand. Neglect
of Burger King by new owner Grand Metropolitan and its successor Diageo further hurt the
standing of the brand, causing significant financial damage to BK franchises and straining
relations between the parties.

A Burger King franchise adapted to operate in the historic district of Oaxaca, Mexico
DURING 2001

By 2001 and after nearly 18 years of stagnant growth, the state of its franchises was
beginning to affect the value of the company. One of the franchises most heavily affected by
the lack of growth was the nearly 400-store AmeriKing Inc., one of the largest Burger King
franchisees. By 2002, the franchise owner, which until this point had been struggling under a
nearly US$300 million debt load and been shedding stores across the US, was forced to
enter Chapter 11 bankruptcy. The failure of AmeriKing deeply affected the value of Burger
King, and put negotiations between Diageo and the TPC Capital-led group on hold. The
developments eventually forced Diageo to lower the total selling price of the chain by
almost $750 million. After the sale, newly appointed CEO Brad Blum initiated a program to
help roughly 20 percent of its franchises, including its four largest, who were in financial
distress, bankruptcy or had ceased operations altogether. Partnering with California-based

8
Trinity Capital, LLC, the company established the Franchisee Financial Restructuring
Initiative, a program to address the financial issues facing BK's financially distressed
franchisees. The initiative was designed to assist franchisees in restructuring their businesses
to meet financial obligations, focus on restaurant operational excellence, reinvest in their
operations, and return to profitability.

Individual franchisees took advantage of the AmeriKing failure; one of BK's regional
owners, Miami-based Al Cabrera, purchased 130 stores located primarily in the Chicago and
the upper mid-west region, from the failed company for a price of $16 million, approximately
88 percent of their original value. The new company, which started out as Core Value
Partners and eventually became Heartland Foods, also purchased 120 additional stores from
distressed owners and revamped them. The resulting purchases made Cabrera the largest
minority franchisee of Burger King, and Heartland one of the company's top franchises. By
2006, the company was valued at over $150 million, and was sold to New York–based GSO
Capital Partners. Other purchasers included a three-way group of NFL athletes Kevin
Faulk, Marcus Allen, and Michael Strahan who collectively purchased 17 stores in the cities
of Norfolk and Richmond, Virginia; and Cincinnati-based franchisee Dave Devoy, who
purchased 32 AmeriKing stores. After investing in new decor, equipment and staff retraining,
many of the formerly failing stores showed growth approaching 20 percent.

As part of 3G's restructuring plan, the company decided to divest itself of its corporate
owned locations by re-franchising them to private owners and become a 100% franchised
operation by the end of 2013. The project, which began in April 2012, saw the company
divest corporate-owned locations in Florida, Canada, Spain, Germany, and other regions. The
move gave the company a Q3, 2013 profit of US$68.2 million over the same quarter, 2012 of
US$6.6 million.

At the end of its 2013 fiscal year, Burger King was the second largest chain of
hamburger fast food restaurants in terms of global locations, Behind industry bellwether
McDonald's, which had 32,400 locations. At the end of 2014, Burger King ranked fourth
among US food chains in terms of US sales, behind McDonald's, Starbucks,
and Subway. Burger King now has over 12,000 stores worldwide.

INTERNATIONAL OPERATIONS

While BK began its foray into locations outside of the continental United States in 1963 with
a store in San Juan, Puerto Rico, it did not have an international presence until several years

9
later. Shortly after the acquisition of the chain by Pillsbury, it opened its first Canadian
restaurant in Windsor, Ontario in 1969. Other international locations followed soon after,
including Australia in 1971, with a restaurant in the Perth suburb of Innaloo, and Europe in
1975, with a restaurant in Madrid. Beginning in 1982, BK and its franchisees began operating
stores in several East Asian countries, including Japan, Taiwan, Singapore and South
Korea. Due to high competition, all of the Japanese locations were closed in 2001; however,
BK re-entered the Japanese market in June 2007. BK's Central and South American
operations began in Mexico in the late 1970s and by the early 1980s in Caracas,
Venezuela, Santiago, Chile, and Buenos Aires, Argentina. While Burger King lags behind
McDonald's in international locations by over 12,000 stores, as of 2008 it had managed to
become the largest chain in several countries including Mexico and Spain. The company
divides its international operations into three segments; the Middle East, Europe and Africa
division (EMEA), Asia-Pacific (APAC) and Latin America and the Caribbean (LAC).   In
each of these regions, Burger King has established several subsidiaries to develop strategic
partnerships and alliances to expand into new territories. In its EMEA group, Burger King's
Switzerland-based subsidiary Burger King Europe GmbH is responsible for the licensing and
development of BK franchises in those regions. In APAC region, the Singapore-based BK
AsiaPac, Pte. Ltd. business unit handles franchising for East Asia, the Asian subcontinent and
all Oceanic territories. The LAC region includes Mexico, Central and South America and the
Caribbean Islands and has no centralized operations group.

Burger King at the Helsinki Airport in Vantaa, Finland

Australia is the only country in which Burger King does not operate under its own
name. When the company set about establishing operations down under in 1971, it found that
its business name was already trademarked by a takeaway food shop in Adelaide. As a result,
Burger King provided the Australian franchisee, Jack Cowin, with a list of possible
alternative names derived from pre-existing trademarks already registered by Burger King

10
and its then corporate parent Pillsbury, that could be used to name the Australian restaurants.
Cowin selected the "Hungry Jack" brand name, one of Pillsbury's US pancake mixture
products, and slightly changed the name to a possessive form by adding an apostrophe "s"
forming the new name Hungry Jack's. After the expiration of the trademark in the late 1990s,
Burger King unsuccessfully tried to introduce the brand to the continent. After losing a
lawsuit filed against it by Hungry Jack's ownership, the company ceded the territory to its
franchisee. Hungry Jack's is now the only Burger King brand in Australia; Cowin's company
Hungry Jack's Pty Ltd. is the master franchise and thus is now responsible for oversight of the
operations that country with Burger King only providing administrative and advertising
support to ensure a common marketing scheme for the company and its products.

Burger King in Beijing International Airport, Beijing, China

Over a 10-year period starting in 2008, Burger King predicted 80 percent of its market share
would be driven by foreign expansion, particularly in the Asia-Pacific and Indian
subcontinent regional markets. While the TPG-led group continued BK's international
expansion by announcing plans to open new franchise locations in Eastern Europe, Africa
and the Middle East, and Brazil, the company plan is focusing on the three largest markets –
India, China, and Japan. The company plans to add over 250 stores in these Asian territories,
as well as other places such as Macau, by the end of 2012. Its expansion into the Indian
market has the company at a competitive disadvantage with other fast food restaurants such
as KFC because of the aversion of the country's large Hindu majority to beef. BK hopes to
use their non-beef products, such as their Tender Crisp and Tender Grill chicken sandwiches,
as well as other products like mutton sandwiches and veggie sandwiches, to help them
overcome this hurdle to expand in that country. 3G has reported that it will continue with the
plans to grow globally, even ramping up the planned expansion to help increase their return
on investment.   It is expected that 3G Brazilian-based management connections in the region

11
may help Burger King expand in Brazil and Latin America, where it has been having
problems finding acceptable franchisees.

In December 2020, Burger King India went in for an initial public offering (IPO) on
the BSE and NSE in India. The IPO was subscribed over 150 times. The stock opened
at ₹112.5 per share on December 14, nearly double the IPO price of ₹60, and closed at ₹135.

Products

When the predecessor of Burger King first opened in Jacksonville in 1953, its menu consisted
predominantly of basic hamburgers, French fries, soft drinks, milkshakes, and desserts. After
being acquired by its Miami, Florida, franchisees and renamed to its current moniker in 1954,
BK began expanding the breadth of its menu by adding the Whopper sandwich in 1957. This
quarter-pound (4 oz (110 g)) hamburger was created by Burger King's new owners James
McLamore and David Edgerton as a way to differentiate BK from other burger outlets at the
time. Since its inception, the Whopper has become synonymous with Burger King and has
become the focus of much of its advertising. The company even named its new kiosk-style
restaurants Whopper Bars.

The menu component of Donald Smith's Operation Phoenix was initiated in 1978 and led to
the addition of the Burger King Specialty Sandwich line in 1979. The new product line
significantly expanded the breadth of the BK menu with many non-hamburger sandwiches,
including new chicken and fish offerings. The new Specialty Sandwich line was one of the
first attempts to target a specific demographic, in this case, adults 18–34, who would be
willing to spend more on a higher quality product. One of Smith's other significant
contributions to the menu was the addition of a breakfast product line, which until this time
was not a market Burger King had entered. Besides the addition of the Croissan'Wich in
1983, the breakfast menu remained almost identical to the McDonald's offerings until a menu
revamp in 1985. This expansion introduced BK's "AM Express" product line, which added
new products such as French toast sticks and mini-muffins.

As the company expanded both inside and outside the US, it introduced localized versions of
its products that conform to regional tastes and cultural or religious beliefs. International
variations add ingredients such as teriyaki or beetroot and fried egg to the Whopper; beer in
Germany, Italy, and Spain; and halal or kosher products in the Middle East and Israel. To
generate additional sales, BK will occasionally introduce limited time offers (LTOs) that are

12
versions of its core products, or new products intended for either long or short term sales.
Items such as the Texas Double Whopper and various sandwiches made
with mushrooms and Swiss cheese have been rotated in and out of its menu for several
years, while products such as its 1993 Meatloaf Specialty Sandwich offering and
accompanying limited table service, along with special dinner platters, failed to generate
interest and were discontinued.

A meal including small French fries, a Whopper Jr., a drink, and packets of Heinz ketchup

In order to appeal to as many demographic groups as possible and better compete with its
competitor, Wendy's, Burger King added a multi-tiered value menu in 1993 with items priced
at 99¢, US$1.99 and $2.99. The additions, part of then CEO James Adamson's back-to-basics
program called Operation Phoenix, were an attempt to add not only a value menu, but also a
line of value meals. The tiered menu was replaced with a more standard value menu in 1998
while the value meals were separated into their own menu segment. This value menu featured
seven products: Whopper Jr., five-piece Chicken Tenders, a bacon cheeseburger, medium-
sized French fries, medium soft drink, medium onion rings, and small shake. In 2002 and
2006, BK revamped its value menu, adding and removing several different products such
as chili and its Rodeo Cheeseburger. Many of these items have since been discontinued,
modified or relegated to a regional menu option. To better appeal to a more adult palate and
demographic, BK introduced several new products to its menu in 2003, including several new
or revamped chicken products, a new salad line and its BK Joe brand of coffee. Some of the
new products, including its Enormous Omelet Sandwich line and the BK Stacker line,
brought negative attention due to the large portion size, and amounts of unhealthy fats and
trans-fats. Many of these products featured higher quality ingredients like whole chicken
breast, Angus beef, and natural cheeses such as cheddar and pepper jack. Again, not all these
products, such as the BK Baguette line, have met corporate sales expectations.

13
With the purchase of the company in 2010, 3G began a program to restructure its menu
designed to move away from the male-oriented menu that had dominated under the previous
ownership. The first major item to be introduced was a reformulation of its BK Chicken
Tenders product in March 2011. Over the next few months, approximately 20 new products
were researched and developed while others were reformulated, including its Chef's Choice
Burger. Eventually pruned down to 10 items, Burger King began deploying the items in the
United States throughout 2011–2012 with the official roll out beginning April 2012. The
changes included new soft serve products, smoothies, frappés and chicken strips. The
Whopper was the most prominently reformulated product in this round of introductions with
a new type of cheese and packaging.

At the end of 2015, Burger King's parent company, Restaurant Brands International,
announced that none of its subsidiaries would use chicken that had been fed antibiotics that
are "critically important" to human health; that announcement referred only to a small class
of antibiotics for which there is only one drug that kill a kind of bacteria and the
announcement was described as a "small step" by advocates for stopping all antibiotic use in
livestock.

In 2019, Burger King released an "Impossible Whopper" burger, a vegetarian burger using a
plant-based patty from Impossible Foods.

In February 2020, Burger King accounted that it will remove artificial preservatives, colours,
and flavours from the Whopper by the end of 2020. In July 2020, BK announced it would
begin selling a Whopper patty made from cows on a low methane diet.

In late 2021 and early 2022, the company announced it would cut back on value items and
altered product configuration due to inflationary pressures and to speed up drive-thru lanes.

After successfully testing vegan products at meat-free temporary restaurants in Leicester

Square and Bristol, Burger King UK announced that in 2023 it would offer a Vegan Royale
Bakon King, made with vegan bacon, vegan cheese and a vegan burger made by The
Vegetarian Butcher.

14
OBJECTIVE

⮚ To determine the effect of rebranding as a change strategy on customer attitudes.

⮚ To determine the relationship between rebranding and customer loyalty.
⮚ To know the impact of rebranding on sales.
⮚ To know how rebranding affected the company.
⮚ To offer findings and suggestions for the improvement of the company

DEFINITIONS

 REBRANDING:

Rebranding is the process of changing the corporate image of an organisation. It is a market

strategy of giving a new name, symbol, or change in design for an already-established brand.
The idea behind rebranding is to create a different identity for a brand.

There are several reasons for a company to go for rebranding. One prominent factor
is to connect with customers. Rebranding is good for the business, but at the same time it may
be risky.

There is always a possibility that the consumers do not like the new brand.
There are two types of rebranding: one is Proactive rebranding and the other is Reactive
rebranding. Proactive rebranding is done when a company recognises that there is an
opportunity to grow, innovate, tap into new businesses or customers, and to reconnect with its
users.

Let’s understand with the help of an example – Titan Industries rebranded itself in 2013 and
changed the logo as well as the name to Titan Company. The new logo highlighted the
company’s commitment to "create value, innovate, and maintain highest global standards".
Reactive rebranding is done in a situation when the existing brand has be discontinued or
changed. Possible reasons for such a action could be mergers & acquisitions, legal issues,
negative publicity such as fraud, aiming to beat the competition, or create your own niche.

15
  BRAND

Abrand is a product, service or concept that is publicly distinguished from other products,
services or concepts so that it can be easily communicated and usually marketed.

Branding is the process of creating and disseminating the brand name, its qualities and
personality. Branding could be applied to the entire corporate identity as well as to individual
products and services or concepts.

Well-known advertising copywriter and ad agency founder David Ogilvy defined a brand as:
"the intangible sum of a product's attributes: its name, packaging, and price, its history, its
reputation, and the way it's advertised."

 BRAND LOYALTY-

Unlike customer loyalty, which is money-based (prices and discounts), brand loyalty
is perception-based (image and experience). Brand-loyal customers believe that a certain
brand represents both higher quality and better service than any competitor—and the price
does not matter. Brand-loyal customers might make fewer total purchases, but the profit
margins on their purchases are larger. Once established, brand loyalty is fairly easy to
retain—assuming, of course, that product quality and service level remain high. Brand loyalty
is also less expensive to retain than customer loyalty, which requires constantly offering low
prices and regular discounts to maintain best-deal-on-the-market status.

SCOPE OF THE STUDY

This study is done to know the positive impacts of rebranding in burger king. I analysed the
increase in sales due to rebranding and also the change in customers attitude and the
popularity increase through questionnaires. It helps to determine the impact of rebranding and
how it helped burger king grow.

STATEMENT OF THE PROBLEM

The service brand name is the most important component of the brand and an
important source of information to the customer, because service attributes are difficult to

16
communicate via other means (Turly and Moore, 1995). Academics suggest that the change
of a company’s name should be done only when there are no other alternative solutions (Kilic
and Dursun, 2006). Renaming indeed could have more disastrous consequences than a simple
loss of clients (Thurtle, 2002). In addition, this strategy involves tremendous costs such as
advertising, legal fees, promotions among others. The need for rebranding can be attested to
rapidly changing business environment characterized by ever rising competition and
uncertainties of consumer behaviour and attitudes. To overcome such challenges, marketers
attempt to develop new branding strategies to create more brand values which are hard
imitate by competitors and that will be more appealing to the target market. The rebranding
strategies have been focused towards changing visual brand elements like color and logo to
create new brand associations and induce customers’ purchase intentions. However,
outcomes of such strategies may be varied between different consumer durable brands. In this
regard, attempts of rebranding may be successful or flop in delivering new outlook and
enhanced customer perception and attitudes. Although there is an extensive literature on
branding services, no much of it addresses the issue of rebranding practice particularly in the
service institutions (Wafa, Nabil and Olfa, 2011). In fact, most of the rebranding literatures
do not investigate the effects of rebranding strategy on consumer attitudes. The study
therefore sought to investigate the relationship between rebranding and customer loyalty.

BENEFITS

1. YOU CAN APPEAL TO A NEW TARGET AUDIENCE.

Pivoting facets of your brand identity to target a new audience is one of the most common
reasons to rebrand. Look at Old Spice’s data-driven rebrand in 2015, for example. After
discovering that 60 percent of men’s body washes were purchased by women, Old Spice
rebranded to speak to a female audience and created their “The Man Your Man Can Smell
Like” campaign. Within a year, website traffic increased by 300 percent, while YouTube
subscribers and overall sales increased by 200 percent. Dozens of other companies have
rebranded in an effort to target the largest generational cohort in American history:
millennials. Keds, McDonald’s, Burberry, and Target all rebranded aspects of their business
or product offerings in the last 10 to 15 years in an effort to capitalize on millennial buying
power.

17
2. YOU CAN IMPROVE YOUR GOOGLE RANKING.
As SEO expert Neil Patel reports, “Google has been placing more emphasis on brands,” he
wrote in a new blog post entitled “How to Dominate Google in 2019.” “In other words, if you
have a strong brand, you’ll rank faster.” He points to his own brand as evidence of this shift.
His traffic on neilpatel.com jumped from 240,839 monthly users in June 2016 to 454,382 in
August 2016—right when he started taking brand-building seriously. Considering that SEO is
the second-highest ROI marketing practice out there, beating content marketing, paid search,
and affiliate marketing, investing in your brand is a sound financial decision. A rebrand is an
effective way to rectify poor branding or improve an existing brand. If more users recognize
and engage with your brand, Google will take notice and elevate your company in the SERPs.

3. YOU CAN COMPETE WITH NEW, CUTTING-EDGE COMPANIES.

The internet has significantly lowered the barriers to entry for businesses—anyone with a
laptop and an idea can launch their own product or company. In other words, the competition
is fierce. Rebranding can help more established, old-school companies remain relevant and
complete with “trendier” brands. Take sportswear company Adidas, for example. The brand
has been around since 1949 and has reinvented aspects of their brand many times over to
remain relevant. To speak directly to the millennial market, for example, they stopped
production of the iconic Stan Smith sneaker in 2011 and debuted an athleisure-inspired
rebrand in 2014. To create buzz around the launch, Adidas teased the new look on social
media, controlled the supply and demand to engender a sense of rarity, and partnered with
exclusive retailers and influencers in the fashion, music, and design industries to advertise the
product before it went to mass market. By rebranding the Stan Smith, Adidas was able to
remain relevant, capture the hearts of a new target audience, and significantly increase sales.

4. YOU CAN ATTRACT TOP-TIER CLIENTS AND TALENT.

It’s not uncommon for young startups to get caught up in the day-to-day grind of starting a
new business and view branding as an afterthought. As a result, small business logos,
websites, and brand messaging may lack the professionalism necessary to attract top-tier
clients. But young companies can utilize branding to reflect growth and signal movement past
the startup phase. Working with a branding agency to revamp assets and debut a polished
website and brand aesthetic can speak volumes to prospective clients and talent—especially if

18
your company exists within a creative industry. Rebranding is a necessary, worthwhile step to
take when scaling your company and attracting new, high-paying business and talented
employees.
5. YOU CAN IMPROVE BRAND AWARENESS AND LOYALTY.
Storytelling is one of the most powerful tools in a branding agencies’ [ [link to our services
page] arsenal. Humanizing your company via an eco-conscious mission, heartfelt background
story, or thought-provoking video campaign will make your business stand out in the minds
of customers. People are more likely to engage with a brand that delivers an experience,
aligns with their beliefs, or makes them feel a specific emotion. Take Dos Equis, for example.
Their branding story was so clever and powerful, customers associate drinking Dos Equis
with being “the most interesting man in the world.” The campaign was memorable, well-
executed, humorous, and award-winning. As a result, Dos Equis’ sales went up 22 percent,
even as imported beer sales decreased by four percent.

6. YOU CAN REDUCE INTERNAL COSTS.

Ideally, your company will come out of a rebrand with a stronger brand aesthetic and a
sharpened structural identity. If your company doesn’t have clearly defined objectives,
values, strategies, client plans, or a general long-term vision, a rebrand can force you to
consider these important tent poles and restructure accordingly. Not only will this structural
clarity help your lower-level employees sell your services and work in a more efficient
manner, it will help managers improve business operations, hire the right employees, and
manage teams more effectively. When business decisions can be connected to a company
tentpole, the company integrity can remain intact.

LIMITATIONS

1. IT CAN CREATE A LOT OF CONFUSION.

People might disagree on a lot of things these days, but there is one place of common ground
that everyone has at some level. No one likes to go through changing circumstances because
change creates uncertainty. It is easier to sell goods and services when people know for sure
what the outcome will be. When you change your message after consumers have gotten used
to the older outreach effort, then they can be confused just as easily as they can be
encouraged by the process.

19
You must be proactive about rebranding for it to be a positive experience. Without
communication, you will just create confusion.

2. IT CAN CAUSE YOU TO LOSE CUSTOMERS.

Some people just like change so much that they decide to stop doing business with their
favourite brands when they encounter it. Rebranding always brings with it a risk of losing
customers. Even if you do everything right during this transitionary process, there are still
people who will decide that your new value proposition is not something that they want in
their lives. You might have very good reasons to focus on rebranding, but you can also make
people think that these changes are updates to your values that some customers see as
unwanted.

About 75% of people create their identity through the brands that they choose to use or
follow in life. If you decide to go through a rebranding process, then you are literally
changing the way a person perceives themselves.

3. IT WILL COST YOU MONEY.

Going through the rebranding process as an organization is never cheap. You must be
prepared to spend money on every element that requires an update. There are always some
ways to save some cash during this process, but you will still have the significant expenses of
changing your graphic designs, adding new content, and developing a new advertising
campaign. That’s why you must be clear about the goals you have for this process before
jumping in headfirst. If you have uncertainties about what to do, then you could be throwing
good money at a bad idea for a long time.

4. IT REQUIRES A LOT OF RESEARCH BEFORE YOU START THE PROCESS.

In 2010, Gap decided that they needed to have a rebranding effort done as a way to stand out
from the rest of the retail competition. Instead of communicating these changes to the general
public, the graphics and appearance of the company changed seemingly overnight. Instead of
using their blue block that had been in place for several decades, they used a font, color, and
gradient change to create a new look. The large block would become a small square.

20
The company spent over $100 million after implementing its rebranding effort as a way to
save it. There was so much negative feedback from the effort that the old logo was reinstated
after just six days. Unless you take the time to research what your customers perceive that
they want, then you could find yourself in a similar situation in the future.

CHAPTALIZATION SCHEME

CHAPTER 1-INTRODUCTION: This chapter includes History, Introduction,Definition,

Objectives of the study, Scope of the study, Recent Innovation , Benefits , Statement of the
problems , limitations , Chaptalization Scheme

CHAPTER 2-LITERATURE REVIEW: This chapter is a comprehensive review of

existing literature related to the study along with their references to understand the problem
better.

CHAPTER 3-RESEARCH METHODOLOGY: This chapter provides the research

methodology, which includes qualitative as well as quantitative research, and uses
Questionnaire interviews as well as secondary data for data collection. The chapter also
discusses the research design, strategy, design, methods and the tools used.

CHAPTER4-DATA ANALYSIS AND INTERPRETATION: This chapter includes an

assessment of the primary data collected through qualitative and quantitative measures, as
well as an inferential analysis of the semi-structured interviews and focuses group discussions
conducted. The chapter also includes figures and graphs for better assessments of the results.

CHAPTER 5-FINDINGS, SUGGESTION AND CONCLUSION: It presents the results of

the research, and provides a discussion and summary on the basis of the inferences drawn
from the results.This chapter includes recommendations for future research as well as
concludes the research by providing a summary and future scope of the present research.

21
1. Andre Prayoga ,EkoSuseno (2020),The Positive Impact of Rebranding to Increasing
Consumer loyality with Brand Image as the Mediating Variable. It can be concluded that
brand image does not mediating the rebranding effect to consumer loyality for the Gojek
users. The result of this research can be used as a suggestion for the marketings (especially
for marketing or a company that is willing to do logo rebranding) to see how the effect of
rebranding is to consumer loyality with brand image as the mediating variable.

2. Roslizawati Ahmad, OkechukwuWorlu (2019), This paper presents significant

theoreticalcontribution for academic knowledge purpose and practical contributions for
practitioners, in making clear decisions before embarking on rebranding exercise.

3. Marta Kiss(2019),Rebranding and its impact on banking activities–case study.This study

aims to outline the impact of rebranding on a financial institution in Romania, CEC Bank, the
oldest Romanian bank operating on the Romanian market since 1864. Following the 2007
rebranding, the purpose of the bank was to create a competitive commercial bank image. For
this bank the rebranding process proved to be successful.

4. Yanhui Zhao, Roger J. Calantone & Clay M. Voorhees(2018), Identity change vs.
strategy change: the effects of rebranding announcements on stock returns.This research
contributes to our understanding of this process by identifying two fundamental dimensions
of rebranding decisions: brand identity change and brand strategy change. More importantly,
we identify and empirically test the conditions under which brand identity change and brand
strategy change have either strong or weak (even negative) influences on firm value.

5. Makor M. NyambaneMakori M. Ezekiel (March 2015),The Relationship between

Rebranding and Customer Loyalty.From the findings of the study, the service quality of
Kenya Power had improved since rebranding. The study further established that
rebranding had moderately improved the company image. Findings of this study are
considered significant in enhancing strategies towards effective implementation of rebranding
exercise among corporate organizations. The study also sought to add knowledge to the
existing literature on rebranding and highlight the relationship between rebranding and
customer loyalty.

22
6. Gabriel Gikonyo Mwangi (2013),TheIlinfluence of strategies corporate re-branding on
customer satisfaction among moblie service providers of kenya. The study found that
rebranding was very important in relation to customers’ level of satisfaction with the
service provider and that the service brand name is a very important component of the
brand and an important information source to the customer, because service attributes are
difficult to communicate via other means. The study found that customer satisfaction is
also affected by the advertising theme and that low tariffs had minimal impact on
customers’ level of satisfaction. The study also found that customer satisfaction is a key
and valued outcome of good marketing practice and that firm’s objective during any re-
branding should be to either maintain or improve on the satisfaction of its customers.

7. Muhammad Farhan Mohd Abas(2013),Malaysian coffee products: a rebranding of

Kopiesatu as a case study.This research shows the images of coffee bean. According to
the 2010 edition of Stastistical Report coffee, these drinks are behind much petroleum as
the hottest commodity in the business world, whichis about 400 billion cups consumed
every year. The favorite of these beverage were shared by all people of all nation and
cultures. There are 3 types of coffee which are Arabica, Liberica and Robusta. In coffee
drinks, there are a few types of coffee drinks such as Cappuccino, Latte, Macchiato,
Espresso, Mocha and etc.

8. Anil Kumar Singh, Vikas Tripathi, Priyender Yadav (DEC 2013),Rebranding and
Organisational Performance.The researchers have found through analysis that though
corporate rebranding increases the income (market share), yet it should be done with
care. Before rebranding all the factors should be studied thoroughly otherwise it may
lead to disasters.

9. Kotler and Keller, (2012), Brands and the new marketing paradigm are names, terms,
symbols and designs that identify the goods or services of a seller in ways that
differentiate them from those of competitors.

23
 10. Bjorn Hanson, Anna S. Mattila, and Yonghee Kim (2009),Hotel Rebranding and
Rescaling: Effects on Financial Performance. An exploratory study of ninety-five hotels that
rebranded or rescaled their operations revealed the possibility of long-term financial benefit
after the change. In many cases the hotels saw an initial decline in financial results, but that
was followed by a gradual recovery. Hotels that moved upscale generally saw increases in
average daily rates. Hotels that merely changed brands without also changing their scale
reported no significant change in financial results.

11. Eva Martínez Salinas(2009),Modelling the brand extensions' influence on brand image. The
results verify that extension attitude influences brand image, whereas initial brand
associations and perceived fit between the new product and either the remaining products
(category fit) or the brand image (image fit) are able to strengthen consumer attitude. The
study also explains the role of consumer innovativeness as a moderating factor, suggesting
that the characteristics of consumer personality could be more important than expected.

12. WafaM’Sallem, Nabil Mzoughi, OlfaBouhlel (2009), Customers’ evaluations after a bank
renaming: effects of brand name change on brand personality, brand attitudes and customers’
satisfaction.Two surveys were administrated, just after the bank renaming. 383 clients of all
the Attijari agencies in the region of Sousse, Central East of Tunisia (North Africa)
responded to the administrated surveys. Student’s t-tests of means comparisons were
conducted. The findings show that both customers’ satisfaction and brand attitudes were not
affected by brand renaming, whereas the bank personality perception was to some extent
modified.

13. Greyser, S. a. (2009), Corporate brand reputation and brand crisis management.
Management Decision.From analysis of many corporate brand crisis experiences the paper
finds that forthrightness in communications and substantive credible responses in the form
of behaviour are most likely to restore trust and rescue a brand in crisis. The most
important actions, however, are those taken to build a “reputational reservoir” as a strong
foundation for corporate reputation.

24
14. Keller, K.L,Building(2009), Measuring and Managing Brand Equity. This in other words
suggests that the visual appearance or look of a product with respect to its package design
play a vital role to its marketability. It is therefore of essence that the effect of good product
design and packaging on market value and the performance of agricultural products is looked
into. This article looks at the effect of good product package design on the market value and
performance of agricultural products in the Ghanaian market.

15. Yang and Wang, (2010), Brand loyalty can be divided into behavioral loyalty, emotional-
loyalty, cognitive loyalty, and intentional loyalty

16. Michael Walsh, Vikas Mittal, Karen Page. (2007),The Moderating Effect of Brand
Commitment on Consumer Response to Logo Shape Redesign. Results from two
experimental studies indicate that consumers who are strongly committed to a brand have a
more negative attitude toward the brand following exposure to the redesigned brand logo.
Conversely, consumers less committed to a brand have a more positive attitude toward the
brand. Furthermore, logo evaluation provides additional insight into the processes underlying
these results.
17. Wendy Lomax (2006), Corporate re-branding: From normative models to knowledge
management.A matrix-based typology is also developed, mapping changes in brand name
against changes in brand values, which may be used to identify the branding choices being
made. It is proposed that both strategic decision making and knowledge management
perspectives offer useful insights into effective management of the process.

18. Hatch, Mary Jo; Schultz, Majken; Williamson, John; Fox, Robert; Vinogradoff, Paul
(2005), Bringing the Corporation into Corporate Branding. The paper concludes with some
specific advice for managing the process of corporate branding, wherein keeping up with the
continuous adjustments of vision, culture and image is essential.

19. Susan M. Broniarczyk and Joseph W. Alba(2003),The importance of the brand in brand
extension. The experiments reveal that brand-specific associations may dominate the effects
of brand affect and category similarity, particularly when consumer knowledge of the brands
is high. The authors conclude by discussing the implications of these findings for managerial
decision making and the process by which consumers evaluate brand extensions.

25
20. Tim Ambler, C. B. Bhattacharya, and Vikas Mittal (2002),Relating Brand and Customer
Perspectives on Marketing Management. They examine the development of customer and
brand perspectives and describe how each adds value to the firm and to the customer.
Subsequently, they delineate possible approaches for measuring marketing assets. They
discuss key issues researchers and practitioners should consider in managing marketing
assets, particularly for multibrand companies. They conclude by suggesting future research
directions.

26
RESEARCH METHODOLOGY

Research is a logical and systematic search for new and useful information on a particular
topic. Research methodology is a systematic way to solve a problem. It is a science of
studying how research is to be carried out. Essentially, the procedures by which researchers
go about their work of describing, explaining and predicting phenomenon are called research
methodology.

MY RESEARCH:

I researched about Rebranding Impact on Customer Loyalty for burger king. I prepared
questionnaire to collect the opinion of people about the impacts of rebranding. I tried to find
the reasons for such impacts.

SOURCES OF COLLECTING DATA

I have used questionnaire for collecting the data’s. I have analyzed their impulsing buying
behavior of online shopping through this primary data.

PRIMARY DATA

Primary research is data which is obtained first-hand. This means that the researcher conducts
the research themselves or commissions the data to be collected on their behalf. Primary
research means going directly to the source, rather than relying on pre-existing data samples.

This type of research is particularly relevant where the data collected needs to be specific to
the context. For example, a company may perform primary market research to discover
customer perceptions of their brand. This could not be collected from any existing data
source as it is unique to the business.

Primary research can also help to position a person or company as an authoritative figure in
the field. The research may then be quoted by other authors, who reference the original
researcher as the source, further increasing their position. However, the researcher retains full
control over the data, as the data owner.

27
You don’t have to be an expert to conduct primary research. It can be done by people at all
levels, from students who require data for their university projects to market researchers who
want to gauge reactions to a new product.

RESEARCH DESIGN

Research design is the framework of research methods and techniques chosen by a researcher
to conduct a study. The design allows researchers to sharpen the research methods suitable
for the subject matter and set up their studies for success.

Creating a research topic explains the type of research (experimental, survey

research, correlational, semi-experimental, review) and its sub-type (experimental design,
research problem, descriptive case-study).

DESCRIPTIVE

Descriptive research refers to a systematic process of observing and describing what a subject
does without influencing them.

Methods include surveys, interviews, case studies, and observations. Descriptive research
aims to gather an in-depth understanding of a phenomenon and answers when/what/where.

SaaS companies use descriptive design to understand how customers interact with specific
features. Findings can be used to spot patterns and roadblocks.

For instance, product managers can use screen recordings by Hotjar to observe in-app user
behavior. This way, the team can precisely understand what is happening at a certain stage of
the user journey and act accordingly.

Brand24, a social listening tool, tripled its sign-up conversion rate from 2.56% to 7.42%,
thanks to locating friction points in the sign-up form through screen recordings.

METHODOLOGY IMPLEMENTED
The methods used in the projet report is a traditional method of data representation I,e: pie
chart and bar chart

28
1) PIE CHART

A pie chart is a type of graph that represents the data in the circular graph.The slices of pie
show the relative size of the data, and it is a type of pictorial representation of data. A pie
chart requires a list of categorical variables and numerical variables. Here, the term “pie”
represents the whole, and the “slices” represent the parts of the whole. The “pie chart” is
also known as a “circle chart”, dividing the circular statistical graphic into sectors or
sections to illustrate the numerical problems. Each sector denotes a proportionate part of the
whole. To find out the composition of something, Pie-chart works the best at that time. In
most cases, pie charts replace other graphs like the bar graph, line plots, histograms, etc.

FORMULA

The pie chart is an important type of data representation. It contains different segments and
sectors in which each segment and sector of a pie chart forms a specific portion of the
total(percentage). The sum of all the data is equal to 360°.

The total value of the pie is always 100%.

To work out with the percentage for a pie chart, follow the steps given below:

● Categorize the data

● Calculate the total
● Divide the categories
● Convert into percentages

Finally, calculate the degrees Therefore, the pie chart formula is given as (Given Data/Total
value of Data) × 360°

29
SAMPLING TECHNIQUE

Sampling techniques can be broadly classified in to two types:

● Probability Sampling.
● Non-Probability Sampling.

As no study could be successfully completed without proper tools and techniques, same with
my project. For the better presentation and right explanation, I used tools of statistics and
computer very frequently. And I am very thankful to all those tools for helping me a lot.
Basic tools which I used for project are

● Pie chart
● Bar chart
● Table
Bar charts and pie charts are really useful tools for every research to show the result in a
well clear, ease and simple way. Because I used bar charts and pie chart in project for
showing data in a systematic way, so it need not necessary for any observerto read all the
theoretical detail, simple on seeing the charts anybody could know that what is being said.

SAMPLE SIZE

The sample size is 107. I used it to draw the conclusion of the study. I collected their
opinions through questionnaire.

STATISTICAL TOOLS

Following are the tools used in the report while preparing project:

• Google Work Spaces

• SPSS
• Chi-square is a statistical test that examines the differences between categorical
variables from a random sample in order to determine whether the expected
and observed results are well-fitting.

30
 • Chapter 4- data analysis and interpretation

Questionnaire
A questionnaire is a research instrument that consists of a set of questions or other types of
prompts that aims to collect information from a respondent. A research questionnaire is
typically a mix of close-ended questions and open-ended questions.

Open-ended, long-form questions offer the respondent the ability to elaborate on their
thoughts. Research questionnaires were developed in 1838 by the Statistical Society of
London.

The data collected from a data collection questionnaire can be both qualitative as well
as quantitative in nature. A questionnaire may or may not be delivered in the form of
a survey, but a survey always consists of a questionnaire.

31
Table 4.1 Represents Age of the respondent

Age

Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative

Percent

Valid 18-25 60 56.6 56.6 56.6

26-35 23 21.7 21.7 78.3

36-45 14 13.2 13.2 91.5
46 or above 9 8.5 8.5 100.0
Total 106 100.0 100.0

Chart 4.1 Represents Age of the respondent

INTERPRETATION
The variable 'Age' represents the age of the participants in the sample. In this study, the
sample consisted of 106 individuals with ages ranging from 18-25,26-35,36-45,46 or
above.The distribution of ages in the sample can provide insights into the age range and
demographic composition of the sample, and may have implications for the research findings
or outcomes.

32
Table4.2 Represents the Locality of the respondent

Locality
Frequenc Percent Valid Cumulative
y Percent Percent
Valid Urban 82 77.4 77.4 77.4

area
Rural 24 22.6 22.6 100.0

area
Total 106 100.0 100.0

Chart 4.2 Represents the Locality of the respondent

INTERPRETATION

The variable ' locality ' represents the participants in the sample. In this study, the sample
consisted of 106 individuals from Urban and Rural. Percentage of urban area is 77.4% and
rural area is 22.6%. Majority of Burger king customer are from urban area .

33
Table 4.3Represents the Occupation of the respondent

Occupation
Frequen Percent Valid Cumulative
cy Percent Percent
Valid Student 53 50.0 50.0 50.0
Employee 41 38.7 38.7 88.7
Business 12 11.3 11.3 100.0
Total 106 100.0 100.0

Chart 4.3Represents the Occupation of the respondent

INTERPRETATION

The variable ‘Occupation’ represents the work participants are doing in the sample. In this
study, the sample consisted of 106 individuals from Student ,Employee ,business. Students
are the most customer of the burger king.

34
Table 4.4 Represents the Income of the respondent

Income
Frequency Percent Valid Cumulativ
Percent e Percent
Vali 1,00,000 to 18 17.0 17.0 17.0
d 3,00,000
3,00,000 to 26 24.5 24.5 41.5
7,00,000
7,00,000 above 14 13.2 13.2 54.7
Nil 48 45.3 45.3 100.0
Total 106 100.0 100.0

Chart4.4 Represents the Income of the respondent

INTERPRETATION
The variable ' Income ' represents the annual income of the participants in the sample. In this
study, the sample consisted of 106 individualsfrom1,00,000 to 3,00,000 ; 3,00,000 to 5,00,000
7,00,000 above and nil.

35
Table 4.5 Representsthe are you aware of the rebranding of burger king

are you aware of the rebranding of burger king?

Frequeny Percent Valid Cumulative
Percen Percent
t
Val Yes 71 67.0 67.0 67.0
id No 35 33.0 33.0 100.0
Total 106 100.0 100.0
Chart 4.5 Representsthe are you aware of the rebranding of burger king

INTERPRETATION

The variable 'aware of the rebranding ' represents the customer awareness of the
participants in the sample. In this study, the sample consisted of 106 individualsfrom that
most of them areaware of Burger King Rebranding

36
Table 4.6 Represents the Why do you think rebranding is necessary

Why do you think rebranding is necessary?

Frequency Percent Valid Cumulative
Percen Percent
t
Valid Market Extension 26 24.5 24.5 24.5
Change of strategic 39 36.8 36.8 61.3
plan
Enhancing image 20 18.9 18.9 80.2
of the brand
To try something 21 19.8 19.8 100.0
new
Total 106 100.0 100.0

Chart4.6 Represents the Why do you think rebranding is necessary

INTERPRETATION
The variable 'Rebranding is necessary ' represents of the participants in the sample. In this
study, the sample consisted of 106 individuals from Market extension , change of strategic
plan, Enhancing image of the brand and To try something new. The table presents the results
of a survey on the reasons for rebranding. The majority of respondents believe that
rebranding is necessary for a change in strategic direction or market extension.

37
Table 4.7 Represents the how often do you go to burger king

how often do you go to burger king?

Frequency Percent Valid Cumulative
Percent Percent
Valid Often 7 6.6 6.6 6.6
Occasionally 38 35.8 35.8 42.5
Rarely 46 43.4 43.4 85.8
Never 15 14.2 14.2 100.0
Total 106 100.0 100.0

Chart4.7 Represents the how often do you go to burger king

INTERPRETATION

The variable ‘ often do you go to burger king ' represents of the participants in the sample.
In this study, the sample consisted of 106 individuals from how often do you visit . The table
shows the frequency and percentage of responses from a survey on the frequency of visits to
Burger King. Most respondents indicated that they rarely visit Burger King, accounting for
43.4% of the responses. 35.8% of the respondents said they occasionally visit Burger King,
while 14.2% never go. Only 6.6% of the respondents said they often visit Burger King.

38
Table 4.8 Represents the What do you think is the factor involved in rebranding

What do you think is the factor involved in rebranding?

Frequency Percent Valid Cumulative
Percent Percent
Valid Sales 17 16.0 16.0 16.0
Market 29 27.4 27.4 43.4
Condition
Competitors 20 18.9 18.9 62.3
All the above 40 37.7 37.7 100.0
Total 106 100.0 100.0

Table 4.8 Represents the What do you think is the factor involved in rebranding

INTERPRETATION

The table presents survey results on factors involved in rebranding, with "all of the above"
being the most frequently selected option (37.7%). Respondents identified market conditions
(27.4%) and competitors (18.9%) as other significant factors. Sales were considered a factor
by only 16.0% of respondents. Overall, the results suggest that businesses consider multiple
factors when deciding to rebrand.

39
Table 4.9 Represents the Do you think rebranding brought positive impact in burger king

Do you think rebranding brought positive impact in burger king?

Frequency Percent Valid Cumulative
Percent Percent
Valid Yes 87 82.1 82.1 82.1
No 19 17.9 17.9 100.0
Total 106 100.0 100.0

Chart 4.9 Represents the Do you think rebranding brought positive impact in burger king

INTERPRETATION

The table presents survey results on the impact of rebranding on Burger King, with 82.1% of
respondents believing that it had a positive impact and 17.9% believing it did not. The
majority of respondents perceived rebranding as beneficial . The results suggest that
rebranding can be effective in enhancing a brand's image and attracting customers

40
Table 4.10 Represents the What do you like most about burger king

What do you like most about burger king?

Frequency Percent Valid Cumulative
Percent Percent
Valid Price 25 23.6 23.6 23.6
Quality 35 33.0 33.0 56.6
Taste 36 34.0 34.0 90.6
Service 10 9.4 9.4 100.0
Total 106 100.0 100.0

Chart 4.10 Represents the What do you like most about burger king

INTERPRETATION
The table displays survey results on what respondents like most about Burger King, with taste
being the most common response at 34%, followed closely by quality at 33%. Price was
selected by 23.6% of respondents, while only 9.4% chose service. The results suggest that
taste and quality are important factors for customers when choosing to dine at Burger King.
Price is also a consideration for some, while service appears to be less of a priority.

41
Table 4.11 Represents the When do you think burger king reached more people

When do you think burger king reached more people?

Frequency Percent Valid Cumulative
Percent Percent
Valid Before 45 42.5 42.5 42.5
Rebranding
After 61 57.5 57.5 100.0
Rebranding
Total 106 100.0 100.0

Table 4.11 Represents the When do you think burger king reached more people

INTERPRETATION

The table shows the frequency and percentage of responses from a survey on when Burger
King reached more people. The majority of respondents (57.5%) believed that Burger King
reached more people after rebranding, while 42.5% believed it was before rebranding. This
suggests that the rebranding effort may have been successful in increasing Burger King's
reach among consumers

42
Table 4.12 Represents the What do you think is the current brand image of burger king

What do you think is the current brand image of burger king?

Frequency Percent Valid Cumulative
Percent Percent
Valid Strong and 42 39.6 39.6 39.6
recognizable
Weak and 31 29.2 29.2 68.9
Inconistent
Average and Needs 33 31.1 31.1 100.0
Improvement
Total 106 100.0 100.0

Table 4.12 Represents the What do you think is the current brand image of burger king

INTERPRETATION
The results of a survey on Burger King's current brand image are displayed in the table.
39.6% of those surveyed thought the brand was powerful and recognisable. 31.1% of
respondents believed the brand to be mediocre and in need of improvement, while 29.2%
regarded it to be poor and inconsistent. The findings imply that survey participants had a
variety of perceptions on the Burger King brand.

43
Table 4.13 Represents the According to you the burger king’s image and popularity increased
rapidly after rebranding

According to you the burger king’s image and popularity increased

rapidly after rebranding?
Frequency Percent Valid Cumulative
Percent Percent
Valid Strongly 20 18.9 18.9 18.9
Agree
Agree 28 26.4 26.4 45.3
Neutral 50 47.2 47.2 92.5
Disagree 5 4.7 4.7 97.2
Strongly 3 2.8 2.8 100.0
Disagree
Total 106 100.0 100.0

Chart 4.13 Represents the According to you the burger king’s image and popularity
increased rapidly after rebranding

INTERPRETATION
The poll respondents' opinions on the improvement in Burger King's reputation and
popularity following its rebranding are shown in the table. While 45.3% of respondents
agreed or strongly agreed that the rebranding had a positive impact, the majority of
respondents (47.2%) took a neutral position. Just 7.5% of respondents agreed or
stronglyagreed with the statement. Overall, the survey results indicate that opinions are
divided over whether Burger King's popularity and image were significantly affected by the
rebranding.

44
Table 4.14 Represents the what do you think is the primary goal of rebranding

what do you think is the primary goal of rebranding?

Frequency Percent Valid Cumulative
Percent Percent
Valid Increase Customer 27 25.5 25.5 25.5
Loyalty
Attacks New 54 50.9 50.9 76.4
Customer
Improve Brand 25 23.6 23.6 100.0
recognition and
reputation
Total 106 100.0 100.0

Table 4.14 Represents the what do you think is the primary goal of rebranding

INTERPRETATION

According to the survey, the primary purpose of rebranding is to acquire new customers
(50.9%), followed by enhancing client loyalty (25.5%) and improving brand recognition and
reputation (23.6%). This shows that companies may consider rebranding in order to acquire a
competitive advantage in the market and attract new customers. Furthermore, rebranding may
help to boost consumer loyalty and brand perception.

45
Table 4.15 Represents the which logo of burger king do you like most

which logo of burger king do you like the most?

Frequency Percent Valid Cumulative
Percent Percent
Valid Old 25 23.6 23.6 23.6
Logo
New 44 41.5 41.5 65.1
Logo
Both 29 27.4 27.4 92.5
Neither 8 7.5 7.5 100.0
Total 106 100.0 100.0

Chart 4.15 Represents the which logo of burger king do you like most

INTERPRETATION

Based on the given data, out of the 106 respondents, 41.5% liked the new Burger King logo
the most, while 23.6% preferred the old one. Around 27.4% of respondents liked both logos,
and 7.5% did not like either. The majority of respondents liked the new Burger King logo,
while a significant portion also liked the old one. A relatively smaller number of respondents
did not like either of the logos.

46
Table 4.16 Represents the do you think the rebranding of the burger king was a success
do you think the rebranding of the burger king was a success
Frequency Percent Valid Cumulative
Percent Percent
Valid Strongly 19 17.9 17.9 17.9
Agree
Agree 37 34.9 34.9 52.8
Neutral 45 42.5 42.5 95.3
Disagree 1 .9 .9 96.2
Strongly 4 3.8 3.8 100.0
Disagree

Chart 4.16 Represents the do you think the rebranding of the burger king was a success

INTERPRETATION
According to the research, 52.8% of respondents agreed or strongly agreed that Burger King's
rebranding was a success. Just 4.7% of respondents agreed or strongly agreed, while 42.5%
were neutral. The majority of respondents thought Burger King's rebranding was successful,
while a very small percentage disagreed.

47
Table 4.17 Represents the do you think rebranding changed the overall customer experience at
burger king

do you think rebranding changed the overall customer experience at burger

king?
Frequency Percent Valid Cumulative
Percent Percent
Valid Strongly 16 15.1 15.1 15.1
Agree
Agree 43 40.6 40.6 55.7
Neutral 40 37.7 37.7 93.4
Disagree 6 5.7 5.7 99.1
Strongly 1 .9 .9 100.0
Disagree
Total 106 100.0 100.0
Chart 4.17 Represents the do you think rebranding changed the overall customer experience at
burger king

INTERPRETATION:

According to the chart, majority 40.57% of the respondents agree that rebranding changed the
overall customer experience at burger king and 37.74% have neutral response to this. 15.09%
strongly agree. 5.66% disagree and the remaining strongly disagree.

48
Table 4.18 Represents the how satisfied you are with the rebranding of the burger king

how satisfied you are with the rebranding of the burger king?
Frequenc Percent Valid Cumulative
y Percent Percent
Valid Very much 29 27.4 27.4 27.4
Moderate 61 57.5 57.5 84.9
Not Very 12 11.3 11.3 96.2
Much
Dissatisfied 4 3.8 3.8 100.0
Total 106 100.0 100.0

Chart 4.18 Represents the how satisfied you are with the rebranding of the burger king

INTERPRETATION:
According to the chart, 57.55% of the respondents are moderately satisfied with burger king.
27.36% are very much satisfied with burger king. 11.32% are not very much satisfied and
3.77% are dissatisfied.

49
Table 4.19 Represents the How important is brand image when choosing where to eat

How important is brand image when choosing where to eat?

Frequency Percent Valid Cumulative
Percen Percent
t
Valid Very 52 49.1 49.1 49.1
Important
Somewhat 45 42.5 42.5 91.5
Important
Not Very 9 8.5 8.5 100.0
Important
Total 106 100.0 100.0

Chart 4.19 Represents the How important is brand image when choosing where to eat

INTERPRETATION:
According to the chart, 49.06% respondents think brand image is very much important when
choosing to eat and 42.45% respondents think it is somewhat important. 8.49% think it is not
very important.

50
CHI SQUARE

TESTING HYPOTHESIS

HYPOTHESIS 1 :THERE IS NO SIGNIFICANT DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THE AGE

OF THE RESPONDENT AND THE POSITIVE IMPACT IN BURGER KING

Age * Do you think rebranding brought positive impact in burger king?

Crosstabulation
Do you think rebranding brought
positive impact in burger king?
Yes No Total
Age 18-25 Count 53 7 60
Expected Count 49.2 10.8 60.0
26-35 Count 17 6 23
Expected Count 18.9 4.1 23.0
36-45 Count 11 3 14
Expected Count 11.5 2.5 14.0
46 or above Count 6 3 9
Expected Count 7.4 1.6 9.0
Total Count 87 19 106
Expected Count 87.0 19.0 106.0

CHI-SQUARE TESTS
Asymptotic
Significance (2-
Value df sided)
Pearson Chi-Square 4.208a 3 .240
Likelihood Ratio 4.057 3 .255
Linear-by-Linear Association 3.233 1 .072
N of Valid Cases 106
a. 3 cells (37.5%) have expected count less than 5. The minimum
expected count is 1.61.

INTERPRETATION:
Since the Calculated value (0.240) is higher than the Table value (0.005), the null hypothesis
gets rejected and the Alternative hypothesis gets accepted. Hence there is a significant
difference between the age of the respondent and the positive impact in burger king.

51
HYPOTHESIS 2:THERE IS NO SIGNIFICANT RELATIOSHIP BETWEEN THE
LOCALITY AND THE BURGER KING REACHED MORE PEOPLE.

LOCALITY * WHEN DO YOU THINK BURGER KING REACHED MORE

PEOPLE?
CROSSTABULATION
When do you think burger king
reached more people?
Before After
Rebranding Rebranding Total
Locality Urban area Count 38 44 82
Expected Count 34.8 47.2 82.0
Rural area Count 7 17 24
Expected Count 10.2 13.8 24.0
Total Count 45 61 106
Expected Count 45.0 61.0 106.0

CHI-SQUARE TESTS
Asymptotic
Significance (2- Exact Sig. (2- Exact Sig. (1-
Value df sided) sided) sided)
a
Pearson Chi-Square 2.242 1 .134
b
Continuity Correction 1.594 1 .207
Likelihood Ratio 2.312 1 .128
Fisher's Exact Test .163 .102
Linear-by-Linear Association 2.221 1 .136
N of Valid Cases 106
a. 0 cells (0.0%) have expected count less than 5. The minimum expected count is 10.19.
b. Computed only for a 2x2 table

INTERPRETATION:
since the calculated value (0.240) is higher than the table value (0.005), the null hypothesis
gets rejected and the Alternative hypothesis gets accepted. Hence there is a significant
difference between the locality of the respondent and when did burger king reached more
people.

52
FINDINGS OF THE STUDY

GENERAL FINDINGS

● The study collected data on the age, locality, occupation, income, awareness of
rebranding, perception of the necessity of rebranding, frequency of visits to Burger
King, factors involved in rebranding, impact of rebranding, likes and dislikes about
Burger King, and the new and old Burger King logos.
● The age range of the participants was 18-25, 26-35, 36-45, and 46 or above.
● The majority of participants were from urban areas (77.4%) and the remaining 22.6%
were from rural areas.
● The majority of participants were students (58.5%), followed by employees (27.4%)
and business owners (14.2%).
● The income range of the participants was from 1,00,000 to 3,00,000, 3,00,000 to
5,00,000, 7,00,000 above and nil. Most participants were aware of Burger King's
rebranding.
● The majority of respondents believed that rebranding was necessary for a change in
strategic direction or market extension.
● The majority of respondents rarely visited Burger King, with occasional visitors
accounting for 35.8% of the responses.
● Most respondents identified "all of the above" as the most significant factor involved
in rebranding.
● The majority of respondents believed that Burger King's rebranding had a positive
impact.
● The most common likes about Burger King were taste and quality.
● The majority of respondents believed that Burger King reached more people after
rebranding.
● The majority of respondents thought the Burger King brand was powerful and
recognizable, while a smaller portion believed it needed improvement or was poor
and inconsistent. Opinions were divided on whether the rebranding had a significant
impact on Burger King's reputation and popularity.

53
 ● The primary purpose of rebranding was to acquire new customers, according to the
survey.41.5% of respondents liked the new Burger King logo the most, while 23.6%
preferred the old one.
● Around 27.4% of respondents liked both logos, and 7.5% did not like either.
● The study provides insight into the age range and demographic composition of Burger
King's customer base.
● The study suggests that businesses consider multiple factors when deciding to
rebrand.
● The study shows that rebranding can be effective in enhancing a brand's image and
attracting customers.
● The study highlights the importance of taste and quality for Burger King customers.
● The study suggests that rebranding may help to boost consumer loyalty and brand
perception.
● The study demonstrates the importance of acquiring new customers and improving
brand recognition and reputation through rebranding.
● The study provides valuable information for Burger King and other businesses
considering rebranding.

HYPOTHESIS FINDINGS

● The study shows that there is a significant difference between the age of the
respondent and the positive impact in burger king.
● There is a significant difference between the locality of the respondent and when did
burger king reached more people.

54
RECOMMENDATIONS

● EMPHASIZE QUALITY INGREDIENTS:

One way to differentiate Burger King from its competitors is to emphasize the quality
of its ingredients. Consider rebranding the company as a fast food chain that uses
high-quality, locally sourced ingredients in its menu items. This could appeal to
customers who are increasingly interested in eating healthy and sustainable food.

● USE TECHNOLOGY:

In order to enhance customer satisfaction and optimise operations, Burger King could
also make use of technology. This might entail the introduction of computerised
menus, self-service, and smartphone ordering. Burger King may draw in younger,
tech-savvy customers and increase store productivity by embracing technology

● COLLABORATE WITH INFLUENCERS:

Another way to boost Burger King's profile is to collaborate with social media
influencers and celebrities. This could help to increase the image of the brand and
attract new customers, especially younger ones who are more likely to follow
influencers on social media

● REVAMP THE MENU:

Burger King could consider updating its menu to appeal to a wider range of
customers. For example, it could add more vegetarian and vegan options, as well as
healthier menu items like salads and grilled chicken sandwiches. This would appeal to
health-conscious customers and those with dietary restrictions.

55
CONCLUSION

This study helps us analyse the impacts of rebranding on the burger king. The rebranding had
a positive impact on the burger king. They got a lot of new customers as the brand image
improved and more people got to know about the brand. The study showed that most of the
customers of burger king are students. Customers prefer burger king usually because of taste
and price. Most of the customers are from urban

56
BIBLIOGRAPHY

● Andre Prayoga, EkoSuseno (2020),Universitas Pendidikan Ganesha, Vol. 4 No. 4

(2020): November.The Positive Impact of Rebranding to Increasing Consumer
loyality with Brand Image as the Mediating Variable

● Bjorn Hanson, Anna S. Mattila, and Yonghee Kim, Sage journals; Volume 50, Issue 3
2009.Hotel Rebranding and Rescaling: Effects on Financial Performance

● Tim Ambler, C. B. Bhattacharyaand Vikas Mittal, Journal of

service Volume 5, Issue 1(Journal of service).RelatingBrandand Customer
Perspectives on Marketing Management.

● Garett J. Longwell, Journal of Business Research; Published 1 March 1994.

Capitalizing on the value of a brand name

● Anil Kumar Singh, Vikas Tripathi, PriyenderYadavAmerican, Journal of Sociological

Research 2(5):90-97; December 2013.Rebranding and Organisational Performance.

● Hatch, Mary Jo; Schultz, Majken; Williamson, John; Fox, Robert; Vinogradoff,
PaulCBS. CCC Working Paper No. 2001-5Bringing the Corporation into Corporate
Branding

● WafaM’Sallem, Nabil Mzoughi, OlfaBouhlel, Innovative Marketing, Volume 5, Issue

3, 2009. Customers’ evaluations after a bank renaming: effects of brand name change
on brand personality, brand attitudes and customers’ satisfaction.

● Keller, K.L. (1998), Strategic Brand Management: Building, Measuring, and

Managing Brand Equity. Prentice Hall, Upper Saddle River.

57
● GABRIEL GIKONYO MWANGI, The influence of strategies corporate re-branding
on customer satisfaction among mobile service providers of KenyaNOVEMBER,
2013.

● 2006, Journal of Brand Management," Corporate re-branding: From normative

models to knowledge management"

● Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science volume 46, pages795–812

(2018),"Identity change vs. strategy change: the effects of rebranding announcements
on stock returns"

● Journal of Business Research, Volume 62, Issue 1, January 2009,“ ‘Modelling the
brand extensions' influence on brand image ".

58
ANEXURE

QUESTIONNAIRE

● AGE

18-25

26-35

36-45

46 or above

● Locality
Urban area

Rural area

● Occupation

Student

Employee

Business

 Income

1,00,000 to 3,00,000

59
 3,00,000 to 7,00,000

7,00,000 above

Nil

● are you aware of the rebranding of burger king?

Yes

No

● Why do you think rebranding is necessary?

Market Extension

Change of strategic plan

Enhancing image of the brand

To try something new

 how often do you go to burger king?

Often

Occasionally

Rarely

60
 Never

● What do you think is the factor involved in rebranding?

Sales

Market Condition

Competitors

All the Above

● Do you think rebranding brought positive impact in burger king?

Yes

No

● What do you like most about burger king?

Price

Quality

Taste

Service

61
● When do you think burger king reached more people?

Before Rebranding

After Rebranding

● What do you think is the current brand image of burger king?

Strong and recognizable

Weak and inconsistent

Average and needs improvement

● According to you the burger king’s image and popularity increased rapidly after
rebranding?

Strongly agree

Agree

Neutral

Disagree

Strongly Disagree

62
● what do you think is the primary goal of rebranding?

Increase customer loyalty

Attracts new customer

Improve brand recognition and reputation

● which logo of burger king do you like the most?

Old logo

New logo

Both

Neither

● do you think the rebranding of the burger king was a success

Strongly agree

Agree

Neutral

63
 Disagree

Strongly Disagree

● do you think rebranding changed the overall customer experience at burger king?

Strongly agree

Agree

Neutral

Disagree

Strongly disagree

● how satisfied you are with the rebranding of the burger king?

Very much

Moderate

Not very much

Dissatisfied

64
● How important is brand image when choosing where to eat?

Very important

Somewhat important

Not very important

65