Symbolic isomorphism in the
tennis racket industry
Student: Freek Bloemer
0407585
[email protected]
tel: 0649628587
Masterthesis, 2007-2008
Supervisor: N.M. Wijnberg
Faculty of Economics & Business
University of Amsterdam
Table of contents
Abstract
3
Introduction
4
- Brand equity
5
- Isomorphism
7
- Legitimacy/institutional theory
9
Problem statement
11
Hypotheses
12
Tennis in general
14
Methodology
16
Data collection
17
Data analysis
18
Results
20
Discussion
27
Limitations
29
Managerial implications
29
Suggestions for further research
30
Appendix: Tennis rackets having a purely alpha-numerical name
32
References
39
2
Abstract
The phenomenon under study in this paper is symbolic isomorphism. The position of
symbolic isomorphism in the bigger isomorphism-context is addressed. The product
names in the tennis racket industry in the period 1950-1990 will be tested on symbolic
isomorphism with the help of six hypotheses. The properties of 3,667 racket names
will be classified along nine characteristics. Name length, producer, and year of
introduction and the prevalence of real words, personal identifiers, animals,
geographical identifiers and nature-based components. The inclusion of alphanumerical components is the last property that is recorded. The transition from
wooden rackets to aluminium rackets in 1967, an influential happening within the
tennis racket industry, will also be dealt with extensively. After the analysis of the
names the results will be discussed and the implications for practitioners and science
will be addressed.
3
Introduction
The question: “What is a good brand name?” has received considerable attention in
the literature. Some authors emphasize the importance of specificity and uniqueness
(Glynn and Abzug, 2002), while others believe that a brand name should refer to the
product or the benefits that it delivers (Keller, 1993; Glynn and Abzug, 2002).
Lehman (2004) summarizes works of a couple of other authors when presenting her
list of desirable qualities of a product name. She suggests, that a product name should
be suggestive to the product’s benefits, easy to pronounce, remember and recognize.
Furthermore a product name should be distinctive and cross-cultural (Lehman, p.1).
This list of characteristics shows substantial overlap with Robertson (1989), who has
his own characteristics of a good brand name.
The cross-cultural compatibility of a product name seems very straightforward but the
importance of this aspect is emphasized by a horrible name-choice by Ford. In the
1960’s Ford tried to launch the Ford Pinto in Brazil. Pinto means “small male
appendage” in Portuguese slang and therefore Ford halted the export of the Pinto into
Brazil since the American company did not wish to be associated with that (Lehman,
2004, p.3).
Brand names were used for the first time by whisky distillers in the 16th century to
distinguish their whisky from others. They burned their trademark on the barrels in
which the whisky was shipped and by doing so, they became the first ‘branders’
(Farquhar, 1989, p. 24; Aaker, 1991, p. 7).
The most often used definition of a brand and the one that will be used throughout
this paper is Bennett’s(1988): “A brand is a name, term, design, symbol or any other
feature that identifies one seller’s good or service as distinct from those of other
sellers” (Wood, 2000, p.664). A lot of variations exist to this definition, but the main
proclamation is that consumers can recognize the producer of the product.
A brand name is one of the subcomponents of brand equity and is of importance for
the organizational identity. According to Aaker (1991, p. 187) the name is the basis
for communication and awareness efforts. Furthermore, the brand name gives
4
consumers a first impression and calls forward associations. If brand dominance can
be achieved it can function as an entry barrier (Farquhar, 1989, p.26; Aaker, 1991, p.
187) and therefore the brand name can be of strategic importance. Brand equity,
isomorphism and institutional theory are core concepts for this thesis and therefore
they are elaborated in more detail below.
Brand equity
Brand equity is the extra value that a brand gives to the product when compared to an
unbranded product. This value goes beyond the functional purpose of the product
(Farquhar, 1989, p. 24). When pursuing high brand equity, a long term focus is
guaranteed. Lassar, Mittal and Sharma (1995) argue that companies with higher brand
equity are better able to command a price premium and incur a higher amount of trust
from consumers. They furthermore argue, that high brand equity is a good basis for a
brand extension. In this paper, the customer-based definition of brand equity as given
above, will be used. This is to differentiate from the financial asset-valuation method
,which is sometimes used by accountants.
Henderson et al. (1998) looks at brand equity in the form of brand associations. This
perspective evaluates the mental pictures that consumers get, when they think about
the brand. Mercedes-Benz, for example, is linked to higher class car manufacturers
such as Audi and BMW, whereas Kia is linked to Hyundai and Nissan. In that way,
associations are created, which will be accessed by consumers when they think about
the brand. This division into multiple groups makes it easier to understand the most
important competitors that are in the same consumer-mindset. After all, it is obvious
that Ferrari and Lamborghini are no real competitors of Kia and Hyundai since the
price class shows a huge gap and the cars of Ferrari and Lamborghini are bought to
satisfy a different need compared to the cars of Kia and Hyundai.
What has become clear from the literature is that brand equity and brand knowledge
can be used rather interchangeably (Keller, 1993). The main difference is that brand
knowledge looks from the consumer-perspective while, when brand equity is
mentioned, the organization is the focal point. Brand equity is the accumulated
attitude of the consumers to the organization whereas brand knowledge is an
5
individual measure for the familiarity of the consumer with the brand. So, in fact
brand equity and brand knowledge are two sides of the same coin. Brand equity is
difficult to measure according to Shocker, Srivastava and Ruekert (1994) due to its
intangible nature. To complicate things even further, the amount of brand equity
depends upon the purpose that is to be achieved. Wood (2000) beliefs that brand
equity can be split up into ‘strength’ and ‘description’. Strength (weak vs. strong)
denotes the strength of the image that consumers have about the company, whereas
description (positive vs. negative) concerns the image that consumers have about the
company. Organizations strive to be perceived positive by customers and in a strong
way.
It is important that the brand message is supported by the marketing mix (Wood,
2000). Grewal, Krishnan, Baker and Borin (1998) come up with the “congruity
theory” to emphasize this importance. This theory builds upon the fact that consumers
readjust their view, when faced with incongruity. If, for example, expensive and
exclusive jewellery is sold in a cheap and low-imaged supermarket the image of the
supermarket will improve while the image of the jewellery will suffer.
For tennis racket manufacturers this implies, that, when an exclusive and expensive
top-range racket model is marketed, the racket name should also be high-class.
Otherwise an incongruity is created that will hurt the image of the racket.
The manufacturer name should fit the assortment that is produced by the firm. If a
firm produces several types of rackets (for experts, for kids, beginners and exclusive
rackets for professionals) it should chose a firm name that is compatible with all
racket types. When only upscale racket models are produced, the company should
pursue an exclusivity strategy and chose an exclusive or upscale name. Exclusive
contracts can be agreed upon with specialized dealers. Also the price level can be
more upscale unless a good value-for-money strategy is chosen instead of an upscale
image. To conclude, it is important that all marketing mix elements are in accordance.
6
Isomorphism
Isomorphism is a term used in multiple varieties. It is used in biology, sociology,
mathematics, chemistry and economics. Glynn and Abzug (2002) use the term
symbolic isomorphism while DiMaggio and Powell (1983) distinguish between
institutional, competitive and normative isomorphism. It is important to note that
symbolic isomorphism only deals with symbolic behavior and is not concerned with
similarities in organizational structure. This paper uses the symbolic isomorphism
definition of Glynn and Abzug (2002): isomorphism increases legitimacy, when an
organization uses the same symbols as their industry members. Symbols should be
thought of as a broad category of attributes: names, pictures/logos, designs. To
specify this research, it will focus on product names only. If a name adheres to
industry standards, the company is supposed to obtain increased legitimacy.
Turkey and Moore (1995) argue that service providers face other challenges than
manufacturers. This is caused by the lack of cues that customers have when facing
service providers. The evaluation process therefore will be hampered when compared
to that of physical goods. The difference between service providers and product
producers will not be dealt with in detail in this paper.
Glynn and Marquis (2005) have found evidence for a cyclical pattern in which
ambiguous and descriptive names have switched domination. This is the result of a
study they did to name changes between 1972 and 1988. Glynn and Abzug (2002)
noted that in the 19th century descriptive names were dominant, while in the
beginning of the 20th century abstract names were leading. At the end of 20th century
descriptive names were having a comeback. The 21rst century is an awkward century
for company names due to the increasing influence of the internet. Many companies
changed their names by adding .com to their name in 1999 (Staff, 2001). Most
companies did this since young internet companies or companies with .com as suffix
faced sky-rocketing stock prices (Staff, 2001). By jumping on this bandwagon they
tried to gain value. According to Cooper et al. (2005, p. 321) investors responded
positively to .com-additions in the period 1999-2000. Deleting the .com-suffix at the
end of the internet-bubble in 2000 also increased shareholder value but not as much as
the addition of .com in 1999 (Cooper et al., 2005, p. 321). The date from whereon
7
deleting .com is paying off more than adding it is February 2000. Delattre (2002)
argues that the French firms adding .com to their name only represent one per cent of
the total French companies‘ name changes. It is more important to remember, that the
name changes happened in a short time period,rather than knowing exactly how much
firms changed their name.
Some industrial fields are characterized by persistent trends. For example the service
industry in general has short and ambiguous names. The opposite is true for
financials, insurance companies and brokers who, are typified by longer and more
domain-specific names (Glynn and Abzug, 2002). Shorter and more domain specific
names increase the understandability of the company name, which leads to higher
legitimacy (Glynn and Abzug, 2002).
Aaker’s (1991) managerial-minded book carries six handles for establishing enhanced
recall in choosing a name (p. 190). First, an unusual name will make people curious
and therefore they will remember the name better. The second method to make people
recall your brand name more easily, is, by integrating something special into the
name, such as a rhyme, humor or an alliteration. Peterson and Ross (1972) contribute
to this issue is by indicating that consumers associate certain phonetic sounds with
certain product categories (p. 29). These associations are depending on the marketing
segment. Some names will immediately create a mental picture or image and should
be more memorable. Examples of this third suggestion for better recall are Apple and
Rabbit. The fourth advice is to pick a meaningful name, so that its fit with the product
is assured. Names that express a feeling or emotion are the fifth recommendation of
Aaker (1991, 190). Last but not least, the name should be simple. It should be easy to
spell and pronounce and consist of as little syllables as possible.
Robertson (1989, p. 64) mentions the paradox between a meaningful and a nonmeaningful name. A meaningful name will contribute to the recall while a nonmeaningful name will enhance recognition. The explanation for this contradiction has
not been found yet. Robertson (1989, p.65) says, that highly imaginary words have
high recall, whereas a non-meaningful name provides the organization with a clean
sheet, that can be filled in in any desirable way. In the scientific literature there is no
evidence that the recognition or recall rate differs between firm name and product
8
name. This does not mean that the names should be treated in the same way, since
firm names are in general used for a longer time period than product names. This has
to do with the almost yearly launch of new types of rackets, which cannot have
exactly the same name, because then there would be no distinction with the
predecessor. Logically, the company name is not changed as frequently as the product
name since high costs are involved in creating name awareness and designing the
name.
Legitimacy/ institutional theory
Institutional theory posits that isomorphism enhances legitimacy. So when in a certain
industry name “X” is normal, companies in that industry will adapt their name in
order to comply with the “X-format” (Glynn and Marquis, 2005). In this way
companies can be easily identified and ascribed to the industry they belong to. The
article of Scott (1987) highlights the existence of multiple versions of institutional
theory. Scott (1987) sees the added value of the institutional theory in reminding
people that interests are institutionally defined and shaped.
Dacin’s (1997) opinion is, that the behavior of organizations is determined by
institutional forces and market forces. Market forces might be the influence where
Scott (1987, p. 501) is aiming at, when he says, that institutional forces do not fully
explain behaviour. Name choice is considered as an behavioural choice because the
name is chosen on purpose.
Organizations conform to institutionalized beliefs, if they are rewarded for doing so
by increased legitimacy, resources or higher survival chances (Scott, 1987, p. 498).
Dacin (1997) calls attention to the fact that isomorphism is not always caused by
connectedness with other organizations. Another explanation could be the influence
of broader societal expectations or interdependencies in the supply chain between two
organizations. Other publications have acknowledged the existence of multiple
institutional environments instead of one big surrounding institutional universe
(DiMaggio and Powell, 1983; Meyer and Scott, 1983, Deephouse, 1996). This is a
point of discussion throughout the literature. Di Maggio and Powell (1983) maintain,
that, under uncertain conditions, decision makers will mimic the behaviour of others.
They argue, that the ones that will be mimicked, are successful organizations.
9
Galaskiewicz and Wasserman (1989) wrote an article in response to DiMaggio and
Powell (1983) in which they argue, that the mimicking of others, when faced with
uncertainty is common, but that the ones that are mimicked, are not successful
organizations per se. The object of imitation is determined by the social network of
the decision makers (Galaskiewicz and Wasserman, 1989, p. 456). Known and trusted
persons and the organizations in which they are active are imitated. This is the result
of their study to the charitable contributions of 75 business corporations to 198
nonprofit organizations between 1980 and 1984.
Ashforth and Gibbs (1990) emphasize the valuable character of legitimacy, they see it
as a resource, entangled with the organization and believe that it is capable of
attracting resources and ensures the organization of continued support by its
constituents (p. 177). The intangible value of legitimacy, which is translated into
resources, name awareness, for example, is the reason that companies are striving to
attain legitimacy
Legitimacy is a term, that is used often, but has been defined vaguely in the literature
(Suchman 1995, p. 572). Suchman (1995) divides legitimacy in two types: strategic
and institutional. The first one focuses on the way in which management can use
symbols to attract customers. The latter one highlights the influence of structural
forces within an industry. This form of legitimacy overlaps with institutional theory.
This is confirmed by DiMaggio and Powell (1983, p. 150) who claim, that a common
legal environment influences the behavior of organizations and indirectly stimulates
isomorphic practices. Aldrich and Fiol (1994) describe legitimacy as “the taken for
grantedness” of the relationship between stakeholders and entrepreneurs. They argue
that the lack of legitimacy is the critical problem facing innovative entrepreneurs (p.
645). From now on, the overarching definition of legitimacy will be used:
“Legitimacy is the taken for grantedness of a company as perceived by its
stakeholders”. This is conformable with Deephouse’s (1996) definition, that states,
that social actors accept or endorse the organizations’ means and ends as valid,
reasonable and rational (p. 1025). The question, whether isomorphism legitimizes, is
addressed in the same paper and is answered with a ‘yes’ (p.1033). This conclusion is
based on the evaluations of the public and the government.
10
Problem statement
Isomorphism is a phenomenon studied by multiple authors (Glynn and Abzug, 2002;
Glynn and Marquis, 2005; DiMaggio and Powell, 1983) but has received not enough
attention. This is particularly true for symbolic isomorphism, the least treated form of
isomorphism. Most of the publications, that deal with symbolic isomorphism, are
written by the same authors. In order to shed a new light on the subject, some fresh
input is provided in this paper. Besides, most of the articles are not very recent. In
order to give a new input to the subject, a new dataset will be used, namely tennis
racket product names between 1950 and 1990. By using that dataset I will investigate
,whether the phenomena of symbolic isomorphism can be ascribed to the tennis racket
industry in that specific period. After the analysis whether isomorphism is a common
practice in the tennis racket industry in the period 1950-1990, an explanation will be
searched for this phenomena.
Symbolic isomorphism is an important subject because it deals with namingdecisions. In turn, naming decisions influence brand equity and since brand equity is a
long lasting form of promotion, it is said to be more effective, than sales promotions.
Aaker (1991, p. 11) argues that sales promotions are effective in the short run, but in
the long run they are easily copied by competitors. To further diminish the effect of
sales promotions, consumers will be building stocks leading to a positive pay-off in
only 16% of the cases (p.11). Moreover, the attention is shifted towards price and
away from quality, features and services. In short, building brand equity is much more
effective than sales promotions and one first step to increase brand equity is, choosing
the company and product name carefully. Hopefully this paper will give some
valuable practical insights, although the paper is more scientifically-oriented.
The managerial implications will be highlighted after the analysis. More will be
known about the role of isomorphism in the tennis racket industry when the analysis
is finished. Obviously, the purpose is also to contribute to the existing literature and
perhaps even give the subject of symbolic isomorphism a new impulse.
11
Hypotheses
Glynn and Abzug (2002) suggest that the switch between product names with real or
non-real words, appear with patterned regularity (p. 268). Glynn and Marquis (2005)
speak about an inverted U-shape, when talking about the fluctuations over time
concerning real versus non-real words, observed in product names. They both
describe a cycle of a period of low ambiguity follow by a period of high ambiguity
subsequently followed by a period of low ambiguity. Glynn and Marquis (2005, p.
21) hint that periods, dominated by real or non-real words, last for 15 years. They
confirm this with their study done over the period 1972-1988 in which they observe,
that the use of real words in organizational names was ”initially high, followed by a
significant drop-off, and then a rise to the initial height” (p. 19). They perceive
naming patterns to follow a thirty year cycle. First, a fifteen year period dominated by
real words, and then, a fifteen year period which is dominated by non-real words or a
mixture of real and non-real words.
Therefore the first hypothesis is put as follows:
H1: A fifteen year period which is dominated by real words, is followed by a period of
fifteen years, wherein non-real words or a combination of real and non-real words
dominate
Pavia and Costa (1993) wrote an article about Alpha-numerical brand names. Alphanumerical brand names are brand names with numeric components in them. These
numerical components can be in digit form (e.g. 5) or in written form (e.g. Five) (p.
85). Product names can also contain numerical attributes, thereby strengthening the
legal position of the product name. The associations of consumers with alphanumerical product names differs per product category. For perfumes a lower number
indicates exclusivity, while for most product categories, a higher number implies a
superior model (p.89). Pavia and Costa (1993) note, that there is a difference between
numbers written as digits and numbers written in script (p.89). This difference and the
difference between even and odd numbers will not be addressed in this paper.
The focus groups used by Pavia and Costa (1993) mentioned alpha-numeric names as
appropriate for ‘sporty’ products (p.89). Products, that according to the focus groups,
12
“fit” with alpha-numerical names ,are, among others, tennis shoes (p.90). Tennis
shoes show similarities with tennis rackets and they belong to the same product
category: tennis apparel. Therefore,
it is expected that alpha-numerical product
names are a familiar phenomena in the tennis racket industry. The second hypothesis
is formulated as follows:
H2: Alpha-numerical product names dominate with in the tennis racket industry
Glynn and Abzug (2002) provide a table with an overview of organizational naming
trends until the early 2000’s. The two authors describe the decreased use of
geographic identifiers in the period 1960-1979. The third hypothesis will test, if this
observation is also true for product names:
H3: The percentage of geographical names is higher in the periods 1950-1959 and
1980-1990 than in the period 1960-1979
Glynn and Abzug (2002) observed the introduction of acronyms and initials in the
period 1960-1979. This can be translated into the increased use of non-real words at
the cost of real words since acronyms are labelled as non-real words. Therefore the
fourth hypothesis is as follows:
H4: Real words are less dominant in the period 1960-1990 than in the period 19501959
Wilson Sporting Goods introduced the first popular metal racket by manufacturing the
T2000 in 1967. The American sports apparel producer was, at that moment, the leader
in the tennis racket business. This is supported by the fact that Wilson has produced
the most racket models of all manufacturers in the dataset. Wilson is also the
manufacturer that has been in the branch the longest and therefore fits the conditions
set by Alpert and Kamins (1995, p.35) for a company to be a leader. Therefore, other
companies are expected to follow the Wilson Sporting Goods company. It is being
tested in Hypothesis five, whether Wilson created a dominant design in product
names with their high-tech abstract racket name T 2000 containing no real words, no
13
person name, no geographic location, no animal and no association with nature. It was
a purely alpha-numerical name. Anderson and Tushman (1990, p. 620) consider a
single configuration as a dominant design, when it accounts for over 50% of the new
product sales and holds this majority for at least four years in a row. The purely alphanumerical product name therefore has to account for at least 50 per cent of the product
names, for four years in a row. The hypothesis is designed like this:
H5: Wilson’s purely alpha-numerical racket name became the dominant design in
product names in the tennis racket industry after 1967
Since the tennis rackets are increasing in complexity and the number of varieties are
growing, it is expected, that name length grows during the timeframe because there
are more and more options for differentiation that need to be dealt with in the name.
Therefore, hypothesis six is as follows:
H6: Racket name length increases over time
Tennis in general
In order to conduct a good research it is required to know the subject that is dealt
with. This paper focuses on product names, but does so in the tennis racket industry.
Therefore, it is useful to have some background information about the tennis sport.
“Tennis” (English), or “Kaatsen” (Dutch), “Giocco della racquetta” (Italian) or “Jeu
de Paume” (France) are all words used for the game now known as “tennis” .Tennis is
played in France since the 11th century and differs from the modern tennis since it was
played with the palm of the hand instead of a racket, like in modern tennis. During the
evolution of the game the players began using supporting equipment like gloves and
wooden bats. The existence of the tennis racket was just a matter of time. Around
1500 the first tennis rackets were used, mainly because of the extra power they
provide to the player. Tennis rackets do not function without stringing, so sheep gut
was used to string the rackets.
14
At the start of the 17th century tennis was the most popular sport in Europe. In 1873 a
way to vulcanize rubber was invented. This made it possible to produce balls that
could bounce. The Englishman Walter Clopton Wingfield, who was an army major,
used this invention in his advantage and revolutionized the tennis game by making it
possible to play it outdoor on a lawn. Wingfield changed the rules of the game and
developed a net, net posts and a court for the game. The popularity of the sport was
given a boost by Wingfield’s adaptations. This is expressed in the first edition of the
prestigious tennis tournament of Wimbledon in 1877. In 1896 it even became an
Olympic discipline. Later on, multiple types of courts were developed (gravel,
concrete), the tie break was introduced and natural gut was changed into synthetic
strings. Wooden rackets turned into aluminium rackets and subsequently to synthetic
material. In the professional circuit there are four tournaments which constitute the
‘grand slam’. Those are Wimbledon, Roland Garros, The US Open and the Australian
Open. Professional tennis players’ concerns are protected by the established unions
ATP (Men) and WTA (Women). These are all signs of the professionalization of the
sport.(Combined sources of the Dutch tennis federation (the KNLTB):
http://knltb.nl/knltb/article.asp?id=4 and the ITF:
http://www.itftennis.com/abouttheitf/worldwide/history.asp).
The necessary attributes to play tennis are at least two players, a net, a ball, a court
and a tennis racket. When tennis is played with two players, it is called a single,
whereas it is played with four players, it is called a double. A match is depending on
the tournament ‘best of three sets’ or ‘best of five sets’. This research will investigate
the naming of tennis rackets, because the racket is the most interesting piece of
equipment and a part of the attributes that dramatically influences players’
performance. Furthermore, rackets are often discussed, heavily sponsored and are
available in a lot of varieties.
The ten most innovative and therefore best-known racket manufacturers are Wilson
Sporting Goods, Prince, Adidas, Snauwaert, Slazenger Head, Dunlop, LaCoste,
Donnay and Yonex.
Since 1994 Babolat can be added to this list. The French company is not totally new
in the scene since it already produced strings, grips and other accessories since 1875.
15
In 1994 the company entered the tennis racket industry. It leveraged its good
reputation in tennis accessories to establish themselves as a racket manufacturer. This
paper researches the period 1950-1990 and because Babolat started making rackets
after the analyzed timeframe, they are not part of the research.
Methodology
In order to provide a new impulse to the isomorphism-theme there is a need for a new
dataset. The dataset, that will be used to conduct this research, are the names of the
tennis rackets, that are produced between 1950 and 1990. These data are available
through “The book of Tennis Rackets”by Kuebler(1990), which describes tennis
rackets, manufactured between the sixteenth century and 1990. The best way to
conduct the research, is, to use a qualitative angle. Therefore a case study will be
executed. This means, that the phenomena of isomorphism, will be studied in its
natural environment to make sure, that the interdependencies and connectedness of
the relevant variables stay intact (Hutjes en Van Buuren, 1996, p. 15).
Doing a field research has the disadvantage that the conditions cannot be manipulated
by the researcher (Cooper and Schindler, 2003, p. 150). Moreover, the external
validity or the ability to generalize across persons, settings and times is reduced
because the study focuses on a specific phenomena in a specific time frame (Cooper
and Schindler, 2003, p 231).
To ensure that the reliability is as high as possible, subjective measurements are
avoided. Objective and constant data input will be done in order to attain a consistent
and valid dataset (Cooper and Schindler, 2003, p.234-236). Therefore the filling in of
the dataset is done by one person only and that person is the author himself.
At first the thesis will be descriptive, the phenomena is described and subsequently
the analysis will be done. The results will follow and an explanation is sought for the
outcome. By using the “Book of Tennis Rackets”by Siegfried Kuebler (1990) a lot of
data is collected. The “Book of Tennis Rackets” provides the most extensive range of
tennis rackets that is available. The data are not collected by myself, but are
composed by Siegfried Kuebler. Since the data in the book are not filtered or
16
interpreted, the book is considered as primary data (Cooper and Schindler, 2003,
p.282).
Tennis rackets are chosen because of their huge variety and the availability of
information about their year of introduction and name. Furthermore, tennis is a
personal interest of the writer and the game of tennis is played for a long time, so it is
suited for a longitudinal study.
Data collection
The data are collected from the “Book of Tennis Rackets” by Siegfried Kuebler, who
describes the evolution of tennis rackets from the start until 1990. The book consists
of 635 pages and includes manufacturers listings. Desk-research will be the method of
collecting the information. The downside of this method is the reliance on one source
only. The best way to collect the information would be, to directly receive it from the
producers. This method was tried at first but resulted in no success. A number of
about twenty racket manufacturers were requested for a listing of their produced
rackets, but not one manufacturer could provide such a list. Only three responded, the
rest answered not at all. After that, an attempt was done to contact the tennis
federations and several tennis magazines in order to get the listings. The KNLTB, the
Dutch tennis federation, was contacted by phone and email, but was not willing to
cooperate. The same story holds for the International Tennis Federation(ITF), Tennis
Magazine and Tennis.com. The ITF suggested to use Kuebler’s book and assured me,
that this book provides the most extensive range of tennis rackets documented today.
This paper concentrates on the tennis rackets produced between 1950 and 1990. This
timeline is chosen, because in this period the amount of manufacturers is the highest.
Furthermore, the period covers the transition from wooden rackets to metal rackets
perfectly. The first popular metal racket was the T2000 from Wilson Sporting Goods
and was introduced in 19671, more or less the middle of the timeframe. The dataset
consists of 3,667 different types of rackets produced by 184 manufacturers.
1
http://tennis.about.com/od/racquetsballsstringing/a/evolmodracquet.htm
17
Data analysis
After collecting data from the field, the next step was to make a database of the
collected information. This will form the basis for the data analysis. The brand names
will be inserted into the database and several characteristics of the brand name will be
counted and documented. The variables that will be used are described below.
Following Glynn and Abzug (2002), name length, ambiguity and domain specificity
should be recorded. Nevertheless, domain specificity is not as suitable for product
names as for company names, because it is not very common to use the word “racket”
as product name. Therefore this variable is not adopted in this research. Ambiguity is
replaced by the real word versus non-real word variable which is more objective.
Names are coded 0 if they contain no real words, 1 if they contain only real words and
2 if they are a mix of real and non-real words. Name length is measured by the
number of letters in the product name (spaces and numbers are included). Aaker
(1991, p.189) provides a lot of additional naming characteristics. Not all of these
naming characteristics will be used since they are abundant. Aaker (1991, p.188-189)
questions among other things, whether the product name resembles a person, animal,
geographical location or piece of nature. Most of Aaker’s characteristics are shared by
Keller (1993), who speaks about secondary associations to celebrities (persons) and
associations to the country of heritage (geographical location). Therefore, the product
names will be tested on their resemblance of persons, animals, geographical locations
and pieces of nature.
Gontijo et al (2002, p. 329) speak about proper names when talking about personal
names, geographical names etc. Gontijo et al. (2002) make a division to emphasize
that it is a special category of names which is processed in a unique way. Gontijo et al
(2002) define a proper name as ‘a noun that designates a particular being or thing,
does not take a limiting modifier, and is usually capitalized in English’. Since these
names are real it is proposed that they are processed more easily. Cohen (1990) (in
Gontijo et al. 2002) argues that names are difficult to recall because names are
meaningless and they are not well integrated into a semantic network of other
semantic information. Agrawal and Kamakura (1995) argue that this is not true for
celebrity names. Their vision is that celebrities enhance message recall and make
18
advertisements believable. This is contradicted by Sherman (1985) who states that
viewers don’t believe what stars say. According to Sherman (1985) it is difficult to
pick the right celebrity for the product. In the tennis racket industry this is not the case
since many popular tennis players are reference-object for the racket. This is quite
natural since they are skilful tennis players and are thought to have knowledge about
tennis rackets. Therefore they seem trustworthy to consumers. Kahle and Homer
(1985, p. 954) argue that when a high involvement product is bought by consumers,
arguments are more influential than the opinion of celebrities. Tennis rackets are
perceived to be high involvement products because consumers consider carefully
what kind of racket they are going to buy (Van der Kind, 2004, p. 59). Celebrities are
assumed to be less influential than arguments for these types of products (Kahle and
Homer, 1985). Van der Kind (2004, p. 59) perceives a tennis racket to be a shopping
good because much comparing is involved when buying a racket and the buying
frequency is low.
Glynn and Marquis (2005) did empirical research on the use of real words in
organizational names. One of the main points of their article was that real words
reduced ambiguity by providing more associations. Storage in the memory of
consumers is speeded up because of the ‘lexicality effect’. This effect is synonymous
to the faster and more accurately processing of real words than the processing of nonwords (Gontijo et al, 2002). The result is, that real organizational names are more
comprehensible, memorable and legitimate (Glynn and Marquis, 2005, p. 4-5). The
Glynn and Marquis-paper has convinced me to insert the real vs. non-real word
variable into the analysis instead of the ambiguity-variable.
The last variable, that will be used in this paper, is the prevalence of alpha-numerical
components in the product names. If the name contains alpha-numerical components
than a 1 is noted and if not, a 0 is filled in. Pavia and Costa (1993) wrote an article
about Alpha-numerical brand names in which they suggest, that alpha-numerical
product names fit well with the tennis industry. Whether this is true will be tested in
hypothesis 2. A schematic overview of the variables, their sources and measurements
that will be used in this research, can be found in Table 1
19
Table 1: Variables
Variable
Input
Producer
manufacturer of the racket
Name
name of the racket
Year
year of introduction
number of letters (spaces and numbers
included)
Glynn & Abzug
0= no real words/b1=combination of real
and non-real words/ 2=only real words
Glynn & Marquis
Aaker (Confirmed by
1=yes/0=no
Keller)
Aaker (Confirmed by
1=yes/0=no
Keller)
Aaker (Confirmed by
Keller)
1=yes/0=no
ratio
1=yes/0=no
Aaker
nominal
1=yes/0=no
Pavia & Costa
nominal
Name length
Real words
Person
Animal
Geographical
location
Natural
connection
Alphanummerical
components
Source
Descriptive
information
Descriptive
information
Descriptive
information
Type of data
-
ratio
nominal
nominal
nominal
nominal
Results
Hypothesis 1 focuses on the domination by real words followed by a period of
domination by non-real or a combination of real and non-real words. According to
Glynn and Marquis (2003, p. 21) a domination period should last for fifteen years.
Domination of real words is achieved when more than halve of the product names are
built upon only real words. Domination of non-real words or a combination of real
and non-real words is achieved, when product names containing only real words is
below fifty percent.
As becomes clear from Figure 1 more than halve of the product names consist
singularly real words until 1983 with the exception of the year 1967. Whether this
year is an exception or should be marked as the end of a period dominated by real
words is an issue an sich.
20
Figure1 :Percentage of product names containing only real words
This situation can be interpreted in two ways. In the first interpretation the year of
1967 is seen as an outlier and the period dominated by real words is from 1950 till
1983. The period dominated by non-real and a combination of real and non-real
words then starts at 1983. This period continues at least until 1990 and is expected to
continue even longer. In this first situation the period dominated by real words is
more than twice the length as was foreseen. The period not dominated by real words
is too short to make statements about. So, the first interpretation argues for hypothesis
1 to be rejected since the period dominated by real words was too long .
The second interpretation is that the periods 1950-1966 and 1968-1982 are
dominated by real words and that the period 1983-1990 and the year 1967 are
dominated by non-real or a combination of real and non-real words. This would imply
that there are four periods. One of sixteen years and one of fourteen years dominated
by real words. This is more or less in accordance with the fifteen years prescribed by
Glynn and Marquis (2003, p.21) Further, a one year period and an unfinished period
during 7 years at the end of the dataset, were dominated by non-real or a combination
of real and non-real words. Actually, the second situation would call for supporting
the hypothesis for periods dominated by real words only. For periods not dominated
by real words, the hypothesis would be rejected, because only one unfinished period
is visible and the one year period does not live up to the fifteen year period.
21
To conclude, Hypothesis 1 can be dealt with in two ways. Rejection of the hypothesis
is the result of the first way of looking at the dataset. The second viewpoint calls for
partly supporting hypothesis 1. Taken together, hypothesis 1 is rejected. The outlying
position of the year 1967 can be explained by the fact that there are only five rackets
in the database for that year.
The second hypothesis states that alpha-numerical product names dominate the tennis
racket industry. Domination is translated into a majority of the product names
containing alpha-numerical components so that a percentage of above fifty percent
has to be reached. As the following SPSS output shows (Table 2), this fifty percent is
not reached. Only 1320 (36%) out of the 3667 product names contained an alphanumerical component. Therefore hypothesis two is not supported.
Table 2:Percentage of alpha-numerical product names
Frequency
Valid
no
yes
Total
3
2344
1320
3667
Percent
,1
63,9
36,0
100,0
Valid Percent Cumulative Percent
,1
,1
63,9
64,0
36,0
100,0
100,0
Hypothesis three foresees a drop off in the percentage of geographical names in the
period 1960-1979 in contrast with the periods 1950-1959 and 1980-1990. It is true
that the percentage of geographic-identifiers in tennis racket product names is
diminished in the period 1960-1979 in comparison with 1950-1959, but this
percentage declines even further in the period 1980-1990 as is shown in table 3.
Therefore, the general trend for geographic identifiers is to decline in importance.
While hypothesis 3 expected a temporary drop of geographic identifiers in product
names during the 60’s and 70’s, it turns out to be a continuing trend.
22
Table 3: Percentages of geographical identifiers in product names per period
Period
1950-1959
1960-1979
1980-1990
Average per
period
8,889%
7,505%
2,118%
The downward trend was not in line with the expectations of hypothesis 3 and
therefore the third hypothesis is rejected. The (black) trend line highlights the
downward trend while the yellow lines indicate the three periods
Figure 2: Percentages of geographical identifiers in product names
The fourth hypothesis deals with Glynn and Abzug’s paper (2002) that noticed the
trend beginning in the 1960’s and 70’s of increased use of acronyms and initials.
Examples of those acronyms in the tennis racket industry are the the names Fibreflex,
Fibrecraft and Boronite by Snauwaert & Depla (all 1977); the name Adistar by
Adidas (1975) and the Maxply-series by Dunlop (since 1954). “Maxply” means: a
maximum of wood lamination plies, and is considered as the most famous racket ever
(Kuebler , 2000, p. 148).
The prediction, that real words are used more frequently (in percentage) in the period
1950-1959 than in the period 1960-1990, is supported by the dataset. This is
23
corroborated by the numbers in table 4. Over the period 1950-1959 the average
percentage of product names containing real words is 82, 6 percent while this has
declined to 62,9 percent over the period 1960-1990.
Table 4: Percentage of product names containing real words per period
Average per
Period
period
1950-1959
86,6%
1960-1990
62,9%
The (black) trend line in Figure 3 shows graphically that the overall trend in the
product names is to contain less real words as time proceeds. Hypothesis four is
thereby supported.
Figure 3: Percentage of product names containing real words
Leader-follower behaviour is dealt with in the fifth hypothesis. According to this
hypothesis racket manufacturers should follow Wilson in their naming decisions.
Namely, Wilson was the first manufacturer having produced a successful metal
racket. They gave it the high-tech abstract name T 2000 containing no real words, no
person name, no geographic identifier, no animal name and no association with
nature. It was a purely alpha-numerical product name. It was the first racket model in
the dataset, that had this specific purely alpha-numerical product name. After the
release of the T 2000, 353 other racket models had similar characteristics, so it is
proven, that Wilson was a leader, while the other manufacturers followed the
24
American company. The hypothesis that Wilson’s purely alpha-numerical naming
choice achieved a coverage of more than 50 percent for at least four years is not
supported as follows from figure 4. The highest percentage of purely alpha-numerical
product names, that had been measured in the period 1950-1990, is 30,189 percent in
1973. So a dominance of purely alpha-numerical names is never present.
Fifty out of the 158 producers, that were active after the introduction of Wilson’s T
2000, followed the American sporting goods manufacturer by giving their rackets
purely alpha-numerical names. This is equal to 31, 65 percent and is also no majority.
Figure 4 shows that the percentage of purely alpha-numerical brand names is
increasing. The graph also shows, that the percentage is highly volatile and fluctuates
heavily. Whether the purely alpha-numerical product name will be the dominant
design after 1990, is not researched in this paper, but is not excluded since the trend
line for only alpha-numerical product names is upward sloping.
Figure 4: Percentage of purely alpha-numerical product names
Percentage of only alpha-numerical product names
35,000%
30,000%
Percentage
25,000%
20,000%
15,000%
10,000%
5,000%
19
90
19
88
19
86
19
84
19
82
19
80
19
78
19
76
19
74
19
72
19
70
19
68
19
66
19
64
19
62
19
60
19
58
19
56
19
54
-5,000%
19
52
19
50
0,000%
Year
The last hypothesis predicts a positive relationship between the year of introduction
and the length of the racket name. This prediction is best checked by calculating the
correlation coefficient with the help of SPSS. This coefficient identifies the strength
and direction of the relationship between two ratio variables. Hypothesis six
25
investigates the relation between year of introduction and the length of the racket
name. The table below shows the results.
Table 5: Correlations
Year of
introductio
n
Year of
introduction
Pearson
1
Correlation
Sig. (2-tailed)
N
3667
Name length
Pearson
,037(*)
Correlation
Sig. (2-tailed)
,024
N
3666
* Correlation is significant at the 0.05 level (2-tailed).
Name
length
,037(*)
,024
3666
1
3666
The Pearson Corrleation Coefficient is 0,037. Since R is close to zero, there is a weak
correlation. Since the R is positive the result is, there is a weak positive relation
between year of introduction and name length. The result is significant at a
confidence interval of 95 percent two-tailed. Statistically it is proven that over time
the racket names are increasing in length. Therefore, hypothesis six is supported.
26
A short overview of the rejection or support for the six hypotheses is provided in table
six
Table 6: Hypotheses overview
Hypothesis 1
Rejected
Hypothesis 2
Rejected
Hypothesis 3
Rejected
Hypothesis 4
Supported
Hypothesis 5
Rejected
Hypothesis 6
Supported
Discussion
Alpert and Kamins (1995, p. 42) state that leaders/pioneers have a higher recall rate
by consumers and that consumers have a more positive attitude towards these
frontrunners. Wilson Sporting Goods, therefore is assumed to have positioned
themselves very well in the minds of consumers. Furthermore, the pioneer brands are
purchased more often than laggards due to the greater closeness of the pioneer brands
to the ideal self-image (p.41-42). The whole idea about consumers’ ideal self image
and the influence of products on this vision belongs to research about consumer
perceptions and behaviour and will not be treated in this paper although the Alpert
and Kamins-paper (1995) provides new research angles, which could be interesting
for further study. For example, the relation between being a pioneer and revenues
received, can be researched more in-depth.
The Wilson T 2000 was a technology-based innovation since it improves customer
benefits relative to existing products for customers in existing markets (Zhou, Yim
and Tse, 2005, p. 43). This is the opposite of a market-based innovation which
involves new markets. Tech-based innovations are also known under the name radical
innovations and involve high risk (mainly technological)(p. 43). Anderson and
Tushman (1990, p. 607) separate products and process discontinuities. The transition
from wooden to metal rackets is an example of a product discontinuity since the way
27
of making the product stays rather similar but the performance of the product
improves. Wilson did not create a dominant design in product names. Anderson and
Tushman (1990, p. 620) consider a single configuration as a dominant design, when it
accounts for over 50 percent of the new product sales and holds this majority for at
least four years.
The advantages of a metal racket over a wooden racket are: more power, less weight
and more comfort. This product discontinuity is competence-enhancing because it
builds on the know-how embodied in the technology that it replaces(Anderson and
Tushman (2005, p. 609)).No expertise is rendered obsolete since most of the
experimenting with stringing patterns and frame shapes have already been done. This
is the case since the first tennis rackets have been manufactured from around the year
1500. The companies that are included in this research, can use the experience of at
least 450 years of tennis racket manufacturing in which a countless amount of racket
manufacturers have had their influence.
The paper of Gontijo et al (2002, p. 334) concludes, that real words are processed
more accurately and faster than nonwords. Both nonwords and real words are
processed less easily when length increases. This last conclusion corresponds to
Glynn and Abzug’s research (2002) that concluded that increasing name length
would lead to lesser legitimacy This ‘length-effect’ is bigger for nonwords than for
real words. Brand names are not influenced by length according to Gontijo et al
(2002).
To summarize the findings of the hypotheses, symbolic isomorphism does not play a
dominant role in the tennis racket industry in the period 1950-1990.Four hypotheses
are rejected while only two were supported by the data.
28
Limitations
Only one source for the collection of the dataset is used: “The book of tennis rackets”
by Siegfried Kuebler. This should not be a limitation since the information is not
filtered. It is an overview and not a subjective article. Besides, Siegfried Kuebler is an
expert within the tennis sport. He invented the modern “widebody” racket, which is
still the standard in modern tennis rackets.
This research has only treated tennis rackets. This is not a widely generalizable
dataset. Despite this lack of external validity, explicitly has been chosen to use one
specific dataset. By doing so, the effects of regulatory differences are avoided. All
companies within this dataset, produce the same products, face the same environment
and institutional pressures, so the “rules of the game” are the same.
The graphs illustrating the percentages of name attributes shows fluctuation. These
graphs might show exaggerated scores since most manufacturers do not release new
racket models every year, but launch multiple models at the same time. This can lead
to an increased influence on the average scores in the year when a company releases
its models. Furthermore, the amount of racket models manufactured differs per year
so that the weight of an individual racket differs per year. Graphs might be biased
since some manufacturers launch new racket models every year while others release
their new production every two years. Some years are therefore more vulnerable for
an abnormal score. In this research this holds for the years 1958, 1960, 1963, 1965,
1967, 1971 and 1972 in which no more than ten racket models were introduced.
Managerial Implications
Managers must see the importance of name choices, whether it is in product names or
company names. In accordance to the “congruity theory” managers should align the
marketing mix with the brand message (Wood, 2000; Grewal, Krishnan, Baker and
Borin, 1998) so that a consistent message is send to the consumers.
29
When considering the name choice there are some notes to remember in order to
reach the expected result. Real words are processed more easily by consumers and
therefore are recalled better (Robertson, 1989, p. 64)). On the other hand, awkward
names (consisting of non-real words) make people curious and therefore will be
remembered better (Aaker, 1991, p.190). Non-meaningful names will enhance
recognition but not recall (Robertson, 1989, p. 61) Due to the “length-effect” shorter
names will obtain more legitimacy. This effect is more influential for non-real words
than for real words.
Whether celebrities should be used to promote a racket is not clear throughout the
literature. Some authors prescribe celebrities for certain products (Agrawal and
Kamakura, 1995; Kahle and Homer, 1985) while others see a negative pay-off every
time a star is used (Sherman, 1985).
This research has shown that there is a difference between a firm-name and a product
name. Two of the three claims that Glynn and Abzug (2002) make for company
names, and that are translated into hypotheses 1, 3 and 4, are rejected for product
names. The difference between product names and company names is further
demonstrated by the .com-era, in which company names changed rapidly, while
product names remained similar. In either way, brand name managers have to make
sure that the company name fits the industry standards, in order to be recognized
easily by consumers. The product name does not have to conform to the industry
standards as is shown by Wilson with its T2000 racket, which turned out to be a
widely-sold racket. It is not said that this only due to the product name. Of course, the
fact that this racket was made of metal was a major stimulator.
Suggestions for further research
No relationship between sales (success) and name choice can be discovered because
no sales data are used. Zhou, Yim and Tse (2005, p. 52) show that both technologyand market-based innovations positively affect firm and product performance. When
Wilson introduced the T 2000, this was an innovation in the tennis racket industry. It
is suggested that this would show up in the sales figures, for both the racket model
itself, as well as for the company as a whole. It is a great addition to science to link
sales figures to tennis racket models. In this way, it can be observed which tennis
30
rackets are successful and which ones are not. A more economic twist can be given to
the research in that way.
New research might include tennis-related terms in the analysis. This research has not
done that, while without doing a statistical analysis, a lot of terms like “Pro”, “Junior”
and “Competition” were observed. This might provide a fertile basis for new research.
The same holds for the incorporation of racket materials into the analysis.
Materials are not taken into consideration, when characterising product names,
although it is often used as apart of the product name for tennis rackets.
It might be interesting to look at the differences in product names between children
rackets and adult rackets. Children rackets have more product names used by multiple
manufacturers than adult rackets. An example is the use of the name “cadet”. This
product name is used by seven manufacturers in the dataset. Dunlop Slazenger,
Snauwaert & Depla, Adidas, Yamaha Corp., Donnay Sporting Goods, Major Sports
and Rossignol use this name.
A variable that is not used in this research, but could be used in future research to
sporting goods, is the ex-ending of product names. Sebba (1986) wrote an article
about the establishment and frequency of product names ending at –ex. He even
speaks about a bandwagon effect with brands like Kleenex, Durex, Yonex etc being
established. The class of products on which the –ex ending could be used is not very
predictable according to Sebba (1986, p. 325). Nevertheless, in the tennis racket
industry the ex-ending is not used very often as the dataset shows. When the exending is used in tennis rackets, mostly it is part of the word “Flex”. Maybe this
differs between different classes of sporting goods.
Last but not least, this research can be executed for a different timeframe and with the
results of that research, a comparison can be done between the two timeframes.
31
Appendix: Tennis rackets having a purely alpha-numerical product
name
Manufacturer
Wilson Sporting Goods Co.
Yonex
Snauwaer
Garcia Corp.
Yonex
Yonex
Yonex
Yonex
Yonex
Yonex
Yonex
Yonex
Yonex
Yonex
Yonex
Wilson Sporting Goods Co.
Snauwaert & Depla
Garcia Corp.
Garcia Corp.
Garcia Corp.
Yonex
Yonex
Yonex
Garcia Corp.
Dunlop Slazenger
Yamaha Corp.
Tremont Research Co.
Garcia Corp.
Garcia Corp.
F.J. Bancroft
F.J. Bancroft
Yamaha Corp.
Yamaha Corp.
Yamaha Corp.
Yamaha Corp.
Wilson Sporting Goods Co.
Donnay Sporting Goods
Donnay Sporting Goods
Donnay Sporting Goods
Donnay Sporting Goods
Adidas
Acro Inc.
Wilson Sporting Goods Co.
Kawasaki Racket Co.
Racket model
T 2000
T-7000
EGF1
P40
yy 1500
yy 2500
yy 9200
yy 5200
yy 4200
yy 8600
yy 7600
yy 8500
yy 7500
yy 7200
yy 6200
T 3000
EGF 2
Cragin 2
YCR-130
YCR-128
T-7500
T-8500
yy 8700
X15
D 101
Yamaha YGF-30
Mag 1
Garcia 240
Garcia 360
B 20
B 15
YGF-50
YCR-124
YCR-126
YCR-134
T4000
D 45
D 40
D 30
D 15
Ads 060
AC-10
T 5000
CP 001
Year
1967
1970
1970
1970
1973
1973
1973
1973
1973
1973
1973
1973
1973
1973
1973
1973
1973
1973
1973
1973
1974
1974
1974
1974
1974
1975
1975
1975
1975
1975
1975
1976
1976
1976
1976
1976
1976
1976
1976
1976
1976
1976
1978
1978
32
Browning SA
Browning SA
Wilson Sporting Goods Co.
Wilson Sporting Goods Co.
Futabaya Racket Mfg.
Prince Manufacturing Inc.
Browning SA
Browning SA
Yamaha Corp.
Yamaha Corp.
Yamaha Corp.
Yamaha Corp.
Yamaha Corp.
Yamaha Corp.
Yamaha Corp.
Yamaha Corp.
Yamaha Corp.
Yamaha Corp.
Yamaha Corp.
Yamaha Corp.
Tony Trabert
Rossignol
Browning SA
Browning SA
Browning SA
Wintide Sporting Goods Co
Wintide Sporting Goods Co
Wilson Sporting Goods Co.
Wilson Sporting Goods Co.
Rossignol
Madison
Madison
Madison
Madison
Madison
Madison
Madison
Madison
Madison
Madison
Madison
Madison
Madison
Madison
Madison
Madison
Madison
Madison
Madison
Madison
Madison
Madison
410 X
450 X
TX 3000
TX 6000
FKV 75
Woodie 110
BT 400
BT 500
YFG-65
YFG-90
YFG-70
YFG-70L
YFG-50
YFG-30
YFG-20
YFG-10
YWG 55
YWG 33
YFG-45
YFG-75
C-6
C 12
425 Mid
BT 700
BT 750
Wintide MG 95
Wintide Triumph 1
GR 80
SC 2000 110
Tubex 300
MG 25 J
MG 2040
MG 2030
MG 1000
MG 970
MG 860
MG 950
MG 940
MG 870
MG 1002
MG 1003
MG 910
MG 900
MG 103
MG 1004
MG 830
MG 840
MG 920
MG 880
MG 810
MG 101
MG 2050
1978
1978
1979
1979
1979
1980
1980
1980
1981
1981
1981
1981
1981
1981
1981
1981
1981
1981
1982
1982
1982
1982
1982
1982
1982
1983
1983
1983
1983
1983
1983
1983
1983
1983
1983
1983
1983
1983
1983
1983
1983
1983
1983
1983
1983
1983
1983
1983
1983
1983
1983
1983
33
Madison
Kawasaki Racket Co.
Kawasaki Racket Co.
Kawasaki Racket Co.
Donnay Sporting Goods
Donnay Sporting Goods
Donnay Sporting Goods
Browning SA
Yonex
Yonex
Yonex
Yonex
Yonex
Yonex
Yonex
Yonex
Yonex
Yonex
Yonex
Slazenger Ltd
Slazenger Ltd
Slazenger Ltd
Slazenger Ltd
Slazenger Ltd
Slazenger Ltd
Slazenger Ltd
Scepter Tennis & Graphite Master
Scepter Tennis & Graphite Master
Rossignol
Rossignol
Rossignol
Rossignol
Kawasaki Racket Co.
Dunlop Slazenger
Dunlop Slazenger
Dunlop Slazenger
Dunlop Slazenger
Dunlop Slazenger
Dunlop Slazenger
Dunlop Slazenger
Dunlop Slazenger
Dunlop Slazenger
Dunlop Slazenger
Donnay Sporting Goods
Donnay Sporting Goods
Donnay Sporting Goods
Donnay Sporting Goods
Donnay Sporting Goods
Donnay Sporting Goods
Donnay Sporting Goods
Browning SA
Browning SA
MG 2060
TG 910
G330
G335
GLM 1
GLM 2
GLM 3
750 G
R-27
R-22
R-10
R-7
R-5
OPS-37
OPS-32
R-3
R-1
OPS-6
OPS-5
CS 125
CS 140
CS 140 WB
CS 160
CS 180+
CS 180+ WB
V-24
AL-2
X-L2
Tubex 200
F 150
GW 300
GW 200
707
DGT-30
500 i
GLM 1
GLM 2
GLM 3
GR-23
SC 95
X-25
X-30
XLT-15
DX 25
ITT 18
PC 1
PC 12
TX 25
TX 35
XR 25
550 B
510 B
1983
1983
1983
1983
1983
1983
1983
1983
1984
1984
1984
1984
1984
1984
1984
1984
1984
1984
1984
1984
1984
1984
1984
1984
1984
1984
1984
1984
1984
1984
1984
1984
1984
1984
1984
1984
1984
1984
1984
1984
1984
1984
1984
1984
1984
1984
1984
1984
1984
1984
1984
1984
34
Besta SportingGoods
Zebest
Zebest
Yonex
Yonex
Yonex
Yonex
Yamaha Corp.
Yamaha Corp.
Yamaha Corp.
Yamaha Corp.
Yamaha Corp.
Yamaha Corp.
Yamaha Corp.
Yamaha Corp.
Yamaha Corp.
Yamaha Corp.
Yamaha Corp.
Yamaha Corp.
Yamaha Corp.
Wimbledon
Wimbledon
Wimbledon
Wimbledon
Wimbledon
Wimbledon
Wimbledon
Wimbledon
Victor Sports Enterprise Corp.
Victor Sports Enterprise Corp.
Snauwaert & Depla N.V.
Snauwaert & Depla N.V.
Snauwaert & Depla N.V.
Sentra Sporting Goods
Rucanor
Rucanor
Rucanor
Rossignol
Nassau
Maxima
Maxima
Maxima
MacGregor Sports Products Inc.
MacGregor Sports Products Inc.
MacGregor Sports Products Inc.
MacGregor Sports Products Inc.
MacGregor Sports Products Inc.
Lane
Lane
Lane
Kawasaki Racket Co.
Kawasaki Racket Co.
STG-1000
VAS 96
VAS 96C
R 10
R 20
R 30
R4
Xam 4
Xam 8
CG100
Xam-6
YFG-35
YFG-45
YFG-55
YFG-75
YFG-95
YMX-444
YMX-666
YWG-33
YWG-55
FK-88
FK-98
GC-88
GC-98
GK-88
GK-98
HM-88
Mid-88
VCT-311
VTC-312
Hi-Ten 25
Hi-Ten 30
Hi-Ten 50
Sentragrip III
PS I Sharak
PS II
PS III
F 200
NA 2000
Syncro 50
Synt 290
Synt 310 GV
Z-1000
Z-2000
Z-4000
Z-5000
Z-6000
800 GR
1000 GR
1000 GR-OS
G705
G103
1984
1985
1985
1985
1985
1985
1985
1985
1985
1985
1985
1985
1985
1985
1985
1985
1985
1985
1985
1985
1985
1985
1985
1985
1985
1985
1985
1985
1985
1985
1985
1985
1985
1985
1985
1985
1985
1985
1985
1985
1985
1985
1985
1985
1985
1985
1985
1985
1985
1985
1985
1985
35
Kawasaki Racket Co.
HL Corp
HL Corp
HL Corp
HL Corp
HL Corp
HL Corp
HL Corp
HL Corp
Dyna (Germany)
Dyna (Germany)
Dyna (Germany)
Dyna (Germany)
Dyna (Germany)
Austral
Austral
Austral
Austral
Winn Sports Corporation
Winn Sports Corporation
Winn Sports Corporation
Winn Sports Corporation
Winn Sports Corporation
Tegro GmbH
Tegro GmbH
Tegro GmbH
Snauwaert & Depla N.V.
Snauwaert & Depla N.V.
Rox Pro
Rox Pro
Rox Pro
Rox Pro
Rox Pro
Rox Pro
Rox Pro
Rox Pro
Rox Pro
Major Sports
Major Sports
Major Sports
Major Sports
Hanil Racket Industrial
Yonex
Yonex
Yonex
Yonex
Yonex
Yonex
Yonex
Yonex
Yonex
Yonex
K800
VAA-401
VAA-402
VAB-411
VAB-412
VCT-311
VCT-312
VCT-405
VCT-406
G1
G2
G3
WG1
WG2
X1
X-1G
X2
X-2G
WG-726
WG-724
WG-727
WG-3
WG-725
SGT 9500
SGT 2400
SGT 125
T 650
T 630
Sp.In-G-200
Ceramax 12
8267
6655
6520B
6911
8459
7152
X 6800
MG 60
MG 80
MG 95
Mid 25
Rabonix R/B-88
R 50 IPS
R 27
R 24
R 24 ISP
R 23
R 22
R 19
R 18
RX 330 IPS
RX 36
1985
1985
1985
1985
1985
1985
1985
1985
1985
1985
1985
1985
1985
1985
1985
1985
1985
1985
1986
1986
1986
1986
1986
1986
1986
1986
1986
1986
1986
1986
1986
1986
1986
1986
1986
1986
1986
1986
1986
1986
1986
1986
1987
1987
1987
1987
1987
1987
1987
1987
1987
1987
36
Yonex
Yamaha Corp.
Yamaha Corp.
Yamaha Corp.
Yamaha Corp.
Yamaha Corp.
Yamaha Corp.
Yamaha Corp.
Yamaha Corp.
Yamaha Corp.
Wilson Sporting Goods Co.
Wilson Sporting Goods Co.
Wilson Sporting Goods Co.
Wilson Sporting Goods Co.
Volkl Franz
Volkl Franz
Volkl Franz
Volkl Franz
Snauwaert & Depla N.V.
Snauwaert & Depla N.V.
Le Coq Sportif
Le Coq Sportif
Le Coq Sportif
Le Coq Sportif
Le Coq Sportif
Adidas
Yonex
Yonex
Yonex
Yonex
Yonex
Volkl Franz
Volkl Franz
Volkl Franz
Prince Manufacturing Inc.
Prince Manufacturing Inc.
Prince Manufacturing Inc.
Prince Manufacturing Inc.
Pirelli Technort
Major Sports
Major Sports
Estusa
Donnay Sporting Goods
Adidas
Adidas
Adidas
Adidas
Yamaha Corp.
Yamaha Corp.
Yamaha Corp.
Yamaha Corp.
RX 28
97 DX
97 FX
90 DX
90 SX
YM 500
YM 450
YM 400
YM 350
YM 300
GLM 21
GLM 23
GLM 25
GLM 27
T9
GP 45
GP 25
GP 24
Techforce 50
Techforce 30
TC 40
TL 25
TS 25
TE 30
TL 30
CF25 L Gamme
CF
R 50 ISP
R 24 ISP
R 7FL
RX 36
RX 28 FL
T 9 45
T 9 30
T9
GraphTech DB 110
GraphTech DB 90
TriComp 110
TriComp 90
Mod. B1
MG 85
MG 70
JC AMX2
GLM 4
CF25 CC
CF25 GF
CF25 XS
CF25 L
DX 550X
DX 500X
DX 400X
DX 300X
1987
1987
1987
1987
1987
1987
1987
1987
1987
1987
1987
1987
1987
1987
1987
1987
1987
1987
1987
1987
1987
1987
1987
1987
1987
1987
1988
1988
1988
1988
1988
1988
1988
1988
1988
1988
1988
1988
1988
1988
1988
1988
1988
1988
1988
1988
1988
1989
1989
1989
1989
37
Yamaha Corp.
Vostra
Volkl Franz
Volkl Franz
Volkl Franz
Toa-Strings Co
Toa-Strings Co
Sp. In
Sp. In
Sp. In
Rossignol
Rival
Rival
Rival
Chris New Tech Sports
Browning SA
Browning SA
Browning SA
Yonex
Yonex
Yonex
Yamaha Corp.
Yamaha Corp.
Yamaha Corp.
Yamaha Corp.
Spalding A.G. & Bros.
Spalding A.G. & Bros.
Spalding A.G. & Bros.
Spalding A.G. & Bros.
Spalding A.G. & Bros.
Spalding A.G. & Bros.
Spalding A.G. & Bros.
Spalding A.G. & Bros.
Spalding A.G. & Bros.
Spalding A.G. & Bros.
Spalding A.G. & Bros.
Spalding A.G. & Bros.
Spalding A.G. & Bros.
Sp. In
Rucanor
Rucanor
Rucanor
Rucanor
Rucanor
Rossignol
Rossignol
Pic International
Pic International
Dunlop Slazenger
Dunlop Slazenger
DX 100JR
Systech 24
T 9 37
TR 35
TR 25
TR 540
TR 520
Hipo
A-3
G-300
FT 5.80
Au-300 MS
Au-400
Au-500
CTE-2
Vecta T4/T3
Vecta TJ 25
Vecta TJ 23
RQ 220
RQ 260
RQ 380
EOS 100
EOS 110
EOS RZ 100
EOS RZ 110
Ellyp-Tech 100
Ellyp-Tech 110
FC-20
GC-20
GC-30
GC-55
GC-60
GC-100
GR-20
GR-55
GRB-20
GRB-55
Orbitech 95
G-350
PFF 530
T 550
T 551
TC 380
TC 400
Vectris 6000
Vectris 9000
PIC No.I
PIC ASS 100
PS 90
PS 60
1989
1989
1989
1989
1989
1989
1989
1989
1989
1989
1989
1989
1989
1989
1989
1989
1989
1989
1990
1990
1990
1990
1990
1990
1990
1990
1990
1990
1990
1990
1990
1990
1990
1990
1990
1990
1990
1990
1990
1990
1990
1990
1990
1990
1990
1990
1990
1990
1990
1990
38
References
Aaker, David A. (1991) Managing brand equity: Capitalizing on the value of a brand
name. The Free Press: New York
Agrawal, Jagdish and Kamakura, Wagner A. (1995)The Economic Worth of Celebrity
Endorsers: An Event Study Analysis. Journal of Marketing. Vol. 59, July 1995, p. 5662
Aldrich, Howard E. and Fiol, Marlene C. (1994) Fools rush in? The institutional
context of industry creation. Academy of Management Review. Vol. 19, No. 4. p. 645670.
Alpert, Frank H. and Kamins, Michael A. (1995) An Empirical Investigation of
Consumer Memory, Attitude, and Perceptions Toward Pioneer and Follower Brands.
Journal of Marketing, Vol. 59, October 1995, p. 34-45.
Anderson, Philip and Tushman, Michael L. (1990) Technological Discontinuities and
Dominant Designs: A Cyclical Model of Technological Change. Administrative
Science Quearterly. Vol. 35. p. 604-633.
Ashforth, Blake E. and Gibbs, Barrie W. (1990) The Double-edge of Organizational
Legitimacy. Organization Science. Vol.1, No. 3, p. 177-194.
Cohen, G. (1990) Why is it so difficult to put names to faces? British Journal of
Psychology, 81, p. 287-297.
Cooper, Donald R., Schindler, Pamela S. (2003) Business Research Methods.
McGraw-Hill: New York .
Cooper, Michael J., Khorana, Ajay., Osobov, Igor., Patel, Ajay., Rau, P.
Raghavendra. (2005) Managerial actions in response to a market downturn: valuation
effects of name changes in the dot.com decline. Journal of Corporate Finance. vol.
11, p. 319-335.
Dacin, M. Tina. (1997) Isomorphism in context: The power and prescription of
institutional norms. Academy of Management Journal. Vol. 40, No. 1, p. 46-81.
Deephouse, David L. (1996) Does Isomorphism Legitimate? Academy of
Management Journal, Vol. 39, No.4, p. 1024-1039
Delattre, Eric (2002) Business Name Changes: The French Experience. Journal of
Small Business Management. Vol. 40 No. 4, p. 360-367.
DiMaggio, Paul J. and Powell, Walter W. (1983) The iron cage revisited: Institutional
isomorphism and collective rationality in organizational fields. American
Sociological Review. Vol. 48, p. 147-160
39
Farquhar, Peter H. (1989) Managing Brand Equity. Marketing Research. September,
p. 24-33
Galaskiewicz, Joseph and Wasserman, Stanley (1989) Mimetic Processes within an
Interorganizational Field: An Empirical Test. Administrative Science Quarterly, Vol.
34, p. 454-479.
Glynn, Mary Ann. and Abzug, R.A. (2002) Institutionalizing identity: Symbolic
isomorphism and organizational names. Academy of Management Journal. Vol. 45, p.
267-280
Glynn, Mary Ann. and Marquis, Christopher (2005) Legitimating identities: How
institutional logics motivate organizational name choices. Working paper. p. 1-30.
Gontijo, Possidonia F.D., Rayman, Janice, Zhang, Shi and Zaidel, Eran. (2002) How
brand names are special: brands, words, and hemispheres. Brain and Language, Vol.
82, p. 327-343.
Grewal, Dhruv, Krishnan, R. Baker, Julie. And Borin, Norm (1998) The effect of
store name, brand name and price discounts on consumers’ evaluations and purchase
intentions. Journal of Retailing, Vol. 74, No. 3, p. 331-352.
Henderson, Geraldine R., Iacobucci, Dawn and Calder, Bobby J. (1998) Brand
diagnostics: Mapping branding effects using consumer associative networks.
European Journal of Operational Research. Vol. 111, p. 306-327.
Hutjes, J. M. and Van Buuren, J. A. (1996) De Gevalsstudie: Strategie van kwalitatief
onderzoek. Boom: Meppel.
Kahle, Lynn R. and Homer, Pamela M. (1985) Physcial Attractiveness of the
Celebrity Endorser: A Social Adaptation Perspective. Journal of Consumer Research.
Vol 11., p. 954-961.
Keller, Kevin Lane (1993) Conceptualizing, Measuring, and Managing CustomerBased Brand Equity. Journal of Marketing. Vol. 57, January, p. 1-22.
Kuebler, Siegfried (2000) The Book of Tennis Rackets. Kuebler GmbH: Singen
Lassar, Walfried., Mittal, Banwari and Sharma, Arun (1995) Measuring costumer
based brand equity. Journal of Consumer Marketing. Vol. 12, No. 4, p. 11-19.
Lehman, Kim F (2004) ‘Symbols and Meaning in Product Names: The Case of
Australian Car Manufacturers’, ANZMAC 2004, Wellington, New Zealand, 1-7
Meyer, John W., and Scott, W. Richard (1983) Organizational Environments: Ritual
and Rationality. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
Pavia, Teresa M and Costa, Janeen Arnold (1993) The Winning Number: Consumer
Perceptions of Alpha-numeric Brand Names. Journal of Marketing. Vol. 57, p.85-98.
40
Peterson, Robert A. and Ross, Ivan (1972) How to Name New Brands. Journal of
Advertising Research. Vol. 12, p. 29-34
Robertson, Kim (1989) Strategically desirable brand name characteristics. The
Journal of Consumer Marketing. Vol. 6 No. 4. p. 61-71.
Scott, Richard W. (1987) The adolescence of institutional theory. Administrative
Science Quarterly. Vol 32, p. 493-511.
Sebba, Mark (1986) The –EX Ending in Product Names. American Speech. Vol. 61,
No.4, p. 318-326
Sherman, Stratford P. (1985) When you whish upon a star. Fortune. (August 19), p.
68
Shocker, Allan D., Srivastava, Rajendra K.and Ruekert, Robert W. (1994) Challenges
and opportunities facing brand management: An introduction to the special issue.
Journal of Marketing Research. Vol. XXXI, May, p. 149-158
Staff, Roger Hughlett. (2001) When dot-com turns into not-com. Baltimore Business
Journal. April 20, 2001.
Suchman, Mark C. (1995) Managing Legitimacy: Strategic and Institutional
Approaches. The Academy of Management Review. Vol. 20, No. 3. p 571-610.
Turkey, L.W. and Moore, Patrick A. (1995) Brand name strategies in the service
sector. Journal of Consumer Marketing. Vol. 12, No. 4, p. 42-50.
Van der Kind, R.P. (2004) Retailmarketing. Wolters-Noordhoff: Groningen
Zhou, Kevin Zheng., Yim, Chi Kin (Bennett) and Tse, David K. (2005) The Effects of
Strategic Orientations on Technology- and Market-Based Breakthrough Innovations.
Journal of Marketing. Vol. 69, p. 42-60.
41
42