Debranding

Debranding has two definitions, both aligning with market base strategies, but having two separate meanings

Debranding (de-corporatizing) occurs when a company removes its name from its logo for a marketing campaign. This is usually in an attempt to make themselves appear less corporate and more personal.

Debranding (transitioning into "generic") occurs when a company with a well-known brand opts to appear more generic. This means the company will eliminate advertising and reduce prices and debranding in this sense can increase profit margins.

Nike has been called the first company to debrand their logo, which happened in 1995. In 2011 this trend continued when Starbucks opted to removed its name from the logo leaving only the center image. The intention was to make Starbucks appear more like a local coffee shop and less corporate. Two years later Coca-Cola debuted Share a Coke, replacing its logo with 150 given names.

In the early 1980s American consumers began transitioning from so-called “name” brands towards more affordable generic, or “no-name,” brands. This shift occurred across a range of household products. In a short amount of time generic brands captured 2% of supermarket sales in the US. In 1981 generic brands commonly held 4–10% of the product category sales in which they were strongest, in some cases reaching as high as 16%. What puzzled many was that generic brands were capturing market share without the benefits of major distribution afforded to the name brands. This increase in market share of generic brands also came at a time when overall sales were decreasing slightly. With no signs of slowing, generic brands posed a significant threat to the profitability of major brands.

The intention behind debranding is often to make the company appear less corporate and therefore more personal and “forward thinking”.

Many large corporations assumed generics were a fad, targeted at the low-end, price conscious consumer. Research proved quite the opposite. Consumer satisfaction for generics was very high, with 93% of those who purchased generics were satisfied with the product and 86% were interested in continuing to purchase generics. Furthermore, evidence suggested consumers viewed the quality of generics to be at least as good as those of private brands. This presented a huge issue for branded products: consumers of all types, including the highly educated and upscale, were not necessarily concerned about the price of the product, but rather the perceived value. If a product is produced by Brand X, but there is a generic available, the consumer will tend toward the generic since the perceived quality is similar, but the price is generally lower. This means consumers were no longer responding to, or willing to pay for, the extensive branding and advertising campaigns contained in the price of the branded product.

...
Wikipedia