Brand value and success depends on how we (=the market, including potential new customers) trust the brand owner.
For example Sony had such a good reputation, for doing well whatever they bother to do, that they could afford to scrap the Minolta brand completely (even though "Minolta" was a reputable brand). Imagine, if Sony would have purchased Pentax instead of Minolta, and even if they had scrapped the Pentax brand name just the same way as they did with Minolta, we woudn't be unlucky. Then our system would have Sony's market share, good supply from Sigma/Tamron, etc.
However, Ricoh doesn't have this level of trust yet (how could they, being perceived as a copier machine maker). Furthermore, the Hoya era created mistrust, because Hoya was somewhat unlucky (their many unlucky decisions harmed Pentax' camera division's market value, market share, and company value, as evident from the sales price to Ricoh).
Now, it's up to Ricoh, to show off medium-term, whether they will be unlucky as Hoya or lucky as Sony was with Minolta. It can be anywhere in between. We don't know yet. Should they be utterly successfull (e.g. reaching Sony's DSLR market share), then they may rename the Pentax brand even to R2-D2 or C-3PO, if they are fancy - that's granted then (but hopefully they don't do that)