Search results

The purpose of this paper is to discuss corporate co‐branding value and create the model of evaluating co‐branding value. The connotation of the model is to consider the compatibility of strategic partners such as strategic alliance compatibility and brand alliance compatibility; in addition, this research can estimate the corporate co‐branding value through this model to evaluate and discuss the effect of co‐branding effect for the future.

In the past, few researchers investigated the measurement of corporate co‐branding value in the marketing sector. The measurement of intangible assets, on the other hand, is well established in accounting finance. However, the concepts and methods of accounting finance cannot easily be applied to other areas. This paper provides a straightforward concept that uses a heuristic model to combine the notion of co‐branding synergy. According to the literature, the combination of strategic and brand alliances can affect the concept of co‐branding value. This research revises the concept of compatibility from Park and Lawson by replacing the concept of product attribute similarity with the ratio of sales growth, and the brand concept consistency with the ratio of market share after brand alliance.

This study verifies the proposed model synthetically with a real case (Sony‐Ericsson). Conversely, this research anticipates analyzing the model in different perspectives and observing the variation of different combinations to obtain potential managerial implications for corporate managers. This research concludes: brand alliance compatibility has limited effect on corporate co‐branding value; strategic alliance compatibility is the major power to drive the direction of corporate co‐branding value; and the trend of co‐branding value is the important indicator for business managers.

Insufficient information may generate incorrect or unclear trends if the year of co‐branding is too short. This is also a major limitation of the authors' research. Thus, more real‐world cases can be conducted (such as Miller and Coors) in the future to elaborate upon the model.

The proposed model helps enterprises estimate their current co‐branding value using existing financial statements and market share data and identify the degree of alliance influence to their revise brand strategies. The estimated co‐branding values in this study can help managers identify their market position and execute existing co‐brand strategies. Managers can utilize this information to revise their management direction or strategies. Based on these arguments, this research enhances existing co‐branding knowledge and offers significant contributions by presenting more real cases (e.g. Miller and Coors) in the future. In other words, this work is both an avenue and a blueprint for future co‐branding research.

The paper devises a novel concept for estimating corporate co‐branding value based on the synergies between strategic and brand alliances. To illustrate the proposed model, this study analyzes the Sony Ericsson example since it has survived for several years. Analytical results reveal that strategic alliance and brand alliance variations have significant influences on co‐branding value changes. Results also reveal that strategic alliances have a greater effect on co‐branding value than brand alliances, which indicates that a good alliance strategy may generate a superior co‐branding effect.

The motivations behind co-branding alliances, the differences in performance between the paired brands and the emergence of “spillover effects” have been pillars of the marketing research agenda for almost three decades. We observe an extensive number of studies on co-branding alliances, combined with multiple theoretical perspectives and empirical approaches informing extant literature. The purpose of this paper is to summarize of the state of the art of this research.

The authors offer a systematic literature review of 190 papers on co-branding alliances. The authors portray a picture of the theories informing co-branding research and build a conceptual framework that summarizes the concepts and variables used in this literature. Finally, 11 interviews with managers and consultants of European firms help to reveal potential problems in practice and needs that are not captured by previous studies.

The authors develop a map of theories used to investigate co-branding alliances and build a conceptual framework linking motivations, co-branding alliance implementation and outputs. Finally, the authors propose a structured research agenda.

The main implication relies on the structured research agenda.

Practical implications include the identification of the variables and dimensions involved in a brand alliance to exploit the strengths and moderate the weaknesses of a brand.

This paper highlights how co-branding is embedded in different contexts and dimensions regarding both firms and consumers. The two maps presented in this study underscore the interdependence among such dimensions. The authors interview marketing experts to validate the conceptual framework and to help us extract the managerial implications that stem from it.

Co‐branding strategies are now seen increasingly in business‐to‐business (B2B) settings, however, there has been little research in this area. This study aims to investigate the benefits of a B2B co‐branding strategy where the partner brands have different brand equity positions.

This study employs a scenario approach incorporating three real multimedia software brands and three fictitious brands in nine hypothetical alliances over 97 respondents. Using repeated measures ANOVA, the study examines the balance of benefits derived from brand partnerships between high‐, medium‐ and low‐brand equity levels firms.

It was found that brands with equivalent equity levels shared the benefits of the co‐branding equally, while lower equity brands benefited more from the alliance than higher equity partners. The results also suggest that very dominant partners gain a greater proportion of functional benefits (such as technical expertise) from the co‐branding strategy.

The study used real and fictitious multimedia software brands in a hypothetical co‐branding strategy, measuring a pre‐defined set of benefits. Different results may be found selecting a different industry setting, brands, and benefits.

Firms sharing equal equity positions can expect to enjoy equivalent benefits from a co‐branding strategy, regardless of how strong the joint equity position is. Before entering asymmetric co‐branding relationships, firms should review the differential benefits expected and ensure that negotiations and success measures reflect the anticipated outcomes. Small firms wishing to pursue a co‐branding partnership with a dominant market player should consider that they are less likely to capture the knowledge‐based benefits from the brand alliance.

This paper is the first to look at the impact of asymmetric brand equity positions in a B2B co‐branding partnership, and adds value to the literature and to practitioner understanding of the role of asymmetry in influencing co‐branding outcomes.

This study examines the process of establishing a viable brand in a new foreign market through successful market entry governance by utilizing various types of branding alliances to transfer corporate brands. Drawing from corporate illustrations and building upon Ghosh and John's (1999) governance value analysis (GVA) model, a decision model for managers is developed providing theory-based guidance for market entry strategies. Relational governance can be considered as a continuum ranging from strong relational (i.e., joint ventures, co-branding) to weak relational (i.e., joint promotion, marketing alliance) forms. Firms should organize their market entry strategy based upon brand equity resources, specific investments made by the partner, and environmental uncertainty (market volatility and cultural distance), so as to transfer the desired brand image and associations into local markets by maximizing the level of value created and value claimed. This study contributes to the international marketing literature by providing a theoretically strong decision model, supported by corporate examples, of how firms enter markets using various types of brand alliances. It also advances the practice of international marketing in regard to branding by providing insights as to how managers in the global marketplace can effectively transfer brand images and build global brand equity, minimizing firm costs while maximizing the value created and claimed from the brand.

Co-branding is popular with partnerships between well-known and new brands. In a laboratory study, this paper aims to examine the effects of a single ally and multiple allies on quality perception of a brand. The results suggest that the quality perception of the new brand depends on the co-branding strategy.

For dual-brand alliances, a single-factor design was used, with secondary brand quality level (high, medium and low) as the independent variable. Three advertisements were created by manipulating quality levels of the single partner. For multiple-brand alliances, a 2 × 3 between-subjects factorial design was used in the experiment. The two factors were diversification (homogeneous vs heterogeneous) and quality levels of the alliance (high-end, mixed and low-end).

The results suggest that the number of brand partners significantly affected the perceived quality of the primary brand. For both dual- and multi-brand alliances, the quality level of the secondary brand positively influenced the perceived quality of the primary brand. For multiple-brand alliances, even though the highest quality perceptions of the primary brand are in the heterogeneous conditions, the heterogeneity of partners (partners across different product categories) did not affect the quality perception of the primary brand.

One limitation of the current study is that it only addresses one type of brand alliance: co-promotion. The generalization of these findings to other forms of brand alliances (e.g. ingredient branding: Intel with IBM, Dell and HP) merits further investigation. Also, in this study, respondents processed the information in a relatively low-involvement condition (note that the target ad was presented along with filler ads). They were more likely to use brand names as heuristic cues to form their judgments. Because an alliance partner also assumes risks, future research should consider the effect of the alliances on the secondary brand.

Understanding brand alliances (especially multiple-brand alliances) is critical for new product managers and marketers. Introducing a new brand has higher risk and failure rates. Companies may lower these risks by co-branding with established brands. However, they should carefully consider the diversification and quality level of the partners. If brand managers position their product as “high quality (luxury)” or “low quality (budget)”, they should choose high- (or low-) quality partners from different product categories (heterogeneous high-end or low-end alliances) because diversification strengthens the primary brand. For a single-partner alliance, the secondary brand should be of high quality.

This paper extends the brand alliance literature beyond single-partner to multiple-partner alliances. With multiple partners, one can explore several critical aspects of an alliance, e.g. quality variance and product class diversity across the partners.

Current research on brand alliances has focused primarily on alliances between two known, national brands. However, there is significant benefit to both parties in an alliance between a national brand and a private brand. Such alliances are gaining importance in the industry but have not been studied by marketers. The basic question explored in this study is whether using a national brand ingredient can benefit a private brand without hurting the national brand. First, a theoretical framework to explain how consumers may react to such an alliance is presented. Next, an experiment was conducted which showed that a private brand with a name brand ingredient was evaluated more positively. However, the evaluation of the national brand was not diminished by this association. Implications and future research directions are discussed.

The purpose of this paper is to provide a framework to help competitive firms find optimal pricing and brand management strategies in order to maximize their respective profits.

A game‐theoretic model is developed to determine optimal pricing and brand management strategies for competitive firms.

The study demonstrates that optimal pricing and brand management strategies exist for firms in a competitive market. The optimum marketing strategy for competitive firms to employ is the cooperative alliance pricing and brand management strategy, particularly when market competition is very intense.

The present study assumes that all information is known to all parties. However, information could be incomplete. It is recommended that future research explore pricing and brand management strategies under incomplete and asymmetric information settings.

The paper provides a very useful model framework and pricing and brand management strategy for business managers when they are doing business in a competitive market.

The paper fills a conceptual and practical gap for a structured analysis of the current state of knowledge about alliance brand. It provides practical and solid advice and examples demonstrating the application of cooperative alliance pricing and brand management strategies for business managers.

This study seeks to explore the value of using brand alliances, or co‐branding strategies, to influence consumer perceptions of new brand extensions under circumstances where the firm (parent brand) introduces new products that will be targeted to product categories within which the parent brand has a low initial degree of perceptual fit.

Data were collected through a four‐stage questionnaire administered to 308 subjects. Hypotheses were explored through a four‐level single factor between subjects experimental design.

Analyses suggest that by partnering with brands possessing higher perceived degrees of fit in the extension category (i.e. co‐brand), parent firms' brands can achieve more favorable positions for their extensions than could be realized if firms acted independently. Explained variance in perceptions of the extension increased substantially when perceptions of co‐ and parent‐brand fit were considered. Fit between the co‐brand and the new extension product apparently should be the driving factor in selecting best partnering brands for alliances. Fit between parent and partner brands may take a back seat when forming alliances.

Current co‐branding research typically addresses the ability of brand alliances to improve perceptions of new products bearing the names of both co‐joined brands. “Perceptual fit” and brand attitudes are major constructs thought to influence the ability of brand alliances to achieve this goal. Specifically, in co‐branding applications, perceptual fit is usually conceptualized as the fit between co‐joined brands themselves, rather than fit between each co‐joined brand and the proposed new product for which both has been combined to launch. The paper's original argument is that when one brand (parent or host brand) seeks to co‐brand for purposes of improving its ability to penetrate an untested new product category, fit should be treated from a more traditional brand extension perspective. This argument is supported.

The purpose of this paper is to analyze the theory and implementation of dual branding. The authors explore whether dual branding is a positive choice for two hotel brands belonging to the same firm and operating under the same roof, in this case, a Wyndham and a Wyndham Garden branded property.

A case study methodology was employed. In-depth interviews were conducted with managers regarding their decisions and implementation of a dual branding strategy.

The authors reveal the organizational, operational, technical, marketing, financial, economic and technological challenges experienced before, during and after the dual branding transition. Moreover, they reveal the results of the implementation and its consequences to the hotel and its customers. A conceptual model is presented with the goal of assisting and facilitating the investigation, analysis, choice and implementation of dual branding by hoteliers.

The present research expands the existing body of knowledge, bridges the theory and practice of branding in the lodging sector, advances dual branding theory and provides insightful implications for scholars and managers alike.

The purpose of this research is to investigate how companies in the reinforcing bar industry and the construction industry operate and implement brand alliances.

This research uses a qualitative interview survey and the grounded theory method to extract key factors of brand alliance development and management in the targeted industries. The interview survey included six managers from different construction companies in Taiwan.

This research identifies four common firm-level operational process stages (core categories) of brand alliances including different multidimensional factors, and proposes a conceptual model based on these identified core process stages. The four common core process stages include selection of brand alliance partners, communication with brand alliance partners, enforcement of brand alliances and assessment of brand alliances.

The proposed model offers a tentative explanation of the development and management of brand alliances between the reinforcing bar industry and the construction industry. This study represents an initial research attempt in this field and explains how reinforcing bar and construction companies operate and implement brand alliances.