Search results

This study aims to examine an emerging product–place co-branding marketing practice in China’s rural areas. The role of this practice in inclusive development is analyzed from the perspectives of value proposition innovation, market legitimacy, media coverage and brand value. Both research and practice indicate value proposition innovation to exert an important influence on brand value enhancement, but little is known about the mediating and moderating mechanisms underlying this relation.

A moderated mediation model is constructed to examine whether market legitimacy mediates the relationship between value proposition innovation and brand value. vWhether this mediating process is moderated by media coverage is also examined. The primary data are collected from semi-structured interviews and observations conducted with two common cases to develop proper scales for value proposition innovation and market legitimacy. The research includes 100 product–place co-brandings published by the Ministry of Agriculture and Rural Affairs in 2019. Hypotheses are tested using hierarchical regression and a Bootstrap model.

Value proposition innovation has a positive effect on brand value, and market legitimacy partially mediates this relationship. Media coverage positively moderates the relationship between value proposition innovation and market legitimacy, and positively moderates the mediating effect of market legitimacy; the higher the media coverage, the stronger the mediating effect of market legitimacy.

Based on data availability and accessibility, the study sample focused on indicators from 100 brands in 2019. If the Ministry of Agriculture and Rural Affairs discloses consecutive annual information for other years, future studies could explore panel data to further test the study’s conclusions from a longitudinal perspective.

First, this paper adds to the emerging literature on product–place co-branding business models by examining the relationship between value proposition innovation and brand value. Second, this paper enriches institutional theory by including market legitimacy as a mediator between value proposition innovation and brand value. Third, this paper identifies the moderating role of media coverage, thus broadening the theoretical implications of institutional theory with respect to improving market legitimacy.

While extensive knowledge on branding and communication has focused on business-to-consumer context, despite the nourishment of the importance of strategic alliances between businesses in terms of co-branding has become discernible, a little attention has been given to business-to-business (B2B) context. This chapter tries to take attention to dual marketing communication, where they are trying to market their products and services to both individuals and businesses. More specifically, this chapter aims to emphasise ingredient branding as a form of co-branding considered as one of the revolutionary dual marketing communication strategies. Notably, the importance of ingredient branding is highlighted for industries and companies who have to design a strategic multi-channel communication plan not just for their customers but also for retaining the competitive advantage, increasing the brand strength for both sides and stimulating the sales. Further, this chapter elaborates the subject with prominent examples of ingredient branding, as well as explains how a communication strategy became an asset for manufacturers and suppliers who are in downturn and lead them to have a growth opportunity with maximising their brand values.

This study aims to investigate drivers of co-branding, and the relative strength of these drivers within the Persian Gulf Pro League (PGPL). The study examines sport sponsorship, and specifically the relationship between professional football teams and on-field apparel sponsors.

Sixteen experts participated in semi-structured interviews and ranked the co-branding drivers. The expert opinions were organized into estimates and triangular fuzzy numbers were established before the Mamdani Fuzzy Inference System converted the fuzzy outputs into crisp output values using the Centroid method. Next, the rankings of the drivers by the same 16 participants were analyzed using the analytical hierarchy process (AHP).

The study identified four main factors with 19 indicators: brand management (i.e. enhancing brand value, utilizing the knowledge and experience of partner brands, brand position, brand identity, brand equity and brand image), partner relationships (i.e. satisfaction, mutual trust, commitment, common interest, product reliability and innovative strategies), marketing factors (i.e. marketing mix, market position, competitive advantage and entry into new domestic markets) and supporting factors (i.e. copyright, contracts and social media law). The AHP identified the most influential factors as marketing, partner relationships, brand management and support.

Based on the study’s findings, the authors recommend that PGPL teams adopt a partnership mindset, seek alignment of values and recognize the plurality of stakeholders to a sponsorship and their relationships to each other. The study highlights the challenges of co-branding activities in a developing country where trademark laws are not well developed.

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 purpose of this paper is to identify the realistic trade-offs young consumers make when evaluating luxury co-branding combinations based on signalling theory.

Conjoint analysis was employed to evaluate the relative impact of four major attributes (i.e. brand combinations, retail channels, uniqueness and price) on consumer desirability for luxury co-branding combinations. The data were analysed using desirability indices.

Brand combinations, uniqueness and price significantly impact consumer desirability of luxury co-branding combinations. The luxury brand and sportswear combination results in the highest desirability when price is more similar to the sportswear constituent and participants perceive that the collaboration as exclusive.

The results suggest that luxury brands need to consider the partnering brand's retail format primarily for co-branding strategy. Luxury brand collaborations with sportswear and premium priced streetwear brands are more likely to result in higher desirability among consumers compared to collaborations with fast fashion and mass-market brands. Additionally, uniqueness may not be effective as a point of differentiation in cases where luxury brands cannot guarantee a single yearly collaboration.

The decision to use existing brands for the fictitious combinations developed more sensible scenarios for respondents. In addition, rather than discrete questions, attribute-based combinations provide a more realistic depiction of consumers' decision making on luxury co-branding. Finally, the results provide marketing practitioners with practical directions for future development of fashion luxury co-branding strategy.

This paper aims to introduce brand identity (BI) fit as an important factor that influences co-branding success. Based on motivated reasoning theory, the authors propose consumer-brand (C-B) identification moderates the effect of BI fit on co-branding attitudes. In addition, they investigate the role of consumer coping and perceived BI fit on consumers’ attitude toward co-branding.

Two experiments were conducted to test the research hypotheses.

Study 1 results reveal that when C-B identification is low, consumers’ co-branding evaluations and the loyalty of the focal brand are higher in the low BI fit condition than those in the high BI fit condition. When C-B identification is high, such effects are not observed. Study 2 results reveal that when the BI fit is low, decoupling is more effective than biased assimilation at defending the positive evaluations of the focal brand.

First, while the authors focus particularly on BI fit, it may be fruitful for marketers to combine BI fit with other types of fit such as functional dimension fit and product category fit. For example, while the results suggest marketers should co-brand with low BI fit pairs when targeting at low C-B identification consumers, this recommendation should be taken in conjunction with how consumers respond to other co-branding fit strategies. Second, the authors encourage future researchers to explore deeper into the consumer coping in other contexts. As these elements are critical to consumers’ attitudes, it will be beneficial to see how decoupling or biased assimilation strategies differ in other co-branding fit contexts.

The authors advise marketers to consider both the level of BI fit and the level of C-B identification when looking for a co-brand partner. When targeting low C-B identification consumers, it is better for marketers to find a co-branding partner with a low BI fit than high BI fit. This is a counterintuitive finding given that higher fit (e.g. product category fit and brand image fit) is often associated with positive evaluations. For high C-B identification consumers, BI fit does not adversely affect consumer attitudes (and loyalty). Thus, these consumers are safer targets for marketers in terms of maintaining attitudes. Second, the authors find that when perceived BI fit is low, decoupling strategy is more effective than biased assimilation strategy at defending the positive evaluations of the focal brand. However, when perceived BI fit is high, the two coping strategies have little difference in influencing co-branding attitudes. Thus, the authors advise marketers to encourage their consumers to cope using a decoupling strategy to garner higher attitudes.

The authors introduce BI fit as an important abstract dimension of brand image fit when facing co-branding decisions. Overall, our results demonstrate C-B identification moderates the effects of BI fit on co-branding attitudes. Counter-intuitively, the results suggest that low BI fit co-branding can also generate higher attitudes depending on consumers’ level of brand identification. Moreover, marketers must also be wary of how consumers cope with co-branding, as coping explains the underlying mechanism of how consumers deal with high or low perceived BI fit. Specifically, our findings suggest that consumer coping moderates the relationship between perceived BI fit and co-branding attitudes.

The purpose of this paper is to identify whether consumer evaluations of products are influenced by the presence of co-branding with a well-known reputable ingredient brand and whether differences in evaluations are related to the socioeconomic stratum of the consumer.

These questions were investigated by way of two experiments: the first, using a between-subjects approach that was carried out with 210 subjects and the second, using between- and within-subjects approaches that were carried out with 305 subjects.

The results show that: products produced by both little-known and well-known brands are evaluated more favourably when they are co-branded with a well-known ingredient brand; there is no evidence that the co-branding effect on product evaluation is stronger for little-known brand products than for well-known brand products; and there is weak evidence that the co-branding effect on product evaluation is stronger among subjects from lower socioeconomic strata than among subjects from the upper stratum.

The theory of anchoring alone is insufficient for explaining differences in product evaluations when the co-branding strategy is adopted. It is believed that positive effects can be also interpreted by the assimilation and signalling theories.

As for the managerial implications, the authors offer insights into the impacts of using a strategic co-branding alliance on the products of little-known brands among consumers from lower and upper strata.

The study contributes to consumer behaviour literature, specifically with regard to ingredient-brand effects in co-branding strategies from the perspective of the end consumer.

This study was conducted to examine the effect of co-branding, a brand partnership tactic involving two or more brands, on consumer behavior within the sport industry. As such, the primary aim was to examine differences regarding consumers' perceptions of self-image congruence and perceived product quality when considering solo-branding and co-branding conditions. Further, under the co-branding condition, relationships among consumers' self-image congruence, perceived product quality, image fit, product evaluation and purchase intention were investigated.

A scenario-based quasi-experiment consisting of hypothetical co-branding initiatives between existing brands was conducted.

Results from a repeated multivariate analysis of variance (MANOVA) indicated that consumers' symbolic and functional perceptions of co-branding as well as evaluations were statistically higher than in the solo-branding condition. Additionally, structural equation modeling indicated positive relationships between consumers' symbolic and functional perceptions, image fit, evaluation and behavior intention.

This study is one of the first papers to investigate the impact of co-branding on consumers within the sport industry and provides evidence of the positive impact of co-branding strategies on consumer behavior within the sport industry.

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.

Co‐branding is an often used marketing strategy within the theme park industry and it has existed in one form or another since the 1930s. Notwithstanding the growing interest for co‐branding in the theme park industry academic research in a theme park context has not been found yet. Empirical research on co‐branding is limited to a relatively few studies that have typically examined product concepts or fictitious products rather than real instances of co‐branding. This article aims to present results of an experiment on the effects of co‐branding from a real‐life theme park perspective.

The article is based on a classical field experiment in which the IBRA‐method of measuring brand associations was used. The IBRA‐method does not influence the brand associations like many other research techniques do (by giving certain cues). It is an unaided, unbiasing research technique. The objective of the study is to investigate whether the relationship between theme park Efteling and WWF, resulting in the co‐branded attraction PandaVision, could have a negative effect on the strong brand associations of theme park Efteling.

Through the field experiment an insight has been given into the possible effects a respondent's perceived brand fit within a co‐branding situation can have on the average evaluation of core associations of one of the constituent brands. Even strong brands (Efteling is the strongest brand in The Netherlands) can be harmed by a wrong co‐brand strategy. Results also showed that the brand fit manipulation has resulted in a more negative image of Efteling without affecting the evaluation of the co‐branded attraction PandaVision. Only measuring whether guests like or dislike your attractions is thus not sufficient.

This research is presented as a preliminarily study and the results should be interpreted with caution. The sample size was limited to 70 respondents and the experimental design with only students may not necessarily represent the typical visitor to the Efteling. Because of the crude manipulation of the treatment it is unclear what precisely caused the established effect. Is the effect caused by the degree of elaboration (meaning, because the respondent is triggered to think deeply about the matter at hand) or by the substantive guidance? Supplementary research with several experimental groups is needed to answer this question.

Theme parks should be aware of the dangers of co‐branding. Pairing with a wrong partner can damage the brand; negative spillover effects, erosion, brand dilution and even negative bottom line effects for the participating brands are possible. If the results occur for strong brands, weaker brands should be even more aware of the dangers.

This article presents the first application of the effects of co‐branding in a specific theme park setting. It is also the first article to use the unbiased IBRA‐method for measuring brand associations of a co‐brand strategy. Negative effects of co‐branding for strong brands in a real‐life situation were never reported before.