Search results

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.

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.

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 study is to examine the impact of two different extension strategies, namely brand extension and co‐branding, on consumer attitude toward an extension in the context of the arts.

An experiment was conducted in which the type of extension strategy, as well as other variables identified as potentially having an impact on consumer attitudes, were manipulated.

The results showed that, whatever extension strategy is chosen, the new product should be congruent with the arts organization's activities and should be of low complexity. If these conditions are met, a co‐branding strategy appears to be preferable.

Because only two arts organizations were analyzed in this study, i.e. museums and symphonic orchestras, future studies should consider other domains of the arts. New products introduced as brand extensions should be simple and congruent with the business activities of the arts organization. If the product is not congruent with the organization's activities, then simple brand extension appears be a better strategy.

This study has examined the extent to which marketing strategies that work for conventional goods and services may succeed in the case of artistic and cultural products. It brings valuable knowledge to managers of arts organizations and marketing researchers with respect to the impact of brand extension strategies in the arts.

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 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.

The purpose of this paper is to examine the effects of brand familiarity and brand fit on purchase intention towards the offerings of co‐branded hotels.

Data were gathered from 198 respondents and two co‐branded hotels in Taiwan were assessed.

The findings showed that the fit between co‐brands mediate the relationship between brand familiarity and purchase intention. In particular, a well‐known co‐branded hotel with a high level of brand fit could directly or indirectly affect consumer decision‐making processes regarding purchase intention towards the co‐brand. Conversely, a less familiar co‐branded hotel had a positive effect on purchase intention only if respondents perceived a good fit between allied brands.

Brand fit could be a more important factor than brand familiarity in influencing the success of hotel co‐branding strategies. Future research to examine the co‐branding concept in different social and cultural contexts and also from different perspectives, such as owners or managers, is recommended.

Most hospitality studies focus on co‐branding between hotels and restaurants. This study empirically investigated the effects of co‐branding on consumer behavior in the hotel sector.

Co‐branding is an increasingly popular technique marketers use in attempting to transfer the positive associations of the partner (constituent) brands to a newly formed co‐brand (composite brand). This research examines the effects of co‐branding on the brand equity of both the co‐branded product and the constituent brands that comprise it, both before and after product trial. It appears that co‐branding is a win/win strategy for both co‐branding partners regardless of whether the original brands are perceived by consumers as having high or low brand equity. Although low equity brands may benefit most from co‐branding, high equity brands are not denigrated even when paired with a low equity partner. Further, positive product trial seems to enhance consumers’ evaluations of co‐branded products, particularly those with a low equity constituent brand. Co‐branding strategies may be effective in exploiting a product performance advantage or in introducing a new product with an unfamiliar brand name.

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.

Many fashion brands employ growth strategies that involve strategically aligning with a retailer to offer exclusive co-brands that vary in duration and perceived fit. While growth and publicity are enticing, pursuing collaboration may change consumers' evaluation of the brand. Utilising commodity and categorisation theory, this research tests how a brand may successfully approach a co-brand with a retailer.

Three experimental studies manipulate and test the effect of co-brand duration (limited edition vs ongoing) (Study 1), the degree of brand-retailer fit (high vs low) (Study 2), and its combined effect (Study 3) on changes in consumers' brand evaluation.

Results reveal that consumers' evaluations of brands become more favourable when: (1) brand-retailer co-brand make products available on a limited edition (vs ongoing) basis (Study 1), (2) consumers perceive a high (vs low) degree of brand-retailer fit (Study 2) and (3) both conditions are true (Study 3).

In light of commodity and categorisation theory, this study helps to understand the effectiveness of a brand-retailer co-branding strategy.

To increase brand evaluations, brands should engage in a limited edition strategy, rather than ongoing when collaborating with retailers. It is also important to select an appropriately fitting retailer for a strategic partnership when creating a co-brand.

While previous studies highlight the importance of perceived fit upon extension, perceived fit between brand and retailer co-brand had yet to be investigated. Additionally, this research investigates changes in brand evaluations to more accurately understand how co-branding strategies impact the brand.