What Is Co-Branding?

Brand syndication refers to the short-term or long-term connection or combination of 2 or more brands belonging to different companies. Intuitively, branding is mainly manifested in the use of multiple brand names or logos in a single product or service.

Brand syndication

Brand syndication refers to the short-term or long-term connection or combination of 2 or more brands belonging to different companies. Intuitively, branding is mainly manifested in the use of multiple brand names or logos in a single product or service.

For example, mobile phones jointly produced by Sony and Ericsson use "Sony Ericsson" as the brand name, and Lenovo's personal computer is printed with the "Intel Inside" logo. Brand syndication is an important way to use brand equity. For the initiators of brand syndication, the main motivation for implementing brand syndication is to use the brand equity owned by other brands to influence consumers attitudes towards new products and increase purchases. Willingness to improve the brand image of the brand or strengthen a certain brand identity.

Chinese name

Brand syndication

Content

Links or combinations of more brands from different companies

E.g

Sony Ericsson

Nature

An important way to use brand equity

Brand syndication has long been used in business practice. As early as 1961, the well-known American food manufacturer Betty Miao Kitchen Company (General Mills Food Company in the United States) and Sunkist Company had successfully performed a brand joint. The collaboration between Ford and Firestone tires dates back to 1908. Since the 1980s, brand association has been used more and more widely in management practice. A 1994 study by McKinsey & Company indicated that the number of brands implementing brand syndication globally is increasing at an average annual rate of 40. Nutra Sweet, Microsoft, Intel and other brands have all achieved great success through brand collaboration.

The rapid development of brand syndication in practice has made research on this issue of great practical significance. Since the introduction of this research theme by NORRIS and RAO in the early 1990s, related research on brand association has received more and more attention in the academic community. A series of issues such as which brand alliances are more likely to succeed, what kind of influence brand associations have on participating brands, and what role each participating brand plays in the alliance have aroused widespread interest in the academic community. A large number of studies in consumer behavior have shown that attitudes can predict behavior well. Therefore, empirical research often uses the influence of a certain factor on changes in consumer attitudes to predict the effectiveness of this factor in affecting consumer behavior. Similarly, related research on brand co-ordination also uses the influence of brand co-ordination on consumer attitudes to evaluate its effectiveness. Based on a review of the literature, relevant research is carried out from three aspects, including the factors that affect consumers' evaluation of brand joint attitudes, what feedback influences brand joints have on participating brands, and the relative contributions of participating brands to joints. Summarized, and looked forward to the direction of further research, with a view to promoting domestic research and application of brand joint.

Overview of Branding

What feedback brand co-operation has on participating brands is another important aspect of brand co-operation research. Research on this issue not only helps to understand the potential of brand alliances in improving the brand equity of partnership brands, but also helps partnership brands to effectively evaluate the risks of implementing brand alliances. Existing research is mainly focused on the following aspects.

1. Relationship between consumer attitudes towards brand syndication and partnership brands

Information integration theory believes that when new information related to a particular thing appears, people will use their existing beliefs or attitudes about the thing to integrate the new information, and thus form a new attitude or belief about the thing. According to this theory, SIMONIN and others proposed that the establishment of brand alliances provides new information for partnership brands. When consumers process information related to brand alliances, their attitudes towards each partner brand may change as a result. Therefore, brand alliances It has the potential to adjust the follow-up attitude to the partnership brand. Empirical research by SIMONIN and others confirmed that consumers' attitudes towards brand association and attitudes towards partnership brands have a positive correlation. LAFFERTY and others have reached similar conclusions in the research on the combination of events and brands. They found that if consumers have a positive attitude towards the brand's union, the consumers' sponsored activities on the brand and their Attitude will be strengthened.

Factors affecting the feedback effect of brand syndication on partnership brands

For different partnership brands, the feedback impact on brand synergy is different. PARK et al. Believe that the feedback influence of brand alliances on partnership brands is related to the relative status of partnership brands. It proposed that as the dominant brands are highly related to brand alliances, brand alliances have a greater impact on dominant brands. And when the performance level is different from the leading brand, the attribute characteristics of the leading brand will change towards the above characteristics of the brand association through a compatibility process; while modifying the brand just adjusts some of the characteristics of the brand association and leads the brand. Compared with it, its relevance to brand syndication is lower, so brand syndication has a smaller impact on modified brands. Park et al.'S empirical research supports this inference, and found that when modified brands are at the level of attribute significance and performance, When it is highly complementary to the leading brand, after the brand combination, the leading brand has significantly improved the stronger attributes of the modified brand, but the feedback of the modified brand has not been significantly affected.

SIMONIN et al. "Also believe that the impact of brand syndication on partnership brands is asymmetric, but similar to PARK et al.". Has a different perspective, and believes that this asymmetry is based on the popularity of partnership brands. SIMONIN et al. Pointed out that brand alliances provide consumers with information to adjust their attitudes or beliefs about partnership brands. The existing Lenovo network of low-profile partnership brands is relatively small, and consumers 'brand attitudes towards them have not yet formed or are weak. Therefore, the information provided by the brand alliance has the potential to change consumers' attitudes towards low-profile partnership brands. Big. On the contrary, high-profile brands already have a wide range of associations and strong emotions, and consumers will not easily change their brand attitudes. Therefore, the information provided by brand alliances has a smaller impact on consumer attitudes. Its empirical research supports this assertion. In addition, VAIDYANATHAN and other research on national brands and unknown private label brands also found that after the brand combination, consumers' attitudes and quality perceptions of national brands have not changed. This also shows to some extent that consumers' attitudes towards high-profile brands in brand associations are more difficult to change, once again confirming SIMONIN's conclusions.

Interaction between partnership brands

In addition to its direct effect on the participating partner brands, brand alliances also create interactions between partnership brands by creating a context that makes an otherwise irrelevant brand more relevant. Another important aspect. LEVIN et al. Found that brand alliances will shift consumer sentiment towards high-quality partnership brands to low-quality partnership brands. LEVIN et al. Further examined the interaction between partnership brands caused by brand alliances, and found that brand alliances would have an absorption effect between partnership brands. In other words, consumers will infer the missing information of another partnership brand through the perception of one partnership brand, and increase consumers' expectations of quality similarity between partnership brands. This absorption effect is affected by the relative ambiguity of the partnership brand and the tightness of the partnership between the partnership brands. When consumers have a more specific impression of one of the partnership brands and a more blurred impression of the other, the absorption The stronger the effect; at the same time, the closer the partnership brand is integrated in the brand alliance, the stronger the absorption effect. In both cases, consumers' expectations of quality similarity between partnership brands will increase significantly.

Factors affecting the relative contribution of partnership brands to brand syndication

Overview of Branding

In the formation of consumers' attitudes towards brand union, different partnership brands play different roles. The research on this issue can help partnership brands accurately evaluate their respective value in the brand alliance, so as to determine more reasonable cooperation conditions; on the other hand, it can also help companies understand the sales promotion strategies such as advertising and packaging. Which aspect of the partnership brand is more conducive to product promotion. Research on this issue found that the following two factors affect the relative contribution of partnership brands.

Relative status of partnership brands

According to the concept of compound concept, PARK et al. Proposed that the relative contribution of a partnership brand to the brand joint depends on the relative position of the partnership brand. It points out that the two partnership brands that carry out brand combination constitute a noun-noun compound concept. According to the compound concept theory, there is an advantage effect in the compound concept, that is, the formation of attribute information of the compound concept is based more on the dominant concept. Because in the brand union, the products are mainly identified by the dominant brand, therefore, PARK and so on. It is believed that the formation of product attribute information will be based more on the dominant brand. Therefore, the dominant brand contributes more than the modification of the brand. Through empirical research, it is found that for the same product attribute, when the attribute is formed based on the dominant brand, it has a greater influence on the characteristics of the corresponding product that implements brand union when it is formed based on the modified brand. Thus supporting the hypothesis of PARK and the like.

Relative awareness of partnership brands

Unlike PARK and others, SIMONIN and others believe that the relative contribution of a partnership brand to brand union depends on the relative popularity of the partnership brand. According to the attitude reachability theory, SIMONIN et al. Pointed out that consumers will form an attitude toward brand union based on the participating partner brands. The higher the awareness of the partnership brand, the more prominent the information provided, the easier it is for consumers to accept, and the easier it is for consumers to process information in the direction implied by the attitude towards the partnership brand. Contributions to brand syndication are also high. And when the partnership brands have similar popularity, their contribution to brand union is basically the same. Through empirical studies, these hypotheses have also been well proven.

Although PARK et al. Studies such as SIMONIN and others have found evidence to support their hypothesis, but the two studies differ significantly in their conclusions. For example, for the combination of automotive brands and chip brands, according to PARK et al. The conclusion is that since the final product (car) is mainly identified by the car brand, regardless of the popularity of the car brand and the chip brand, the car brand will have a greater impact on the attitude of the brand union. However, according to the conclusions of SIMONIN, etc., only when a high-profile car brand is associated with a low-profile chip brand, the car brand's contribution to the brand alliance is greater; and when a low-profile car brand is combined with a high-profile chip brand , The situation is just the opposite.

Research and Prospect of Brand Co-operation

Overview of Branding

It can be seen from the foregoing review that the research on brand association has achieved a lot of results and enriched the understanding of this issue. However, it should be noted that the research on this issue in academic circles is not sufficient, and there are still many issues that need further discussion. The following areas should be given particular attention.

The partners in the union have different degrees of integration

According to the research on different brands, Ake and Fan Xiucheng pointed out that there are various forms of brand alliances, and the partners in the alliance also have deeper and weaker degrees of integration. Although different forms of brand syndication have similarities, there are some differences between them. These differences may have an impact on consumers' evaluation of brand alliances, the relative contribution of partnership brands, and the feedback role of brand alliances. Therefore, it is necessary to test some previous research conclusions for different forms of brand associations, and conduct comparative research on different forms of associations, theoretically exploring the similarities and differences between different forms of brand associations, and increasing the application of research conclusions Sex.

2. Testing the effectiveness of brand syndication in different product categories

Product category may be an important factor influencing consumers' evaluation of brand joint effectiveness. PARK, etc. It has been pointed out that in the purchase of low-risk products and high-tech or high-risk products, the impact of partnership brands on brand cohesion may be different. HILLYER and others also pointed out that under different levels of product involvement, the factors affecting consumers' joint evaluation of brands will also be different. However, the existing empirical research is mainly carried out in the daily consumer goods category, and the joint research on the brands of durable goods or service product categories is relatively rare. As there are many cases of brand syndication in these product categories, testing directly in these categories can provide more effective guidance for practice. At the same time, carrying out comparative research on different product categories can also improve the universality of the research results.

Factors Affecting the Relative Contribution of Partnership Brands to Brand Alliances

SIMONIN et al. And PARK et al. Respectively examined which factors determine the relative contribution of partnership brands to brand syndication, but as pointed out above, the conclusions of the two studies are not consistent. In the future, it is necessary to make a comparative study on the relative magnitude of the influence of the two factors in various research conditions.

In-depth analysis of the feedback impact of brand syndication

Existing research on the impact of brand joint feedback has been conducted on the premise that brand joints have succeeded, and it is not known what kind of impact the failed brand joints have on partnership brands. In fact, it is not uncommon for brands to fail in joint strategy due to many reasons. It is also a meaningful work to study the impact of feedback on the failure of brand joint strategy to reveal the risks of brand joint strategy.

Motivations for companies to implement brand syndication

(I) Increase the value of brand equity

Brand co-operation can increase the asset value of each co-brand in two ways. First of all, a reasonable brand alliance can enhance the ability of each joint brand to penetrate the consumer market of the other brand, and expand the possibility of being accepted by consumer groups familiar with the alliance brand. Each brand has its own awareness group and loyalty group. These groups have a higher level of awareness of the brand. When they see a well-known brand uniting with other brands, this high level of awareness will naturally be transferred to the new association On the brand. Through this beneficial pass-through, each co-brand establishes a connection with the consumer group in the new market of the other market.

Secondly, brand alliances can expand and improve the associations of co-brands, thereby increasing the assets of the co-brands. By combining a brand with another brand, consumers can integrate the joint information of the two brands, which may enrich consumers' associations of the two brands, and also strengthen and enhance the association of the joint brands. Expanding the content of brand associations can enhance brand differentiation and relevance. The difference can make the brand unique and enhance the competitiveness of the brand; the strong correlation can allow the brand Lenovo to penetrate into a wider consumer market, both of which can make a qualitative leap in the brand's asset value. For example, when a product and a brand appear alone cannot reveal the quality of the product, a brand can use the brand association that another brand brings to customers to explain the quality of the product. This is the case for the brand alliance between Le Cordon Bleu and Tefal. Le Cordon Bleu is a French culinary institute whose brand has become synonymous with the highest level of cooking. Tefal is a leading French manufacturer of cooking utensils. It launched a new "overall" brand series of high-quality cookers. After being recognized by Le Cordon Bleu, it carried out marketing activities with Le Cordon Bleu. Closely linked, the familiar Le Cordon Bleu brand deepens people's memories and associations of this new product and an unknown brand.

(2) Achieving complementary advantages and resource sharing

Enterprise assets can be decomposed into different unique skills and resources owned by the enterprise. Such unique skills and resources form the core competitive advantage of the enterprise in market competition. Each brand element in a co-brand may have its own unique advantages in some aspects. And one brand may have an advantage that another brand lacks and is necessary. Lenovo Group and Coca-Cola launched a number of cooperation in the Olympic field. The two companies work together to create the "Lenovo-Coca-Cola Zone", opening up special spaces for promotion in 100 Lenovo sales stores, and the Coca-Cola company is responsible for providing a variety of free drinks. Lenovo also launched a limited edition laptop of Lenovo Coca-Cola, this new computer with the Olympic rings logo, authorized by the Coca-Cola company to design, produce and sell Lenovo. Both parties share their customer resources, make full use of their respective brand advantages, and jointly launch a series of cooperative promotion activities to seek a "win-win" for brand building and market expansion. Therefore, brand union can better realize the complementary advantages of each brand.

(3) Reduce brand operating costs

In terms of market development, co-branding can reduce promotional costs, which are shared by both parties. In addition, the early advertising and promotional activities of the respective brands have helped the co-brands, and the promotional costs of both parties have been greatly reduced.

Any commercial partnership carries a degree of risk. The brand alliance involves two or even multiple brand members, and its complexity is naturally extraordinary. Business operators must be aware of the significant risks associated with improper alliances when they realize that brand alliances have huge interests. If the brand alliances operate properly, a win-win result can be achieved. Will suffer the consequences, even innocently implicated by the other party's fault.