One way to think about brands is as shorthand for the sum of promises and experiences they represent. By this thinking, cobranding can be considered dual shorthand, representing the new story that emerges when multiple promises are joined together. As the world becomes faster and our window to communicate with our customers grows smaller, cobrands will continue to proliferate in ever-evolving shapes, sizes, and complexities.
Unfortunately, when cobranding, marketers tend to overestimate customer understanding of and attention to what a pairing of logos might mean. The primary assumption made in any cobrand is that the target market understands each of the individual brands and what it represents. If the customers and prospects don’t, the cobrand really just gets in the way of effective communication.
Commonly used across industries to help a brand extend into a new market by leveraging complementary equity from another brand, cobranding is a broad term defining a range of relationships between two (or more) brands that look to capitalize on each other’s unique strengths and equities. Perhaps you are an ice-cream brand looking for differentiation by including a branded candy as an ingredient (Edy’s and M&Ms). Perhaps you are a leading consumer electronics brand with a fledging cell phone business looking to create instant credibility in the cell phone handset market (Sony Ericsson). Perhaps you are a technology provider looking to motivate and reward resellers and distributors with a channel partner program (IBM Partnerworld). Perhaps you are a wireless provider selling an offering that combines your network with a specific device on a specific platform (Cingular-HP-Microsoft). Ultimately it comes back to the role your brand plays in that dialogue, the values your customers and partners ascribe to it, and its ability to add to the story of the offering.
How and why companies cobrand is a complicated discussion, highly dependent upon business models, distribution channels, and competitive advantages/constraints, among a host of other factors. Too often cobranded initiatives are handled more tactically than strategically, fostering a brand portfolio complicated by a series of branded relationships and confused hierarchies.
Of course, partnerships are at the heart of many business models, necessary for growth and success. But whether to communicate these relationships via cobranding—and if so, how—requires a separate set of decisions based on both business strategy and overall corporate brand strategy.
At the end of the day you’ve got to think about the potential for long- and short-term impact (positive or negative) on business revenue and brand equity. Begin with some questions. How will this cobrand initiative help or hinder long-term goals in other areas of the business? Is there a spillover effect that could damage existing customer business? Is there a halo that could enhance overall brand perceptions? How does this cobrand initiative fit within the portfolio of partner relationships today and into the future?
And do not overlook the risks to your brand. Developing graphic implementations for each of your partnerships requires careful consideration and management. It is not unusual for a technology brand, for example, to employ a series of trademarks and logos to designate channel partners and global alliance partners and certified software vendors—all in addition to other marks for ingredients (”Intel Inside” or ”Powered by HP”), compatibility, small-business specialization, technology or platform specialization, and more.
In large organizations, it is not uncommon for every product group to want its own logo(s). Perhaps it is seen as a signal of corporate support; perhaps it is a perception that logo = attention (internally and externally); perhaps it is a desire to properly communicate the role your brand/product/company plays in a given relationship. In isolation, these are all reasonable justifications. But if everybody’s doing the same thing—and over time in a large organization, they will—you’ve got a brand architecture problem.
A particularly valuable brand can complicate matters further. Many of your partners may look to leverage their association with you via cobrand. If you let one, they’ll all want a piece. And your key partners may want their own version. Before long, you’ve got an arms race and a cobranding program run amok. If you give everyone access to your brand for the sake of the deal, you’ll soon be looking at dilution of your valued mark amid a confused message.
There is no simple brand answer to address the range of complex relationships enjoyed by many large corporations. Each cobranding initiative requires individual consideration. A central body, perhaps corporate marketing or brand management, should be deeply involved in the process as early as possible. Companies should look to develop a process for determining when cobrands are appropriate and how they should be used. If a given initiative meets XYZ criteria, consider the prospect of a cobrand and take a deeper look at any associated business/brand risks and returns. And don’t fail to consider implementation. Does the mark make sense? Does our presence on this box (or brochure or Website or product) properly communicate our role in an intuitive and constructive way?
The short of it is this: Cobranding is a powerful tool that can help your customers better understand and communicate your brand. It can enhance the reach and relevance of your brand while extending you into new markets and categories. But like any powerful salve, it must be enjoyed and employed responsibly, lest it temper any potential upside with confusion and dilution of your entire brand portfolio.
Jonathan Paisner is brand director of CoreBrand, a marketing and branding firm based in New York.
Network
