The strategy of co-branding is widely used in the business world. As a consumer, I am always interested in observing how the “chemistry” between two brands turn out. I have to admit that if the “chemistry” really works out, both firms benefit greatly from this “marriage”.

First of all, co-branding helps provide better value for consumers, therefore increases consumer satisfaction.  Who would believe that shoes and MP3 will become complement? But that’s the way Nike + iPod works! Traditionally, shoes are for running and MP3 players are used to play music. While maintaining these basic functions, Nike + Ipod sports kit measures distance of running and gives runners a sense of achievement when they finally see the real numbers. As a result, consumers have a great benefit and will be more loyal and satisfied.

Also, co-branding helps one firm to establish itself among specific segments. For example, when Crocs chose to target their children consumer segements, the firm decided to co-brand with Disney. In this way, Crocs enhanced its brand image and therefore was more accepted by children consumers.

Lastly, co-branding could be designed to influence consumers’ attitude. In 1984, Nike announced that it would co-brand with Michael Jordan, which marked the birth of Air Jordan. Two decades later, it proves that this co-branding strategy turns out to be a huge success. In this way, Nike influenced consumer’s affective attitude and took advantage of Michael Jordan’s stardom.

To conclude, I would say that co-branding is not without risk. One potential disadvantage resulting from co-branding would be the brand dilution. Therefore, firms should always keep an eye on its brand value while maintaining trust with their co-branding partners. A successful co-branding definitely makes amazing happen!


Name (required)

Email (required)


Speak your mind

Spam prevention powered by Akismet