Journal of Marketing Management

ISSN: 0267-257X (Print) 1472-1376 (Online) Journal homepage: http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/rjmm20

Collaborating for success: managerial perspectives

on co-branding strategies in the fashion industry

Jemma Oeppen & Ahmad Jamal

To cite this article: Jemma Oeppen & Ahmad Jamal (2014) Collaborating for success: managerial
perspectives on co-branding strategies in the fashion industry, Journal of Marketing Management,
30:9-10, 925-948, DOI: 10.1080/0267257X.2014.934905

To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/0267257X.2014.934905

Published online: 17 Jul 2014.

Submit your article to this journal

Article views: 3092

View Crossmark data

Citing articles: 7 View citing articles

Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at

http://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=rjmm20
Journal of Marketing Management, 2014
Vol. 30, Nos. 9–10, 925–948, http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/0267257X.2014.934905

Collaborating for success: managerial perspectives

on co-branding strategies in the fashion industry
Jemma Oeppen, Cardiff Business School, Cardiff University, UK
Ahmad Jamal, Cardiff Business School, Cardiff University, UK

Abstract This article investigates the nature of co-branded relationships within

the fashion industry. Existing co-branding literature focuses heavily on
consumer evaluations, and many studies explore FMCG and electronics
markets, within which ingredient co-branding is common. When two brands
from the fashion industry collaborate, both brands exist independently and do
not rely on ‘ingredients’ for developing a new product and, therefore, presenting
an opportunity for exploring the drivers and types of relationships that could
exist. This study adopts an interpretive method of investigation using in-depth
interviews with brand managers. Findings provide empirical support for value
creation through different relationship levels (such as brand/awareness co-
branding, values endorsement and complementary competence co-branding)
while highlighting some challenges and risks for co-branding in practice. This
article discusses implications for theory development and practice and
highlights avenues for future research.

Keywords co-branding; qualitative research; brand alliance; brand management;

fashion brands

Introduction

Co-branding is a strategy that has gained significant popularity within the fashion
industry, in particular with luxury brands and mass-market retailers. Previous co-
branding research mainly focuses on exploring consumers’ responses to co-branding
efforts (e.g. Motion, Leitch, & Brodie, 2003; Rao, Qu, & Ruekert, 1999; Simonin &
Ruth, 1998; Washburn, Till, & Priluck, 2000) and, in doing so, provides useful
insights into consumer perceptions of brand collaborations (e.g. the importance of
fit and congruence), highlighting important managerial concerns. Previous research
also focuses on utilitarian products such as grocery, personal computers and so on
rather than on products which can be considered as hedonic and experiential in
nature, such as designer clothing, sports cars and luxury watches. Hedonic products
are defined as goods whose consumption can be characterised by a sensory
experience of aesthetic or sensual pleasure, fantasy or fun (Hirschman &
Holbrook, 1982).
Fashion brands are highly valuable assets closely linked with consumers’ self-
concept and expression (O’Shaughnessy & O’Shaughnessy, 2002). Luxury fashion
© 2014 Westburn Publishers Ltd.
926 Journal of Marketing Management, Volume 30

brands, in particular, face additional pressure of expanding their consumer base and
brand awareness, while retaining exclusivity, uniqueness and in turn premium prices
(Bruce & Kratz, 2007). In recent decades, luxury fashion has become more
democratised (Okonkwo, 2007; Tsai, 2005), encouraging a new and diverse
consumer base for engaging with fashion brands and status consumption (Eastman,
Goldsmith, & Flynn, 1999). To reach these consumers, brand extensions are often
launched, and in the last few years, a number of luxury fashion brands (e.g. Marni,
Jimmy Choo, Stella McCartney) have entered into co-branded collaborations with
global fast-fashion retailers such as H&M. Despite this, no prior research has
investigated managerial perspectives on strategic benefits and motivations for
entering into co-branding arrangements within the fashion industry.
This research aims to fill this gap in the literature and uses in-depth interviews
with experienced brand managers with a view to provide richer understanding of co-
branding strategies in practice. In doing so, the research answers calls for new
research into the formation and management of co-branding in practice (Gammoh
& Voss, 2011) and for exploring different types of relationships as evidenced in co-
branding arrangements (Newmeyer, Venkatesh, & Chatterjee, 2013). While previous
research largely focuses on collaborations across industries (e.g. James, 2005; Motion
et al., 2003; Park, Jun, & Shocker, 1996; Simonin & Ruth, 1998; Washburn et al.,
2000), this research mainly focuses on brands collaborating within the same industry
(i.e. fashion), thus adding a new dimension to co-branding research to date.
The remainder of this article is structured into four sections. The first section presents
the theoretical framework, which is followed by a section that describes the research
method. The third section presents and discusses key findings, while the final section
contains conclusions, implications for theory development, practice and limitations.

Theoretical framework

Co-branding is a strategy that allows valuable brand assets to be leveraged and

combined with other brand names to form a strategic alliance in which, from a
financial point of view, the brand value of both is greater than individual parts
(Rao & Ruekert, 1994). Previous research into co-branding has used a myriad of
terms interchangeably to describe the occurrence of two brands collaborating in some
way. The strategy of co-branding has been referred to as strategic alliances, joint
marketing, joint branding, joint promotion, composite brand extension and
ingredient branding (Blackett & Boad, 1999; Jansen, 2004; Leuthesser, Kohli, &
Suri, 2003; Park et al., 1996; Washburn et al., 2000; Wigley & Provelengiou, 2011).
Blackett and Russell (1999) propose two main criteria that determine the level of
co-operation between partners and the nature of the practical arrangements that are
present within the alliance. The first one is the expected duration of the relationship
and the second one is the potential value that could be created through co-operation.
Based on the two criteria, Blackett and Russell (1999) defined co-branding as
a form of cooperation between two or more brands with significant customer
recognition, in which all the participants’ brand names are retained. Co-branding
is usually of medium to long term duration and its net value potential is too small
to justify setting up a new brand and/or legal joint venture. (p. 8)
 Oeppen and Jamal Managerial perspectives on co-branding strategies in the fashion industry 927

Blackett and Russell (1999) also identify a hierarchy of shared value creation levels.
The lowest level is termed as reach/awareness co-branding, whereby the primary
brand aims to maximise brand awareness using a partner brand’s resources such as
their customer database. Values endorsement co-branding is the second level which is
achieved by endorsing either or both brand values and positioning with a view to
align brand values in customers’ minds. At the third level, which is termed as
ingredient co-branding, higher value creation is achieved as a market-leading brand
supplies its products as a component of another brand. Complementary competence
co-branding represents the highest level of shared value creation as partner brands
combine and share strategic resources such as skills and competences to produce a co-
branded product. Others (e.g. Aaker, 1992; Keller, 2003) provide support by arguing
that co-branding involves leveraging of a firm’s brand name to align with a partner to
achieve a strategic objective.
Research to date has tended to focus on the FMCG and electronics markets
(James, 2005; Park et al., 1996; Simonin & Ruth, 1998; Washburn et al., 2000),
within which co-branding is often seen as a long-term strategy whereby one brand
appears as an ‘ingredient’ of another brand’s product (i.e. Splenda and Diet Coke
(Pride & Ferrell, 2013) In such a context, the first brand relies on the second one to
realise the product and, to that extent, becomes intrinsically linked. Co-branding of
this type tends to be across product categories or even industries (such as Fiat
producing a one-off car designed by Diesel1), with partners needing access to
competencies and resources of partner brands. Within such collaborative situations,
brands are highly integrated, with the complementary brands linked in form and
function and jointly presented to the consumer (Park et al., 1996). Such collaborative
arrangements reflect the highest level of shared value creation as argued by Blackett
and Russell (1999). At this level, co-branding allows partner brands leverage core
competencies, improve brand association and create a competitive advantage against
competitors.
Mirrored in a related domain, management research involving strategic alliances
suggests two distinct motives for alliance formation, (1) to have access to partners’
resources and (2) to retain and develop own resources through a partner (Das &
Teng, 2000). Beverland and Bretherton (2001) report that strategic alliance often
reflects a proactive strategy as partners seek to ‘take advantage of new opportunities,
reduce market uncertainty and gain access to critical resources’ (p. 96). Co-branding
is often seen as a cost-effective alternative to developing a new in-house brand;
however, the characteristics of a good partner and the processes of forming the
strategy are not well understood (Rao & Ruekert, 1994). This is particularly true
within the context of the fashion industry where no prior research has investigated
managerial perceptions of co-branding efforts. This research aims to fill this gap in
the literature.
Prior research has investigated consumer evaluation of co-branded alliances and
factors that could influence positive or negative consumer responses (e.g. Geylani,
Hofstede, & Inman, 2006; Rao & Ruekert, 1994; Simonin & Ruth, 1998). Such
research finds fit to be an important moderator, with a consumer being more likely to
positively evaluate a co-branding effort if he or she holds positive attitudes toward
one or both partnering brands (Simonin & Ruth, 1998) and if they see the two
brands as congruent in image and product category (Motion et al., 2003). To that

1
See www.500bydiesel.com
928 Journal of Marketing Management, Volume 30

end, prior research highlights the importance of careful partner selection as key to the
success of the co-branding strategy (Rao et al., 1999; Rao & Ruekert, 1994; Simonin
& Ruth, 1998). As a poor brand fit can negatively impact overall brand image post
collaboration (McKee, 2009), prior research emphasises the need for fully
understanding and choosing a partner based on brand image synergy and
competency.
Previous research also suggests that all forms of brand alliances (including joint
research and development, co-distribution and co-promotion) are motivated by a
firm’s need to obtain resources they lack or leverage the resources they have to
achieve an overall benefit (see Park et al., 1996; Rao & Ruekert, 1994). One of the
first studies to explore the managerial perspective of co-branding (brand alliance)
using partner experience, competencies and attitude towards alliances as an
antecedent to overall propensity to enter into collaborations is by Gammoh and
Voss (2013). Their findings show that previous experience of collaborating
positively influences a firm’s competencies in developing further alliances. A brand
manager, or decision maker’s own attitudes towards alliances in general also has a
marked, positive impact on a brand’s overall propensity to enter into alliances.
Previous experience of both the firm and the manager can also positively impact
the working relationship and help partner brands overcome any potential negative
impacts such as spillover effects (Gammoh & Voss, 2013).
Given their findings, Gammoh and Voss (2011, 2013) call for further research
from managerial perspective to further enrich currently limited understanding of the
way co-branded alliances are formed and managed. In particular, they call for a
research that empirically studies actual brand alliance behaviour, focusing on issues
such as partner relationships, commitment-trust and different types of brand alliances
such as co-branding and ingredient branding. Given that co-brand relationships can
take different forms, there could be reasons as to why brand managers choose the
form of alliance they enter, in order to achieve specific strategic goals (Newmeyer
et al., 2013; Rao & Ruekert, 1994).
More recent conceptual propositions from Newmeyer et al. (2013) echo a need
for further research from the perspective of the decision-maker of the initiating
partner brand and identify three key dimensions of the structure of a co-branding
arrangement: integration, exclusivity and duration – the levels of each potentially
impacting consumer responses to the partnership. Within this framework, integration
refers to the extent to which partner brands are intertwined in form and function,
and exclusivity refers to the number of partners with whom the focal brand pursues a
co-branding arrangement. In high integration, multiple brands can collaborate
together to make a complete product achieving the highest utility, whereas in low
integration, there is a joint presentation but partner brands remain separate in form.
In low integration, brands have both individual and joint utility. In the case of greater
exclusivity, the focal brand has a single or few partner brands, and its performance
may derive from single partnership or its individual performance. In a low exclusive
arrangement, the focal brand has many partners, and consumers judge its
performance based on multiple and diverse partnership arrangements. The duration
refers to the length of time that the co-branding arrangement lasts, and in the case of
longer lasting arrangements, consumers are able to observe performance of partner
brands over a longer period of time achieving greater familiarity with partner brands
(Newmeyer et al., 2013).
 Oeppen and Jamal Managerial perspectives on co-branding strategies in the fashion industry 929

However, previous research has overlooked the multi-dimensional nature of co-

brand relationships, although the type of relationship presented to consumers
impacts their perception of the alliance (Newmeyer et al., 2013). This gap in
current understanding from managerial perspectives and a call for further
investigation to enrich understanding of co-branding in practice and the different
forms and functions of specific relationships are the focus of this research.

Co-branding in the fashion industry

The bias of current research towards FMCG and grocery products also leads to a limit
in understanding of co-branded relationship forms in different industries. The context
of this research project is the fashion industry, and namely co-branding between brands
and brands, brands and retailers and brands and celebrities. The fashion industry, for a
long time, has been an intense and dynamic environment, a highly competitive arena
that demands consistent brand innovation to secure market growth, brand loyalty and
ultimately maintain a competitive advantage (Kay, 2006; Wigley & Provelengiou,
2011). Fashion research is important as there is an estimated $1 trillion USD spent
on it worldwide each year (Tungate, 2012). In the United Kingdom alone, fashion
directly contributes nearly £21 billion to the UK economy, as well as having an indirect
economic impact on other industries of over £16 billion, a total of £37 billion (British
Fashion Council, 2011). Yet research into the types of relationship within fashion
industry and the perceived risks and challenges that co-branding arrangements
offers, to the best of our knowledge, remains largely neglected.
Most of the successful and well known fashion co-branding occurs when premium
and luxury brands collaborate with a mass-market retailer, such as H&M with Jimmy
Choo, Lanvin, Marni2 and retailer Target with Missoni, Mulberry and Vera Wang.3
The first major collaboration on a large scale was between Chanel creative director
Karl Lagerfeld and high street retailer H&M in 2004, a ground-breaking limited-
edition collection that was a sell out in the H&M in which it was stocked, and
beginning of an innovative strategy of co-branding collections with luxury brands
(Okonkwo, 2007). Before the release of this collection, co-branding within fashion,
and particularly luxury fashion, was seen as risky, with potentially negative impacts
on the luxury and exclusive nature that characterise high-end brands (Jackson, 2004).
However, changing luxury market (Tsai, 2005) and the ‘democratization of luxury’
has led to an acceptance and an exponential increase in brand collaborations
(Okonkwo, 2007).
Research in this area is still relatively sparse, particularly given the complexity of
the relationships and the impact of different industries and types of brands, and in
relation to research into other areas such as brand extensions. Co-branding has been
termed as a ‘special type’ of brand extension – in that rather than one brand
extending itself to a different market (category or line extension), the brand can
partner with a second brand that may have more expertise or brand awareness in the
market the focal brand hopes to enter. Extant research has explored mainly category
extension co-branding (e.g. Motion et al., 2003; Simonin & Ruth, 1998; Washburn
et al., 2000); however, like single brand extensions, many co-branding extensions,
particularly within fashion, tend to be line extensions. A line extension can be higher
2
See www.hm.com
3
See www.target.com
930 Journal of Marketing Management, Volume 30

or lower (upscale or downscale) in relation to the original brand position, but

remains within the same product category, rather than entering a completely
separate category. This presents clear challenges for brand managers, namely
through extending their brands into other markets (up or downscale) without
saturating or alienating their existing consumer base. Brand extension managerial
challenges have been found in recent research concerning brand concept, with
findings showing that managers should be aware that consumer responses to
functional versus symbolic brands extending will be different – with symbolic
brands facing a higher risk of brand dilution and negative consumer response
(Dall’Olmo Riley, Pina, & Bravo, 2013). Studies have also considered the use of
sub-branding strategies to moderate the negative impacts of downscale line
extensions (using the sub-brand as a distancing technique), particularly fashion
retailers introducing a sub-brand area within a store (i.e. Pink by Victoria Secret)
(e.g. Netemeyer, Heilman, & Maxham, 2012). While parallels between such
strategies could be drawn with co-branding, the sub-brand is wholly owned and
operated by the parent brand, so concerns of brand image dilution and perceived
fit between the two brands are mitigated.
It has been highlighted that a firms’ decision to engage in co-branding is not
without its potential risks and challenges (Park et al., 1996; Rao & Ruekert, 1994;
Simonin & Ruth, 1998), the largest of which to be negative feedback or spillover
effects to the partner brands post collaboration. This is a topic that has been explored
more heavily within brand extension research (e.g. Chen & Liu, 2004; Loken &
John, 1993) but is also explored within the area of co-branding, with the additional
issue of the feedback from one partner brand to the other, as well as the extension to
the original brand position (e.g. Motion et al., 2003; Simonin & Ruth, 1998;
Washburn et al., 2000). Evidence suggests that even for successful brand
extensions, image feedback effects are likely to occur, particularly surrounding
‘high quality’ brands such as luxury fashion brands (Völckner & Sattler, 2006).
While co-branding efforts are gaining momentum in the fashion industry, no prior
research investigates managerial perceptions of relationship dynamics involved in
choosing partners and the extent to which co-branding can be used to achieve
different strategic objectives. This research aims to fill this gap in the literature.

Method

The overarching aim of this study is to empirically explore and analyse brand
managers’ perceptions of the strategy of co-branding within the context of the
fashion industry. Given the aim and unlike prior research, which largely uses a
positivist approach, this research adopts a qualitative and an interpretive approach
of investigation (Hirschman, 1989; Lincoln & Guba, 1985). The approach allows
exploring the phenomenon of co-branding from the perspectives of those under
investigation using interpretive procedures and analysis involving an emergent
research design and inference processes (Spiggle, 1994). The approach seeks
idiographic descriptive knowledge, which Geertz (1973) refers to as ‘thick
description’.
An interpretive approach does not assume the existence of a single objective reality
independent of what individuals perceive – instead it argues for reality to be
essentially mental, perceived and hence subjective in nature (Hudson & Ozanne,
 Oeppen and Jamal Managerial perspectives on co-branding strategies in the fashion industry 931

1988). To establish credibility and reliability, the research focuses on providing details
about what was undertaken during data collection and in the formation of the final
interpretation (see for instance, Wallendorf & Belk, 1989).
The research is undertaken with a purposive sample of brand managers and
decision-makers within the fashion industry, representing brands from different
levels and with differing relationship dynamics (e.g. sports brand collaborating with
a luxury brand, luxury brands collaborating with retailers both mass-market and
high-end, celebrity and brand to brand collaborations). For the purpose of this
research, a luxury brand is defined as brand that offers premium priced product
that are of the highest quality (e.g. Berthon, Leyland, Pitt, & Berthon, 2010; Fuchs,
Prandelli, Schreier, & Dahl, 2013). Mass-market brands are defined as brands that
offer lower priced products at a reasonable level of quality (e.g. Fuchs et al., 2013).
The research utilises exploratory, in-depth interviews that aim to understand brand
managers’ experiences of strategy formulation and motivations for entering
collaborations (e.g. Alvesson & Deetz, 2000).
One of the authors has extensive experience of working in the fashion industry.
Contacts in the industry were used to gain access to some of the participants. Social
networking site LinkedIn was used to approach others. Each participant received a
letter outlining the nature of the study assuring confidentiality. Consistent with
marketing studies with similar exploratory approaches (e.g. Kohli & Jaworski,
1990), a theoretical sampling approach was taken in order to source participants
with the necessary experience of the phenomena under investigation. In this case,
managers needed to have previous experience with the strategy of co-branding and
were the decision-maker or instigator of a collaboration. A total of 18 brand
managers were approached, out of which 6 did not respond, 2 were unable to
commit to the research time frame and a further 2 felt they did not have the
experience necessary to discuss the topic. This led to a sample of eight participants
– all of whom were brand managers, marketing directors or brand owners with
considerable experience of brand extensions and brand collaboration in the fashion
industry. Each manager had substantial experience in the industry (average 12 years)
and had a responsibility for deciding brand strategy (see Table 1). In line with
interpretive research tradition, this research considers the sample to be acceptable
and valid. Normally the number and kind of participants in a study serves as a basis to
make a distinction between qualitative and quantitative research methodology. In a
quantitative study, the sample needs to be large enough to represent the larger

Table 1 Profile of participants.

Brand Brand concept Position within company Years of experience

Brand A Luxury Brand Chief Marketing Officer 20+ years
Brand B Sports/Lifestyle Brand Marketing Director 15 years
Brand C Niche – Luxury Brand Owner 12 years
Brand D Prestige brand Brand Owner 10 years
Brand E Prestige Brand UK Brand Manager 8 years
Brand F Luxury European Brand Manager 18 years
Brand G Luxury (lingerie) Sales Director 20+ years
Brand H Mass UK Brand Development Manager 12 years
932 Journal of Marketing Management, Volume 30

population and for establishing generalisation of findings. In contrast, an interpretive

research focuses on understanding the ‘phenomena’ themselves rather on how many
number of participants are involved (see for a discussion McKee, 2009).
A discussion guide was developed based on the literature review and was used
during the interviews to guide discussion of relevant topics (see Appendix A).
Participants were encouraged to elaborate on their experiences and requested to
provide specific examples involving co-branding. On average, interviews lasted for
one and a half hours and were recorded using audio capture with six of the
respondents. The other two were recorded in detail by hand and immediately
written up post interviews.
To retain a commitment to ‘trustworthiness’ within the data (Wallendorf & Belk,
1989), the researcher transcribed the recordings gathered verbatim and clarified both
the transcripts and the interview notes with the respondents to ensure they were
without bias and captured the true response from the participants. The data was then
analysed and interpreted using a manual coding and framework analysis as advocated
by Richie, Spencer, and O’Connor (2003) to retain a commitment to exploratory
research. This method is widely used by qualitative researchers and requires at first
step a familiarisation with the data as a whole to fully understand the data before
identifying recurring themes or ideas. Once the researchers had drawn out general
themes into a framework, they developed descriptive accounts of each theme and
finally explanatory accounts within the data. Perspectives from interviews were
analysed against themes from previous research, leading to the emergence of
relevant themes linked with strategic managerial motives behind co-branding
efforts. These themes are presented in the following section, with the aim of
extending knowledge by empirically researching the perceptions of decision-makers
within the context of the fashion industry.

Findings and discussion

The following major themes emerged as a result of an interpretation of qualitative

data involving in-depth interviews with brand managers. The themes relate to the
types of relationships, key managerial motivations for entering into co-branding
arrangements and some of the key risks and challenges faced by the managers.

Types of relationship
Prior research argues that the level of cooperation/involvement/integration (Blackett
& Russell, 1999; Erevelles, Horton, & Fukawa, 2008; Newmeyer et al., 2013),
duration of relationship (Blackett & Russell, 1999; Erevelles et al., 2008;
Newmeyer et al., 2013), joint branding and advertising (Erevelles et al., 2008),
exclusivity of partnership (if the partners undertook multiple co-branded
collaborations) (Newmeyer et al., 2013) are important factors while designing a co-
branding strategy. The current research also finds evidence in support and identifies
different types of relationships based on an interpretation of qualitative data (see
Table 2). While previous research focuses on ingredient branding mostly within the
FMCG category (James, 2005; Park et al., 1996; Simonin & Ruth, 1998; Washburn
et al., 2000), this study contributes by providing empirical support for relationship
dynamics within the fashion industry.
Table 2 Co-branding and types of relationship within the fashion industry.

Jointly
Brand Brand concept Description of relationship (involvement) Duration of collection branded? Exclusive
Brand A Luxury (Co-branding High integration (joint design and production One collection – Yes First for the brand, not for
with mass-market of a new product), competence sharing, planned over a year the mass-retailer
retailer) reach/awareness, value endorsement
Brand B Sports/Lifestyle High integration (Joint design and production One collection – Yes Both brands had previous
(Co-branding with of a new product), competence sharing, planning longer than experience of
luxury brand) values endorsement, reach/awareness a year collaboration and
extensions
Brand C Niche – Luxury Low integration (brand controlled design and One collection Yes Both brand and celebrity
(Co-branding with production with celebrity input), reach/ first experience with
a celebrity) awareness, values endorsement co-branding
Brand C Niche – Luxury Low integration (brand designed for retailer), One collection Yes Brands second co-branded
(Co-branding with reach/awareness, value endorsement collection, retailer
prestige retailer) multiple collaborations
Brand D Niche apparel – Low integration (brand controlled design for One collection Yes Brand’s first co-branded
prestige retailer) reach/awareness, value collection, not for retailer
(Co-branding with endorsement
retailer)
Brand E Prestige Brand Low integration (brand controlled design and Multiple collections Yes Both brand and celebrity
(Co-branding with production with celebrity input), reach/ had previous
celebrity) awareness, values endorsement collaborations
Brand F Luxury (Co-branding Low integration (brand controlled design of Multiple Collections No Both brand and retailer
with retailer) product), Reach/awareness, value had experience of
endorsement collaborations before
Brand G Luxury (lingerie) High integration, competence sharing, One collection Yes No previous collaboration
(Co-branding with values endorsement, reach/awareness. on the brand side
retailer)
Brand H Mass (Co-branding High integration, competence sharing, One collection Yes Both brands had previous
with prestige values endorsement, reach/awareness. collaboration experience
Oeppen and Jamal Managerial perspectives on co-branding strategies in the fashion industry

brand)
933
934 Journal of Marketing Management, Volume 30

Table 2 represents an overview of the nature of the relationships identified within

the research sample. In all the relationships identified, the arrangements were
between two brands (including retail brands and celebrities as brands) and there
was some form of cooperation. However, as seen in Table 2, the relationship
dynamics and level of integration differed considerably depending on the type of
brand and nature of the co-branded collaboration. More specifically, brands A, B, G
and H had high integration in terms of sharing value, creating strategic resources with
one collection planned over the year. This reflects the highest level in Blackett and
Russell’s (1999) hierarchy of value creation whereby partner brands aim to gain
competitive advantage by committing a selection of their core skills and
competences together.
On the other hand, brands C and D had low integration and one collection
planned. This reflects the lowest level of shared value creation as the partner
brands mainly collaborate to build awareness via co-branding efforts. Brands E and
F had low integration but multiple collections planned over a year. Such brands
appear to be at the lower level of shared value creation hierarchy but aiming to
maximise strategic benefits by collaborating more than once in a year. Both brands
had prior experience of working together, which perhaps is reflected in their
approach towards relationship building and value creation via co-branding efforts.
This study finds some evidence in support of different levels of relationships and
shared value creation as proposed by Blackett and Russell’s (1999); however, our
findings also suggest that motivation to raise awareness was common at all levels. In
the given context, it appears that raising awareness is a fundamental concept that is
paramount for successful collaboration for any level of relationship and shared value
creation. Findings reported in Table 2 also provide support to the extant literature,
which highlights sharing competencies, leveraging brand image, accessing partners’
customer base, and to share value through the creation of a new product utilising the
expertise of the partners (e.g. Park et al., 1996).
An interpretation of qualitative data reveals additional insights into co-branding
strategies and levels of relationships. For example, all luxury brands in this study
adopted co-branding to introduce a downscale extension to their brand and to
increase brand awareness with a new market. This was largely because such luxury
brands had a ceiling, within which an upscale move would be difficult. Moving into a
new market through a downscale extension provided the focal brand access to a new
market, boosted by the retail support of their partner brand through a large network
of stores and joint marketing support. This is revealed from following quote from a
luxury brand manager entering into co-branding with a mass-market retailer:

We want to get experience of doing a collaboration like this. At the same time
it’s a huge marketing tool, it save us a lot of money because they do the
marketing for our brand. They have a huge database; all those things are very
interesting to us… They are hoping to have their perception raised by
collaboration with us as a luxury brand…and for us a broader audience to get
to know our product. (Brand A)

In all cases, co-branding was seen as a positive way of extending existing market
reach. However, some brands also used co-branding as a way of attracting future
brand partnerships through raising brand awareness with other potential brands. One
luxury brand manager discussed the way in which their collaboration with a mass-
 Oeppen and Jamal Managerial perspectives on co-branding strategies in the fashion industry 935

market retailer would be used as a platform to attract an upscale department store to

co-brand with them.
That (collaboration) is really a good example for us, we will use that as a
showcase to go to other brands and show them what we have done and what
we can do with them. (Brand A)
Prior research highlights the importance of relationship exclusivity in co-brand
relationships (Newmeyer et al., 2013), arguing that higher exclusivity (number of
co-branded partnerships) leads to greater positive (or negative) impact on consumer
evaluation of the focal brand (co-brand initiator). This could suggest that, if a luxury
brand such as brand A entered into many co-branded partnerships, thus leading to
lower exclusivity, this could have less positive impact on consumer evaluation.
Conversely, they could also be more protected if entering multiple partnerships, as
they would be less intrinsically linked to their partner brand if that brand were to fall
into disrepute. Gammoh and Voss (2013) suggest that expertise in the creation and
management of successful alliances not only increases propensity to enter future
partnerships, but potentially attracts partners because of the competencies gained
through experience. This study finds support as brand A felt that gaining experience
of co-branding would be invaluable when aiming to attract future partners.
While not all brands enter collaborations with the motivation of attracting future
brand partnerships and multiple co-branded collections, our findings suggests this
to be a potential outcome. For example, brand B, a global sportswear brand,
partnered with a luxury brand to produce a one off apparel collection. After the
collection was launched and was successful, brand B found many other luxury and
prestige labels reaching out to them to create collections. Potentially, if a brand is
able to show evidence of positive examples of previous co-branded partnerships, an
interested future partner could be reassured by their experience and seek to enter a
co-branded partnership themselves, with less perceived risk and increased
confidence. This empirically proves the proposition by Gammoh and Voss (2011,
2013), adding a clear contribution and richness of current understanding into how
partnerships are formed and strategically managed.
While the example of brand B highlights how a successful partnership attracted
future collaborative partnerships, examples of failed collaborations within the sample
frame also had the same affect. For brand C, a niche luxury brand, experience of a
failed celebrity co-branded collection managed to put the brand on the radar of a
large US retail chain – with which they went on to create and manage a successful co-
branded collection. While the celebrity collection failed to sell to the market targeted
(due to a lack of credibility and perceived image fit between the brand and celebrity
in question), brand C gained much experience from the failed collection that was
brought into their second successful collection:
The last collection was the best, and we finally got it right…that was bringing in
a lower priced product group, into a mass-market retailer in the USA. With a
clearly segmented target group and that was for people who hate the beach but
need to buy beachwear for their holiday. (Brand C)
It can be seen therefore that successful co-brand collaborations can be used as a way
of opening doors to higher end collaborations with luxury and prestige brands, even
when unsuccessful, because of the experience gained in the management of such a
partnership. Therefore, the lowest value creation level of reach/awareness (Blackett
936 Journal of Marketing Management, Volume 30

& Russell, 1999) is not only applied to creating value through awareness in a new
market, but also awareness from other brands that could lead to future partnerships.

Values endorsement co-branding

The second level identified by Blackett and Russell (1999) is value endorsement
co-branding, within which brands are motivated to collaborate through borrowing
values or brand image from the partner brand. The finding of this research
supports this notion. An interpretation of qualitative data suggests that at the
value endorsement level, motivations ranged from borrowing credibility from a
celebrity (brands C and E), aligning the brand with an upscale retailer (brand F),
rebuilding brand image (brand G) and testing the market for new product/line
extension through borrowing value through partnerships with a retailer (brands C,
D, F). The brand managers interviewed were unanimous in their belief that co-
branding was a way to create value through ‘borrowing’ brand value from a
partner. This was achieved through careful partner selection, finding the ‘right’
partners or celebrity endorsers who could positively impact perceptions and build
brand equity. Fashion brands are highly concerned with protecting their brand
image and to that end highlighted the importance of partner selection and
bringing in the correct brand to achieve their aims while retaining brand image.
Within our sample, all brands perceived co-branding to be a significant tool for
improving perceptions of brand image through ‘borrowing’ certain associations from
a partner brand. This appeared to be the case when they felt some shortcomings in
the way their own brand was perceived by consumers. For example, while
highlighting the significance of co-branding efforts in general, the sports brand
manager commented:
Collaborations will be always important…you are ALWAYS, [emphasis] looking
for the highest level of brand authenticity…. If you feel like you lack this
authenticity, or if you feel you lack a certain level of news and of messaging
that you can bring. Then you bring in someone who can do it with you, or for you.
(Brand B)
Brand image and brand identity management appeared to be key focus of brand
managers’ narratives about co-branding and a recurring theme for motivations to
enter co-brand collaborations was to stay ‘relevant’ in a competitive environment
and borrow image value from a partner. For instance, a typical view was that: ‘You
have to keep your brand alive and fresh because the market is changing so fast’
(Brand A). Moreover, many considered the protection and growth of brand equity
and a strong brand perception as a key to retaining a competitive advantage in
highly competitive environment. For most brands, the key to retaining a strong
position in the market was considered to be through the brand name, with one
manager commenting that:
Our brand name and image are most important, so brand equity is key. In order
to protect this we need to have positive brand associations, through the right
stores, the right celebrities, the right look for our own stores. (Brand G)
In this particular case, co-branding was perceived as a way to achieve corporate goals,
aligning the brand with the right celebrity endorsers and partnering with the right
retail partners for a collaboration that would positively impact brand perception and
 Oeppen and Jamal Managerial perspectives on co-branding strategies in the fashion industry 937

brand equity. This mirrors the level of value endorsement identified by Blackett and
Russell (1999), as brands can borrow certain values or images from partners in order
to stay relevant in the competitive arena of the fashion industry.
The level of values endorsement co-branding does not only include relationships
where the brands are fully integrated and jointly branded (following the traditional
definition of co-branding), within our sample, one brand manager decided co-
promotion was a more appropriate relationship for her brand. For example, brand
F decided against entering into a traditional co-branded collaboration with a mass-
market retailer and instead had chosen to trial exclusive collections with top-end
luxury retail partners and luxury department stores, promoted together in a
collaborative way. Of prime importance to the brand was to use the co-promotions
as a way of attracting an entirely new consumer through an upscale line extension
exclusive to the retail partner (borrowing value and image from the retailer), while
not negatively impacting their own existing customer base or cannibalising sales by
splitting the same consumer over two brands.
Now, with black label, which started as a one-off in Harrods is now continuing,
due to its success in targeting a higher end consumer. Working with Harrods
was a perfect way to do that, they are very different segments and it allowed is
to understand that we can successfully target different parts of the market.
(Brand F)
Value endorsement co-branding also allowed brands to borrow image associations
from retailers in order to test the market for potential line extensions. For brands C
and D, the opportunity to partner with a retailer allowed them to produce a very
small collection, but still receive large-scale media attention, consumer awareness and
the reputation of the retail partner.
We wanted to enter the market with a men’s product, but, as it was new for us,
we were concerned about creating an entire line of men’s wear without trialing
it first. That’s where we felt collaboration would work best. We co-branded only
3 styles of men’s product, with a retail partner, and the response was
phenomenal. Within about a year we launched a full men’s collection that now
stands on it’s own as a great brand. However, without the press attention and
the market feedback we received from the collaboration, I would question if the
collection would have done so well so quickly. (Brand D)
This use of the strategy enabled the brand to achieve a longer term goal of a full
brand extension into a new market of menswear, co-branding allowed them to build
on the success of the small collection with a partner and launch a full men’s collection
the following season to positive response. In this situation, the risk of a brand
extension was mediated by the testing of the market before the high cost of a full
launch.

Ingredient and complementary competence co-branding

Within Blackett and Russell’s (1999) value creation hierarchy, ingredient branding,
where one brand becomes an ingredient in a partner brands product, is the third level
of shared value integration. Within our sample, this type of relationship was not
identified, because of the brands being within the same industry and therefore both
having the necessary ‘ingredients’ in house. This is a clear departure from previous
938 Journal of Marketing Management, Volume 30

research into FMCG and collaborations across different industries where the partners
will rely on an ingredient from the other to make the partnership happen. Because of
this, our research makes an important contribution in highlighting new
considerations concerning co-branding relationship types, not only within the
fashion industry, but also for collaborations between partners within the same
industry.
The highest level of Blackett and Russell’s (1999) framework is complementary
competence co-branding, within which the two brands are fully integrated, accessing
each other’s design teams and resources to create a shared product. The concept of
sharing competencies to increase value has been a driver of much research into co-
branding within FMCG markets (Park et al., 1996; Simonin & Ruth, 1998;
Washburn et al., 2000), particularly in ingredient co-branding where one brand
becomes the component part of another. Brands engaged in such practices are
often from different industries and rely on each other to physically realise the
product. Within the fashion industry, as brands would normally already have the
technical ability to produce garments, it was expected that this would not be an
important driver of collaboration. However, an interpretation of the qualitative data
reveals that sharing competencies was seen as an important reason to collaborate for
one of the brands questioned. The sports and lifestyle brand (brand B) was a good
example of this as they targeted a luxury brand known for exquisite design of
garments in order for their in-house design team to gain inspiration for their
apparel lines,

Designer collaborations are the most straight forward strategy, as you are
saying we want to create this lifestyle feel in a different way and reach a new
level of consumer that we haven’t reached so far. That was the intention behind
this collaboration with the luxury brand. Particularly with the apparel side as we
felt we were really a footwear company, apparel has been left a bit outside. This
was a key reason to bring the luxury brand in and say ‘what can your designers
do and how can your design language help, how can your understanding of
materials, textures, colours help us to re-boost our apparel business’.
(Brand B)

Brand B found that through designing a range together, their in-house design team
benefitted from new knowledge and understanding of fabrics and construction that
generated a spillover effect that remained long after the co-brand collaboration itself.
While this was an interesting finding, it is important to note that, in this instance, the
two brands partnering would have been servicing two very different markets.
Competency sharing of this scale, it could be proposed, would be less likely to
occur with fashion brands that could be seen as direct competitors (such as a
prestige brand collaborating with a mass-market retailer), and this level of sharing
was not identified in any other type of co-branding within the sample frame. This
finding is an interesting one and one that warrants further investigation. When
brands collaborate from different industries and are not direct competitors, this
type of competence sharing co-branding is more common. The exploration of
more examples of complementary competence co-branded relationships within
homogeneous partners, that is two brands within the fashion industry, would
further our limited understanding.
 Oeppen and Jamal Managerial perspectives on co-branding strategies in the fashion industry 939

Co-branded relationships in practice

Gammoh and Voss (2011) identify gaps in our current understanding of co-branded
relationships in practice, suggesting that research should focus on the formation and
management of actual co-brand relationships, commitment and trust. This call for
further exploration has been echoed by Newmeyer et al. (2013), adding the need to
explore levels of integration, exclusivity and duration of collaborations. Within the
fashion industry, brands face the potential risk of brand dilution and negative
feedback effects, and coupled with this recent brand extension, research has shown
that such effects can be higher for certain brand concepts (e.g. Luxury brands)
(Dall’Olmo Riley et al., 2013). Given our current understanding is limited, this
section explores management of the co-branded relationships within our sample
and managers’ understanding of the risks and challenges of the strategy in practice.
The data analysis revealed factors that clearly contributed to strong working
relationships, allowing the brands to be protected throughout the co-branded
collaboration. The first of these is careful partner selection, with one manager
commenting that,
It obviously comes down to selecting the right partner in the first place that
shares certain practices or ways of working. Also the legal contracts make sure
that the partner commits themselves to these rules. (Brand B)
While the legal and contractual agreements would be expected in order to protect the
brand and cement the relationship, brand B suggests that by carefully selecting the
partner that fits not only its brand image and aims for the collection, but also ways of
working and brand values, the contract should become merely a written formalisation
of an already strong relationship. Alongside contracts, all of the luxury brands under
investigation mentioned the need to retain high levels of control in their relationship
dynamics throughout the duration of the collaborations.
We have a LOT of control. It’s (co-branding) one of the most difficult things to
do…you really want to control it fully. And of course, when you make a contract
you must put these things in. We had to be able to say ‘NO’ if we didn’t like the
products and challenge the partner…it is a very close collaboration with a huge
timeline and at every point you must meet and re-address the aims before
moving on to the next step. That’s not only in the product development, but also
for the whole marketing strategy. Because its your name that is linked to that
product, and the retailer, so we have to see everything. Every little detail, every
hanger, sticker, everything. It’s the most important thing. (Brand G)
With the potential threats of brand dilution, particularly for those from luxury brand
concepts (Dall’Olmo Riley et al., 2013), control of the relationship and the
opportunity to revisit the strategic aims at each point during the course of the
relationship was key to protecting the brand and creating a product that would be
worthy of the luxury brands name. Obviously, the creation of a collection with a
mass-market retailer, at a much lower price point, will be of a different quality level
to the mainline collections, because of cost of materials and production, the overall
look of the collection should, nonetheless, be representative of the luxury brand in
order to resonate with the target consumers.
Brand G entered into a co-branded relationship not only to expand their market
reach but also to re-establishing their brand image following a lengthy battle with
940 Journal of Marketing Management, Volume 30

counterfeit product. For them, co-branding allowed them to market their brand to
the market that had been buying into the counterfeit products. This allowed the
market access to a real item, designed by the brand itself, for close to the price of a
counterfeit;
The collaboration can help us against this (counterfeiting), as if price is an issue
they can have a product truly designed by us, but for cheaper. Without having to
buy a copycat. (Brand G)

This co-branded relationship was based on the need to reposition the brand image
after damage for counterfeiting, but also aimed to capitalise on the market of
aspirational consumers who had been attracted to counterfeit product because of
its accessible price. The knowledge that a downscale co-branded extension could
access this market on a temporary basis, with less risk of brand dilution and negative
feedback effects to the parent brand, was the main driver for strategy adoption in this
case. This collection was a one-off small collection, designed to sell out quickly in the
mass-market store, mirroring the short duration typical of collaborations in the
fashion industry. Within the sample under investigation for this research, the reason
for the short collaborations was to protect the brand from dilution and negative
spillover effects.
There were concerns throughout the sample for brand dilution; this was
highlighted in every interview with brand managers of luxury brands. Fashion
brands face the challenge of extending their markets while also retaining brand
image (Bruce & Kratz, 2007). This challenge of using co-branding to attract a
wider audience at a lower price point while also maintaining an existing market
and avoiding brand image dilution was seen as the most important factor for luxury
brands when considering downscale co-branding as a strategy. The collaboration
between brand B (sports) and a luxury brand is a great example of this control in
practice. The luxury brand risked brand dilution should the upscale co-branded
product be retailed in mass-market stores or even the lower end of brand B’s own
store portfolio. By restricting distribution to the luxury brand’s own stores and high-
end department stores, the luxury brands image was controlled and maintained, and
brand B benefitted from brand equity transfer and internal design skills.
We only sold in very selective distribution because it came at a very high price
point. So you wouldn’t want to see it at a Sports World or something, so that was
really at the designer brand’s stores and some department stores. That
collection itself created a nice buzz, and nice brand spill over then onto the
rest of the collection in the consumers’ eyes. And it’s also helped us internally
to bring our designers into a new way of thinking and into a new way of
designing clothes. (Brand B)

Another way in which the brands protected themselves from dilution was the limited
availability of the co-branded collections. Brand A (luxury brand) was mindful of
balancing the potential gains of co-branding (increased awareness and access to large
consumer base) with the risks of having product available constantly and diluting the
brand.
The collaboration is only one shot, just at Christmas, then that’s it. We actually
thought about different ways of co-branding, like should we make an ongoing
line with them – which was also an option. But then we constantly have product
 Oeppen and Jamal Managerial perspectives on co-branding strategies in the fashion industry 941

in there – we didn’t want that. If you think purely about income then that would
have been a real money maker for us, but on the other hand it would dilute the
brand – so how wise is that? (Brand A)

To have a permanent collection of less expensive product co-branded and retailed

within the mass-market retailers store network was too much of a dilution risk for
brand A, opting instead for a one-off collection in order to protect the mainline
collection. In recent research, Newmeyer et al. (2013) posit that longer co-branding
duration could lead to greater positive impact of evaluations of the focal brand, in
complete contrast to what our findings begin to suggest. Blackett and Russell’s
original definition states that co-branding partnerships are of ‘medium to long
duration’ (1999); however, within the sample, all were planned to be one-off
collections, with only two continuing on for more than one collection. The
nature of fashion co-branding, namely those occurring between luxury brands and
mass-market retailers such as H&M with Versace etc., are normally short in
duration. Some last for only a collection, which, if demand is high enough, will
usually sell through in a day or less.4 With this considered, under Blackett and
Russell’s’ (1999) definition framework, fashion collaborations would fall under ‘co-
promotion’ due to their short duration, rather than true ‘co-branding’ that is
normally of medium to long term duration. However, the dimension of duration
is not the only consideration in a cooperative strategy; Blackett and Russell (1999)
also includes the ‘shared value creation factor’ as another consideration to defining
the level of cooperation. While the collaborations maybe available to the consumer
for a short duration, they involve high levels of cooperation and integration in
order to plan and develop the new product. Within this dimension, the level of
cooperation in almost all the relationships studied was high, with each brand
working together along the process to design, produce and market the
collaboration as jointly branded.
Within our findings, only one brand (Brand F) produced a collection that could
not be deemed to be the creation of a jointly produced collection.

As to true co-branding, with a high street store, we would not do…there is of

course a risk when you do this and we don’t feel we have anything to gain. We
feel we have the skills as a brand in house to undertake any projects we would
need too, we don’t need to use the skills of another brand. Also we have very
high brand awareness, so we wouldn’t need to use another brand for this
either…As a brand, we have it drummed into us that the brand is an
innovator…not a follower. Co-branding is not a new strategy now, every brand
is doing this. So we, as an innovator, could not follow the rest. Unless there is a
new kind of co-branding that would allow us to express our innovativeness and
truly do something unique then I say no…we wouldn’t do it. (Brand F)

The collection produced by brand F would be better defined as ‘Co-Promotion’ as

the collection was a line produced exclusively for the retailer, rather than designed
and co-produced. It was also the only type of relationship that did not produce a
jointly branded collection, but one that was jointly marketed. The luxury brand in
this instance took the decision to undertake co-promotion purposefully and to avoid
4
For example, see http://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-2111995/H-M-Marni-collection-
H-M-strike-gold-designer-collaboration.html
942 Journal of Marketing Management, Volume 30

a fully integrated downscale co-branding strategy as they felt the brand would have
no strategic reason to fully integrate with a partner.

Summary

The key themes that emerged from the data analysis have contributed and progressed
current thinking surrounding the drivers of co-branding formation and the nature of
the strategic relationships that exist within the sample of fashion brand managers.
This research specifically aimed to address the lack of research on co-branded
products from partners that exist within the same industry, who are less reliant on
ingredients from a partner to create a product. The research empirically applied
Blackett and Russell’s proposed framework to assess its viability for these types of
collaborations. Findings show that only two of the proposed categories of
integration, reach/awareness and values endorsement co-branding, were wholly
relevant to co-branding within the sample frame. The different forms and functions
of the relationships identified were representative of the strategic aims of the brand
managers, with lower integration being the least risky and appropriate to meet the
aim of attracting brand awareness in the partners’ primary market.
The key theme of managing the strategy in practice was discussed in detail,
particularly for those brands that could be defined as luxury. Brand extension
research has found downscale extensions are more risky for luxury brands as they
are at an increased risk of brand dilution (Dall’Olmo Riley et al., 2013), a concern
that was expressed with the luxury brand managers within the sample. This research
has explored ways of mitigating negative impacts, adding to current understanding by
suggesting limited availability through short duration of the collaboration and
selective distribution being key to protect a luxury brand. Coupled with this, a high
level of control throughout the collaborative process and a strong working
relationship with the partner offer further insight into the management of co-
branding in practice.

Conclusion, limitations and future research opportunities

This research was an initial attempt to explore the nature of co-branding strategies
within the fashion industry. The research aimed to empirically explore propositions
of value creation and the levels of relationship identified by Blackett and Russell
(1999). In doing this, the qualitative data has generated further understanding to the
multi-faceted nature of this strategy in achieving different strategic objectives, the
need for which has been identified by Gammoh and Voss (2011, 2013) and more
recently echoed by Newmeyer et al. (2013). Calling into question the previous
research treating co-branding as a unified strategy and shows how it has been used
to achieve different strategic objectives for the participant brands.
Within this research, our findings have shown the different levels of relationship
integration that exist within the fashion industry, for example reach/awareness co-
branding, values endorsement and complimentary competence co-branding. Within
the sample frame, we did not identify examples of ingredient co-branding (where one
brand becomes a key ingredient or component in the co-brand relationship, as is
common in FMCG examples), providing a key factor for further research
 Oeppen and Jamal Managerial perspectives on co-branding strategies in the fashion industry 943

opportunity. When both partners are from the same industry, i.e. fashion, there is no
need for ‘ingredients’, and the motivations and relationships are formed for other
strategic reasons, as highlighted in this research. Only one example of a highly
integrated complementary competence relationship was identified, within an
example of brand B (sports) and a luxury brand. However, as these brands could
not be considered true competitors within the market, this seems to be a rare example
of such a highly integrated relationship. It could be hypothesised that such high
integration would be less appropriate within the same industry, due to the risk of
exposing key strategic strengths to a competitor. Further research into co-branding
relationships within the same industry is necessary to understand if this is a common
relationship type or a rare example.
This research has also explored relationships in practice, namely focusing on the
management of the strategic relationship through control, distribution and duration.
Recent propositions from Newmeyer et al. (2013) have suggested that duration is an
important component of understanding co-branded relationships, with the
assumption that duration will have an impact on consumer evaluations. Within
fashion co-branding, collaborations of a limited availability are common (such as
collaborations between H&M and various luxury brands). Our data supports this,
with the short-term availability being a strategic decision to protect the brand from
dilution or cannibalising sales for the partner brands. Within our sample, the luxury
brands identified were most often entering into downscale collaborations to partner
with a mass-market brand and creating a lower priced product. The short-term
availability in this case seemed to protect the brand from being viewed negatively
by its existing consumer base, while also generating consumer interest in a new
market through the mass-market retailer.
This research should be seen as a preliminary attempt at addressing the issue of
exploring managerial perceptions of strategy formation and key motivations behind
co-branding and not be extrapolated outside of this sample frame. The findings of
this exploration should be interpreted within its contextual confines, and further
studies with larger samples are necessary for generalisation. The main contribution of
this article is to provide researchers and practitioners with rich information about the
relationship types that exist, along with the formation and management of co-
branding in action.
Irrespective of the limitations, this study highlights a number of potentially
interesting future research projects. For instance, the findings related to key
motivational benefits and strategic objectives. It might be that certain industry
contexts (e.g. fashion vs. FMCG) involve more (less) challenging and market-
specific issues, and therefore, managerial perspectives might vary depending upon
the context of the study. It would be worthwhile to study managerial motivations and
perceptions involving co-branding over time in order to be able to take into account
the relational dynamics of co-branding, as well as exploring dyadic relationships to
understand the challenges from the perspective of both partner brands. Similarly,
further research can explore the role played by various different cultural orientations
(e.g. collectivist vs. individualistic) in strategy formulation.
In terms of academic research, the study helps to move towards a richer
understanding of the differing types of relationship that can be defined as co-
branding, the motivations and reasons for strategy adoption and the management
of such collaborations. The research empirically applies Blackett and Russell’s (1999)
value creation framework, finding evidence of reach/awareness co-branding, value
944 Journal of Marketing Management, Volume 30

endorsement co-branding and complementary competence co-branding in practice.

The research, answering a call to investigate the formation of co-branding in practice
(e.g. Gammoh & Voss, 2011, 2013; Newmeyer et al., 2013), has opened potential
avenues for future research around the types of relationships that do exist within the
fashion industry. The study also explores the idea that relationships within the same
industry might face increased challenges in order to achieve strategic goals while
working with a partner that could be considered a competitor. The research also
found that the popular type of ‘ingredient’ co-branding is not common in the fashion
industry, in comparison to products from different industries such as examples in
previous co-branding research.
In terms of managerial implications, this research has shown the multiple drivers
for alliance formation and the strategic outcomes of these decisions. It has shown
how brands have successfully increased brand awareness, used the strategy to develop
successful line extensions and even to defend and redefine their position in the
market following damage from a look-a-like product or brand. It has also
investigated the strategy in practice, showing that considerations of brand
saturation and dilution are of huge importance to managers. The findings also
show ways that this is mitigated in practice, such as control of distribution channels
and short durations leading to limited availability and less impact on existing line
extensions or the possibility of brand dilution. These findings highlight the strengths
and considerations of strategy adoption and give new insights into the practice and
management of co-branding within the fashion industry.

References
Aaker, D. (1992). The value of brand equity. Journal of Business Strategy, 13(4), 27–32.
doi:10.1108/eb039503
Alvesson, M., & Deetz, S. (2000). Doing critical management research. London: Sage.
Berthon, P., Leyland, F., Pitt, M., & Berthon, J. P. (2010). Aesthetics and ephemerality:
Observing and preserving the luxury brand. California Management Review, 52(1), 45–66.
Beverland, M., & Bretherton, P. (2001). The uncertain search for opportunities: Determinants
of strategic alliances. Qualitative Market Research: An International Journal, 4, 88–99.
doi:10.1108/13522750110388581
Blackett, T., & Boad, B. (1999). Co-branding: The science of alliance. London: Palgrave
Macmillan.
Blackett, T., & Russell, N. (1999). What is co-branding? In T. Blackett & B. Boad. (Eds.),
Co-branding: The science of alliance. London: Macmillan.
British Fashion Council. (2011). Value of Fashion Report. Retrieved January 2, 2014, from
http://britishfashioncouncil.com/content.aspx?CategoryID=1745
Bruce, M., & Kratz, C. (2007). Competitive marketing strategies of luxury fashion companies.
In T. Hines & M. Bruce (Eds.), Fashion marketing (2nd ed.). Oxford: Elsevier/Butterworth-
Heinemann.
Chen, K. J., & Liu, C. M. (2004). Positive brand extension trial and choice of parent brand.
Journal of Product and Brand Management, 13(1), 25–36. doi:10.1108/
10610420410523821
Dall’Olmo Riley, F., Pina, J. M., & Bravo, R. (2013). Downscale extensions: Consumer
evaluation and feedback effects. Journal of Business Research, 66(2), 196–206.
doi:10.1016/j.jbusres.2012.07.013
Das, T., & Teng, B. (2000). A resource-based theory of strategic alliances. Journal of
Management, 26, 31–61. doi:10.1177/014920630002600105
 Oeppen and Jamal Managerial perspectives on co-branding strategies in the fashion industry 945

Eastman, J., Goldsmith, E., & Flynn, L. (1999). Status consumption in consumer behavior:
Scale development and validation. Journal of Marketing Theory and Practice, Summer,
41–52.
Erevelles, S., Horton, V., & Fukawa, N. (2008). Understanding B2C brand alliances between
manufacturers and suppliers. Marketing Management Journal, 18(2), 32–46.
Fuchs, C., Prandelli, E., Schreier, M., & Dahl, D. (2013). All that is users might not be gold:
How labeling products as user designed backfires in the context of luxury fashion brands.
Journal of Marketing, 77, 75–91. doi:10.1509/jm.11.0330
Gammoh, B., & Voss, K. (2011). Brand alliance research: In search of a new perspective and
directions for future research. Journal of Marketing Development and Competitiveness, 5,
81–93.
Gammoh, B., & Voss, K. (2013). Alliance competence: The moderating role of valence of
alliance experience. European Journal of Marketing, 47(5), 964–986. doi:10.1108/
03090561311307029
Geertz, C. (1973). The interpretation of cultures. New York, NY: Basic Books.
Geylani, T., Hofstede, F., & Inman, J. (2006). Image reinforcement or impairment: The effects
of co-branding on attribute uncertainty. Advances in Consumer Research, 33, 44.
Hillyer, C., & Tikoo, S. (1995). Effect of co-branding on consumer product evaluations.
Advances in Consumer Research, 22, 123–127.
Hirschman, E., & Holbrook, M. (1982). Hedonic consumption: Emerging concepts, methods
and propositions. Journal of Marketing, 46, 92–101. doi:10.2307/1251707
Hirschman, E. C. (Ed.). (1989). Interpretive consumer research (pp. 69–84). Provo, UT:
Association for Consumer Research.
Hudson, A. A., & Ozanne, J. (1988). Alternative ways of seeking knowledge in consumer
research. Journal of Consumer Research, 14(4), 508–521. doi:10.1086/209132
Jackson, T. (2004). International retail marketing. Oxford: Elsevier Butterworth-Heinemann.
James, D. (2005). Guilty through association: Brand association transfer to brand alliances.
Journal of Consumer Marketing, 22, 14–24. doi:10.1108/07363760510576518
Jansen, M. (2004). Brand alliances: Building strong brands together. Denventer: Kluwer.
Kay, M. (2006). Strong brands and corporate brands. European Journal of Marketing, 40(7/8),
742–760. doi:10.1108/03090560610669973
Keller, K. L. (2003). Brand synthesis: The multidimensionality of brand knowledge. Journal of
Consumer Research, 29, 595–600. doi:10.1086/346254
Kohli, A. K., & Jaworski, B. J. (1990). Market orientation: The construct, research
propositions, and managerial implications. Journal of Marketing, 54, 1–18. doi:10.2307/
1251866
Leuthesser, L., Kohli, C., & Suri, R. (2003). 2 + 2 = 5? A framework for using co-branding to
leverage a brand. Journal of Brand Management, 11, 35–47. doi:10.1057/palgrave.
bm.2540146
Lincoln, Y. S., & Guba, E. G. (1985). Naturalistic inquiry. Bevery Hills, CA: Sage.
Loken, B., & John, D. R. (1993). Diluting brand beliefs: When do brand extensions have a
negative impact? Journal of Marketing, 57, 71–84. doi:10.2307/1251855
McKee, S. (2009). The pros and cons of co-branding. Retrieved August 2013, from http://www.
businessweek.com/smallbiz/content/jul2009/sb20090710_255169.htm
Motion, J., Leitch, S., & Brodie, R. (2003). Equity in corporate co-branding: The case of
adidas and the all blacks. European Journal of Marketing, 37, 1080–1094. doi:10.1108/
03090560310477672
Netemeyer, R., Heilman, C., & Maxham III, J. (2012). The impact of a new retail brand in-
store boutique and its perceived fit with the parent retail brand on store performance and
customer spending. Journal of Retailing, 88, 462–475. doi:10.1016/j.jretai.2012.06.002
Newmeyer, C., Venkatesh, R., & Chatterjee, R. (2013). Co-branding arrangements and partner
selection: A conceptual framework and managerial guidelines. Journal of the Academy of
Marketing Science, 42(2), 103–118. doi:10.1007/s11747-013-0343-8
946 Journal of Marketing Management, Volume 30

Okonkwo, U. (2007). Luxury fashion branding: Trends, tactics, techniques. London: Palgrave
Macmillan.
O’Shaughnessy, J., & O’Shaughnessy, N. J. (2002). Marketing, the consumer society and
hedonism. European Journal of Marketing, 36, 524–547. doi:10.1108/
03090560210422871
Park, C., Jun, S., & Shocker, A. (1996). Composite branding alliances: An investigation of
extension and feedback effects. Journal of Marketing Research, 33, 453–466. doi:10.2307/
3152216
Pride, W., & Ferrell, O. (2013). Marketing (17th ed.). Mason, OH: South Western.
Rao, A., Qu, L., & Ruekert, R. (1999). Signaling unobservable product quality through a brand
ally. Journal of Marketing Research, 36, 258–268. doi:10.2307/3152097
Rao, A., & Ruekert, R. (1994). Brand alliances as signals of product quality. Sloan Management
Review, 36, 87–97.
Richie, J., Spencer, L., & O’Connor, W. (2003). Carrying out qualitative analysis. In J. Richie
& J. Lewis (Eds.), Qualitative research practice: A guide for social science students and
researchers. London: Sage.
Simonin, B., & Ruth, J. (1998). Is a company known by the company it keeps? Assessing the
spillover effects of brand alliances on consumer brand attitudes. Journal of Marketing
Research, 35, 30–42. doi:10.2307/3151928
Spiggle, S. (1994). Analysis and interpretation of qualitative data in consumer research. Journal
of Consumer Research, 21(3), 491–503. doi:10.1086/209413
Tsai, S. (2005). Impact of personal orientation on luxury-brand purchase value. International
Journal of Market Research, 47, 177–206.
Tungate, M. (2012). Fashion brands (3rd ed.). Philadelphia, PA: Kogan Page.
Völckner, F., & Sattler, H. (2006). Drivers of brand extension success. Journal of Marketing,
70, 18–34. doi:10.1509/jmkg.70.2.18
Wallendorf, M., & Belk, R. (1989). Assessing trustworthiness in naturalistic consumer research.
In E. C. Hirschman (Ed.), Interpretive consumer research (pp. 69–84). Provo, UT:
Association for Consumer Research.
Washburn, J., Till, B., & Priluck, R. (2000). Co-branding: Brand equity and trial effects.
Journal of Consumer Marketing, 17, 591–604. doi:10.1108/07363760010357796
Wigley, S., & Provelengiou, A. (2011). Market-facing strategic alliances in the fashion sector.
Journal of Fashion Marketing and Management, 15, 141–162. doi:10.1108/
13612021111132609

Appendix A. Brand manager interview discussion guide

Interview discussion guide co-branding: brand managers

Interview discussion guide

Introduce yourself and explain the purpose of session, for example, to gather insights
into the strategy of co-branding and its adoption. Explain any of the ethical issues
(e.g. participation is totally voluntary, they withdraw from the session or not answer
any question if they like to do so; data to be used only for academic analysis and
study and if published data will not be identifiable as theirs).
The below are bullet points relating to key themes in the literature – they are to be
used to guide conversation rather than being prescriptive questions. Allow the
respondent to talk freely and discuss new themes as they emerge.
 Oeppen and Jamal Managerial perspectives on co-branding strategies in the fashion industry 947

Opening

– Role in organisation, responsibilities.

– Explain the brand, brand identity, personality, position
– The brands core consumer
– The brands target consumer
– Overall aims and objectives for the brand

Co-branding experience

– How did the decision come about

– What were the primary objectives for the alliance
– Were the objectives short or long term in nature
– How did the objectives of the alliance fit into overall brand objectives
– What did you perceive as the strengths of adopting a co-brand strategy
– What did you perceive as the potential risks

Partner selection
– What qualities in the brand partner were important
– How did you decide on the nature of the co-brand collaboration
– What was the nature and duration of the alliance
– Did the relationship change over time
– Can you discuss the management of the relationship
– How was the relationship communicated to the consumer

Motivations
– What were you hoping to gain through the strategy
– Were there strategies in place to counteract any negative impacts from the
co-brand alliance?
– Did you monitor consumer response in the media and social media?
– How did you evaluate the collaboration?
– What are your feelings about future collaborations?
948 Journal of Marketing Management, Volume 30

About the authors

Jemma Oeppen is a fully sponsored ESRC doctoral student in Marketing and Strategy at
Cardiff University. Her doctoral thesis explores co-branding within the fashion industry,
focusing on luxury brand collaborations with mass-market retailers. Her background is in
brand management and marketing roles, having worked with fashion brands in the United
Kingdom and internationally. Her broad research interests involve brand strategy, retailing and
consumer response to fashion brands.
Corresponding author: Jemma Oeppen, Cardiff Business School, Cardiff University,
Aberconway Building, Column Drive, Cardiff CF10 3EU, UK.
T 07891 289350
E oeppenjh@cf.ac.uk
Ahmad Jamal is a senior lecturer in Marketing and Strategy at Cardiff Business School. He is a
senior examiner at the Chartered Institute of Marketing, UK, and his research interests include
culture, consumption and applications of self-concept in consumer behaviour. He is the
co-author of a consumer behaviour text and has published in Journal of Business Research,
European Journal of Marketing, Journal of Marketing Management, Journal of Consumer
Behaviour, Advances in Consumer Research, Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services,
Journal of Bank Marketing, International Review of Retail, Distribution and Consumer
Research and British Food Journal.