10 1108 - Ejm 02 2021 0073

The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available on Emerald Insight at:
https://www.emerald.com/insight/0309-0566.htm
EJM
56,2 Co-branding research: where
we are and where we could go
from here
584 Cinzia Pinello, Pasquale Massimo Picone and
Arabella Mocciaro Li Destri
Received 3 February 2021
Revised 3 August 2021 Department of Economics, Business and Statistics, University of Palermo,
10 November 2021 Palermo, Italy
Accepted 22 December 2021
Abstract
Purpose – The motivations behind co-branding alliances, the differences in performance between the paired
brands and the emergence of “spillover effects” have been pillars of the marketing research agenda for almost
three decades. We observe an extensive number of studies on co-branding alliances, combined with multiple
theoretical perspectives and empirical approaches informing extant literature. The purpose of this paper is to
summarize of the state of the art of this research.
Design/methodology/approach – The authors offer a systematic literature review of 190 papers on co-
branding alliances. The authors portray a picture of the theories informing co-branding research and build a
conceptual framework that summarizes the concepts and variables used in this literature. Finally, 11
interviews with managers and consultants of European firms help to reveal potential problems in practice and
needs that are not captured by previous studies.
Findings – The authors develop a map of theories used to investigate co-branding alliances and build a
conceptual framework linking motivations, co-branding alliance implementation and outputs. Finally, the
authors propose a structured research agenda.
Research limitations/implications – The main implication relies on the structured research agenda.
Practical implications – Practical implications include the identification of the variables and dimensions
involved in a brand alliance to exploit the strengths and moderate the weaknesses of a brand.
Originality/value – This paper highlights how co-branding is embedded in different contexts and
dimensions regarding both firms and consumers. The two maps presented in this study underscore the
interdependence among such dimensions. The authors interview marketing experts to validate the conceptual
framework and to help us extract the managerial implications that stem from it.
Keywords Co-branding, Brand alliances, Brand management, Systematic literature review
Paper type Literature review
The authors express their appreciation to the marketing experts: Emanuele Acconciamessa (Focus
Mgmt), Elisabet Fasano (ICAM S.r.l.), Maria Sara Forti (Biscottificio Paolo Forti s.r.l.), Antonella Pirro
Ruggiero (Focus Mgmt), Gaia Scalia (Frantoio Scalia), Giancarlo Sciuto (SEO Tester Online),
Francesco Sodano (Huawei) and other interviewees that prefer to stay anonymous. For effective help
in the data collection process, the authors are grateful to Sandro Castaldo and Giorgia D’Allura. The
European Journal of Marketing authors also thank Giuseppe Pedeliento and all the participants at EURAM 2021 and SINERGIE-
Vol. 56 No. 2, 2022
pp. 584-621 SIMA 2021 conferences for the insightful comments and suggestions. Finally, thanks to the three
© Emerald Publishing Limited anonymous reviewers and the editors, their extremely valuable comments have significantly
0309-0566
DOI 10.1108/EJM-02-2021-0073 improved the quality of the paper.
Introduction Co-branding
Business practice provides many examples of the association of two brands in a single research
product or service, namely, co-branding alliances. In co-branding alliances, two brands are
combined in a joint offer to exploit the potential synergies between them (Newmeyer et al.,
2018, 2014; Rao and Ruekert, 1994). For example, recently, a successful co-branding alliance
involved H&M and Moschino in the fashion industry. Nonetheless, the effects that the
alliance may have on the partner brands and on the consumers’ evaluation of their
individual offering are not easy to forecast (Cunha et al., 2015; Zhang et al., 2021). For 585
example, the co-branding alliance between Target and Neiman Marcus has not produced the
expected outcomes, it did not attract the intended market target with eccentric and very
expensive specialized products (Bogenrief, 2013; Thau, 2013). This paper addresses the
questions “what do we know?” and “what should we know” about co-branding alliances?
The increasing importance of co-branding in practice (Nguyen et al., 2018) and the high
variability of its performance (Washburn et al., 2000) led to a parallel growth of research on
the topic in the field of marketing. One reason that explains the variety of outcomes obtained
is that co-branding alliances support the achievement of multiple goals, such as gaining
access to a new target market, developing a global brand, increasing sales, building brand
equity (Aaker and Keller, 1990; Barwise and Robertson, 1992; Washburn et al., 2000;
Delgado-Ballester and Hernandez-Espallardo, 2008; Rodrigues et al., 2011; Lanseng and
Olsen, 2012; Samuelsen and Olsen, 2012; Kalafatis et al., 2012) and determining the
“integration” of forms and functions of the two allied brands (Newmeyer and Ruth, 2021).
Moreover, allied brands may take advantage of the “spillover effects” in different ways and
degrees (Simonin and Ruth, 1998) and numerous variables influence the relationship
between co-branding alliances and performance (Xiao and Lee, 2014; Guerreiro et al., 2015;
Cao and Yan, 2017; Roosens et al., 2019). For instance, consumers’ perception (Decker and
Baade, 2016; Dahlstrom and Nygaard, 2016), evaluation (Lee et al., 2013), brand-recall
through memory association networks (Henderson et al., 1998) and the role played by
consumer experience (Becker and Jaakkola, 2020) appear to lead to variability and
asymmetry of brand performance. In particular, brand-to-brand association in consumers’
minds is fundamental to understand how the consumers perceive an alliance, for instance, in
terms of coherence (Bang et al., 2020) and to evaluate possible spillover effects (Raufeisen
et al., 2019). Furthermore, by adopting a birds’ eye view to look at co-branding research, we
can observe that multiple theoretical perspectives (Signaling Theory, Information
Integration Theory, Associative Learning Theory, etc.) and numerous empirical approaches
(e.g. experiments, survey and case studies) inform extant literature.
Twelve years after the first review of the research conducted on co-branding alliances
(Helmig et al., 2008), the fragmentation of the literature linking motivations-cobranding
alliance implementation-outputs of co-branding makes it challenging for scholars to have a
clear and comprehensive understanding of the co-branding phenomena. Additionally, the
variety of theories and empirical approaches used to study the co-branding phenomenon
renders the definition of future research directions arduous for scholars (Durand et al., 2017).
Recent reviews only partially address this drawback. For instance, Chiambaretto and Gurau
(2017) offer a rich taxonomy of co-branding types and their benefits and risks. However, the
authors are exclusively focused on a specific input, that is, the “fit” between partners and/or
products in co-branding alliances (Chiambaretto and Gurau, 2017). From a complementary
perspective, Besharat and Langan’s (2014) paper analyze how co-branding alliances benefit
or harm consumers’ perception and how brands share consumers’ associations. Finally,
Paydas Turan (2021) proposes a meta-analysis that concentrates on the drivers of positive
outcomes and disregards the drivers of negative performances. Additionally, the author
EJM only centers attention on the consumers’ perspective. Again, despite the focus on a positive
56,2 attitude toward co-branding and behavioral intention toward co-branding are interesting
dimensions to analyze, they offer only a partial view. It does not consider, for instance, how
factors regarding potential partner firms affect the brand selection process.
Our analysis aims to identify the theories, dimensions and variables used to study co-
branding in the literature to find gaps and identify directions for future research. From a
586 conceptual perspective, our analysis illustrates the structure and evolution of the network of
theoretical perspectives used in co-branding research, which may be useful to study and
interpret how research on co-branding has developed and evolved over the years.
Furthermore, we build a conceptual framework that summarizes the concepts and variables
used in co-branding research. The framework we propose completes Chiambaretto and
Gurau’s (2017) study by positioning partner selection within the broader picture that links
motivations-partnership selection-outputs of co-branding. Additionally, it enlarges the
debate by considering both successful drivers (Paydas Turan, 2021) and unsuccessful
factors.
Additionally, we interview experts to validate our framework and juxtapose the contents
of extant literature with their real-world experiences. Finally, we complement our review
with a structured research agenda that leverages the insights that emerged from interviews
with marketing experts and/or from the consideration of strategic alliance literature.
Method
To develop a systematic literature review of co-branding research, we searched for papers
indexed in two databases: Scopus and Web of Science. The choice to consider both
databases is appropriate to guarantee the comprehensiveness of the constructed sample. For
instance, in the Scopus database, “Journal of Consumer Research” and “Journal of
Marketing” show temporal gaps until 1993 and 1995, respectively.
We selected articles that include the terms “co-brand*,” “co brand*,” “cobrand*,” “brand
alliance*,” “joint branding,” “dual branding,” “co-marketing alliance,” “ingredient branding”
and “multiple branding” in their title, abstract or list of keywords. Our search incorporates
papers published until December 2019. In the Scopus database, we selected 580 papers. We
refined our search based on the following criteria. First, we selected the papers that received
at least 10 citations. The 10-citation threshold allowed us to select the top 33% of papers
according to the overall number of citations (excluding self-citations). A total of 187 selected
papers satisfy this criterion. Second, we also included all the papers published in marketing
journals with 3 and 4 stars, according to the UK Academic Journal Guide 2018, even if they
showed less than 10 citations [1]. Therefore, the final sample extracted from SCOPUS
includes 205 papers. Our criteria allowed us to select the most influential papers on co-
branding. On the one hand, setting a threshold for the minimum number of citations per
paper guarantees the inclusion of the most important articles in the ongoing academic
debate. On the other hand, since such a threshold penalizes the most recent publications, we
compensated for such drawbacks by selecting papers on the topic published in top journals,
despite the number of citations.
We repeated the same collection procedure described above on the Web of Science
database. We found 32 papers in addition to the ones already selected from the Scopus
database. At the end of our data collection procedure, our sample was composed of 237
papers. Abstracts of such articles were analyzed one by one and, after removing papers that
regard a different topic or touch co-branding research marginally and one corrigendum, the
final sample included 190 papers. Figure 1 summarizes the main steps of the data collection
procedure.
Database Scopus Web Of Science
Co-branding
research
Span of time 1990-2019 1985-2019
Query selection 579 papers 413 papers

587
≥ 10 citations 19 papers
Not published in top journals 128 papers Complementary to Scopus
Journal selection 13 papers

77 papers
3 and 4 stars, according to the UK (59 with ≥10 citations)
Complementary to Scopus
Academic Journal Guide 2018 (6 with ≥10 citations)
Original sample: 237

Figure 1.
Data collection
Selection after abstract analysis Final sample: 190 procedure
We analyzed the 190 papers on co-branding alliances following three main steps. First, we
built a table to summarize extant studies on co-branding. For each paper, we reported the
title, the year of publication, the authors’ names, the title of the journal, the number of
citations, the research questions, the methodological approach, the theoretical perspective(s)
used, the contributions and the list of variables considered (by distinguishing among
dependent, independent, mediator and moderator variables).
Second, to portray a picture of the theories informing co-branding research and how each
theory is related to the others, we built a map of theories using a network approach. In this
map, the nodes represent the theories used to analyze co-branding over time. When two
theories are jointly used in one or more papers, a connection between them is established.
The width of the link is proportional to the frequency with which two theories are used in
conjunction in the same study. Additionally, to show the evolution of theories used to
investigate co-branding, we divided the time period (24 years) between the publication year
of the first paper in the dataset (1996) and the last paper (2019) in homogeneous time
windows. Specifically, we considered time windows of four years each to show the trend of
some network metrics, including the number of theories that enter the map and the number
of connections among them. The reason why time windows should be homogeneous is
inherent in the considered metrics. Since these metrics are additive [2], time windows of
different length would provide an inconsistent representation of the trends. Furthermore, we
wanted to capture the network evolution detail by avoiding unnecessary redundancy [3].
This rationale suggested to exclude time windows of length equal to 1, 2 or 3 years.
Third, we built a conceptual framework that summarizes the concepts and variables
used in co-branding research. Figure 5 reports the conceptual framework that emerges from
the current state of the art on the topic. The initial version of the framework was modified
after an in-depth analysis of the papers’ contents, which allowed to shrink some dimensions
and reduce its complexity. We scrutinized each element in the framework and the
connections among the considered elements. We discussed the results of our systematic
EJM literature review with practitioners working in Europe. Specifically, we contacted 30
56,2 practitioners and received the availability of 11 of them. The respondents include managers,
entrepreneurs and consultants. Furthermore, their firms compete in various industries (such
as fashion, hi-tech, financial services, food and logistics) and have different business targets
(luxury and mass market) and sizes (five small firms, three medium firms and three big
firms). Ten of our informants implemented co-branding campaigns and one of them is
588 planning to implement it in the near future. The goal of our interviews was twofold:
(1) to validate our framework by discussing aspects within the literature that
respondents found consistent with their experience and those that were not; and
(2) to capture real-world aspects that are not explored by previous studies.
We organized ad hoc meetings to carry out semi-structured interviews, the content of which
is reported in Appendix. The interviews included a few open questions to contextualize the
topic and summarize the experience of the managers and their firms on co-branding. In some
cases, we added more questions on key aspects that emerged from previous interviews or
posed extra questions to deepen our understanding of particularly interesting responses.
Descriptive analysis
Our sample is composed of 190 papers. The largest portion of the papers in our sample use a
quantitative approach, specifically 138 out of 190 papers. The most influential contribution
is the article by Simonin and Ruth (1998), which, according to SCOPUS, received 585
citations. Although our sample includes studies on the co-branding phenomenon published
in the time period 1990–2019, looking at the distribution of papers by year of publication, we
notice a spike in 2014 (i.e. 19 papers in our sample).
Furthermore, the number of journals that have published articles on co-branding is 76.
The wide range of journals interested in this phenomenon reflects the impact of co-branding
alliances in marketing. The five journals that have published most articles on co-branding
are: Journal of Business Research (16), Psychology and Marketing (12), Journal of Product and
Brand Management (12), European Journal of Marketing (10) and Industrial Marketing
Management (9).
Moreover, Table 1 reports the overall percentage of papers in the data set by type of co-
branding, while Figure 2 shows the evolution of such percentages over time. Notice that the
sum of the percentages of the types of co-branding is not 100 in Table 1. The reason is that
two or more types of co-branding appear together in some papers. Arguably, the research on
co-branding has significantly increased in recent years, and some types of co-branding turn
out to be more popular than others among scholars. For instance, the growing interest in
Types of co-branding (%)
Co-branding 55.30
Ingredient branding 12.60
Cause related marketing 11.60
Co-branding (services) 9.50
Table 1.
Co-marketing alliances 5.30
Percentage for the Endorsement 4.70
number of papers Co-branding (event) 4.70
that discuss different Co-branding (sport) 3.20
types of co-branding Co-branding (arts) 0.50
Co-branding
research
589
Figure 2.
Percentage of papers
in the data set by type
of co-branding over
time
ingredient branding is apparent, which may reflect the increasing competition in the age of
temporary advantage (that pushes firm’s specialization and cooperation with others).
Additionally, studies on some interesting new types of co-branding (such as celebrity
endorsement) emerge. It is also worth noticing that a comparative analysis of the evolution
of the map of theories (Figure 3) and the evolution of the relative interest of scholars in the
various co-branding types (Figure 2) indicates a clear joint pattern. Specifically, in the past
century, the main focus of research on co-branding involved economic theories, which were
used to investigate, e.g. ingredient branding and co-marketing alliances. Later, in the early
2000s, we experienced a burst in the number and variety of investigated co-branding types
(such as cause co-branding and endorsement) that embraced the contributions of scholars
from different disciplines, ranging from psychology to computer science.
Finally, we observe that papers in our sample use 63 different theories overall. Among
these papers, 73 do not mention any specific theory at all, 83 papers use only one theory and
34 analyze co-branding through at least two theories.
Mapping the interconnections among disciplines and theories

To analyze the interplay between different theories in co-branding research, we use a
network approach. We build a map of theories to show how such theories, and consequently
the papers, are linked to each other by setting a link between any two theories used together
in at least one paper. Thus, the map does not consider theories that never appear in
combination with other theories in at least one paper of the sample. The colors of the
EJM
56,2
590
Figure 3.
Map of theories
theories (nodes) represent the field from which each theory originates, while each nodes’ size Co-branding
is proportional to the frequency with which each theory is used in the papers of our final research
sample. Finally, the width of each link is equal to the total number of papers in which the
two theories jointly appear. Among the theories considered (63 overall), 20 of them never
appear jointly with another theory in any paper of the sample, whereas 43 appear in at least
one combination with another theory in one or more papers of the sample.
By analyzing the map of theories, an interesting logical connection between the theories
emerges. In particular, they may be seen as capturing different phases of a signaling 591
process: from signal perception, through signal processing, to signal evaluation by the
consumers. Each theory in the map contributes to explain the process that leads from signal
perception to “buyer value” formation in consumers’ minds. At the end of this process, if the
consumer perceives that his/her “buyer value” of a product is higher than the “sale price,”
the transaction occurs.
The main nucleus of the described process (right side of the map) comprises
psychological theories. All these theories describe the mechanisms that contribute to
generate a value in consumers’ minds. However, in co-branding research, some theories are
more popular than others (Table 2).
At the center of the map, the “Signaling Theory” area labels the mechanisms through
which the signal is processed. Specifically, it explains why consumers absorb a signal. Then,
the consumers’ “buyer value” is formed, and the transaction eventually occurs if the
consumers’ “marginal utility” is positive. In other words, Signaling Theory appears to
bridge psychological theories concerning signal perception and economic theories that
describe how such a signal is evaluated in a consumer’s mind to generate consequential
behavior.
On the left side of the map, economic theories model the mechanisms through which
consumers transform a “buyer value” signal into a purchase action. Such cluster of theories
includes: Theory of Reservation Prices and Weber’s Theory on Price/Value Changes. It is
worth noticing that, according to the map of Figure 3, marketing theories typically appear
more heavily linked to psychological theories rather than economic theories.
In general, there is a continuous comparison between “buyer value” and “sale price.”
Psychological theories explain the mechanisms that may contribute to “buyer value”
formation. Then, a signal between firms and consumers is transferred and diffused
according to the rules set by Signaling Theory. Finally, economic theories model how the
consumer evaluates the signal. In this model, co-branding signals eventually lead to a
purchase activity if the consumers’ “buyer value” is higher than the “sale price” of a specific
product.
Although the map structure represents a general process of perceived buyer value
formation, it is worth mentioning that it results from the analysis of studies explicitly
focused on co-branding. Accordingly, the fundamental logic underlying the process of
“buyer value” formation of a co-branded product appears to be the same as the one
underlying the perception of the value of any single branded product. Indeed, a co-branding
alliance is the merging of two elements (two brands) that also represent a specific
characteristic, among the others, of a product. There is a specific and intentional value
transfer (and “buyer value”) in a co-branding alliance. Indeed, this alliance aims to generate
a condition where the partners’ joint product has a higher perceived value than the same
product branded by only one of the partners.
Among the possible effects of a co-branding alliance, there is the possibility of reaching a
broader market target thanks to the modification of the “perceived buyer value.” For
example, consumers who thought that the value of a single branded product was lower than
map
56,2
EJM
592
Table 2.
Description of the
main theories in the
Freq. in theories’
Theory Main insight map Field
Information Integration It describes how people receive information from different sources and, by 14 Psychology
Theory adding and integrating such information, make a judgment and decide how to
behave (Anderson, 1962)
Attitude Accessibility Theory It indicates that peoples’ behavior is a function of their attitude toward a 7 Social psychology
signal. The attitude guides a judgment only after the memory recall process
occurs. The accessibility of the attitude in memory acts as a key determinant
in the judgment (Fazio et al., 1989)
Attribution Theory It analyzes the cognitive processes through which people deduce the cause of 9 Social psychology
other peoples’ behavior (Calder and Burnkrant, 1977)
Associative Learning Theory It analyzes the circumstances in which people create connections between 6 Cognitive psychology
events in a specific context and environment (Washburn et al., 2004)
Categorization Theory It describes how people organize their thoughts by categorizing people, 8 Psychology
situations, events, objects, etc., with the aim to process and better understand
complex information (Ahn and Sung, 2012)
Signaling Theory It describes people’s behavior in a situation characterized by asymmetrical 16 Economics
information. Analyzes the behavior when the subjects in a relationship have
access to different levels of information. The sender decides how to
communicate the signal, i.e. the information and the receiver decides how to
interpret that information (Connelly et al., 2011)
Theory Of Consumers It indicates that the “right” price of a good exchanged in a market is the one at 1 Economics
Reservation Prices And which supply equals demand by taking into account all the market
General Equilibrium Theory interactions and the reservation prices of both suppliers and demanders
(Starr, 2011). The reservation price of a demander, e.g. a consumer, is
represented by the maximum price that the consumer is willing to pay for a
specific product. The reservation price of a seller, e.g. a firm, is the minimum
price the firm is willing to accept for a specific product (Simonin and Ruth,
1995)
Weber’s Theory On Price/ It argues that people perceive and evaluate the change of product prices/ 1 Economics
Value Changes values in proportional terms (Venkatesh and Mahajan, 1997)
its price may perceive the value to be higher than its price when co-branded. Besides, there is Co-branding
the possibility to reach different market targets. Thanks to the collaboration between two research
brands, the new joint product often manages to reach a different market target (different for
one or both the partner brands) that could hardly be reached through a single branded
product.
The disposition of the theories in the map naturally highlights the different phases of a
process in the description of the co-branding phenomenon, namely, from signal perception,
through signal processing to signal evaluation by consumers, which represents a key 593
finding of this paper. Indeed, the relationships and processes that appear in the map of
theories epitomize a fresh lens to interpret co-branding alliance literature. They highlight the
interdisciplinarity that has characterized studies in this field to deeply understand the
phenomenon. Such interdisciplinarity in this field is also supported by many papers in our
sample that jointly use two or more theories to investigate the co-branding phenomenon.
Regarding the interdisciplinarity of the research conducted on the co-branding
phenomena, identifying pair relationships between theories used as interpretative lenses in
co-branding research allows one to better evaluate each theory’s contribution concerning the
phenomenon under investigation. Specifically, looking at Figure 3, we observe that
Signaling Theory plays a central role in co-branding analysis. Indeed, Signaling Theory
represents the main bridge between psychological theories and economic theories.
Finally, we investigate the evolution of the map of theories over time, as reported in
Figure 4. By analyzing the graphs, we notice that the theories (nodes) tend to be scattered in
early periods (1996–1999, 2000–2003), with links clearly forming communities that are
homogeneous within macro-fields of studies. Then, bridges between communities appear in
the following periods (2004–2007, 2008–2011). Finally (2012–2015, 2016–2019),
interconnectivity increases significantly, without a corresponding increase in the number of
theories proposed to describe the phenomenon.
In Table 3, we provide some descriptive statistics of the evolution of theories’
interconnectivity over time. Specifically, we report the number of theories used in papers
published in each period and before (cumulative number of nodes), both including (N*) and
excluding (N) the theories used alone, i.e. isolated nodes in the overall map. We also report
the number of links that appeared in each period and before (cumulative number of links), as
well as two simple measures of network connectivity, i.e. the average degree 2E/N and 2E/
N*. Looking at the descriptive statistics reported in Table 3, a tipping point is apparent.
Indeed, both the number of theories and the number of links significantly increase in the last
two periods. Specifically, in the period 2012–2015, we witnessed a burst of theories used–
either alone or in connection with others–for the first time to explain co-branding. Finally, in
the period 2016–2019, the proportion of “new” theories is much smaller than in the previous
time periods, whereas the usage of multiple theoretical approaches skyrocketed. This
evidence suggests that analyzing co-branding through an interdisciplinary perspective has
become the prominent tendency in the last time period.
The evolution that characterizes the map is also informative about the tendency of
scholars to combine theories from different fields in a given paper. Indeed, Figure 4 shows
that, typically, a theory (node) tends to be used jointly with another theory (establish a
connection) if it has already been used in the past to investigate the phenomenon. This
sequence may reflect a mild innovation process, in which already used theories are joined
together to explain a facet of the phenomenon, whereas it is more unlikely that theories
appear in connection with others if they were not already considered before.
Finally, the observation of the evolution of theories that have been leveraged to interpret
co-branding phenomena (Figure 4) allows us to highlight some initial considerations regard
EJM
56,2
594
Figure 4.
Map of theories
evolution
Period All theories (N*) Theories in the map (N) Links (E) (2E/N) (2E/N*)
1996–1999 7 7 7 2.00 2.00

2000–2003 13 13 14 2.15 2.15
2004–2007 21 20 18 1.80 1.71
Table 3. 2008–2011 29 23 27 2.34 1.86
Map evolution: 2012–2015 53 37 57 3.08 2.15
descriptive statistics 2016–2019 63 43 84 3.90 2.67
the philosophical and metatheoretical evolution of the field. In particular, it is interesting to

underscore that until 2008–2011, co-branding studies captured in our review stemmed from
two distinct research paradigms, namely, economics (e.g. reservation price theory) and
psychology (e.g. information processing theory). Though the former research tradition
developed in the realist paradigm and the latter is rooted in the positivist research paradigm
(Lewin, 1996), they share the ontological worldview of the existence of an objective, external
and concrete reality that researchers may study (Burrell and Morgan, 1979). In this view,
knowledge is created by identifying significant relationships between stimuli and triggered
responses through the analysis of regularities and the search for causal relationships
(Becker and Jaakkola, 2020). Scientific enquiry advances through hypothetic-deductive
reasoning in a quest for verification or falsification, respectively (Lewin, 1996). The map also
allows us to see vividly that studies that leverage theories in the psychology tradition are
mainly concerned with the way brand signals are perceived, while studies stemming from Co-branding
the economics paradigm are concerned with the evaluation of co-branding campaigns research
leading to consumption decisions. Signaling Theory is a significant bridge between research
conducted within the psychology and economics paradigms. Though distinct under many
relevant aspects, both paradigms share a strong assumption of rationality. Such a common
view of agent rationality allows to reduce the incommensurability between studies
conducted in these two distinct research paradigms facilitating both interdisciplinarity and
the cross fertilization of studies illustrated above. 595
However, it is interesting to note that since the 2008–2011 period, a minority of papers
captured derives from a very distinct paradigm of research, namely, the interpretivist
tradition that embraces the family of theoretical perspectives known as Consumer Culture
Theory (e.g. meaning transfer theory). Studies conducted within the Consumer Culture
Theory “address the dynamic relationships between consumer actions, the marketplace and
cultural meanings [. . .] researchers share a common interest for the study of cultural
complexity” (Arnould and Thompson, 2005, p. 868). The set of theories developed within
this broad paradigm are similar in that they consider a distributed view of cultural meaning
(Hannerz, 1992). From a metatheoretical point of view, studies conducted in this tradition
shift the focus of managerial relevance from the issue of rational choice and purchase
behavior to that of “consumer meanings.” Interpretivist epistemology falls within a
subjectivist ontological view, according to which the external reality does not exist, but
reality is the product of individual consciousness (Becker and Jaakkola, 2020). It follows that
research conducted in this paradigm does not aim to elaborate universal or general laws,
rather to comprehend how agents experience and interpret the experiences they live. This
tradition, therefore, leverages inductive reasoning and qualitative research methods to
capture the symbolic meaning of agent experiences. From such perspective, experience is
approached with a broad view as it includes any type of stimuli that may affect the
consumers’ perception and consumption process, independently of firm control over them
(Arnould and Thompson, 2005). The very distinct ontological view that characterizes these
studies may contribute to explain the limited interdisciplinary connections between studies
conducted in this tradition and the mainstream psychology and economics-based theories.
Conceptual framework
To summarize extant literature on co-branding alliances, we build a conceptual framework
as represented in Figure 5. The conceptual framework begins with the rectangle motivations
of a co-branding alliance, whereas the possible consequences of a co-branding alliance are
reported in the outputs section, distinguishing between positive and negative effects of co-
branding. Lying in between, there is the co-branding alliance from which the direct and
indirect effects of the analyzed alliance stem. Specifically, we disentangle both mediators
and moderators in the relationship between a co-branding alliance and outputs.
Furthermore, a specific rectangle of the conceptual framework considers the variables that
are also related to partner selection. It is also important to notice that, for instance, a
prospected positive outcome of a co-branding campaign on behalf of potential partner firms
has been considered an input variable of specific co-branding partner selection (creating a
feedback loop or, more precisely, a partially self-fulfilling prophecy). Furthermore, we call
attention to the role of contexts. Specifically, drawing on the recent paper of Kotlar et al.
(2018) on strategy formulation, we consider three levels of context:
the meso-context that epitomizes part of the bricks that frame the firms’ nature and
scope, i.e. the elements that represent a condition that stands from the birth of a firm
(for example, the country of origin);
EJM
56,2
596
Figure 5.
Conceptual
framework
the exo-context that considers the economic, social and cultural factors; and
the chrono context that mainly focuses on the business life cycle of a brand.
As indicated in the methodology section, we asked practitioners to validate our conceptual

framework. The questionnaire underlying interviews was meant to orient the focus of
respondents on specific aspects of the research proposed in this study by avoiding to constraint
their answers to a predetermined set of alternatives (open answer interviews). During each
interview, one of the authors categorized the answers according to the alternatives reported in
Appendix 1. As Lumineau and Oliveira (2018), we avoided a binary coding of answers (Yes vs
No) to retain more details about the original answers on the coded ones. The degree of agreement
among respondents on the completeness and validity of our framework turns out to be quite high.
Indeed, 64% of respondents indicate that the framework was complete, 36% of them indicate
almost completeness (overall highlighting vagueness of a few variables and one gray area), and
none indicates incompleteness. As for the validity, 82% of respondents agree on the managerial
validity of the framework, 18% of them only partially agree on that and suggested that including
possible flows within the framework may improve the managerial validity of the scheme. Finally,
the concordance between the patterns of answers to the two questions (on completeness and
validity of the framework), as evaluated through the Cohen’s Kappa (Cohen, 1960) is equal to 0.56,
indicating that respondents did not provide systematically the same answer to both questions.
Motivations
By analyzing extant literature, we untangle the reasons that lead firms to formulate a co-
branding alliance. First, extant literature considers co-branding as an alliance to improve
consumer perception of the brand(s). This means that one of the reasons that lead brands to
collaborate in a co-branding alliance is the transfer mechanism that allows consumers to
perceive brands differently (Abratt and Motlana, 2002).
Second, very interesting motivations for co-branding alliances are association transfer
and image sharing. Specifically, Levin (2002) shows that a bi-directional transfer of influence
might emerge as an effect of co-branding, and the consumers’ attitude toward a well-known Co-branding
brand might be transferred to the less-known partner in the alliance. research
Furthermore, the positive image (of one or of both partners) can be transferred to the co-
branded product (Park et al., 1996; Washburn et al., 2000). Pairing two brands may increase
positive brand image in consumers’ minds (Washburn et al., 2000). However, the selection of
a partner to ally with should not only be driven by its performance or brand image but also
since brand uncertainty may even increase as a consequence of the alliance (Geylani et al.,
2008). 597
Third, co-branding represents a growth and/or cost-saving strategy (Blackett and Russell,
1999). Specifically, a brand alliance allows firms to reach new market targets and consumers
(Blackett and Russell, 1999) and supports portfolio diversification (Barwise and Robertson,
1992) that firms also use to reach the goal of enlarging their market.
Fourth, a driver to establish a co-branding alliance is resource combination. In more
detail, it appears to be crucial in a specific type of co-branding, namely, in ingredient
branding. In this case, a branded product is a key and material component of another
different branded product (Desai and Keller, 2002). Ingredient co-branding may lead to
advantages, such as price premium and profit increase, which can be seen as critical factors
to identify the best partner (Venkatesh and Mahajan, 1997).
Fifth, co-branding alliances support brand development since they can improve the value
of a co-branded product (Washburn et al., 2004) and generate brand value (Oeppen and
Jamal, 2014). Additionally, one of the most effective ways to leverage brand equity is to enter
a co-branding alliance with a brand that already has an established name (Gammoh et al.,
2006). The result aimed for is that a high-equity brand affects consumers’ evaluation of new
co-branded products (Besharat, 2010).
Finally, a significant segment of the studied literature (Lafferty et al., 2004; Lafferty and
Goldsmith, 2005; Lafferty, 2007, 2009; Lafferty and Edmondson, 2009; Bigné et al., 2012;
Myers et al., 2012; Lafferty and Edmondson, 2014; Lafferty et al., 2016) has analyzed cause-
related and charity co-branding alliances. A common practice is partnering brands for
charitable causes (Lafferty et al., 2004). This type of co-branding aims to improve
consumers’ attitudes toward both the brands and the alliance if the brand alliance is
perceived favorably (Lafferty et al., 2004). This practice might be positioned in the corporate
social responsibility alliance of participating firms.
Partner selection
A characterizing feature of any co-branding alliance is partner selection. Thus, it is not
surprising that many papers in our sample focus on partner selection and use different
concepts and variables to address the problem regarding “which partner to choose” in the
formation of a specific brand alliance. Our review of extant literature recognizes four key
aspects. First, we consider the partner’s characteristics. Newmeyer et al. (2014) frame the
partner selection problem by focusing on the role of three key characteristics of the potential
partners, such as the complementarity between the functional attributes of the partners, the
consistency of brand image attributes and the level of diversification between the partners
in terms of product portfolios (Newmeyer et al., 2014). Focusing on ingredient co-branding,
in which each partner offers its own key ingredient to the partnership (Desai and Keller,
2002), the “ingredient” appears to be one of the most important aspects underlying partner
selection, indeed, ingredient co-branding is based on sharing the most important and
recognizable characteristics of the partner brands (Desai and Keller, 2002). In this context,
Venkatesh and Mahajan (1997) study how to select the most suitable partner brand by
choosing between well-known branded components and an unbranded component.
EJM Focusing on co-branding alliances aimed to reach new market segments in terms of price
56,2 and products, Thompson and Strutton (2012) analyze the distinctive way in which a brand
alliance can influence consumers’ evaluations when it is implemented for the sake of brand
extension. In this context, a brand characterized by high fit with the new market target
represents a key aspect of the partner selection process (Thompson and Strutton, 2012).
Second, previous studies on co-branding alliances show that partner selection might
598 reflect the projection regarding consumers’ perceptions and evaluations of the specific
partnership. In detail, the belief that “between-partner congruity” may influence the
evaluation of the co-branded product by the consumer may guide the process of partner
selection (Walchli, 2007). Furthermore, the concept behind the partnership, in particular the
conceptual coherence of brand personalities, which is a predictor of the consumers’ attitude
toward the alliance (Van Der Lans et al., 2014), may play an important role in the choice of
the “best” brand to partner with.
Finally, celebrity endorsement and cause co-branding play a crucial role in partner
selection. Specifically, Seno and Lukas (2007) and Halonen-Knight and Hurmerinta (2010)
investigate the celebrity endorsement phenomenon. Seno and Lukas (2007) analyze how
partners can generate equity for each other and conclude that the partners’ image (of both
the celebrity and the brand) plays a mediator role in the process of equity creation. In their
findings, the authors aim to suggest a mechanism of celebrity-endorser selection (Seno and
Lukas, 2007). Halonen-Knight and Hurmerinta (2010) treat celebrity endorsement as a
particular type of brand alliance. The authors show the implications of image, meaning and
value transfer between partners and the necessity to see the celebrity as a real brand partner
(as in a traditional brand alliance) to better manage the process of forming the partnership.
Indeed, some elements of brand-alliance management should consider the celebrity –
endorsement management, especially in the selection of the most appropriate celebrity in
terms of congruity with the brand image (Halonen-Knight and Hurmerinta, 2010).
In cause-brand alliances, extant studies show that fit between cause and brand does not
significantly affect consumers’ attitudes and purchase intentions, and this result is not
affected by the level of firm credibility (Lafferty, 2007). On the contrary, by analyzing fit as a
criterion to select a partner cause in an alliance, the importance of the cause itself turned out
to play a key role in shaping consumers’ attitudes and purchase intentions more than the
cause-brand fit (Lafferty, 2009).
Moderator variables
In the next two sections, we consider the variables (i.e. moderators and mediators) that may
influence qualitatively and quantitatively the outcomes of a brand alliance. First, we focus
on moderator variables, i.e. factors that change, in intensity and direction, the relationship
between a co-branding alliance and its outcomes (Baron and Kenny, 1986).
A variable that plays a moderating role is exclusivity. Its moderating effects might be
different depending on the case in which the (exclusive) brand in the alliance is the host or the
ally part (Rodrigue and Biswas, 2004), and the exclusivity may be strongly related to the
perception of luxury (Moon and Sprott, 2016).
Second, brand familiarity appears to be one of the most explored moderators. As Simonin
and Ruth (1998) show, brand familiarity in a brand alliance causes a limited spillover effect
and has a partial contribution to the alliance’s success. However, if the brands involved in a
partnership are familiar to consumers, they contribute equally to the alliance’s performance
and spillover effects may emerge (Simonin and Ruth, 1998).
Third, in celebrity endorsement context, Ambroise et al. (2014) empirically show how a
celebrity’s personality transfer influences the consumer’s behavior and how such a
mechanism’s effectiveness depends on the celebrity’s profile and brands’ reputation Co-branding
(Ambroise et al., 2014). research
Forth, the perceived fit is another factor that acts as a moderator of the effects of a brand
alliance. Indeed, brand fit affects the consumers’ evaluation of the alliance (Lin, 2013). In this
regard, Simonin and Ruth (1998) show that the attitude of consumers toward the product of
an alliance is affected by individual brand fit, and the fit of both brands with the product
(Simonin and Ruth, 1998). From the firm’s perspective, attention has been paid to
compatibility and complementarity. Indeed, some brand characteristics, such as the perceived 599
compatibility between partner brands and partner complementarity, moderate the spillover
effect (Tasci and Denizci Guillet, 2011). Among them, previous partnerships and strategic
alliance capabilities also play a significant role (Gammoh and Voss, 2013).
Finally, a moderating effect may be produced by the co-branding alliance’s
announcement (Cao and Sorescu, 2013). Indeed, after the announcement of a new product in
co-branding, firm stock prices tend to increase more significantly compared to the increases
registered for single branded new product announcements (Cao and Sorescu, 2013).
Mediator variables
Mediators are variables that occur between stimulus and response: they address how or why
an effect occurs (Baron and Kenny, 1986). Mediators allow us to specify the indirect effects
of a co-branding alliance and, therefore, to set a clear borderline between direct and indirect
effects. A prominent mediator is credibility (Bigné et al., 2012). Alcaniz et al. (2010) analyze
firm credibility’s mediating role as composed of two dimensions: trustworthiness and
expertise. The authors analyze the relationship between altruistic attributions and brand-
cause fit on the firm’s social responsibility image. Specifically, Alcaniz et al. (2010) argue
that image fit and functional fit may affect the two dimensions of firm credibility and the
consequent effects on corporate social responsibility image (Alcaniz et al., 2010).
Furthermore, extant literature indicates that brand image and celebrity image can act as
mediators in the equity-creation process of celebrity product endorsement (Seno and Lukas,
2007). By exploiting brand and celebrity image, the authors show that celebrity endorsement
produces equity for both the branded product and the celebrity herself.
Outputs
As the final point of the output of co-branding alliances, we refer to Rodrigues et al. (2011)
and Chiambaretto et al. (2016) that consider co-branding alliance as a potential situation of
coopetition. As any co-operatives alliance, co-branding campaigns lead to variable
outcomes, compared to the zero-sum outcome of competition and the fixed positive outcome
of cooperation (Nalebuff and Brandenburger, 1997). For instance, according to Simonin and
Ruth (1998), consumers’ attitude toward an alliance affects the evaluation of single partners;
as the attitude, a consumer has regard the alliance can be transferred to the single partner
brands through a spillover effect. The authors also show that the allied brands are not
necessarily equally affected by spillover effect (Simonin and Ruth, 1998).
Among the negative consequences, the dilution effect represents a typical risk that
damages brand image. Specifically, establishing an alliance with the wrong partner can
result in brand dilution, adverse spillover effects and erosion (Cornelis, 2010). Furthermore,
when there is information mismatching (and irrelevant information) between the partners,
co-branding may negatively affect consumer purchase intentions (Ilicic and Webster, 2013).
The expected positive consequences appear to be also relevant. First, the co-branding
alliance may lead to the growth of preferences and choices; for example, cause-related
marketing is used to encourage purchase intentions (Lafferty, 2009). Therefore, among the
EJM positive consequences of co-branding, the most important is probably an increase in
56,2 revenues. Indeed, a co-brand alliance might be beneficial to both partners in terms of profit
maximization (Shen et al., 2017).
Second, a co-branding alliance may also affect the quality perception of a brand and its
products. Indeed, especially when one of the partners has some unobserved attributes and
allies with a well-known brand, consumers’ quality perception increases (Rao et al., 1999).
600 Third, previous studies also show that co-branding can help build customer satisfaction
and brand loyalty (Kim et al., 2007). Additionally, a brand alliance might be a key tool that
firms use to improve their corporate social-responsibility image (Alcaniz et al., 2010). Indeed,
many papers in the sample analyze cause-related co-branding (one for all the previously
mentioned Lafferty et al., 2016).
Fourth, a directly positive consequence of co-branding alliances may be related to the
consumers’ willingness to pay (Chang et al., 2018). A brand alliance might be viewed as a key
element to address consumers’ purchase intentions. Specifically, previous studies indicate
that the attitude toward the partner brands affects the attitude toward the alliance, and, in
turn, affects consumers’ purchase intention and willingness to pay, beyond the quality of the
alliance itself (Rodrigue and Biswas, 2004).
Fifth, co-branding may improve brand recognition (Rodrigues et al., 2011). As previously
mentioned, co-branding might improve or worsen brand equity, depending on whether the
single partner has low or high equity, respectively (Washburn et al., 2000).
Additionally, co-branding can lead to increased brand trust, loyalty (Delgado-Ballester
and Hernandez-Espallardo, 2008; Shen et al., 2017) and credibility (Rodrigues et al., 2011).
Finally, another consequence variable is the attitude toward the partners and the alliance
(James et al., 2006). Indeed, pairing two brands that alone produce a positive attitude allows
the alliance to obtain a positive attitude (James et al., 2006).
Contexts
Contexts represent events and conditions that exist before or logically precede co-branding
actions and are associated with the firms’ deep nature. Previous literature appears to consider
only the business life cycles (Blankson and Kalafatis, 2007) as a relevant chrono-context.
Additionally, extant literature considers the exo-context, specifically related to the cultural
context in which a co-branding alliance is established (Diallo and Siqueira, 2017). Indeed, the
outcomes of a co-branding alliance are moderated by the country’s cultural context in which
the alliance is applied (Diallo and Siqueira, 2017). Cultural attributes influence consumers’
choices and, in the process of image association, when the alliance involves partner brands
that come from countries with high cultural differences, this aspect may significantly
influence the performance of the campaigns (Decker and Baade, 2016). Previous studies show
that associating two brands in an alliance transmits the message that the two partner brands
share the same values and cultural context (Chiambaretto et al., 2016).
When the cultural context is strongly related to the corporate brand resource, it may
become a key factor for the success of the brand (Uggla, 2006). Furthermore, the cultural
context is also an important factor in consumer-oriented experiments since it may
substantially influence the results (Baumgarth, 2004). Other variables to include in the exo-
context are related to the social context. Indeed, the social context can produce brand-
specific information in consumer minds (Chan et al., 2018).
The importance of culture, however, is not only connected to the “different cultures” at
the country-level but also to the symbolic universes of brands (Askegaard and Bengtsson,
2005). From such perspective, consumers’ relationships with brands are formed on the basis
of each consumer’s personal life and experiences, as well as the brands’ characteristics
(Askegaard and Bengtsson, 2005). Specific associations in consumer minds are formed and Co-branding
interpreted individually and, more importantly, independently of the message the firms research
want to communicate. Thus, to produce an association between two entities, like two brands
or a brand and an organization, specific connections (for example, co-branding) are not
necessary in principle (Askegaard and Bengtsson, 2005). However, in this setting, firms may
be interested in leveraging such “intertextual references,” for instance, through co-branding
initiatives.
Finally, we should consider the meso-context related to the firms’ characteristics: country of 601
origin, product industry and co-branding contract specificities. For instance, in the presence
of a low brand familiarity in consumer minds, a positive influence of the brands’ country of
origin has been demonstrated to shape the attitude of consumers toward a brand alliance, an
influence which is even stronger than the one produced by brand fit (Bluemelhuber et al.,
2007). Country of origin may play an important role in ingredient branding since it can
positively influence consumer perception (Cheah et al., 2016). Lee et al. (2013) confirm that
country of origin fit between two allied brands is a key element that affects consumer
perception since the country-of-origin fit may represent a cue to form the attitude toward
brands (Lee et al., 2013). The country image influences not only the evaluation of related
products but also may be transmitted to unfamiliar products and, also, is able to activate some
concepts and knowledge that affect consumer interpretation (Ahn et al., 2009).
As regard the meso-context, we call attention to Decker and Baade’s (2016) study that
shows how signals communicating partner image dissimilarity regarding country of origin,
size and industry affect the perception of the brand fit negatively and, in turn, influence
purchase intentions (Decker and Baade, 2016). Accordingly, within the meso context, there is
the product industry. For example, the product industry is important because, when the
partnership focuses on brand extension, partnering with a well-known brand and also well-
established in the extended product category may lead to obtain more favorable results than
those that would have been obtained by acting independently (Thompson and Strutton,
2012). Newmeyer et al. (2014) call attention to the co-branding contract specificities, and
among other factors, posit that exclusivity (intended as single or multiple partnerships, i.e.
number of partners a focal brand engages with) influences brand evaluation and
consideration by consumers (Newmeyer et al., 2014).
Juxtaposing co-branding literature and practices

This paper summarizes the current state of the art of co-branding literature and provides a
comprehensive description of the factors involved. To corroborate the effectiveness of our
framework, we asked managers, entrepreneurs and consultants to analyze and comment on
it. Respondents agreed on the comprehensiveness of our framework. However, they also
identified a few discrepancies between co-branding literature and practices. We double-
checked that such discrepancies were not addressed in the literature and we discuss them in
this section. Additionally, the responses were carefully considered to formulate a research
agenda that is reported in the following section.
As regard the motivations of a co-branding campaign, according to our respondents, the
missing points are related to the notion of brand extension and the increase in the number of
users and consumers. Similarly, regard the outputs of co-branding campaigns, brand
extension and word of mouth should be further highlighted as positive outcomes of the
co-branding strategy. Concerning brand extension, Thompson and Strutton (2012) called
attention to the product industry to take advantage of allaying with a well-known brand in
the extension category. Nonetheless, co-branding partnerships may be seen as a solution for
firms oriented to enlarge their portfolio of products since it allows them to exploit the
EJM knowledge and expertise of potential partners. Although hints about this concept may be
56,2 recognized in extant literature (Blackett and Russell, 1999), the brand extension as a
motivation to implement a co-branding strategy is just marginally investigated (see growth
strategies in the motivations box of the conceptual framework reported in Figure 5).
Concerning number of users, one of our informants argues that the increase in the number of
users is a key factor for online platform-providers. Actually, the co-branding alliance
602 generates the growth of the user network due to the access of a brand to the partners’ users.
Thus, a new user registration to a focal brands’ platform may represent a benefit for the co-
brand, even if the user does not immediately purchase the service.
As regard the selection of partners in a co-branding campaign, our informants conclude
that our framework considers only the task-related critical success factors as the motivations
underlining co-branding (Cummings and Holmberg, 2012). Differently from their
expectations, our framework does not consider the negative events experienced by potential
partners in the past, as well as negative events that may be experienced in the future.
Drawing on the literature on strategic alliances (Cummings and Holmberg, 2012), we infer
that the respondents refer to partnering-related critical successful factors. Actually, these
factors concern the potential “relational harmony” between firms as a condition to avoid
conflicts and opportunistic actions (Cummings and Holmberg, 2012).
While the aforementioned comments to our framework are related to single elements in
the rectangles of Figure 5, 45% of respondents agreed on the existence of a significant gap in
the framework proposed, namely, the governance of a brand alliance. This shortcoming may
depend on the fact that marketing literature has not considered this aspect as problematic.
Indeed, scholars assume that contractual governance mechanisms naturally provide a
solution to the problems derived from the uncertainty of co-brand alliances (Magid, 2006;
Ferguson et al., 2005). In other words, it is possible to formulate contractual mechanisms
able to specify partners’ responsibilities and rights (Keller et al., 2021). However, as our
respondents confirmed, contractual governance mechanisms are costly and cannot prevent
negative circumstances (such as, for example, instances in which one of the partners is
involved in a negative event after the co-brand alliance is established). From this
perspective, respondents called attention to the crucial role of defining appropriate relational
governance mechanisms between partner firms, but unfortunately, such mechanisms are
completely missing in co-branding studies.
This aspect opens a kind of connection between co-branding alliances and strategic
alliances that we deeply analyze in throughout the agenda for future research.
Unfortunately, we cannot import sic-et-sempliciter lessons about partnerships governance
from strategic alliance literature for two main reasons. First, strategic alliances refer to
various agreements that have a different level and type of resources shared (Chiambaretto
et al., 2016). While the ingredient co-branding has many standard features with strategic
alliances, other types of co-branding combine symbolic elements that are not considered in
strategic alliances research. Second, strategic alliances vary on the basis on timing. While
co-branding frequently assumes a short time perspective (as emerged in our interviewees),
strategic alliances commonly adopt a longer time perspective. This happens because, on the
one hand, co-branding alliances want continuously to capture consumers’ attention, on the
other hand, strategic alliances are frequently based on long-time processes of knowledge
combination and recombination.
Discussion
This paper summarizes the state of the art on co-branding and unveils the way co-branding
is embedded in different contexts and dimensions regarding both firms and consumers.
Specifically, this study contributes to the extant literature in three ways. First, we draw a Co-branding
map of the theories involved in co-branding analysis that shows how theories are related to research
each other in describing, interpreting and modeling the co-branding phenomenon. In the
map of theories, we identify the fields of study that have been elaborated to address co-
branding alliances and the relationships among such theories. The process that emerges
from the analysis of this map indicates that overall extant literature captures different facets
of a flow underlying the implementation of a co-branding campaign oriented to consumers.
Specifically, this flow starts with consumer perception and heads toward the elaboration 603
and the evaluation of co-branding campaigns on behalf of consumers, similarly to the
phases of a traditional single branded product. The construction and metrics used to
investigate the map of theories and its evolution over time represent themselves a
methodological contribution to the analysis of the scientific literature. This application
allows to disentangle and interpret the structural changes that the research on a given topic
may experience in time.
Second, we provide a conceptual framework that summarizes the phases and variables
involved in co-branding alliance formulation and implementation. Our contribution is to
show an updated and broader conceptual framework of the phases and variables involved in
a co-branding alliance. As confirmed by 82% of our respondents, it provides a useful tool in
managers’ hands since it proposes an organized summary of the key factors involved in the
launch and implementation of a successful co-branding alliance, as well as the possible
pitfalls they may incur. An exciting implication that comes from the conceptual framework
is the possibility for a firm to select the appropriate factors to implement a co-branding
alliance that intentionally fits with specific goals.
Third, stemming from the conducted analysis, in the next section, we propose a
structured research agenda that may help to orient future studies. We build our research
agenda based on two pillars. First, we consider Figures 3 and 4, and we envision the
opportunities of leveraging theory intersections. Second, we propose future research lines
mainly as a mirror image of the structure of the conceptual framework reported in Figure 5.
Arguably, we identify some directions for future research by juxtaposing the contents of our
conceptual framework, the contents of our interviews with practitioners and the most
advanced literature on strategic alliances. Strategic alliances research is an interesting
starting point because while co-branding alliances represent a type of strategic alliance, co-
branding alliances and strategic alliances are phenomena explored by two different
academic communities.
Managerial implications
Our analysis of the state of the art allows us to identify some implications for managers.
First, managers can use the conceptual framework proposed in Figure 5 to identify the
variables and dimensions involved in a brand alliance. Furthermore, a manager can consider
the elements in the framework to exploit and develop a brand’s strengths and moderate a
brand’s weaknesses. Moreover, according to the expected outputs of a campaign and brand-
specific characteristic, managers can use the presented maps to facilitate the process of
partner selection in the definition of an alliance.
Furthermore, the conceptual framework provided by this study may help managers and
consultants to solve practical problems firms are facing. Indeed, as a partner of Focus Mgmt
– a consultancy company – suggested during the interview we held with him, “the
implementation of a co-branding strategy is usually the solution” to problems posed by the
partner firms. Another respondent echoed that, frequently, “firms are not ready to consider
the cooperative logic underlying co-branding alliances.” Since our conceptual framework
EJM informs about the advantages and pitfalls of co-branding, this paper diffuses knowledge on
56,2 such strategy and provides guidance to understand co-branding-related solutions on the
basis of the firms’ overall goals, knowledge and resources.
Moreover, the contexts in which a firm is embedded may guide the identification of the
most suitable strategies to improve brand positioning in the market, considering the whole
system, with all its elements, facets and contexts, as it stands at a given time. As emerged in
604 the interview with the Head of Channel Marketing of Huawei Mobile, the provided
conceptual framework may be even more useful to managers if specific paths were traced
through flow charts to picture vividly the variables and dimensions at play, as well as the
various possible options open to them. Some of our respondents explicitly called attention to
the negative consequences of a co-branding campaign, as related to the “coherence” the
brands should guarantee to their consumers. Indeed, according to our respondents, this
coherence orients most of the decisions and influences most of the factors behind the setting
of a specific campaign (such as, for example, the duration of the campaign in relationship
with brand image and market target). From this perspective, informants applaud to the
framework as a good way to draw links between the several dimensions involved, e.g.
motivation, partner selection, mediators, moderators, contexts and outcomes.
Finally, managers think in terms of single firm strategies as well as joint firms’ strategies
to reach specific goals. Along this line of reasoning, they can influence and be influenced by
co-branding campaigns in both direct and indirect ways. As emerged in the interview with a
manager of SEO Tester Online, both of the partners in a co-brand may take advantage of the
network that the partnership generates. Indeed, it is possible to reach potentially new
consumers in an indirect way through the partnership, especially by allying with a partner
brand from a different (but close) business and exploiting complementary knowledge and
abilities.
Agenda for future research

The research agenda that emerges from this study is reported in Table 4. The table makes a
distinction to highlight whether the new research agenda proposed stems from the
interviews conducted or from the consideration of strategic alliance literature.
Leveraging discipline and theory intersections

Our paper shows that a multi-disciplinary background informs co-branding literature; indeed,
we observed a high connectivity of theories from different fields in the map in Figure 3. Such a
map can also be used to envision which theories (from the same or different research
traditions) may be fruitfully combined, and, mostly, which ones should not (since they belong
to regions of the map that are far away from each other), to obtain new insights for co-
branding research.
A second cue that emerges from the map in Figures 3 and 4 suggest it may be of interest
to relax the strong rationality hypotheses underlying consumer evaluation processes
deriving from the adoption of theories whose foundations are in orthodox economics (on the
right side of the map) and leverage theories from the field of psychology not only to
represent the way consumers perceive co-branding campaigns initially but also the way
they evaluate the signals they perceive. This shift in the theories adopted to interpret the
evaluation process underlying consumer purchase decisions would have two specific
benefits:
(1) It would allow theory building to represent agents in a more coherent way relative
to all phases of the co-branding campaign perception, processing and evaluation.
Overview or Juxtaposing co-brand Juxtaposing co-brand
Positioning in the timeline of co-branding literature and literature and alliance
research agenda Research questions research practices research
Leveraging theory How do we combine theories to obtain new insights X

intersections on co-branding research? Which ones should not be
combined?
How do consumers perceive co-branding campaigns X
initially but also the way in which they evaluate the
signals they perceive?
How does consumer culture theory inform co- X
branding research?
Leveraging How do sociology and anthropology research X
disciplinary contribute to investigate co-branding phenomena?
intersections
Motivations How can managerial-oriented factors affect co- X Franco and Haase
branding decisions? (2015)
How do the different industries or positions in the X
value chain affect co-branding decisions?
Are there other managerial logics that undergird Franco and Haase
firm partner selection choices? (2015)
Which are the reasons underlying the recursive X Shen et al. (2017)
engagement in co-branding alliances?
How do the interplay between the firm and the X
consumer perspectives influence the outcome of co-
branding alliances?
Partner selection How do learning-related and risk-related factors X Cummings and
affect the outcomes of a co-branding alliance? Holmberg (2012)
How is brand extension related to the firm’s X
exploitation of knowledge and expertise of potential
partners?
How do previous partnerships of each firm affect co- Jiang et al. (2010)
branding decisions, especially in the partner
selection process?
Jiang et al. (2010)
(continued)
research
Table 4.
branding
605
Co-branding
future research on co-

Opportunities for
56,2
EJM
606
Table 4.
How does the diversity of alliance portfolios explain

the decision of partner selection in co-branding
alliances?
Are the common types of previous co-branded X
products or previous common partners useful
variables to suggest new potential partners?
Would co-branding alliance results be understood by X
analyzing the network of co-branding relationships?
Moderators and Are there potentially useful and unexplored paths X
mediators connecting the variables in the conceptual
framework?
Is the impact of a co-branding alliance on consumers’ X
willingness to pay moderated by the most
recognizable elements that characterize the
individual brands?
What are social mechanisms influencing the Das and Teng (2001)
formation of co-branding alliances? and Hoetker and
Mellewigt (2009)
Are other types of brand’s campaigns (e.g. celebrity X X
endorsement) used and perceived as new kinds of
brand alliances?
Outcomes How long a co-branding alliance affects consumers’ X
perception? Is it possible to distinguish between
short and long run effects?
How does co-branding contribute to the quest for X
sustainable competitive advantages and temporal
advantage?
Contexts How does the nature of agent rationality underlying X Opper et al. (2017)
the managerial process affect the formulation of co-
branding alliances?
Are there variables related to family firm’s decisions X
that may affect co-branding decisions?
(continued)
Can the cultural context be seen as a moderator to X Das and Kumar

the results of a brand alliance? (2010) and Ulijn et al.
(2010)
What is the impact of the host-country’s Gomes et al. (2016)
governmental and economic policy or competition in
the post-COVID-19 period?
What can be the role of co-branding in facilitating X
the digitalization process of brands?
How do informal connections based on customers’ X
social construction of reality, as well as the temporal
dissonance between informal and formal (co-brand)
connections, affect consumers choices?
What is the role of time in co-branding alliances? For X Ferrigno et al. (2021)
example, are co-branding alliances used to move
from a mature to a younger industry?
Co-branding How do we define co-branding governance? X Berdrow and Lane
governance (2003) and Agarwal
et al. (2010)
What are the relational governance mechanisms able X Dyer and Singh
to prevent competitive behaviors? (1998), Agarwal et al.
(2010) and Lavie et al.
(2012)
How managing the tensions between co-branding X Hoetker and
motivations and stand-alone firms’ goal? Mellewigt (2009)
research
Table 4.
607
Co-branding
EJM (2) It would specify biases and heuristics in consumer evaluation of perceived and
56,2 processed co-branding signals.
We believe that scholars may extend co-branding literature by using inquiry and exploiting
the heuristic potential of theories from other fields even not immediately near or connected
to the theories that have informed research in this field until today (Zahra and Newey, 2009),
for example, the field of neuroscience (Lee et al., 2007) and the evolutionary complex systems
608 field (Miller and Page, 2009).
Third, though the stark difference between the objective and subjective ontological views
that characterize the Consumer Culture Theory paradigm, on the one hand, and the
psychology and economics paradigms, on the other, may, at first glance, appear a limitation
to the constructive cross-fertilization that leads to the evolution and construction of an
enriched knowledge base on the phenomena related to co-branding, it is worth underscoring
the vastly relevant research on co-branding phenomena that may derive from within the
former paradigm. Two specific aspects seem particularly relevant in this respect:
(1) Studies conducted within this paradigm are proving able to capture significant
aspects relative to the symbolic forces underlying co-branding that are the most
challenging for managers to govern today.
(2) Consumer culture theory typically produces research that cuts across the phases of
acquisition, consumption and disposition of products and services (Arnould and
Thompson, 2005), while its application to the phenomena of co-branding at the
moment appears to be limited to the phases preceding these (i.e. the signal
perception).
These considerations suggest both the relevance and the rich variety of aspects that the
adoption of an interpretivist view to co-branding research could shed light on in the future.
Finally, drawing on Askegaard and Bengtsson (2005), we recognize that sociology and
anthropology research may contribute to investigate co-branding phenomena with a special
focus on Consumer Culture Theory (Askegaard and Linnet, 2011). Surprisingly, only a few
papers consider how co-brands are co-created with the market, i.e. consumers participate in
the co-creation processes (Wang and Hajli, 2014). We, therefore, call for a better
understanding of such circumstances in firm decision-making processes, and the dynamics
underlying the emergence and consequences of “unintended co-brandings [4]” (Radon, 2012).
Sociology of consumption may contribute to shed light regard the role of co-branding with
iconic brands. Consequently, we call for studies on the roles that symbolic and status values
may have in the definition of co-branded products (Desmichel et al., 2020) and in the
intention to form a co-branding partnership. Finally, anthropology may also help to
understand the implications of “consumer experience” related to the co-branding
phenomena (Scott and Uncles, 2018).
Motivations
According to our review, extant literature principally considers the motivations underlying
co-branding alliances as a set of consumer-oriented factors. According to the interviewed
managers, these results are very unexpected. Actually, on the basis of respondents’
experiences, firms mostly tend to establish a partnership with the aim of value co-creation
with the partner. Thus, firms tend to ally with partners in a step of the value chain other
than their own or from different industries, especially for product categories where the
initiator brand is inexperienced. From such a perspective, it seems necessary also to enquire
more deeply on the logics that undergird firm partner selection choices (in addition to
increasing sales, saving costs and diversifying products). A qualitative analysis that Co-branding
carefully considers the logics driving firm choices may reveal potential problems that may research
emerge in practice and needs that are not captured by previous studies, such as the ones that
stemmed from our interviews. Echoing recent literature regarding strategic alliances
(Madhok et al., 2015; Tsang, 1998), we underscore the importance for managers to have a
well-defined understanding of why partners enter an alliance as a crucial factor to reduce the
risk of alliance failure and, more generally, improve the effectiveness of an alliance (Franco
and Haase, 2015). 609
Second, a fertile research approach is to provide a comprehensive vision of the evolution
paths of those firms that recursively engage in co-branding alliances. This appears a
necessary step to have a comprehensive view that considers both viewpoints
simultaneously – i.e. that captures both the view of the firm and that of the consumers to
investigate the interplay between the specific dimensions involved in each perspective.
Third, we call for inquiries, both qualitative and quantitative, to estimate how and to
what extent the interplay between firm and consumer perspectives influences the outcome
of co-branding alliances. This research could be useful to better understand how to produce
positive consequences and avoid negative ones.
Finally, we found that the typical focus of studies on co-branding changed over time and,
nowadays, there is a growing interest in celebrity endorsement. Along this line of research,
we call for papers that investigate how celebrity endorsement shapes a feeling of “cultural
identity” that, in turn, mirrors consumer values. Indeed, from the perspective of Consumer
Culture Theory, this research represents a necessary step to understand the multifaceted
relations between culture and celebrity endorsement, and between life styles and endorsed
co-branding (Arnould and Thompson, 2005).
Partner selection
First, reviewed co-branding literature considered only a few of the dimensions involved in
partner selection. For instance, our interview respondents called attention to the fact that,
beyond task-related factors, partnering-related factors may play a crucial role (Cummings
and Holmberg, 2012). Additionally, drawing on alliance research, we recognize that the other
two dimensions are not fully considered in co-branding studies, i.e. learning-related and risk-
related factors (Cummings and Holmberg, 2012). Studies on co-branding ignored these two
dimensions since, as we already mentioned, this literature implicitly assumes the existence
of contractual governance mechanisms. Accordingly, we call for papers that consider the
link between brand extension (an additional motivation for this emerges in our interviews)
and firms’ exploration of knowledge and expertise of potential partners. More generally, we
hope that leveraging on alliance research, and scholars may consider a wider spectrum of
critical successful factors in the context of co-branding.
Second, previous studies either take into account only dyadic relationships between
brands or consider only one brand with its history of relationships (Shen et al., 2017). From
this perspective, an analysis of the co-branding portfolios each firm has established in time,
and the interactions between different portfolios may be a helpful tool to inform co-branding
decisions, specifically in the partner selection process. From a more general perspective, one
might consider co-branding as one of the components of alliance portfolios and assess how
the diversity of alliance portfolios – in terms of partners, function and governance (Jiang
et al., 2010) – explains the decision of partner selection in co-branding alliances.
Third, extant literature focuses on partner selection based on expected consumer
reactions. However, we believe that the brands’ portfolio of previous partnerships (as a kind
of heritage of the brand) may represent a variable that influences partner selection and the
EJM results of a co-branding alliance itself. Indeed, given any two brands, the common types of
56,2 previous co-branded products or previous common partners can be used to introduce a
similarity measure between the two brands and used to suggest new potential partners.
Such an approach would also open to the possibility of operationalizing the partner selection
process, and make it automatic, for instance, by developing a recommendation system.
Fourth, our analysis shows an initial interest in the network approach to explore a co-
610 branding alliance (Aarstad et al., 2015). However, this approach explores the process of
consumers’ associations between brands and concepts related to it (Henderson et al., 1998).
From a complementary perspective, a possibility that may be worth exploring is to take a
holistic perspective in a given market segment. Thus, the question arises whether or not co-
branding alliances may be better understood by analyzing the network of co-branding
relationships in a given industry.
Moderators and mediators

Our review shows an extensive interest regard the relationship between co-branding
alliances and performance. Given the large number of factors included in our conceptual
framework, it is unfeasible and perhaps useless to consider all of the possible potential paths
connecting the variables identified earlier. However, we try to envision studies regarding
some specific paths as an example of fruitful future research. Indeed, the proposed
framework can be easily used to draw a decision flow-chart including the specific variables
of interest. For example, a reason that represents a driver to establish a co-branding alliance
is image sharing, especially when the partnership links two brands with different market
targets, that can be interpreted as a step-up or step-down brand extension strategy (Kim
et al., 2001). A variable that may act as a mediator might be partner brands’ exclusivity
linked to the luxury perception (both or just one of them) and the related products. The
consequences of image sharing may be the growth of the consumers’ willingness to pay
(positive) or brand image dilution (negative).
Second, while authors consider the importance of brands in terms of loyalty, credibility
and image, the specific characteristics of the product and the most recognizable elements of
each brand may play a major role. Drawing on Zha et al. (2020, p. 307), we believe that co-
branding alliance “meanings enhance or impair the experience of a brand.” We, therefore,
suggest that studies exploring whether the impact of a co-branding alliance on consumers’
willingness to pay (or other outputs of co-branding alliances) is moderated by the most
recognizable elements that characterize individual brands could reveal interesting insights.
Third, our literature review shows that all the variables used as moderators in the
relationship between co-branding alliances and outcomes are brand-related. Differently from
studies on strategic alliances (Das and Teng, 2001), co-branding research substantially
neglects to consider the formal and relational mechanisms (such as trust, commitment, and
so on) underlying the management of the alliance between the two partner firms (Hoetker
and Mellewigt, 2009). Thus, we call for studies that focus on social mechanisms within co-
branding alliances. We believe that studies on mechanisms (especially the social ones) in the
co-branding alliance may help integrate research on the life cycle of co-branding alliances.
Finally, the proposed conceptual framework describes in detail the most traditional co-
branding structure. However, recent market dynamics suggest to extend the co-branding
phenomenon to other types of campaigns. Indeed, we assist to the proliferation of campaigns
where a key role is played by celebrity endorsement or influencer activity, and so on. In the
future, it would be interesting to analyze how these phenomena act as new kinds of brand
alliances, and the strategy by which brands create their image and meaning in “co-creation,”
together with consumers.
Outcomes Co-branding
First, our review of extant literature shows that studies linking co-branding alliances and research
outputs usually do not distinguish between the short- and long-term effects. Thus, we call
for studies to analyze how long a co-branding alliance affects consumers’ perception and to
study how, in the long run, a co-branding alliance may modify the interest of consumers
toward the single partner brands. Specifically, in this way, it should be possible to isolate the
short run effects (the effects of a co-branding alliance on individual brands’ performance and
consumer perception) and the long run effects (as well as infer how long such effects may
611
persist).
Second, it seems interesting to pursue studies on the contribution of co-branding to the
quest for competitive advantage by untangling short- and long-term effects (Dagnino et al.,
2020). While our review of extant studies mainly considers multiple positive consequences
of co-branding, as any strategic alliance, an intrinsic instability (and hidden tensions) may
characterize co-branding alliances. Thus, we call for studies on the cause-effect relationships
between single co-branding alliances and the quest of a temporary competitive advantage,
as well as between co-branding alliance portfolios and the emergence of a chain of
temporary competitive advantages (Ferrigno, 2017; Dagnino et al., 2020).
Contexts
We recognize that, despite some important advancements, co-branding literature does not
offer particular attention to the contexts in which co-branding alliances emerge. First, we
note that the major part of literature considers the meso-context as the condition that stands
from a firms’ birth; however, business decisions appear to be framed by theories that
implicitly rest on a strong notion of agent rationality. We call for studies that investigate the
nature of agent rationality underlying the managerial process in formulating co-branding
alliances. Are these decisions made in such a rational fashion? Alternatively, are they driven
by heuristic and cognitive biases, as suggested by the studies that embrace and build upon
the psychological foundations of management (Powell et al., 2011)?. This theme may also be
of particular interest in the context of family firms in which brand name and family surname
concur. This circumstance leads to a unique chemistry of family identity and business
identity with significant consequences from a psychological perspective (Picone et al., 2021).
Therefore, we infer that the studies regarding variables affecting the family-firms’ decision
to formulate and implement a co-branding alliance could prove very revealing.
Second, a potentially interesting future study would start from an antecedent, namely,
the country of origin of partner brands, that is assumed to be the same for both brands in the
partnership. The hypothesis to be tested is whether or not sharing the same country of
origin may increase the recognition of both brands. Drawing on alliance research, we argue
that cultural context may act as a moderator (Das and Kumar, 2010; Ulijn et al., 2010).
Additionally, we call for papers that test whether celebrity image (from the same country of
origin too) may mediate the effect of the brand alliance.
Shifting our attention to the exo-context, we observe that, differently from strategic
alliance research (Gomes et al., 2016), co-branding research has until today devoted very
limited attention to the macro-context. We call for empirical studies to investigate these
aspects. A specific variable of interest may be the impact of the host-countries’
governmental and economic policy (Gomes et al., 2016), as well as the competition in the
post-COVID-19 period. Indeed, public policy adopted through the health emergency and the
solution each firm has implemented to face it may have an impact on firm performance and
image, and in turn, may produce an effect on consumer perception.
EJM Additionally, we call for empirical investigations that consider the role of co-branding in the
56,2 digital transformation age. One key assumption in the extant literature is that digitalization is
changing marketing-related tools by leading potential scale economies (Jackson and Ahuja,
2016). However, scale diseconomies may emerge. Drawing on Steenkamp (2020), we ask: under
which circumstances regional marketing predicaments of one of the brands in an alliance
transmit to other geographic places? Furthermore, what are the characteristics of a co-branding
612 strategy that accelerate cross-national spillovers of negative effects?
Finally, with the exception of Askegaard and Bengtsson (2005), co-branding literature
has substantially neglected to consider the role of culture in terms of symbolic universes of
brands. Drawing on Consumer Culture Theory, we call for studies that complement,
together with those that leverage a psychological perspective, the dominant economical
point of view (Arnould and Thompson, 2005). If we assume that “many consumers’ lives are
constructed around multiple realities and that they use consumption to experience realities
that differ dramatically from the quotidian” (Arnould and Thompson, 2005, pp. 875–876),
juxtaposing the psychological and economical viewpoints would offer a more robust
support to marketing managers who strive to acquire knowledge from the principles of
cultural branding that may be easily applied to co-branding alliances (Askegaard and
Bengtsson, 2005). This line of reasoning conducts us to call for studies that consider the
interplay between formal connections, such as a co-brand and informal connections based
on customers’ social construction of reality, as well as the temporal dissonance between
formal and informal connections.
Furthermore, as regard the chrono-context, extant literature in this field has principally
considered business lifecycles. Accordingly, we propose to define research lines that can
enrich the comprehension of the role of time in co-branding alliances. For example, are co-
branding alliances used to move from a mature to a younger industry? How long does the
impact of a cobrand on single partners’ brand perception last? How does the duration of the
alliance influence the performance of the collaboration? How long does the association
between brands in consumers’ minds last?
Co-branding governance
An aspect worth underscoring is that the interviews conducted with managers clearly signal
that co-branding governance represents a huge gap in co-branding literature. Drawing on
alliance research and the insights emerging in our interviews, we infer that there are some
interesting areas of study. First, scholars should investigate how to structure contracts on
the basis of most common contingencies in co-branding alliances. They should also consider
resource contributions and combination, and more importantly, the relationship
development over time (Berdrow and Lane, 2003).
Second, we call for papers regarding relational governance mechanisms. For instance, in a
co-branding alliance, firms’ investments are not always definable ex ante, but clearly,
partners’ commitment to invest in relation-specific assets can boost (or not) co-branding
performance (Dyer and Singh, 1998; Lavie et al., 2012). Accordingly, scholars should
investigate which may be the most promising relational governance mechanisms to prevent
competitive and opportunistic behaviors between partners. Drawing on Agarwal et al.
(2010), we call attention to incentives and communication coordination mechanisms.
Third, moving from Hoetker and Mellewigt (2009), co-branding research may benefit by
exploring the path that links growth as a motivation for co-branding and governance
mechanisms. For instance, a motivation for implementing a co-branding strategy is to
penetrate a foreign market. However, the associated investments in communication can also
serve one of the partners as a way to learn about the foreign country and exploit the
acquired knowledge to launch a massive communication campaign about the single brand. Co-branding
This action may negatively influence the outcome of the co-brand and generate conflicts research
between partners. Therefore, we advocate for studies investigating how governance
mechanisms may stimulate or limit the emergence of coopetition among brands.
Notes
1. A total of 45 papers in the sample were published in marketing journals with 3 and 4 stars, 34 of
613
them with more than 10 citations.
2. It means that measuring them over a period obtained by merging together two times windows
gives a result equal to the sum of the corresponding measures in each time window.
3. We are referring to time windows so short that minimal change or none is observed for the
metrics in several of them
4. We thank anonymous reviewer R3 for the suggestion.
References
Aaker, D.A. and Keller, K.L. (1990), “Consumer evaluations of brand extensions”, Journal of Marketing,
Vol. 54 No. 1, pp. 27-41.
Aarstad, J., Ness, H. and Haugland, S.A. (2015), “Network position and tourism firms’ co-branding
practice”, Journal of Business Research, Vol. 68 No. 8, pp. 1667-1677.
Abratt, R. and Motlana, P. (2002), “Managing co-branding strategies: global brands into local markets”,
Business Horizons, Vol. 45 No. 5, pp. 43-43.
Agarwal, R., Croson, R. and Mahoney, J.T. (2010), “The role of incentives and communication in
strategic alliances: an experimental investigation”, Strategic Management Journal, Vol. 31 No. 4,
pp. 413-437.
Ahn, H. and Sung, Y. (2012), “A two-dimensional approach to between-partner fit in co-branding
evaluations”, Journal of Brand Management, Vol. 19 No. 5, pp. 414-424.
Ahn, S., Kim, H. and Forney, J.A. (2009), “Co-marketing alliances between heterogeneous industries:
Examining perceived match-up effects in product, brand and alliance levels”, Journal of Retailing
and Consumer Services, Vol. 16 No. 6, pp. 477-485.
Alcaniz, E.B., Caceres, R.C. and Pérez, R.C. (2010), “Alliances between brands and social causes: the
influence of company credibility on social responsibility image”, Journal of Business Ethics,
Vol. 96 No. 2, pp. 169-186.
Ambroise, L., Pantin-Sohier, G., Valette-Florence, P. and Albert, N. (2014), “From endorsement to celebrity
co-branding: personality transfer”, Journal of Brand Management, Vol. 21 No. 4, pp. 273-285.
Anderson, N.H. (1962), “Application of an additive model to impression formation”, Science, Vol. 138
No. 3542, pp. 817-818.
Arnould, E.J. and Thompson, C.J. (2005), “Consumer culture theory (CCT): twenty years of research”,
Journal of Consumer Research, Vol. 31 No. 4, pp. 868-882.
Askegaard, S. and Bengtsson, A. (2005), “When Hershey met Betty: love, lust and co-branding”, Journal
of Product and Brand Management, Vol. 14 No. 5, pp. 322-329.
Askegaard, S. and Linnet, J.T. (2011), “Towards an epistemology of consumer culture theory:
phenomenology and the context of context”, Marketing Theory, Vol. 11 No. 4, pp. 381-404.
Bang, H., Choi, D., Baek, T.H., Oh, S.D. and Kim, Y. (2020), “Leveraged brand evaluations in branded
entertainment: effects of alliance exclusivity and presentation style”, International Journal of
Advertising, Vol. 39 No. 4, pp. 466-485.
EJM Baron, R.M. and Kenny, D.A. (1986), “The moderator-mediator variable distinction in social
psychological research: conceptual, strategic, and statistical considerations”, Journal of
56,2 Personality and Social Psychology, Vol. 51 No. 6, pp. 1173-1182.
Barwise, P. and Robertson, T. (1992), “Brand portfolios”, European Management Journal, Vol. 10 No. 3,
pp. 277-285.
Baumgarth, C. (2004), “Evaluations of co-brands and spill-over effects: further empirical results”,
614 Journal of Marketing Communications, Vol. 10 No. 2, pp. 115-131.
Becker, L. and Jaakkola, E. (2020), “Customer experience: fundamental premises and implications for
research”, Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, Vol. 48 No. 4, pp. 630-648.
Berdrow, I. and Lane, H.W. (2003), “International joint ventures: creating value through successful
knowledge management”, Journal of World Business, Vol. 38 No. 1, pp. 15-30.
Besharat, A. (2010), “How co-branding versus brand extensions drive consumers’ evaluations of new
products: a brand equity approach”, Industrial Marketing Management, Vol. 39 No. 8,
pp. 1240-1249.
Besharat, A. and Langan, R. (2014), “Towards the formation of consensus in the domain of co-branding:
current findings and future priorities”, Journal of Brand Management, Vol. 21 No. 2, pp. 112-132.
Bigné, E., Curras-Pérez, R. and Aldas-Manzano, J. (2012), “Dual nature of cause-brand fit: influence on
corporate social responsibility consumer perception”, European Journal of Marketing, Vol. 46
Nos 3/4, pp. 575-594.
Blackett, T. and Russell, N. (1999), “What is co-branding?”, in Blackett, T. and Boad, B. (Eds),
Co-Branding, Palgrave Macmillan, London, pp. 1-21.
Blankson, C. and Kalafatis, S.P. (2007), “Congruence between positioning and brand advertising”,
Journal of Advertising Research, Vol. 47 No. 1, pp. 79-93.
Bluemelhuber, C., Carter, L.L. and Lambe, C.J. (2007), “Extending the view of brand alliance effects: an
integrative examination of the role of country of origin”, International Marketing Review, Vol. 24
No. 4, pp. 427-443.
Bogenrief, M. (2013), “The target-Neiman Marcus collection was a serious misstep in strategy”,
Business Insider, 7 January available at: www.businessinsider.com/target-neiman-marcus-
collection-failed-2013-1?r=US&IR=T
Burrell, G. and Morgan, G. (1979), Sociological Paradigms and Organizational Analysis, Ashgate.
Aldershot.
Calder, B.J. and Burnkrant, R.E. (1977), “Interpersonal influence on consumer behavior: an attribution
theory approach”, Journal of Consumer Research, Vol. 4 No. 1, pp. 29-38.
Cao, Z. and Sorescu, A. (2013), “Wedded bliss or tainted love? Stock market reactions to the introduction
of cobranded products”, Marketing Science, Vol. 32 No. 6, pp. 939-959.
Cao, Z. and Yan, R. (2017), “Does brand partnership create a happy marriage? The role of brand value
on brand alliance outcomes of partners”, Industrial Marketing Management, Vol. 67, pp. 148-157.
Chan, H.-Y., Boksem, M. and Smidts, A. (2018), “Neural profiling of brands: mapping brand image in
consumers’ brains with visual templates”, Journal of Marketing Research, Vol. 55 No. 4,
pp. 600-615.
Chang, C.T., Chen, P.C., Chu, X.Y., Kung, M.T. and Huang, Y.F. (2018), “Is cash always king? Bundling
product–cause fit and product type in cause-related marketing”, Psychology and Marketing,
Vol. 35 No. 12, pp. 990-1009.
Cheah, I., Zainol, Z. and Phau, I. (2016), “Conceptualizing country-of-ingredient authenticity of luxury
brands”, Journal of Business Research, Vol. 69 No. 12, pp. 5819-5826.
Chiambaretto, P. and Gurau, C. (2017), “David by goliath: what is co-branding and what is in it for
SMEs”, International Journal of Entrepreneurship and Small Business, Vol. 31 No. 1,
pp. 103-122.
Chiambaretto, P., Gurau, C. and Le Roy, F. (2016), “Coopetitive branding: definition, typology, benefits Co-branding
and risks”, Industrial Marketing Management, Vol. 57, pp. 86-96.
research
Cohen, J. (1960), “A coefficient of agreement for nominal scales”, Educational and Psychological
Measurement, Vol. 20 No. 1, pp. 37-46.
Connelly, B.L., Certo, S.T., Ireland, R.D. and Reutzel, C.R. (2011), “Signaling theory: a review and
assessment”, Journal of Management, Vol. 37 No. 1, pp. 39-67.
Cornelis, P.C.M. (2010), “Effects of co-branding in the theme park industry: a preliminary study”,
International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management, Vol. 22 No. 6, pp. 775-796.
615
Cummings, J.L. and Holmberg, S.R. (2012), “Best-fit alliance partners: the use of critical success factors in
a comprehensive partner selection process”, Long Range Planning, Vol. 45 No. 2-3, pp. 136-159.
Cunha, M., Jr, Forehand, M.R. and Angle, J.W. (2015), “Riding coattails: when co-branding helps versus
hurts less-known brands”, Journal of Consumer Research, Vol. 41 No. 5, pp. 1284-1300.
Dagnino, G.B., Picone, P.M. and Ferrigno, G. (2020), “Temporary competitive advantage: a state-of-the-
art literature review and research directions”, International Journal of Management Reviews,
Vol. 23 No. 1, pp. 85-115.
Dahlstrom, R. and Nygaard, A. (2016), “The psychology of co-branding alliances: the business-to-business
relationship outcomes of role stress”, Psychology and Marketing, Vol. 33 No. 4, pp. 267-282.
Das, T.K. and Kumar, R. (2010), “Interpartner sensemaking in strategic alliances: managing cultural
differences and internal tensions”, Management Decision, Vol. 48 No. 1, pp. 17-36.
Das, T.K. and Teng, B.S. (2001), “Trust, control, and risk in strategic alliances: an integrated
framework”, Organization Studies, Vol. 22 No. 2, pp. 251-283.
Decker, C. and Baade, A. (2016), “Consumer perceptions of co-branding alliances: organizational
dissimilarity signals and brand fit”, Journal of brand Management, Vol. 23 No. 6, pp. 648-665.
Delgado-Ballester, E. and Hernandez-Espallardo, M. (2008), “Building online brands through brand
alliances in internet”, European Journal of Marketing, Vol. 42 Nos 9/10, pp. 954-976.
Desai, K.K. and Keller, K.L. (2002), “The effects of ingredient branding strategies on host brand
extendibility”, Journal of Marketing, Vol. 66 No. 1, pp. 73-93.
Desmichel, P., Ordabayeva, N. and Kocher, B. (2020), “What if diamonds did not last forever? Signaling
status achievement through ephemeral versus iconic luxury goods”, Organizational Behavior
and Human Decision Processes, Vol. 158, pp. 49-65.
Diallo, M.F. and Siqueira, J.R. Jr (2017), “How previous positive experiences with store brands affect
purchase intention in emerging countries: a comparison between Brazil and Colombia”,
International Marketing Review, Vol. 34 No. 4, pp. 536-558.
Durand, R., Grant, R.M. and Madsen, T.L. (2017), “The expanding domain of strategic management
research and the quest for integration”, Strategic Management Journal, Vol. 38 No. 1, pp. 4-16.
Dyer, J.H. and Singh, H. (1998), “The relational view: Cooperative strategy and sources of
interorganizational competitive advantage”, Academy of Management Review, Vol. 23 No. 4,
pp. 660-679.
Fazio, R.H., Powell, M.C. and Williams, C.J. (1989), “The role of attitude accessibility in the attitude-to-
behavior process”, Journal of Consumer Research, Vol. 16 No. 3, pp. 280-288.
Ferguson, R.J., Paulin, M. and Bergeron, J. (2005), “Contractual governance, relational governance, and
the performance of interfirm service exchanges: the influence of boundary-spanner closeness”,
Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, Vol. 33 No. 2, pp. 217-234.
Ferrigno, G. (2017), “Looking for alliance portfolio characteristics”, in Das T.K. (Ed.), Managing Alliance
Portfolios and Networks, Information Age Publishing, Charlotte, NC, pp. 177-202.
Ferrigno, G., Dagnino, G.B. and Di Paola, N. (2021), “R&D alliance partner attributes and innovation
performance: a fuzzy set qualitative comparative analysis”, Journal of Business and Industrial
Marketing, Vol. 36 No. 13, pp. 54-65.
EJM Franco, M. and Haase, H. (2015), “Interfirm alliances: a taxonomy for SMEs”, Long Range Planning,
Vol. 48 No. 3, pp. 168-181.
56,2
Gammoh, B.S. and Voss, K.E. (2013), “Alliance competence: the moderating role of valence of alliance
experience”, European Journal of Marketing, Vol. 47 Nos 5/6, pp. 964-986.
Gammoh, B.S., Voss, K.E. and Chakraborty, G. (2006), “Consumer evaluation of brand alliance signals”,
Psychology and Marketing, Vol. 23 No. 6, pp. 465-486.
616 Geylani, T., Inman, J.J. and Hofstede, F.T. (2008), “Image reinforcement or impairment: the effects of
cobranding on attribute uncertainty”, Marketing Science, Vol. 27 No. 4, pp. 730-744.
Gomes, E., Barnes, B.R. and Mahmood, T. (2016), “A 22 year review of strategic alliance research in the
leading management journals”, International Business Review, Vol. 25 No. 1, pp. 15-27.
Guerreiro, J., Rita, P. and Trigueiros, D. (2015), “Attention, emotions and cause-related marketing
effectiveness”, European Journal of Marketing, Vol. 49 Nos 11/12, pp. 1728-1750.
Halonen-Knight, E. and Hurmerinta, L. (2010), “Who endorses whom? Meanings transfer in celebrity
endorsement”, Journal of Product and brand Management, Vol. 19 No. 6, pp. 452-460.
Hannerz, U. (1992), Cultural Complexity: Studies in the Social Organization of Meaning, Columbia
University Press, Columbia.
Helmig, B., Huber, J.A. and Leeflang, P.S. (2008), “Co-branding: the state of the art”, Schmalenbach
Business Review, Vol. 60 No. 4, pp. 359-377.
Henderson, G.R., Iacobucci, D. and Calder, B.J. (1998), “brand diagnostics: mapping branding effects
using consumer associative networks”, European Journal of Operational Research, Vol. 111
No. 2, pp. 306-327.
Hoetker, G. and Mellewigt, T. (2009), “Choice and performance of governance mechanisms: matching
alliance governance to asset type”, Strategic Management Journal, Vol. 30 No. 10, pp. 1025-1044.
Ilicic, J. and Webster, C.M. (2013), “Celebrity co-branding partners as irrelevant brand information in
advertisements”, Journal of Business Research, Vol. 66 No. 7, pp. 941-947.
Jackson, G. and Ahuja, V. (2016), “Dawn of the digital age and the evolution of the marketing mix”,
Journal of Direct, Data and Digital Marketing Practice, Vol. 17 No. 3, pp. 170-186.
James, D.O., Lyman, M. and Foreman, S.K. (2006), “Does the tail wag the dog? brand personality in
brand alliance evaluation”, Journal of Product and brand Management, Vol. 15 No. 3,
pp. 173-183.
Jiang, R.J., Tao, Q.T. and Santoro, M.D. (2010), “Alliance portfolio diversity and firm performance”,
Strategic Management Journal, Vol. 31 No. 10, pp. 1136-1144.
Kalafatis, S.P., Remizova, N., Riley, D. and Singh, J. (2012), “The differential impact of brand equity on
B2B co-branding”, Journal of Business and Industrial Marketing, Vol. 27 No. 8, pp. 623-634.
Keller, A., Lumineau, F., Mellewigt, T. and Ariño, A. (2021), “Alliance governance mechanisms in the
face of disruption”, Organization Science, Vol. 32 No. 6, available at: https://doi.org/10.1287/
orsc.2021.1437
Kim, C.K., Lavack, A.M. and Smith, M. (2001), “Consumer evaluation of vertical brand extensions and
core brands”, Journal of Business Research, Vol. 52 No. 3, pp. 211-222.
Kim, W.G., Lee, S. and Lee, H.Y. (2007), “Co-branding and brand loyalty”, Journal of Quality Assurance
in Hospitality and Tourism, Vol. 8 No. 2, pp. 1-23.
Kotlar, J., De Massis, A., Wright, M. and Frattini, F. (2018), “Organizational goals: antecedents,
formation processes and implications for firm behavior and performance”, International Journal
of Management Reviews, Vol. 20, pp. S3-S18.
Lafferty, B.A. (2007), “The relevance of fit in a cause–brand alliance when consumers evaluate
corporate credibility”, Journal of Business Research, Vol. 60 No. 5, pp. 447-453.
Lafferty, B.A. (2009), “Selecting the right cause partners for the right reasons: the role of importance
and fit in cause-brand alliances”, Psychology and Marketing, Vol. 26 No. 4, pp. 359-382.
Lafferty, B.A. and Edmondson, D.R. (2009), “Portraying the cause instead of the brand in cause-related Co-branding
marketing ads: does it really matter?”, Journal of Marketing Theory and Practice, Vol. 17 No. 2,
pp. 129-144.
research
Lafferty, B.A. and Edmondson, D.R. (2014), “A note on the role of cause type in cause-related
marketing”, Journal of Business Research, Vol. 67 No. 7, pp. 1455-1460.
Lafferty, B.A. and Goldsmith, R.E. (2005), “Cause–brand alliances: does the cause help the
brand or does the brand help the cause?”, Journal of Business Research, Vol. 58 No. 4,
pp. 423-429. 617
Lafferty, B.A., Goldsmith, R.E. and Hult, G.T.M. (2004), “The impact of the alliance on the partners: a
look at cause–brand alliances”, Psychology and Marketing, Vol. 21 No. 7, pp. 509-531.
Lafferty, B.A., Lueth, A.K. and McCafferty, R. (2016), “An evolutionary process model of cause-related
marketing and systematic review of the empirical literature”, Psychology and Marketing, Vol. 33
No. 11, pp. 951-970.
Lanseng, E.J. and Olsen, L.E. (2012), “brand alliances: the role of brand concept consistency”, European
Journal of Marketing, Vol. 46 No. 9, pp. 1108-1126.
Lavie, D., Haunschild, P.R. and Khanna, P. (2012), “Organizational differences, relational mechanisms,
and alliance performance”, Strategic Management Journal, Vol. 33 No. 13, pp. 1453-1479.
Lee, N., Broderick, A.J. and Chamberlain, L. (2007), “What is ‘Neuromarketing’? A discussion and
agenda for future research”, International Journal of Psychophysiology, Vol. 63 No. 2, pp. 199-204.
Lee, J.K., Lee, B.K. and Lee, W.N. (2013), “Country-of-origin fit’s effect on consumer product
evaluation in cross-border strategic brand alliance”, Journal of Business Research, Vol. 66
No. 3, pp. 354-363.
Levin, A.M. (2002), “Contrast and assimilation processes in consumers’ evaluations of dual brands”,
Journal of Business and Psychology, Vol. 17 No. 1, pp. 145-154.
Lewin, S.B. (1996), “Economics and psychology: lessons for our own day from the early twentieth
century”, Journal of Economic Literature, Vol. 34 No. 3, pp. 1293-1323.
Lin, Y.C. (2013), “Evaluation of co-branded hotels in the Taiwanese market: the role of brand familiarity
and brand fit”, International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management, Vol. 25 No. 3,
pp. 346-364.
Lumineau, F. and Oliveira, N. (2018), “A pluralistic perspective to overcome major blind spots in
research on interorganizational relationships”, Academy of Management Annals, Vol. 12 No. 1,
pp. 440-465.
Madhok, A., Keyhani, M. and Bossink, B. (2015), “Understanding alliance evolution and termination:
adjustment costs and the economics of resource value”, Strategic Organization, Vol. 13 No. 2,
pp. 91-116.
Magid, J.M. (2006), “Cobranding requires strong contract protections”, Journal of the Academy of
Marketing Science, Vol. 34 No. 4, pp. 628-630.
Miller, J.H. and Page, S.E. (2009), Complex Adaptive Systems: An Introduction to Computational Models
of Social Life, Princeton University Press, Princeton, NJ.
Moon, H. and Sprott, D.E. (2016), “Ingredient branding for a luxury brand: the role of brand and product
fit”, Journal of Business Research, Vol. 69 No. 12, pp. 5768-5774.
Myers, B., Kwon, W.S. and Forsythe, S. (2012), “Creating effective cause-related marketing campaigns:
the role of cause-brand fit, campaign news source, and perceived motivations”, Clothing and
Textiles Research Journal, Vol. 30 No. 3, pp. 167-182.
Nalebuff, B.J. and brandenburger, A.M. (1997), “Co-opetition: competitive and cooperative business
strategies for the digital economy”, Strategy and Leadership, Vol. 25 No. 6, pp. 28-34.
Newmeyer, C.E. and Ruth, J.A. (2021), “Good times and bad: responsibility in brand alliances”,
European Journal of Marketing, Vol. 54 No. 2, pp. 448-471.
EJM Newmeyer, C.E., Venkatesh, R. and Chatterjee, R. (2014), “Cobranding arrangements and partner
selection: a conceptual framework and managerial guidelines”, Journal of the Academy of
56,2 Marketing Science, Vol. 42 No. 2, pp. 103-118.
Newmeyer, C.E., Venkatesh, R., Ruth, J.A. and Chatterjee, R. (2018), “A typology of brand alliances
and consumer awareness of brand alliance integration”, Marketing Letters, Vol. 29 No. 3,
pp. 275-289.
618 Nguyen, C., Romaniuk, J., Faulkner, M. and Cohen, J. (2018), “Are two brands better than one?
Investigating the effects of co-branding in advertising on audience memory”, Marketing Letters,
Vol. 29 No. 1, pp. 37-48.
Oeppen, J. and Jamal, A. (2014), “Collaborating for success: managerial perspectives on co-branding
strategies in the fashion industry”, Journal of Marketing Management, Vol. 30 Nos 9/10,
pp. 925-948.
Opper, S., Nee, V. and Holm, H.J. (2017), “Risk aversion and guanxi activities: a behavioral analysis of
CEOs in China”, Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 60 No. 4, pp. 1504-1530.
Park, C.W., Jun, S.Y. and Shocker, A.D. (1996), “Composite branding alliances: an investigation of
extension and feedback effects”, Journal of Marketing Research, Vol. 33 No. 4, pp. 453-466.
Paydas Turan, C. (2021), “Success drivers of co-branding: a meta-analysis”, International Journal of
Consumer Studies, Vol. 45 No. 4, pp. 911-936.
Picone, P.M., De Massis, A., Tang, Y. and Piccolo, R.F. (2021), “The psychological foundations of
management in family firms: Values, biases, and heuristics”, Family Business Review, Vol. 34
No. 1, pp. 12-32.
Powell, T.C., Lovallo, D. and Fox, C.R. (2011), “Behavioral strategy”, Strategic Management Journal,
Vol. 32 No. 13, pp. 1369-1386.
Radon, A. (2012), “Unintended brand endorsers’ impact on luxury brand image”, International Journal
of Marketing Studies, Vol. 4 No. 1, pp. 108.
Rao, A.R. and Ruekert, R.W. (1994), “brand alliances as signals of product quality”, Sloan Management
Review, Vol. 36 No. 1, pp. 87-97.
Rao, A.R., Qu, L. and Ruekert, R.W. (1999), “Signaling unobservable product quality through a brand
ally”, Journal of Marketing Research, Vol. 36 No. 2, pp. 258-268.
Raufeisen, X., Wulf, L., Köcher, S., Faupel, U. and Holzmüller, H.H. (2019), “Spillover effects in
marketing: integrating core research domains”, AMS Review, Vol. 9 Nos 3/4, pp. 249-267.
Rodrigue, C.S. and Biswas, A. (2004), “brand alliance dependency and exclusivity: an empirical
investigation”, Journal of Product and brand Management, Vol. 13 No. 7, pp. 477-487.
Rodrigues, F., Souza, V. and Leitão, J. (2011), “Strategic coopetition of global brands: a game theory
approach to ‘nikeþ iPod sport kit’co-branding”, International Journal of Entrepreneurial
Venturing, Vol. 3 No. 4, pp. 435-455.
Roosens, B., Dens, N. and Lievens, A. (2019), “Quid pro quo: the impact of explicit brand mentions and
reciprocity in brand alliance communications”, European Journal of Marketing, Vol. 53 No. 2,
pp. 320-344.
Samuelsen, B.M. and Olsen, L.E. (2012), “The attitudinal response to alternative brand growth
strategies”, European Journal of Marketing, Vol. 46 No. 1, pp. 177-191.
Scott, R.O. and Uncles, M.D. (2018), “Bringing sensory anthropology to consumer research”, European
Journal of Marketing, Vol. 52 Nos 1/2, pp. 302-327.
Seno, D. and Lukas, B.A. (2007), “The equity effect of product endorsement by celebrities: a conceptual
framework from a co-branding perspective”, European Journal of Marketing, Vol. 41 Nos 1/2,
pp. 121-134.
Shen, B., Choi, T.M. and Chow, P.S. (2017), “brand loyalties in designer luxury and fast fashion co-
branding alliances”, Journal of Business Research, Vol. 81, pp. 173-180.
Simonin, B.L. and Ruth, J.A. (1995), “Bundling as a strategy for new product introduction: effects on Co-branding
consumers’ reservation prices for the bundle, the new product, and its tie-in”, Journal of Business
Research, Vol. 33 No. 3, pp. 219-230.
research
Simonin, B.L. and Ruth, J.A. (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,
Vol. 35 No. 1, pp. 30-42.
Starr, R.M. (2011), General Equilibrium Theory: An Introduction, Second Edition, Cambridge University
Press, Cambridge. 619
Steenkamp, J.B.E. (2020), “Global brand building and management in the digital age”, Journal of
International Marketing, Vol. 28 No. 1, pp. 13-27.
Tasci, A.D.A. and Denizci Guillet, B. (2011), “It affects, it affects not: a quasi-experiment on the transfer
effect of co-branding on consumer-based brand equity of hospitality products”, International
Journal of Hospitality Management, Vol. 30 No. 4, pp. 774-782.
Thau, B. (2013), “Target reveals what went wrong with Neiman holiday line, has high hopes for kate young
collection”, Forbes, 24 January available at: www.forbes.com/sites/barbarathau/2013/01/24/target-
reveals-what-went-wrong-with-neiman-holiday-line-has-high-hopes-for-kate-young-collection/?sh=
5089b91a3ec0
Thompson, K. and Strutton, D. (2012), “Revisiting perceptual fit in co-branding applications”, Journal of
Product and brand Management, Vol. 21 No. 1, pp. 15-25.
Tsang, E.W.K. (1998), “Motives for strategic alliance: a resource-based perspective”, Scandinavian
Journal of Management, Vol. 14 No. 3, pp. 207-221.
Uggla, H. (2006), “The corporate brand association base: a conceptual model for the creation of inclusive
brand architecture”, European Journal of Marketing, Vol. 40 Nos 7/8, pp. 785-802.
Ulijn, J.M., Duysters, G. and Meijer, E. (2010), Strategic Alliances, Mergers and Acquisitions: The
Influence of Culture on Successful Cooperation, Edward Elgar Publishing, Cheltenham.
Van der Lans, R., Van den Bergh, B. and Dieleman, E. (2014), “Partner selection in brand alliances: an
empirical investigation of the drivers of brand fit”, Marketing Science, Vol. 33 No. 4, pp. 551-566.
Venkatesh, R. and Mahajan, V. (1997), “Products with branded components: an approach for premium
pricing and partner selection”, Marketing Science, Vol. 16 No. 2, pp. 146-165.
Walchli, S.B. (2007), “The effects of between-partner congruity on consumer evaluation of co-branded
products”, Psychology and Marketing, Vol. 24 No. 11, pp. 947-973.
Wang, Y. and Hajli, M.N. (2014), “Co-creation in branding through social commerce: the role of social
support, relationship quality and privacy concerns”, 20th Americas Conference on Information
Systems, AMCIS 2014.
Washburn, J.H., Till, B.D. and Priluck, R. (2000), “Co-branding: brand equity and trial effects”, Journal
of Consumer Marketing, Vol. 17 No. 7, pp. 591-602.
Washburn, J.H., Till, B.D. and Priluck, R. (2004), “brand alliance and customer-based brand-equity
effects”, Psychology and Marketing, Vol. 21 No. 7, pp. 487-508.
Xiao, N. and Lee, S.H.M. (2014), “brand identity fit in co-branding: the moderating role of CB identification
and consumer coping”, European Journal of Marketing, Vol. 48 Nos 7/8, pp. 1239-1254.
Zahra, S.A. and Newey, L.R. (2009), “Maximizing the impact of organization science: theory-building at
the intersection of disciplines and/or fields”, Journal of Management Studies, Vol. 46 No. 6,
pp. 1059-1075.
Zha, D., Melewar, T.C., Foroudi, P. and Jin, Z. (2020), “An assessment of brand experience knowledge
literature: Using bibliometric data to identify future research direction”, International Journal of
Management Reviews, Vol. 22 No. 3, pp. 287-317.
Zhang, Q., Chen, J. and Lin, J. (2021), “Market targeting with social influences and risk aversion in a co-
branding alliance”, European Journal of Operational Research, Vol. 297 No. 1, pp. 301-318.
EJM Appendix
56,2
Content of in-depth interviews
General questions
(1) How do you consider a co-branding strategy? In your opinion, is it a consumer-oriented
strategy or a firm-oriented strategy? Why?
620 (2) Do you have past experiences with co-branding? Did your firm establish any brand
alliance in the past?
(3) If yes, with firms from which industry?
(4) Usually, how long does a collaboration last, in your experience?
(1) Is it representative of the variables and dimensions involved in the implementation of a
co-branding campaign?
(2) Are there any gaps or gray areas?
(3) Do you think that this schema may be useful for managers to guide them in the
definition of a co-branding campaign?
Coding
General questions
(1) How do you consider a co-branding strategy? In your opinion, is it a consumer-oriented
strategy or a firm-oriented strategy? Why?
Firm.
Consumer.
Both.
(2) Do you have past experiences with co-branding? Did your firm establish any brand
alliance in the past?
Yes.
No.
(3) If yes, with firms from which industry?
Same industry.
Different industries.
Both.
(4) Usually, how long does a collaboration last, in your experience?
Long lasting.
Short lasting.
It depends on the single case.
(1) Is it representative of the variables and dimensions involved in the implementation of a
co-branding campaign?
Yes.
No.
Partially.
(2) Are there any gaps or gray areas? Co-branding
(3) Do you think that this schema may be useful for managers to guide them in the research
definition of a co-branding campaign?
Yes.
No.
Partially.
621
About the authors
Cinzia Pinello is a Post-Doctoral Fellow on Marketing at the Department of Economics, Business and
Statistics, University of Palermo (Italy). She received a PhD in Economics and Statistics from the
University of Palermo discussing her thesis titled “Brand Alliances: network perspective and
applications to the fashion industry” and MS from the University of Roma Tor Vergata in Economics
and Management. She has been awarded the Leonardo Prize: master thesis (2015). Research activity
focuses on branding campaigns, consumers behaviors and networks analysis applied to marketing
strategies. An earlier and abridged version of this article represents the first chapter of her PhD
dissertation. Cinzia Pinello is the corresponding author and can be contacted at: cinzia.pinello01@
unipa.it
Pasquale Massimo Picone is an Associate Professor of Management at the University of Palermo
(Italy). He has worked at the University of Bergamo and at the University of Catania, where he also
received his PhD in Business Economics and Management. He has held visiting positions at Texas
A&M University and IE Business School in Madrid. His research interests include: the psychological
foundations of management and the temporary competitive advantages. His research has been
published in leading outlets, including Academy of Management Perspectives, Corporate Governance:
An International Review, European Management Review, Family Business Review, Global Strategy
Journal, International Journal of Management Review and Long Range Planning.
Arabella Mocciaro Li Destri is a Full Professor of Management at the University of Palermo (Italy).
She has held visiting positions at MIT’s Sloan School of Management, Tuck School of Business at
Dartmouth and IAE Business School, Buenos Aires. She earned her PhD from the University of
Catania. Her research interests cover issues related to network governance and cognitive
performance, strategic alliances management, institutional contexts and firm innovation, post-
scandal recovery and managerial irresponsibility. She has published numerous articles in leading
journals, such as Journal of Managerial Psychology, Advances in Strategic Management, Organization
Studies and Long Range Planning.
For instructions on how to order reprints of this article, please visit our website:
www.emeraldgrouppublishing.com/licensing/reprints.htm
Or contact us for further details: permissions@emeraldinsight.com

10 1108 - Ejm 02 2021 0073

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

10 1108 - Ejm 02 2021 0073

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available on Emerald Insight at:

Query selection 579 papers 413 papers

Journal selection 13 papers

Original sample: 237

Types of co-branding (%)

Mapping the interconnections among disciplines and theories

1996–1999 7 7 7 2.00 2.00

the philosophical and metatheoretical evolution of the ﬁeld. In particular, it is interesting to

As indicated in the methodology section, we asked practitioners to validate our conceptual

Juxtaposing co-branding literature and practices

Agenda for future research

Leveraging discipline and theory intersections

Leveraging theory How do we combine theories to obtain new insights X

future research on co-

How does the diversity of alliance portfolios explain

Can the cultural context be seen as a moderator to X Das and Kumar

Moderators and mediators

You might also like