1. Introduction Co-branding is a specific strategic alliance in which two brand names appear on a single product (Leuthesser et al, 2003), and Hadjicharalambous (2006) identified two primary types of co-branding: horizontal (e.g., Sony-Ericsson) and ingredient (e.g., HP laptops with Intel-inside). Co-branding has recently become an increasingly popular tactic used by marketers to achieve a success. For instance, in 2001 Sony-Ericsson combined the superior entertainment ability of Sony with the premium skill of wireless communication technology of Ericsson to offer 'innovative' co-branded mobile phones; the co-branded product, Doritos Locos Tacos, released in 2012, successfully sells one million units daily and has generated an unexpected positive return on one of the partnering brands, Taco Bell--15,000 extra jobs. (1) Unfortunately, firms do not always achieve a success by co-branding as was the case with the NextCard-Amazon credit card, BenQ-Siemens mobile, and the Target Neiman limited-edition clothes; those are the typical examples of co-branding failures. To our knowledge, co-branding success has been explored in two major scientific fields, namely the field of strategic alliance (e.g., Venkatesh et al., 2000) and the field of consumer behavior (e.g., Simonin and Ruth, 1998). However, because co-branding is a relatively new phenomenon, additional scientific insights into co-branding success are still required (Helmig et al., 2008). Therefore, the present research enriches the growing body of literature on co-branding success (e.g., Radighieri et al., 2014; Cao and Sorescu, 2013; Newmeyer et al., 2013). Rao and Ruekert (1994) inferred that co-branding success may be evaluated by measuring a co-branded product's value. Thus, in this research, we define co-branding success as the existence of two effects that help us measure its value. The first effect is a synergy effect on the co-brand: the alliance's aggregated brand value is greater than the value of each partner's individual brand value (e.g., whether Sony-Ericsson's value is greater than Sony's and Ericsson's individual brand values). That is, instead of the additive rule (i.e., the sum is greater than the individual parts; Rao and Ruekert, 1994), the maximum rule (cf. Murphy, 1988) is applied here to explain the synergy effect. The second effect is a positive spillover effect: the value of the alliance is greater for each partner than without the alliance (e.g., whether Ericsson's post-alliance value is greater than its pre-alliance value). Based on a thorough literature search, previous research on co-branding focuses only on the synergy effect from either the perspective of attitudinal favorability and preferences (e.g., Levin et al., 1996; Park et al., 1996) or financial value and returns (e.g., Chang and Chang, 2012). To the best of our knowledge, no study examines the synergy effect from the perspective of attribute beliefs under a specific product-fit scenario, namely attribute-level complementarity (ALC), on which marketing scholars have long concentrated (e.g., Park et al., 1996). Similarly, although the literature (e.g., Washburn et al., 2004) has investigated the positive spillover effect by utilizing the consumer-based brand equity (CBBE) measure, researchers have not measured the spillover effect under the ALC scenario. We argue that this gap is crucial because ALC is considered the key factor of co-branding success (Park et al., 1996). This study bridges this gap by exploring the impacts of ALC on co-branding success by determining whether the synergy and positive spillover effect(s) exist. By addressing this theoretical gap, we advance the co-branding literature by showing the connection between the affect-transfer of attribute beliefs (Hillyer and Tikoo, 1995) and co-branding success. Our new finding is, due to the underlying inconsistency of attribute beliefs, a horizontal co-branding partnership with ALC could be a double-edged sword for the allying brands. …
Read full abstract