Theory of Co-branding

Third, collaboration entry means composing a common purpose for all participants. This further implies the necessity of recognizing that each partner’s commitment to the hybrid’s purpose affects the commitments of its own members to its own purpose. Therefore, even though the collaborative parties retain different and individual goals they need to make “the resolution of conflicting interests and the maintenance of harmony central to achieving the partner’s goals” (Borys & Jemison, 1989, p. 237). When referring to collaborations between artists and companies it is pivotal that a common domain is created, which could be viewed as the purpose of this particular combination of partners.

Artists and companies can be said to origin from two very distinct worlds, which amplify the consequence of actually having to create a common understanding in order for the collaboration to be successful. If this is not possible difficulties could arise in terms of the outcome in focus e.g. a campaign, failing.

Fourth, numerous technologies, and human capital are often comprised by the hybrid and the operational interdependencies among partners are affected by and affects how the partners achieve value creation (Borys & Jemison, 1989). Value creation is then the question of combining the capabilities of the artist and company collaborating in order to improve the competitive advantage of either the hybrid or one or both partners. It is significant to point out that the whole purpose of these collaborations is to create value that would otherwise not be possible if the individual parties were solely operating. The interdependency created between artist and company provides the ability for both to reach a level that more than accommodates their individual needs and it is furthermore pivotal for them to acknowledge the competitive advantage being built in the competitive setting. By combining strengths of both parties to achieve competitive advantage, one can speak of co-branding being of great usage.

practices in order to confront the issue of the vastly decreasing revenue. Many measures have been taken and especially collaboration between artist and company proves quite interesting.

Many marketing theorists present a definition of co-branding, however what is common for them all is the notion of two or more independent brands that are intentionally being paired in a marketing context (Grossman, 1997). Motion et al. (2003) cited in Seno and Lukas(2007) further argue that the formed partnership turns into a continuous movement of strategically profitable ‘meaning’ between the parties, which constantly develops. Keller (1998) cited in Seno and Lukas (2007) furthermore emphasizes that such collaboration should generate an outcome unique to the extent that no competitors will be able to imitate it along side gain competitive advantage in the particular market.

According to Keller (1998), “The prerequisite for a co-brand partnership… is that each participating party has awareness, and generates an image, in consumer minds” (Seno &

Lukas, 2007, p. 123). An established artist has already created an image, which consumers or fans can relate to and these associate the artist with a set of values, a certain life style, a particular behavior etc. As Seno and Lukas (2007) argue, celebrities or artists are brands in themselves and retain the ability to create awareness and a conception of their own in the minds of consumers. Furthermore, Keller (1998) cited in Seno and Lukas (2007) states that the conception consumers have of an artist is due to the presumptions made founded on what is already known about the artist. This clearly proves that utilizing artists or celebrities as co-brand partners not only adds instant attention to the project or collaboration initiated, however it also proves that artists retain the same elements, which constitutes a brand. Drawing upon this statement it would seem irrational for the various entities in the music industry not to take advantage of this. An opportunity to utilize the strengths of an artist, whom is already established as well as representing values appealing to its audience and pair it with a company that retains a similar value set is an imperative advantage.

In order to obtain the ideal partnership what needs to be considered are the values each party represents and align them. Till and Shimp (1998) cited in Seno and Lukas (2007) highlight an imperative in the form of each party becoming a part of each other’s association set. This imperative is reached through repeated pairings of the celebrity or artist and brand, which should facilitate the mentioned unity. This ultimately will lead to the artist not only affecting the company’s brand equity, but the company can also affect the equity of the artist. One can

claim that it is an interactive process between brands (Seno & Lukas, 2007).

Furthermore, Seno and Lukas (2007) emphasize expertise and trustworthiness as principal ingredients of artists’ credibility. “When consumers evaluate the expertise and trustworthiness of a celebrity, they reflect on the validity of the assertions made by the celebrity (expertise) and their confidence in the celebrity’s intent to represent the most valid assertions (trustworthiness)” (Seno & Lukas, 2007, p. 125). Another important factor to consider is the more extensive the perceived fit between relevant company traits and artist characteristics, the more immediate identifiable link is created between the two parties by the consumers (Seno & Lukas, 2007). Once the connection is made, it is extremely difficult to remove the associative link, which is why great emphasis is put on carefully matching an artist and a company or brand. If the value set does not coincide, it could pose as a potential threat to the image and credibility of the artist as well as company.

Panda (2001) focus on the imperative of the comprehension of the process laying the grounds for association formulation in order to obtain effective co-branding strategies. They further argue, “The most important aim of co-branding is through combination of two brands in order to attract more customers and to maximize the power and prestige that each brand has to offer” (Panda, 2001, p. 4). This statement supports what Seno and Lukas (2007) argue and only clarifies the importance of indeed utilizing what is at hand and allowing untraditional measures to be taken. With a strong image, and a potentially large fan base it could be assumed that an artist would be able to gain largely through this type of cooperation. Equally could UMD obtain great advantage if it is capable of utilizing its strong brand image in a co-branding setting. This can also be applied to a company, not necessarily related to the music industry, being able to expand its product lines into other areas.

Co-branding in a hybrid and as dynamic capability also enables the attraction of more customers and the increase of the power and prestige each brand represents (Panda, 2001).

Panda (2001) further mention the psychological influence on customers in the sense of presenting them with their brands being able to provide much more than what is already known. Entering into new industries and collaborating with entities not usually, thought of as potential partners contributes to opening up novel markets and marketing prospects. This line of thought could be a potential solution to the difficulties the music industry is experiencing, more specifically the large recording labels, regarding the decreasing overall revenue. This

type of collaboration could also expand and increase the option the individual artist is presented in terms of being able to tour, hold concerts, and become noticed in the public.

More alternatives concerning promotion of an artist and thereby providing the consumers with an experience otherwise not possible generate a positive image and association with the particular artist as well as with the company. This can be illustrated by the collaboration between UMD and TDC in which UMD provided artists for a range of concerts organized by TDC and for TDC customers. In this manner, TDC was branded with artists, differentiating by offering its customers an out of the ordinary experience that generated value for the company. Similarly, the artists represented by UMD were able to reach farther, thereby extend their fan base, and thus gain greater recognition.

5.