Does an expanded brand user base of co-branded advertising help ad-memorability?

Abstract

A well-established empirical generalization is that brand users are more likely than non-users to recall advertising for the brand they use. The pairing of a corporate and charity brand in advertising should create an expanded brand-user base, which should, in turn, lead to higher ad-memorability than either brand advertising alone. This study tests this hypothesis for consumer-packaged goods and charity brands in the United Kingdom and Australia. We find evidence that extends the generalization that ad-memorability is higher among brand users to charity supporters in non-profit contexts. We also find that when two brands are present, ad-memorability is highest among those who use the brand and support the partner charity. However, the uplift in ad-memorability among these dual-brand users is dampened by the lower ad-memorability experienced by those who use only one brand, due to a suspected information overload. The findings challenge accepted wisdom on the benefits of co-branded advertising and have implications for partner-selection for co-branded activities.

Exploring the creation and development of political co-brand identity

“…For example, co-branding is often interchangeably referred to as 'joint marketing', 'brand extension-development', 'ingredient branding', dual branding', 'co-marketing' and 'strategic alliances' (Ahn and Sung 2012;Baumgarth 2018;Besharat and Langan 2014;Kotler and Armstrong 2010;Ronzoni et al 2018). Nevertheless, co-branding can be defined as the combination of two existing brands amalgamated to create a unique single identity manifested in the form of a new brand (Abratt and Motlana 2002;Aqeel et al 2017;Baumgarth 2018;Besharat and Langan 2014;d'Astous et al 2007;Kumar 2005;Nguyen et al 2018). Further, co-branding represents a 'system of brands' built from two or more well-known brands ultimately generating a sole entity representing a positive win-win situation for all parties concerned (Baumgarth 2018;Besharat and Langan 2014;Kapferer 2012;Kotler and Armstrong 2010;Nguyen et al 2018;Washburn and Priluck 2000).…”

“…For example, both partner brand names, logos and other identifiable features should appear on all communication touch points of the co-brand to signify a committed partnership (Besharat and Langan 2014;Ronzoni et al 2018). Therefore, each party or partner help create the alliance [co-brand] and can bring unique qualities such as consumer awareness, new target markets, expertise, resources or complimentary reputation to the strategic arrangement (Aqeel et al 2017;Baumgarth 2018;d'Astous et al 2007;Kumar 2005;Leuthesser et al 2002;Nguyen et al 2018;Wason and Charlton 2015). Ultimately, this newly developed co-brand communicates its offering to the desired target audience and signifies the long-term collaborative relationship between the two partners (Aqeel et al 2017;Helmig et al 2008;Leuthesser et al 2002;Ronzoni et al 2018).…”

“…Further, co-branding can be utilised to develop brands for new national and international markets, create points of identification and differentiation, attract a wider support base and appeal to new audiences (Aqeel et al 2017;Helmig et al 2008;Nguyen et al 2018;Thomson 2006). In addition, co-branding can be adopted to communicate a desired identity, personality or representation (Aqeel et al 2017;Besharat and Langan 2014;Leuthesser et al 2002;Wason and Charlton 2015).…”

“…This demonstrates the complex and multifaceted nature of political brands (Grimmer and Grube 2017;Milewicz and Milewicz 2014;Pich et al 2017;Smith 2008). Therefore, political co-brand identities are a cluster of individual values, personal ideological beliefs and past personal experiences aligned with corporate 'broad church' historical ideologies and pragmatic values, which in turn co-create the desired brand identity as illustrated in figure 4 (Aqeel et al 2017;Gyrd-Jones and Kornum 2013;Helmig et al 2008;Kornum and Muhlbacher 2013;Nguyen et al 2018;Thomson 2006). In addition, this study reveals (figure 3) that political co-brands are multifaceted, related yet distinct and often competing entities that are developed over time and by multiple internal and external stakeholders (Billard 2018;Jain et al 2018;Milewicz and Milewicz 2014;Nielsen 2016;Pich and Dean 2015;Scammell 2015;Speed et al 2015).…”

“…Could the construct of co-branding provide future researchers with an approach to understand a different type of political brand and reveal how candidate-politician political brands are created, developed and communicated? Co-branding is a complex, strategic approach defined as a combination of two existing brands amalgamated to create a unique single identity manifested in the form of a new brand (Abratt and Motlana 2002;Aqeel et al 2017;Baumgarth 2018;Besharat and Langan 2014;d'Astous et al 2007;Kumar 2005;Nguyen et al 2018). However, co-branding research remains 'relatively limited' (Aqeel et al 2017;Baumgarth 2018;Besharat and Langan 2014:112) particularly in different contexts and settings (Leuthesser et al 2002;Ronzoni et al 2018;Wason and Charlton 2015).…”