Co-branding as a substitute branding proposition is fast making grounds in the current marketing arena around the globe in almost all the industries as well as in international marketing. In addition to the factors like cooperation brand's collateral, information, category, consumer's knowledge, experience, nationality and culture, etc, the success of a co-branding alliance also is determined by the COO impact. The country of-origin effect is mainly produced by cooperative brand's country of-origin image and takes on an important role in the success of co-branding strategy. Within this paper, we identify various strategies a corporation can follow to be able to enter a co-branding alliance and critical factors of a successful co-branding strategy with special focus on country-of-origin effect to aid the multinational companies make decisions about co-branding. We also utilise some real-world cases in order to demonstrate our notions.
Nowadays, one of the highly respected assets for a company are its brands (Aaker, 1990), with branding being every company's priority. Nonetheless it often costs the firms huge amount of money and requires them quite a while to make their brand. Today's market is suffering from a symptoms of sameness where all the products offered to the clients look very similar both in conditions of sameness in the physical brand element and in the symbolic value proposition wanted to the marketplace. Thus it has become difficult to determine a unique position for new products with markets cluttered with contending brands. Even innovative differentiated products can be imitated quickly, going out of no strategic border. As globalization occurrence continues to elevate competition available on the market, product introduction has become highly fraught with risk. One reason of such risk is the extremely high cost of building brands for a product, which in some cases can exceed $100 million (Voss and Gammoh, 2004), and another is that firms are facing the truth of high new-product inability rates between 20 and 40% per calendar year (Spethman & Benezra, 1994). In this example marketers are trying to find alternative method of branding for creating lasting competitive gain.
Although there are a number of ways for a company to build its own brand, co-branding may be considered a good branding strategy since it may offer fresh opportunities for companies to gain new markets that may usually be difficult to attain effectively, and it is beneficial to the organizations involved to ease costs when getting into new markets utilizing the established collateral of the second brand (Aaker, 2004; Kapferer, 2004; Keller, 2003). Furthermore, additionally, it may help the company to increase consumers' recognized quality and image toward their brand (Keller, 2003).
Co-branding is a marketing design to make use of multiple brands about the same service or product (Chang, 2009). Basically, it involves merging several well-known brands into a single product. The constituent brands can assist the other person in attaining their goals.
Used properly, co-branding gets the potential to accomplish "on top of that worlds" synergy that capitalises on the initial strengths of every adding brand. Successful for example Trainer and Lexus, Diet Coke and Nutra Lovely, Pillsbury Brownies and Nestle Chocolates, Crocs and Disney, IBM and Intel, Betty Crocker and Hershey, Breyers and Hershey, Lays and KC Masterpiece, Sony and Kodak, etc. These co-brandings have created large benefits for stakeholders. However sometimes co-branding can create the risk of differential advantage on one spouse and generate potential challengers. Many a times, co-branding results one partner positively and the other negatively.
Among many factors (reviewed later, in detail) that have an effect on a brand's analysis by its customers and so have an impact on a co-branding alliance's success, country-of-origin can be an important factor. Leading research magazines have established country of origin information as an sign employed by consumers to infer the product quality and trustworthiness of products from a country (e. g. , Hong and Wyer 1989, 1990; Klein, Ettenson, and Morris 1998; Gјrhan-Canli and Maheswaran 2000). This idea is normally used to spell it out the overall quality of goods within a specific product category, such as gadgets or cars. Country-of-origin fit is described as the consumer's perception of the overall compatibility of the two countries of origins mixed up in brand alliance. Compatibility is evaluated by comparing the consumer's overall perceptions of the countries' capability to create quality goods of their respective product category.
For example, assume a consumer is assessing a brand alliance which involves a Taiwanese computer maker and a Japanese microprocessor chip supplier. When studying country of origins information, the consumer will rely on his or her perception of the overall quality of pcs manufactured in Taiwan and microprocessor potato chips made in Japan. When there is an inconsistency within this country of origin fit, the consumer may either ponder each country in terms of relative importance to the brand alliance or just view the alliance unfavourably because of its dissimilarities of identified product quality of the brands. Therefore country of origins fit will immediately influence consumer attitude towards a cross-border brand alliance for specific product categories. In other words, if the brand got a very strong negative brand of origin stereotype, it might be very difficult for this to build its own brand.
In this newspaper earlier research on co-branding is analyzed and recent movements and cases analysed to offer the critical success factors for assessing co-branding opportunities with special concentrate on the country-of-origin effect.
There are the key reason why some companies would like to pursue co-branding. The first one is the fact that co-branding can get a wide range of consumers. Because once company adopts the co-branding, for consumers, this means that it provides more selection and even more function of products. For instance: Nike and Ipod device, announced a relationship, which led to building a coopetitive alliance of co-branding known as "Nike+Ipod". They call the co-brand product "Nike + Ipod device Sport Kit". The consumers can download the music from the Ipod website for free. They realized that there surely is one kind of the actual consumers who like to listen to music while can achieve the purpose of the exercise. This is actually the change from an individual product to a diverse collection of products. Furthermore, there are not only providing more alternatives to choose brand and product but also bring the convenience for the consumers. In such a fast-paced society, increasing numbers of people want to acquire the require goods in one place. So co-branding integrates variety of business principles in order to meet the consumer needs. They are able to take the less money and time and energy to choose the satisfied products. So co-branded products and services can gain consumer selections, loyalty and ultimately make the brand unique and distinctive.
In addition, co-branding can bring more opportunity for the company. It can enhance the quality of the product and influence the buyer common sense of the brand. Like advancement, this approach offers opportunity of growth in existing market and exploration of new markets. In such alliance, companies get together to produce new offerings for customers. Once the services can meet up with the consumers taste, it means that can bring the more earnings for the company. So, it will need to have more space for development. For IT industry, counting on co-branding to get the trust of consumers is a common marketing strategy.
Co-branding can also decrease the threat of company to enter in new market segments, because they talk about the risk and responsibility from one another. Most of all, it can benefit the company reduce the costs and charge of procedure. So co-branding provides the opportunities and integrates their resources and makes-up their downside in order for business to achieve the win-win situation. Like "Miller Brewing Firm and Coors Brewing Corporation, that are US second and third most significant brewers, incorporate their operations to create a bigger challenger to Anheuser-Busch Corporation. SABMiller and Molson Coors will each have a 50% involvement in the jv, and have five reps each on its table of directors. Based on the worthiness of the resources, SABMiller will have a 58% financial affinity for MillerCoors, and Molson Coors will have a 42% economical interest. MillerCoors will have total annual ale sales of 69 million barrels, roughly 29% of the U. S. market, and revenue of $6. 6 billion. Anheuser-Busch has market share of around 48%". (Wei-Lun Chang, 2009, page 4) Cooperation not only increases the range of market show, but also reduces the expense of two companies.
However, co-branding can provide bad result to the company. Because collaborating with your competition is like a double-edged sword. First of all, it is problematic for one of the functions to reject the relationship and re-establish itself on the market individually. Once a co-brand calls for position in market, it becomes quite difficult to dismantle co-brand and much more difficult to re-establish the brand alone. It isn't best for the solid future because it easier bring dependence.
Secondly, brands are also exposed to the chance of devaluation, sometimes nearly overnight. At times, both companies can be infected, as regarding a collaboration between a discount string and an upscale house wares company. At first, the co-brand created significant income for both companies-in twelve months producing more than $1 billion in sales. However when the discounter registered for individual bankruptcy the announcement frustrated the spouse company's stock. In addition, it brought on the investment community to question the spouse about its contingency plans-an surprising task for a co-brand. Subsequent bad press about possible legal activity by the house ware brand's CEO experienced similar effects and elevated similar questions for the discounter's professionals. Shortly after the allegations were made public, a consumer monitoring company reported that practically 20 percent of the upscale manufacturer's customers said that now, because of the negative media attention, they would be less likely to buy the company's products.
Thirdly, when building co-branding, deciding on the best partner is vital. Sometimes, credited to the various cultures and perspective and even functional frictions, they are in-compatible. One fast-food chain that serves usually sandwich fare experienced unsuccessfully attempted co-branding with Italian and Mexican restaurant chains. While these partnerships created great brand synergies, operational friction was created because the co-branded restaurants fascinated customers at the same time of day-during the lunch break and supper rushes. The chain went in advance with the offers anyhow, overburdening its staff and diminishing the in-store customer eating out experience. Finally, the company learned its lesson, and its most recent co-branding partner is a breakfast-food chain.
Gary Hamel pointed that "American firms commonly display too little strategic intent in collaborative initiatives. The contribution of any Western company in a cooperation effort is often by means of technology which is not too difficult for the alliance firm to transfer. In many instances, Western companies are less skilled at restricting unintended competency copy than their Japanese counterparts". So if the company with different culture backgrounds transfer, perhaps it'll bring the bad results (including low earnings, internal issue).
Finally, in some extent, co-branding can lead to transfer of competitive edge to the spouse, making a potential rival. "Collaboration allows two businesses to talk about their resources, tacit knowledge, and know-how to align with a joint goal". (Wei-Lun Chang, 2009, site80) In short, because of the cooperation they lose their own advantages in strategy. Sometimes co-branding easier leads to lack of characteristics of their own products and their own strategy. On the other hand, there is a problems in co-branding, when they share the same brand, so there is a problem recognise the business can obtain the ownership of the brand after co-brand. Alternatively, it can result in copy of consumers. For instance, the per-brand's product image and quality can effects the partner. After co-brand it may lose some consumers. So, sometimes, co-branding is a delicacy for the company.
In order to attain a strategic fit, Chang, 2009 advised five critical factors that must definitely be analysed for a successful co-branding strategy. This is known as a 5C model for analyzing a co-branding opportunity (Figure 1). These factors can assist an organization in organising an effective and appropriate co-branding strategy from a macro point of view.
It's important to consider the changeover costs for two companies getting into a successful co-branding strategy. For the joint venture type, both companies have the same responsibility for both income and liabilities (e. g. , Sony and Ericsson). Thus, the transition cost for both functions is symmetric. But in the merger type, one party (e. g. , BenQ) must take responsibility for the other (e. g. , Siemens). BenQ merged with Siemens and got to provide frequent financial support. Alas, BenQ's pouches just weren't deep enough to absorb the price of turning around the profit-losing Siemens unit. The price for both people was thus asymmetric. Thus the move costs of co-branding critically affect the near future for the firms involved.
Cultural differences are also a crucial consideration for two companies planning a co-branding strategy. Seeking to consolidate companies from different countries creates many unknowns of, especially at the staff level. For example, if one company's culture is conventional as the other is innovative, cooperation will confirm difficult. And there are many other potentially problematic cross-cultural factors like power distance, uncertaininty avoidance, etc. BenQ's employees proved helpful hard to collaborate with Siemens' personnel for nine a few months, but in the end failed, largely consequently of underestimating the intractability of German labor laws. Cultural distinctions are a major factor impacting on the path and final result (success or failure) of an co-branding strategy. Thus ethnic dissimilarities between two companies should be considered thoroughly in advance and require quite effective management.
The third lessons is "know thy customers". Consumer-centric design will drive an effective co-branding strategy. Sony and Ericsson is a case in point, having launched several consumer-centric mobile phones in recent years (e. g. , inlayed with Cybershot technology), they advanced the level of functions (digital video recorder, Bluetooth, etc. ) to be able to increase competitive benefits. Alternatively, BenQ and Siemens formerly targeted teenage customers (based on the slogan "enjoy matters") and then attempted to provide diversified models (e. g. , classical and business models) for other groups (besides teenagers). However, consumers in Germany and Taiwan are very different. It was difficult to acquire a leverage point and common earth for both parties to fulfill the radically different kinds of consumers in the two countries, the companies should identify, give attention to and action concertedly in terms of what specific consumers want and need.
The central competence of an brand is important in attracting large numbers of customers. Since every individual brand has its central competence, the synergy between two brands is extremely important. In the brand alliance situation, a solid brand should clearly and distinctively identify and position its central competence, so that the second brand can combine with it. The core competence could be either homogeneous or heterogeneous. Ultimately, similar key competencies (i. e. , homogeneous) will generate a more robust co-branding impact. However, heterogeneous center competencies can complement each other to make a substantial synergy. For example, BenQ has re-positioned its brand as "keep exploring" to replace the original slogan "enjoy things" from then on original endeavor failed. The lessons is that the main competencies of two companies should be obviously identified in order to efficiently position the new brand.
As earlier mentioned, co-branding may take using one of two essential operational types: joint-venture or merger. For the previous, both companies restructure the administrative centre structures of the initial corporations. That's, each member company is accountable for the new joint-venture company, especially the financial aspects. Inside the merger situation, the prominent company should be in charge of the gain and reduction after merging. For instance, the capital composition of BenQ was reorganized after it merged with Siemens, which resulted in a loss of around 810 million All of us dollars between October 2005 and June 2006. The lessons: satisfactory capital for just two companies is crucial before they even start analyzing one another and organizing a co-branding plan.
A co-brand is more limited in terms of its audience when compared to a corporate and business brand. It conveys a specific image and a set of expectations to focus on customers in confirmed market. The key decision that the merged organization needs to make regarding its co-brand is to choose the sort of tactic it wants to build or maintain with the many strategies previously served by the average person organizations. Should it try to maintain all the existing strategies or eliminate them and only just one or a few? The issue underlying these options is how to manage similarities and differences
in respect of both customers and the brands which it has inherited
through an obvious co-branding strategy.
The two proportions that determine a merged firm's co-branding strategy are its co-brand name and its designed market. The co-brand name implies a fresh or existing brand for a co-brand. The co-brand name will involve an option for the organization: should it have a same brand name to all or any its customer segments no matter how different they could be from one another? Or should it produce a different brand, varying the number of specifications and quality consequently to different customers sections?
The expected market dimension indicates the market setting of the firm's products that it wishes to convey to confirmed market. The merged company may decide to stay in the existing market regard to all its product or service
that is, suggest the same placement across all served segments. Otherwise, the company could create new opportunities to move to a new market with its product or service
that is, take up different positioning for the kids depending upon this customer and competitive dynamics in each of its served segments.
Market Penetration Strategy
Global Brand Strategy
Cross-classifying both dimensions (Co-brand name: existing or new; Intended Market: existing or new) brings about four choice co-branding strategies, each representing a specific way to combine the brand name and customer setting sizes: Market Penetration, Global Brand, Brand Support, and Brand Expansion (see Figure 3).
A Market Penetration Strategy signifies a conservative tactic to keep carefully the existing market and the initial brand names of two organizations. Essentially, the co-brand name is either a single brand name (e. g. , BMW MINI Cooper) or the mixture of two organizations (e. g. , MillerCoors and DaimlerChrysler). The key assumption that drives the adoption of a Market Penetration strategy is the horizontal convergence of two companies. The merged firm's dedication is to consider good thing about such horizontal integration, emphasize the attractive goals and benefits by showing the resources. The merger between Horsepower and Compaq, for occasion, has resulted in the creation of a global brand. Horsepower uses single brand for the firm's image however, many products with a dual name such as Horsepower Compaq Presario group of laptop/desktop.
However, focusing on existing market and brands may not cause the synergy to make the merged firm more powerful and more efficient (e. g. , HP was not superior to IBM much after merging Compaq). Finally, for market Penetration technique to succeed, it is critical that the heterogeneous of customer sections and the reputation of two companies should be sufficiently high.
A Global Brand Strategy indicates a firm's decision to provide all its customers with an existing co-brand name in a new market. The key assumption that drives the adoption of a worldwide Brand strategy is convergence of cross-segmental choices. The merged firm's determination is to adopt good thing about such convergence, highlight the appealing goals and benefits through the use of global reputation. Among lately merged organizations in the telecommunication sector, BenQ has actively pursued to increase the market talk about and global visibility by merging telecommunication office of Siemens with existing brands of the blend "BenQ-Siemens".
For the merged brand, features of a global product brand could accrue at both supply end
when scale and opportunity advantages considerably outweigh the advantages of partial
as well as the demand end, with uniquely and superior than local or local brands. However, focusing on extending the existing market may cause are unsuccessful and lose the initial advantages (e. g. , BenQ reduced its resources dramatically after merging Siemens). Finally, for a Global Brand technique to do well, it is essential that the universality across diverse customer sections appeal constantly to evolving habits of desire.
A Brand Support Strategy signifies two firms choose a new name as a co-brand name in the prevailing market. The key assumption that drives the adoption of any Brand Support strategy is brand image reinforcement. The merged firm's commitment is to use benefit of such attempt of a totally different co-brand name, accentuate the attractive goals and benefits by providing a diverse name and representation style.
For the new co-brand name, two organizations could strengthen the reputation of their original brands without harming the original labels. However, focusing on creating a fresh brand name may cause fail lose the advantages (e. g. , people have negative image will have an impact on the seed company of an diverse co-brand name). Finally, for a Brand Reinforcement technique to succeed, it is essential to create a proper co-brand name that is totally different from original ones effectively and efficiently.
A Brand Expansion Strategy indicates two firms opt to serve a newly co-brand name in a new market. The main element assumption that drives the adoption of the Brand Expansion strategy is union of cross-segmental choices (e. g. , Sony and Ericsson). The merged firm's commitment is to take advantage of such union, accentuate the attractive goals and benefits by stretching different segments.
The merger between Sony and Ericsson has led a horizontal integration for a tactical goal. Before merging with Ericsson in 2001, Sony had not been (with market show of only 1% to 2%) a respected player in the telecommunication industry. Sony experienced superior design capacities, but lacked key telecommunication competences, whereas Ericsson had excellent R&D capacities. The merger commenced to earn income in the second merged season (2003). Sony-Ericsson is currently among the top four cellular phone manufacturers. This success can be attributed in part to the actual fact that the companions possessed a good co-branding plan including a joint brand for cell phones.
For the merged brand, setting a co-brand within an extension purpose may cause by an effective co-branding plan (e. g. , Sony-Ericsson). However, it is risky for both organizations to position a fresh brand in an new market or customer sections. Finally, for a brandname Extension technique to do well, it is essential that two firms have to take benefit of their main competences at the first place, generate the positive synergy as well as draw up a proper long-term co-branding plan.
The uncomplicated type of co-branding can create significant value for companies and their customers, the probable of more durable and innovative co-branding approaches-those that concentrate on combining the real capabilities of spouse companies to set-up new customer-perceived value-is far greater.
While there are numerous types of co-branding, before a business can decide which option makes the most sense because of its situation, it must totally explore four main types of co-branding. Each is differentiated by its level of customer value creation, by its expected period and, perhaps most important, by the risks it poses to the company. These risks are the loss of investment, the diminution of brand equity and the worthiness lost by failing to focus on a more rewarding strategy
Companies all over the world are looking to grow their businesses into foreign markets. Together with the shedding of trade obstacles and advancements in communication, many organizations aspire to "go global". The safest approach is to generate brands with relevant differentiation and value proposition that could encourage customer devotion. However, the consumer's brand evaluation process is a complicated one with lots of parameters. One key factor proposed by Robert Schooler, 1965, is the Country-of-Origin (COO) of the brand. Al-Sulaiti and Baker (1998) even considered it as the fifth component of the marketing combine.
Country of origin refers to information pertaining to where a product is made (the "made in" notion). It is also thought as the positive or negative impact/associations a product's country of manufacture may have on consumers' decision processes or subsequent behavior (Elliott and Cameron, 1994). Relating to COO theory, when individuals are exposed to the merchandise which is made from other countries, they will understand some stereotype images about those countries and these images are consequently used as information cues in judging products from different roots (Lotz and Hu, 2001). For instance, France is associated with fashion, Japan with hi-tech/digital goods and Germany with advanced of technology.
Research in international marketing has proven that country associations do lead to customer bias. Such bias is based on the image of the united states in customer's heads. This causes the next evident question - what constitutes an image of your country? Why is French the best country for wines, what makes Germany the best in executive and what makes Switzerland the best in watch developing? Many factors donate to the united states image.
Here are some of the most important ones:
One of the key factors that effect customers' perceptions towards a country is the amount of the country's economical development. Degree of economic growth works as a primary proxy for the country's alternative activities. In developed countries, countrywide products will tend to be preferred than imports. Alternatively, in growing countries local products will tend to be examined less favorably than overseas made products especially from developed countries.
This identifies the progression of business in a country and what a country has specifically been known for historically. Despite the fact that countries develop through time for you to specialize in successively high-value establishments, it takes quite a while to shrug off any negative associations of the past. As such, the business history of the united states contributes to the entire image of the united states.
The consumer notion toward COO may differ by demographics i. e. the result of gender, generation or education and income. Studies (Kotabe and Helson, 1998) show that COO affects would be strong among the elderly, less informed and politically traditional consumers. Another factor is wealth index that identifies the recognized/actual overall wealth of a country as assessed through degrees of consumption, number of millionaires, amount of billionaires, how big is the blissful luxury goods industry, the sophistication of leisure industry, the proportion of specific income spent of leisure and do it yourself enhancing activities and so forth. Prosperity index offers customers a cue to infer the amount of product quality, variety, and perceived credibility of the products/brands.
Given the degree to which technology and technologies impact consumers' lives in today's world, it is not shocking that the magnitude of technological advancement of your country bears intensely on consumers' understanding of the country. This factor is usually related to the level of financial development of the united states. Higher the scientific capability of a country, more positive is the COO result.
However, in the framework of monetary development given above, the problem of "ethnocentricity" of the host country becomes critical. Customers who are ethnocentric will probably feel that it is unacceptable and wrong to get overseas made products (Schiffman and Kanuk, 2002). It really is argued by LeVine and Campbell that in developed countries, consumer ethnocentrism sometimes appears as the most important factor because they more experienced therefore they choose to buy local to keep domestic jobs and thus increase their country's GDP, and as a result, COO effects have a minor role to learn.
Low ethnocentric consumers are more likely to work with COO cue to infer product Quality whereas,
high ethnocentric consumers talks about COO as a means to express commitment as so shown in their purchasing behaviour
With heightened globalization, the presence and efficiency of regulatory mechanisms have become a major factor in creating country images. Regulatory mechanisms such as Intellectual Property Privileges laws (IPR), online piracy regulations, anti-fraud regulations and others create a feeling of recognized security in the imagination of businesses and customers about a specific country.
The consumption of COO cue is primarily determined by the precise type of product. Therefore, COO impact varies by product category. Typically, those products that can be classified as "high participation" products (such as durables) tend to be relevant to the concept of COO than "low engagement" goods.
(Linked to these point), COO affects will be better when the buyer is unfamiliar with a product category, which is often categorized in beginner group (Novices are the consumers who've the time limitation and insufficient sufficient product knowledge). They possibly use COO cue under any circumstances (Usuiner, 2000). Alternatively, expert consumers only count on COO cue when the product attribute is obscure.
All of the factors add towards the formation of an overall image of a country. As such, a country which is financially well developed, is technologically advanced, has a high riches index, has stringent regulatory mechanisms, uses a market economy, and has positive historical organizations, tend to have a very strong positive country of origins image and thus products of these countries like a positive COO impact. Alternatively, depending on the amount of above factors on which countries credit score low, they generally have a relatively lesser positive (or negative) COO effect
(A) Occurrence of Moderating Factors in COO influence
The effect of country of source on the analysis of products is merely one among many bits of information taken into account by consumers. Measures of the result of country of origin have generally included both following dependent parameters: identified quality and purchasing intention.
The aftereffect of country of origins is more important on identified quality than on purchase purpose. This is also confirmed by the results of a report carried out by Nooh and Thomas, which verify the conception of Bangladeshi consumers about products from different countries vis- -vis their real consumption pattern. It was noticed that while products from India were scored the lowest in terms of parameters of quality, maximum imports into Bangladesh were from India. This deviation was attributed to the identified price of Indian products being much lower than that from other countries. Hence, it is likely that some moderating factors may be involved during the analysis process of the consumer.
A set of the possible moderating influences are:
1. Price level and associated financial risk
2. Degree of warrantee, reimbursement, after-sales service
3. Degree of brand name prestige and reputation
4. Amount of product familiarity
Implication: These moderating influences may be used to the good thing about the marketer, depending on characteristics of Country of Origin effects. For example, if the COO image is negative, the company might reduce prices of its brand to pay for this negative image.
Marketers need to be alert to the Product-Country fit to set-up excellent results. The possible combinations of the two factors are provided as a 2 X 2 matrix below.
Quadrant I: COO can be considered a positive influence on the brand
brand name / product packaging (and other exterior cues) should reveal the COO
Promote the brand's COO
Quadrant II: 'mismatch'.
Association with COO likely
Reduce emphasis on COO, highlight other benefits
Jv(s) with companies from more favourable COO. For instance, Pepsi tangled up with Lehar Foods to help its entry into the recently liberalized Indian market, that was still very good on ethnocentricity.
Communication promotions to enhance COO. This is a suspect area as perceptions of country image are designed up over a long period of time, and might not be easy to invert.
Quadrant III: Unlike in quadrant IV, the COO can't be ignored for these products
Presently, customer not interested in COO
Alter importance of product category image dimensions
Promote COO as secondary benefit
Ignore COO information- this information is not beneficial to the company
The degree of COO image consumption can vary through the level of product life circuit (PLC).
Introduction Level: characterized by low product information in terms of function
and quality. Hence, consumers count more seriously on COO cue because they may
not know about the product.
Growth and Maturity Stages: Consumers' information requirement declines, and
other product characteristics are definitely more important than COO cue.
COO marketing allows a business to facilitate the market penetration in short
Brand marketing, which is longer-term perspective, is more effectively
employed whenever a company becomes more established
Post liberalization, India has surfaced as a nice-looking spot to quantity of MNCs,
looking for a talk about of the growing middle class.
Based on the examination from table 1 above, we obtain that India's Image ranking is below
that of America and above that of China (India obtained better mainly on the 'political
parameters' while China did better on the 'monetary' and 'technical' fronts).
The following points are concluded for India as a Country of Origins:
High rating (good image) on Political Parameters
Overall, not really a high rating.
According to Srinivasan (2007), Co-branding is the relationship between two brands with different backgrounds, which targets combo of the companions' resources and best capacities. Matching to Mckinsey & Company Information: the number of joint companies in worldwide in 1994 - including co-branding company, relating huge amount of money belongings with an gross annual rate of 40% growth. (1994) That's because consumers become more and more reliant on brands, and become more difficult for company if indeed they want to keep the strong competitiveness and have more profits.
Co-branding supplies the chance for this situation. However, the co-branding does not fit for every company and does not bring the power for them. There's also exist some problems not only in culture but also between in lovers. So I will talk about how exactly co-branding affects the company in positive ways and negative ways.
So Co-branding has important guiding significance for a firm to make a reasonable business strategy so the competition predominance can be increased and central competitiveness can be shaped. However, co-brand also offers some obstructions. If brand don't possess sufficient credibility in market, it can adversely affect the other partner's brand. At the same time, it can lose some consumers. Due to the different culture and vision, it can also bring some problems in the process of cooperate. It could inform them how co-branding bring the opportunities and troubles for the firm.