Be Stronger Together: Partner Strategies between Material Suppliers and Sports Goods Producers to Promote High-Tech Innovations

Innovations in sports goods are often the results of new materials. Since sport equipment manufacturers have, in many cases, no specialized capabilities in material engineering, they rely on partners who are experts in inventing or further enhancing components. Today there are many business models known that reach from simply buying the component, to licensing, to joint innovation management and beyond. One of these strategies is component branding or co-branding as a way of benefitting from the image or perception of a partner. According to this strategy, a sports equipment producer may signal their partnership with an innovative chemical company to consumers in order to gain spillover, such as increased trust in the innovation, which affects for their final product. In order to conceptualize this strategic approach, this chapter presents a real case and the theoretical background to analyze what companies may gain from co-branding. Furthermore, these insights are used to develop a framework that can be used to understand the basic principals behind such strategy. Finally, the pros and cons are discussed.

[1]  Kathy Hammond,et al.  Measuring the impact of positive and negative word of mouth on brand purchase probability , 2008 .

[2]  Kevin Lane Keller,et al.  The Effects of Ingredient Branding Strategies on Host Brand Extendibility , 2002 .

[3]  Irwin P. Levin,et al.  Modeling the Role of Brand Alliances in the Assimilation of Product Evaluations , 2000 .

[4]  Bernard L. Simonin,et al.  Is a Company Known by the Company it Keeps? Assessing the Spillover Effects of Brand Alliances on Consumer Brand Attitudes , 1998 .

[5]  Randi Priluck,et al.  Brand alliance and customer-based brand-equity effects , 2004 .

[6]  Srinivas K. Reddy,et al.  Spillover effects of ingredient branded strategies on brand choice: A field study , 2012 .

[7]  Rikard Larsson,et al.  International growth through cooperation: Brand-driven strategies, leadership, and career development in Sweden , 2003 .

[8]  Piyush Kumar.  The Impact of Cobranding on Customer Evaluation of Brand Counterextensions , 2005 .

[9]  Robin B. Dipietro.  The Case against Multibranding Strategy , 2005 .

[10]  Per Servais,et al.  Co-branding on industrial markets , 2005 .

[11]  Jennifer Chandler,et al.  Measuring the Value of Ingredient Brand Equity at Multiple Stages in the Supply Chain: a Component Supplier's Perspective , 2008 .

[12]  Robert E. Smith,et al.  Using Advertising Alliances for New Product Introduction: Interactions between Product Complementarity and Promotional Strategies , 1999 .

[13]  C. Linder,et al.  Pushing new technologies through business model innovation , 2012 .

[14]  T. Chou,et al.  Advances in the science and technology of carbon nanotubes and their composites: a review , 2001 .

[15]  Chiranjeev Kohli,et al.  2+2=5? A framework for using co-branding to leverage a brand , 2003 .

[16]  Donald G. Norris.  Ingredient Branding: A Strategy Option with Multiple Beneficiaries , 1992 .

[17]  A. Kulik,et al.  Mechanical properties of carbon nanotubes , 1999 .

[18]  Robert W. Ruekert,et al.  Signaling Unobservable Product Quality through a Brand Ally , 1999 .

[19]  K. L. Edwards,et al.  Design, materials selection and marketing of successful products , 2003 .

[20]  C. Whan Park,et al.  Composite Branding Alliances: An Investigation of Extension and Feedback Effects , 1996 .

[21]  Sunil Erevelles,et al.  An Analysis of B2B Ingredient Co-Branding Relationships , 2008 .

[22]  Michael S. McCarthy,et al.  Improving competitive position using branded ingredients , 1999 .

[23]  Kevin E. Voss,et al.  Building Brands through Brand Alliances: Does a Second Ally Help? , 2004 .