I think co-branding is a good, it brings together some of customers favorite products. When Apple had the iPod Nano Inspi (red), I had thought of buying it because it is a product that I wanted, and I would also be helping out a good cause. I did not feel so bad about buying the iPod because I know I was helping someone. I think co-branding can be very successful because some people might feel like they are getting a better deal when they buy co-branded products. I don’t have any suggestions to improve them.
I think that co-branding is a smart ideal. They allow companies to ‘branch’ out into other markets like: “hotels(best western) and motorcycles(harley davidson)”
I think that some are very successful and almost ... Well ‘necessary’ is not the right word... But they just make sense like Benjamin Moore and Pottery Barn- a store that sells interior goods teams up with paint company? So smart! Has possibilities to make decorating more simple and easier for the client. Also, the Global Fund- Insi(red) company is another great example of a success. I think that some might not be as successful, like Ford and Eddie Bauer I mean I love Ford (my favorite car brand) and I think its still a neat ideal, but im not going to go start buying Eddie Bauer products...
I think some of the items seem very like good ideas and would be successful. I have only tried 1 of the products-the Hersey and Betty Crocker Brownies and they were okay. I have looked at the Pottery Barn/Benjamin Moore Paints before and thought they had really nice colors and will probably try them sometime.
I think some of the products seem really successful like Red teaming up with different companies because I've seen a lot of people with different Red items. I also think the Pottery Barn/Benjamin Moore paints will be successful because they are really nice colors that they sell. Some products don't seem like they would be successful like the Fiat/Mattel Barbie car. I just can't imagine that many people actually wanting to drive around in a Barbie car. Also the Dr. Pepper Lip Smacker doesn't seem that great to me. Maybe it's because I'm not a Dr. Pepper drinker but even if it was say Coke I still don't think I would like the flavor of Coke on my lips all day.
Some of the products I think could be improved such as the Barbie car could be sold as a Barbie accessory rather than a real car. Little girls would love to have a Barbie sports car for their Barbies to ride in. The Girl Scouts and Dairy Queen could come up with more cookie ice cream flavors such as something with Thin Mints.
I think co-branding is a wonderful idea. However, I think it really only works when the partnership is between two popular, well-known brands (Nike and Apple or Pottery Barn and Benjamin Moore)so that consumers feel that they are getting the benefits of both brands' strengths (ie. Nike knows sports, Apple knows technology- so I am getting a great product- atheletic shoes that are linked to my Ipod). On the flip side, there are a few examples in which I did not recognize one of the brands ( The Art of Shaving for the razor and Polar Electro for Project Fusion). In fact, I would probably assume that the Art of Shaving was a product name and not another brand partnering with Gillette. Therefore, co-branding in this case would not necessarily encourage me to buy this product since I see no added benefit in the other brand.
What do you think of them? Are they successful? Why or why not? Do you have any suggestions to improve them?
I think that co-branding is a very good idea and successful when the two aligned brands are somewhat related. In example the Art of Shaving product as well as the apple and nike collaborative idea. These two concepts are very compatible with each other. Another co-brand not mentioned is within the food network. In certain instances there are some fast food restaurant chains that are a combination of two in example KFC and Taco Bell. In which in my opinion was a very creative idea to combine the two and to expand the interests of their target market.
I think co-branding is an excellent idea. We all have brand favorites and when another brand is combined with our favorite we're definitely more likely to buy it. Think about frozen dairy products. I think we all know we like Reeses. If that's your favorite candy bar and you're looking for some ice cream, wouldn't you be more likely to pick up the Breyers Reese flavor or the Klondike Bars with a big Reeses logo.
The Nike/Apple idea for Nike+ was genius. People are more concerned these days about health, fitness, and electronics (Apple products seems to be the trend), why not combine the two and let both companies profit from it.
I also think it's a great idea for smaller companies who aren't as well known to co-brand with a larger, more successful company. This gives them the opportunity to get their name out there and part of their product.
In many places, co-branding worked for me. I came to realize it was the product rather than co-branding. I was turned off by the Mattel Fiat, the $150 razor that only used gillette blades, the Astin Martin cell phone, the GPS phone.
Nike and Apple pairing made sense. Dairy Queen and GirlScout Cookies is genius. Now you can buy Eddy's Ice Cream at the grocery store with Girl Scout cookie flavors.
I know the co-branding of Ford with Eddie Bauer was to help Ford create a new positive image for their SUV since they had so many lawsuits with the Bronco and Bronco IIs rolling over. It has definitely helped Ford.
I think co-branding is a great idea. It allows the companies to branch out into other areas.
I tend to think that a lot of the co-branding would be successful, but I think that at least one of the brands would have to be a big and popular brand.
Eddy's has also teamed up with the girl scouts and offers a variety of the cookies in their ice cream. My favorites are the Samoas and Thin Mints.
I have heard of many of the products, and I think it was a good idea for companies to get together to make a new product. It helps add a little more variety within both of the companies.
I don't know how some of these products can be successful because some of it is unnecessary and some things I would consider pointless.
The main way for most of the products to improve is to find a less expensive way to produce the product so it would not be as expensive for the consumers. A lot of the co-branding products are great because it helps the smaller companies become more well-known, and also to help a good cause.
I think co-branding is an excellent idea as long as the items are not only related, but also practical. There were several items on the list that I absolutely love --Dairy Queen's girl scout cookie blast was possible one of the best ideas ever, as was Nike & Apple putting together their exercise kit. I think the best duo is MJ & Nike-- Jordans are easily one of the most popular shoe out and have been for years.
I think the Southwest/Sea World idea is good, but not the most practical. The Shamu planes are a bit creepy and although you COULD be greeted by penguins, you will see them at Sea World when you get there.
I think this is a good idea because companies can get their product in the hands of customers who may not have purchased it. For example, Issac Mizrahi is now designing a line for Target. Mizrahi designs high end clothing and accessories and people that shop at Target may not be able to purchase his products if he didn't co band with Target.
I believe they are effective because they are expanding their customer base.
My only suggestion is for more companies to jump on board and start co banding.
Co-Branding is a great way to cross bread two different demographics for two corporations. Being able to use one products popularity to boost the others can be beneficial in more than just one way.
For example, mom did not want an ipod until Nike came out with the fitness tracker with Apple.
The key to co-branding is how they are marketed. If the product is not advertised by enhancing both of the products then there is no point.
I think co-branding is a great way to get companies together and market together. This is an excellent way to sell more of their products and generate sales. If I see two brands on one product, I am more likely to remember them as one. (If this makes any sense). For instance, if Nike and apple are co-branding together, I am more likely to think of Nike anytime I see apple of vice versa. It's a great way to keep brands stuck in your head and most likely to remember them.
I think it is good how some companies use co-branding. I think it really extends their target market. For example, the Betty Crocker brownies with Hersey's chocolate; they are advertising to both groups that like Hersey's chocolate or brownies. However, at the same time, many of these co-brands I actually have never heard of. I think it is kind of funny because the other day I saw the Eddie Bauer Ford, and I didn't know what it was and didn't understand the relationship.
I think they should really market some of these things more, because like I said before, many I haven't even heard of.
I agree that it is good for some companies to co-brand, however it depends on if the co-branding is compatiable. A compatible co-branding would be Apple and Nike. One that I don't quite understand is Virgin Mobile and Mastercard. Some of the co-branding is successful. To improve the co-branding, the companies or products would have to be compatible as stated above.
Co-branding allows companies to further extend their target markets or markets in general. It allows smaller unknown companies to become more well-know. However, I believe companies need to make sure that they are compatible with one another before co-branding.
I think co-branding is a good, it brings together some of customers favorite products. When Apple had the iPod Nano Inspi (red), I had thought of buying it because it is a product that I wanted, and I would also be helping out a good cause. I did not feel so bad about buying the iPod because I know I was helping someone. I think co-branding can be very successful because some people might feel like they are getting a better deal when they buy co-branded products. I don’t have any suggestions to improve them.
ReplyDeleteI think that co-branding is a smart ideal. They allow companies to ‘branch’ out into other markets like: “hotels(best western) and motorcycles(harley davidson)”
ReplyDeleteI think that some are very successful and almost ... Well ‘necessary’ is not the right word... But they just make sense like Benjamin Moore and Pottery Barn- a store that sells interior goods teams up with paint company? So smart! Has possibilities to make decorating more simple and easier for the client. Also, the Global Fund- Insi(red) company is another great example of a success. I think that some might not be as successful, like Ford and Eddie Bauer I mean I love Ford (my favorite car brand) and I think its still a neat ideal, but im not going to go start buying Eddie Bauer products...
As far a advice/suggestions ... Ugh,,,, not sure
lovas...
anna*
I think some of the items seem very like good ideas and would be successful. I have only tried 1 of the products-the Hersey and Betty Crocker Brownies and they were okay. I have looked at the Pottery Barn/Benjamin Moore Paints before and thought they had really nice colors and will probably try them sometime.
ReplyDeleteI think some of the products seem really successful like Red teaming up with different companies because I've seen a lot of people with different Red items. I also think the Pottery Barn/Benjamin Moore paints will be successful because they are really nice colors that they sell. Some products don't seem like they would be successful like the Fiat/Mattel Barbie car. I just can't imagine that many people actually wanting to drive around in a Barbie car. Also the Dr. Pepper Lip Smacker doesn't seem that great to me. Maybe it's because I'm not a Dr. Pepper drinker but even if it was say Coke I still don't think I would like the flavor of Coke on my lips all day.
Some of the products I think could be improved such as the Barbie car could be sold as a Barbie accessory rather than a real car. Little girls would love to have a Barbie sports car for their Barbies to ride in. The Girl Scouts and Dairy Queen could come up with more cookie ice cream flavors such as something with Thin Mints.
I think co-branding is a wonderful idea. However, I think it really only works when the partnership is between two popular, well-known brands (Nike and Apple or Pottery Barn and Benjamin Moore)so that consumers feel that they are getting the benefits of both brands' strengths (ie. Nike knows sports, Apple knows technology- so I am getting a great product- atheletic shoes that are linked to my Ipod). On the flip side, there are a few examples in which I did not recognize one of the brands (
ReplyDeleteThe Art of Shaving for the razor and Polar Electro for Project Fusion). In fact, I would probably assume that the Art of Shaving was a product name and not another brand partnering with Gillette. Therefore, co-branding in this case would not necessarily encourage me to buy this product since I see no added benefit in the other brand.
What do you think of them?
ReplyDeleteAre they successful? Why or why not?
Do you have any suggestions to improve them?
I think that co-branding is a very good idea and successful when the two aligned brands are somewhat related. In example the Art of Shaving product as well as the apple and nike collaborative idea. These two concepts are very compatible with each other. Another co-brand not mentioned is within the food network. In certain instances there are some fast food restaurant chains that are a combination of two in example KFC and Taco Bell. In which in my opinion was a very creative idea to combine the two and to expand the interests of their target market.
I think co-branding is an excellent idea. We all have brand favorites and when another brand is combined with our favorite we're definitely more likely to buy it. Think about frozen dairy products. I think we all know we like Reeses. If that's your favorite candy bar and you're looking for some ice cream, wouldn't you be more likely to pick up the Breyers Reese flavor or the Klondike Bars with a big Reeses logo.
ReplyDeleteThe Nike/Apple idea for Nike+ was genius. People are more concerned these days about health, fitness, and electronics (Apple products seems to be the trend), why not combine the two and let both companies profit from it.
I also think it's a great idea for smaller companies who aren't as well known to co-brand with a larger, more successful company. This gives them the opportunity to get their name out there and part of their product.
In many places, co-branding worked for me. I came to realize it was the product rather than co-branding. I was turned off by the Mattel Fiat, the $150 razor that only used gillette blades, the Astin Martin cell phone, the GPS phone.
ReplyDeleteNike and Apple pairing made sense. Dairy Queen and GirlScout Cookies is genius. Now you can buy Eddy's Ice Cream at the grocery store with Girl Scout cookie flavors.
I know the co-branding of Ford with Eddie Bauer was to help Ford create a new positive image for their SUV since they had so many lawsuits with the Bronco and Bronco IIs rolling over. It has definitely helped Ford.
I think co-branding is a great idea. It allows the companies to branch out into other areas.
ReplyDeleteI tend to think that a lot of the co-branding would be successful, but I think that at least one of the brands would have to be a big and popular brand.
Eddy's has also teamed up with the girl scouts and offers a variety of the cookies in their ice cream. My favorites are the Samoas and Thin Mints.
I have heard of many of the products, and I think it was a good idea for companies to get together to make a new product. It helps add a little more variety within both of the companies.
ReplyDeleteI don't know how some of these products can be successful because some of it is unnecessary and some things I would consider pointless.
The main way for most of the products to improve is to find a less expensive way to produce the product so it would not be as expensive for the consumers. A lot of the co-branding products are great because it helps the smaller companies become more well-known, and also to help a good cause.
I think co-branding is an excellent idea as long as the items are not only related, but also practical. There were several items on the list that I absolutely love --Dairy Queen's girl scout cookie blast was possible one of the best ideas ever, as was Nike & Apple putting together their exercise kit. I think the best duo is MJ & Nike-- Jordans are easily one of the most popular shoe out and have been for years.
ReplyDeleteI think the Southwest/Sea World idea is good, but not the most practical. The Shamu planes are a bit creepy and although you COULD be greeted by penguins, you will see them at Sea World when you get there.
I think co-branding is a great idea. Instead of companies always competing, they can work together to sell their products.
ReplyDeleteMost consumers are always looking for a deal. Co-branding fulfill that with the two for one deal.
Baby/kid brands should co-brand products. Such as bottles and milk.
I think this is a good idea because companies can get their product in the hands of customers who may not have purchased it. For example, Issac Mizrahi is now designing a line for Target. Mizrahi designs high end clothing and accessories and people that shop at Target may not be able to purchase his products if he didn't co band with Target.
ReplyDeleteI believe they are effective because they are expanding their customer base.
My only suggestion is for more companies to jump on board and start co banding.
Co-Branding is a great way to cross bread two different demographics for two corporations. Being able to use one products popularity to boost the others can be beneficial in more than just one way.
ReplyDeleteFor example, mom did not want an ipod until Nike came out with the fitness tracker with Apple.
The key to co-branding is how they are marketed. If the product is not advertised by enhancing both of the products then there is no point.
I think co-branding is a great way to get companies together and market together. This is an excellent way to sell more of their products and generate sales. If I see two brands on one product, I am more likely to remember them as one. (If this makes any sense). For instance, if Nike and apple are co-branding together, I am more likely to think of Nike anytime I see apple of vice versa. It's a great way to keep brands stuck in your head and most likely to remember them.
ReplyDeleteI think it is good how some companies use co-branding. I think it really extends their target market. For example, the Betty Crocker brownies with Hersey's chocolate; they are advertising to both groups that like Hersey's chocolate or brownies. However, at the same time, many of these co-brands I actually have never heard of. I think it is kind of funny because the other day I saw the Eddie Bauer Ford, and I didn't know what it was and didn't understand the relationship.
ReplyDeleteI think they should really market some of these things more, because like I said before, many I haven't even heard of.
I agree that it is good for some companies to co-brand, however it depends on if the co-branding is compatiable. A compatible co-branding would be Apple and Nike. One that I don't quite understand is Virgin Mobile and Mastercard. Some of the co-branding is successful. To improve the co-branding, the companies or products would have to be compatible as stated above.
ReplyDeleteCo-branding allows companies to further extend their target markets or markets in general. It allows smaller unknown companies to become more well-know. However, I believe companies need to make sure that they are compatible with one another before co-branding.
ReplyDelete