Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Evaluating the durability of brand alliances using Bayesian methods

  • Original Article
  • Published:
Journal of Brand Management Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

This study examines the duration of brand alliances (or co-brands), a brand strategy in which two brands are offered as one joint product. Previous research has suggested these alliances are short-lived, but little empirical evidence exists to explore what may drive the longevity of such alliances. The study uses actual market data for 524 brand alliances in 83 product categories of consumer packaged goods during a 13-year period. Controlling for market share, several factors that might influence brand alliance duration are examined: type of alliance, ownership by the same parent company, and the number of relationships. Using a Bayesian hazard model to estimate duration, the results show a brand alliance lasts longer if it is an ingredient brand alliance (rather than licensed) and both brands are owned by the same parent company. Additionally, having more partnerships helps a brand alliance last longer, but too many alliances have a negative effect on staying in the marketplace. The findings suggest that brand managers looking to enter into a brand alliance can anticipate how long the product might last based on these partnership factors.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Subscribe and save

Springer+ Basic
$34.99 /Month
  • Get 10 units per month
  • Download Article/Chapter or eBook
  • 1 Unit = 1 Article or 1 Chapter
  • Cancel anytime
Subscribe now

Buy Now

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Albers, S., F. Wohlgezogen, and E.J. Zajac. 2016. Strategic alliance structures: An organization design perspective. Journal of Management 42(3): 582–614.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Arkes, H.R., and C. Blumer. 1985. The psychology of sunk cost. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes 35(1): 124–140.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Anderson, E. 1990. Two firms, one frontier: On assessing joint venture performance. Sloan Management Review 31(2): 19–31.

    Google Scholar 

  • Besanko, D., D. Dranove, M. Shanley, and S. Schaefer. 2007. Economics of strategy. Hoboken, NJ: Wiley.

    Google Scholar 

  • Chernev, A., R. Hamilton, and D. Gal. 2011. Competing for consumer identity: Limits to self-expression and the perils of lifestyle branding. Journal of Marketing 75(3): 66–82.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Choi, T.Y., and D.R. Krause. 2006. The supply base and its complexity: Implications for transaction costs, risks, responsiveness, and innovation. Journal of Operations Management 24(5): 637–652.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Decker, C., and A. Baade. 2016. Consumer perceptions of co-branding alliances: Organizational dissimilarity signals and brand fit. Journal of Brand Management 23(6): 648–665.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Desai, K.K., and K.L. Keller. 2002. The effects of ingredient branding strategies on host brand extendibility. Journal of Marketing 66(1): 73–93.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Desai, K.K., D.K. Gauri, and Y. Ma. 2014. An empirical investigation of composite product choice. Journal of Retailing 90(4): 493–510.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dickinson, S., and T. Heath. 2006. A comparison of qualitative and quantitative results concerning evaluations of co-branded offerings. Journal of Brand Management 13(6): 393–406.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dyer, J.H., and H. Singh. 1998. The relational view: Cooperative strategy and sources of interorganizational competitive advantage. Academy of Management Review 23(4): 660–679.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gardiner, J.C. 2010. Survival analysis: Overview of parametric, nonparametric and semiparametric approaches and new developments. SAS paper 252-2010.

  • Grant, R.M. 1991. The resource-based theory of competitive advantage: Implications for strategy formulation. California Management Review 33(3): 114–135.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Harrigan, K.R. 1988. Strategic alliances and partner asymmetries. Management International Review 28: 53–72.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jap, S.D. 2001. “Pie sharing” in complex collaboration contexts. Journal of Marketing Research 38(1): 86–99.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kahneman, D., and A. Tversky. 1979. Prospect theory: An analysis of decision under risk. Econometrica 47(2): 263–291.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Keller, K.L. 2013. Strategic brand management. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.

    Google Scholar 

  • Koschmann, A. 2017. Brand alliances: Growing your pie or stealing your slice? Examining field evidence using causal methods. Journal of Marketing Development and Competitiveness 11(4): 10–19.

    Google Scholar 

  • Koschmann, A., and D. Bowman. 2016. Evaluating marketplace synergies of brand alliances. Emory University working paper.

  • Kotler, P., and K.L. Keller. 2012. Marketing management. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.

    Google Scholar 

  • Larsson, R., L. Bengtsson, K. Henriksson, and J. Sparks. 1998. The interorganizational learning dilemma: Collective knowledge development in strategic alliances. Organization Science 9(3): 285–305.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Park, S.H., and M.V. Russo. 1996. When competition eclipses cooperation: An event history analysis of joint venture failure. Management Science 42(6): 875–890.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rao, A.R., L. Qu, and R.W. Ruekert. 1999. Signaling unobservable product quality through a brand ally. Journal of Marketing Research 36(2): 258–268.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schroeder, R.G., K.A. Bates, and M.A. Junttila. 2002. A resource-based view of manufacturing strategy and the relationship to manufacturing performance. Strategic Management Journal 23(2): 105–117.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schultz, E.J. 2014. Uptick in co-branding brings some unusual combos. Retrieved on November 15, 2017 from: http://adage.com/article/cmo-strategy/uptick-branding-brings-unusual-combos/293817/.

  • Simonin, B.L., and J.A. Ruth. 1998. Is a company known by the company it keeps? Assessing the spillover effects of brand alliances on consumer brand attitudes. Journal of Marketing Research 35(1): 30–42.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Swaminathan, V., S.R. Reddy, and S.L. Dommer. 2012. Spillover effects of ingredient branded strategies on brand choice: A field study. Marketing Letters 23(1): 237–251.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Uggla, H. 2004. The brand association base: A conceptual model for strategically leveraging partner brand equity. Journal of Brand Management 12(2): 105–123.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Van der Lans, R., B. Van den Bergh, and E. Dieleman. 2014. Partner selection in brand alliances: An empirical investigation of the drivers of brand fit. Marketing Science 33(4): 551–566.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Eastern Michigan University College of Business, Ypsilanti, USA

    Anthony Koschmann

Authors
  1. Anthony Koschmann
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Anthony Koschmann.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

The author declares that there is no conflict of interest.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Koschmann, A. Evaluating the durability of brand alliances using Bayesian methods. J Brand Manag 26, 268–276 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1057/s41262-018-0129-x

Download citation

  • Revised:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1057/s41262-018-0129-x

Keywords

Search

Navigation