Question

Topic: Branding

Need Co-branding Suggestions

Posted by Anonymous on 12/8/2009 at 3:47 PM ET 500 Points
Our company, Supreme School Supply, is a well established brand with a solid reputation for 50 years selling forms and printed materials to schools.

We have been approached by another company, I will call them Company XYZ, to offer what I could consider primarily a service, that has a printed product as an output. Company XYZ already has everything in place to develop and produce the products, and we would be using our sales and marketing channels to promote and sell this product line.

The contact the school would enter into would not be with our company, but with Company XYZ. Our company would receive a payment to allow us to cover our promotion expenses and pay commissions to sales reps, and also make an acceptable profit.

We would position the new product line as a co-brand that links the two together. Both logos would be used in a common graphic where space permits. The issue we are working on is how to position the co-brand. We think since the contract is in their name, we should use the other company first, as in the first example below. For instance, do we use:

"Company XYZ Product A Offered By Supreme School Supply"

"Supreme School Supply Product A Powered By Company XYZ"

I realize this may be a bit hard to visualize conceptually, but I am looking for some assistance without revealing too much about the actual product line or our potential partner.

Steve
To continue reading this question and the solution, sign up ... it's free!
SUBSCRIBE
Or, SIGN IN

RESPONSES

  • Posted on 12/8/2009 at 4:05 PM Accepted
    In general I would say that the details of the contract aren't very relevant to the perception of your brand. Supreme School Supply is the endorsing brand, so I would expect your name to go first.
  • Posted by CarolBlaha on 12/8/2009 at 4:33 PM Member
    This isn't that hard to undestand. You are acting as the rep or distributor of the product. Only diff is in distribution, you take title (are paid direct). As a rep, you don't handle any of the paper.

    So, I'd go with the 1st statement.

    I'm not sure I understand the 2nd statement. "powered by"?

    Or School Supreme Supply Offers Product A Manufactured by xyz. Powered is just not accurate. in fact you empower them.

    Or School Supreme Offers xyz.

    When I take on a few product, my intros' are My co- is pleased to announce exclusive representation (distribution) of xyz.

    School Supreme bringing the xyz family into the product mix.
  • Posted by Gary Bloomer on 12/8/2009 at 5:22 PM Accepted
    Dear stlubahn,

    Stellar advice above. All of it. My gut says go with version one, that is, if you're going to have the co-brand brand, if you see what I mean.

    Heavy lifting or not, the sell, the pitch is still coming through you and weighing on YOUR brand. So, if your provenance is stronger in terms of your company's years in the market, positioning, and being recognized by your customers, your name ought to STILL go first.

    Phil makes a great point: co branding may not be necessary. If the object is to sell product, sell product. If the object is to build brand recognition and equity for your proposed partner, they may only need to be named.

    But all this dual logo stuff? Nah! Too confusing.

    Or at the least, it introduces too many places where doubt can creep in in the minds of YOUR customers—people who are used to dealing with you, not some other schmoe. When even the vaguest element of doubt is introduced into ANY brand, seeds get sown in people's minds, seeds that sprout into seedlings of confusion.

    And if doubt is bad, confusion REALLY upsets the apple cart.
    Not good. So, my humble two cents' worth is to go with the first version—your name first, and to play down your co brand, if you can, at least in the beginning: damage limitation and all that.

    Why? Because if things go south, you need to CYA. Long term, what's worth more to you? Your brand? Or a potential short term gain?

    I hope this helps.

    Gary Bloomer
    Wilmington, DE, USA

  • Posted by CarolBlaha on 12/8/2009 at 5:44 PM Accepted
    Acting as the rep doesn't mean your role is secondary. none of my suggestions infer your are in a secondary role. Statement 1, my choice does not mean secondary.

    You are putting your reputation on the line. If xyz blows it, they'll remember you first as the person who sold the product. You will get the hot tempered call, even though they are handling billing etc. I know that from personal experience. I assume you have this arrangement because of the relationships you have built along the way are stronger than xyz. it is because of this relationship that buyers buy. Products are inanimate objects-- they don't sell, people sell. And they buy because they trust the product is everything you say it is. You have more to lose than xyz -- and your role should not be secondary.

    So while you are advising the relationship, you aren't exactly co-branding. It's just another gun in your arsenal to provide turn key solutions to your clients.
  • Posted on 12/8/2009 at 7:46 PM Accepted
    Keep it as simple as you can. Don't make your customers responsible for figuring out who makes, sells and delivers what.

    Just use your name OR create a new brand that you own and put that name on the product, along with your name as the "owner" of that name. (You can commit to only use the new brand name on product supplied by your partner.)

    There doesn't seem to be anything in this for you to put the co-brand company name on this product, if you have that option. If anything goes wrong, it's YOUR reputation that will be damaged.
  • Posted on 12/8/2009 at 9:12 PM Moderator
    Steve, you could come up with a brand name that isn't your company name or theirs, and use that when XYZ interacts with customers.

    Example: Team Phoenix (a nonsense name for illustrative purposes). Both companies use the name, yours for selling/branding identity, and XYZ's for service and customer interaction.

    That way XYZ isn't using your name and you are not losing control or using theirs. And the customer doesn't really care ... and they probably understand that they can only get the new brand from you.
  • Posted by CarolBlaha on 12/9/2009 at 6:14 AM Member
    You may be muddying things. If the customer is entering xyz as the vendor (as in original post)-- calling xyz for support-- and they get your co name or another name-- they're going to be confused.

    This is how it works in the rep world. I was an agent for about 8 manufacturers (it varied). Paid as you are, performance based, commission on sales. I handled all marketing in my exclusive territory.

    While I am their agent, they enter the vendor as any of my manufacturers. (As you said they will do) They have to apply for their credit, make payment direct to them, shipments come from them, payments go to them. But I am listed as the primary contact, their contact for sales. The people at the front desk would refer sales related questions to me, as the agent-- and they had a network of agents across the country. We are defined by territory.

    It's not an unusual working situation and they are probably familiar with it working with other vendors.

    And it is a positive. I tell them I am not a distributor, I do not add a mark up. I am paid by the manufacturer. They buy direct and are benefited by the cost efficiencies.
BACK TO TOP

Post a Comment

Related Discussions

Community Info

Top 25 Experts
(Branding)